Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:36, 16 March 2010

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

LoS: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LoS

Playground: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Sandbox

Inhofe list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe

William list: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/William

Created articles: Sami Solanki, Jan Esper

Linux Weight: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight

CCD: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/CCD

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. Ill have to remember to count to 10 before posting. I just finished reading the 5 pillars, so I feel in the future I can contribute a little more substance.lol

                                       Frank

Vandalism?

Please, stop being a hypocrit and accuse a user for "vandalism" only because he have made a change that is against your POV. The only vanalism here, is what you do.

Please, act honest when you edit Wiki. 125.26.178.181 (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to notify you that i haven't accused or reverted anything of yours as vandalism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

false positives

hi,

i am a false positive on the 400+list. i assume you can move my name to the false positives list. does hans vs know he is there?

i am not a wiki regular, and created this account to send you this message.

i assume i will get some notification if you answer this. i am happy to verify my identity by email or phone.

i hesitate to post things here, as i know not this system. i am based in the UK and will be online for a few hours more today.

thanks Alpha123abc (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. You have to make a public declaration that can be cited as a source. You have my sympathy; several of my friends are on the list and it has caused them much embarrassment. Fortunately I'm not on it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Boris, i'm assuming that Alpha123abc is referring to this work-copy User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe, where i certainly would move the name to a false positive if i could. But the best thing would be to note it on their personal webpage where we can then link to the evidence and use it whenever someone is trying to push the list as a reliable source. (that goes for your friends as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As Boris said above, for WP to disregard it would require a public declaration (on your website/faculty profile or the like). But fortunately the list is considered unreliable for Misplaced Pages purposes. I would be obliged to move your name to a false positive position on my work-copy though, if you'd email me with your details. That won't give you much, but at least it would emphasize that you personally had emailed me to tell that you were a false positive :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You made a wondering statement

You made a wondering statement at William_M._Connolley talkpage. You wonder why? I wonder why every unpleasant comment (well sourced, even from BBC in this case) is removed. The article just seems to pinpoint the same attitude at some editors at Misplaced Pages as from the Green Party. That's it. Difficult to understand? Nsaa (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ponder your own POV, and you may also like to ponder whether it is appropriate to address editors this way. And i am very much still wondering what the Green Party has to do with anything. And what does party-affiliations have to do with anything? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4

		The Services to Science Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Kim D. Petersen, and for working collaboratively to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Splendid work on sea levels at Criticism of the IPCC AR4! dave souza, talk 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But i'm not really certain that i deserve it. But i am going to cherish it anyways :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Musing a bit on climate change article problems

I think there actually is a "problem" with the climate change articles on Misplaced Pages - but the reason for this "problem" has very little to do with POV pushing, ownership or other obnoxious behaviour. It lies solely with our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RS (and at times also WP:BLP).

There is a large and heavy debate going on at various partisan blog sites, which also tips over into the opinion article land. It is a debate that mostly is conducted by lay-people, and it consists of various claims, counterclaims, bunkings and debunkings. This is the debate that many of the disgrundled editors have their background in, this is where they get most of their arguments, points of view, misconceptions, pre-conceived views and of course also sometimes good information (hopefully this goes into the articles).

The trouble is that most of these sites fail our WP:RS policy, and that very little analysis has been done by secondary reliable sources on the various fights (so that we could have an article about it), arguments and debates that rage at these. Once in a while a tid-bit of the wars that are being fought at these sites spill out into mainstream media, either via a short news-article, an opinion article or perhaps an advocacy organization writes about it....

And here comes the very real problem: For those that have followed the "wars", these items seem incredibly important (after all they've probably read dozens of blog postings, long debates etc on these) - so they want it to go immediately into the articles. And here it clashes with our WP:WEIGHT policy (ie. WP:NPOV)... The reason for this is that the issue simply isn't (or hasn't been) considered important in the "real world", there hasn't been long RS articles written on the subject, and it probably isn't discussed in the peer-reviewed press (and if it is, then it very likely is in direct opposition to the emerged tid-bit).

Since the editors now stand without being able to present that view on the article, and since no one will discuss it with them, for talk-page policy reasons. They come away with an impression that WP is biased, and that information is being suppressed, articles are being owned and whatnot. Many of these editors end up raging against WP, using the talk-page as a soap-box, complaining in several threads on how unfair things are, and in the long term, if they stay clear of being blocked, they occasionally rant on the talk-pages or keep attempting to insert their pre-conceived viewpoint from their personal favorite blog.

I don't know how we can solve this "problem", but it is a problem that we haven't got a solution for it.

Comments are welcome - i may have been a bit confusing or rambled a bit - but its late (or early if you want) almost 4AM, brrrr - will go to bed. Good night. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, you and Connolley and Schulz and your team of software engineers/computer scientists/and other IT-related guys, who are naturally also experts in scientific methodology as well as statistical proof bearing and climate science, are here to protect us against these douche-bags! You guys GET it! And you guys KNOW what a RS is! What would we do without you?! Viddythes (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, even though sarcastic. You may want to ponder that WP:RS is a[REDACTED] wide policy, and not something that is limited to this particular topic. Blogs are unfortunately not reliable for anything other than the opinion of their author, and unless that author is a subject matter expert - then they are out. Thats the rules. And that is one of the many things that trip editors to these articles.

I do not btw. consider any of my fellow editors douche-bags, and i don't think that my musing ever hinted at people being in bad faith - quite the opposite really. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the comment was indeed sarcastic, but let me address the issue now seriously. I personally believe that the attitude demonstrated by you guys (Schulz, Connolley, and a couple of other individuals) is a part of the problem, rather than the solution. Allow me to elaborate (it’s going to get a bit SOAPy, but bear with me):

First off, let us establish two facts.

(1) You guys are a like-minded group. This is quite obvious, since you never seem to disagree (in ‘public’). Also, since you and Connolley are friends on Facebook (excuse the stalking, but I had to test my hypothesis), I presume that all of you are communicating outside of Misplaced Pages and coordinating your efforts.

(2) Due to this and your technical knowledge, as well as your experience on Misplaced Pages, you guys are able to overrule any individual editor’s efforts, regardless of whether this individual is ‘right’ or not.

While you correctly claim that blogs shouldn’t, in general, be considered reliable sources, it’s quite daft to ignore their contents, especially when they relate to quality blogs such as e.g. ClimateAudit. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you guys closely follow, and adhere to, opinions posted on other (often censored) blogs such as RealClimate. I.e. your edits, are often in line with what is posted there (WMC even used to be a contributor). So, let us not play lawyers here, and ‘ignore’ content which is not officially RS, when anybody with half a brain, reading McIntyre’s blog, can see that his results are much easier to verify than many of the papers you cite as RS. Now, I’m not claiming that you now need to cite Steven’s blog as a peer-reviewed publication, but acting as if it doesn't exist, and ganging up on anybody bringing it up as if they were imbeciles (and winning due to (1) and (2) above) doesn’t help the discussion at all. This type of behavior enrages people, as you probably have noticed in your long career on Misplaced Pages.

So let us play a hypothetical game of me editing the global warming page (I’ll explain the background of a potential edit now).

I’m not a ‘layman’: I’m a economics/statistics/econometrics graduate student with a strong interest in the philosophy of scientific knowledge. My skepticism stems from actually reading the WG1, and failing to find a single proper empirical test of the AGWH. I then went through the literature on parametric statistical testing of AGWH, and found it below any standards acceptable within my, arguably much more mature, field (e.g. cointegration of a I(1) and I(2) series, see below).

Given that the AGWH is based on a phenomenological, rather than fundamental (big difference!), model, finding a proper correlation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for this hypothesis, and all the projections/forecasts and computer simulations that follow from it, to be valid. Given that temperature and green house gas forcings follow a random walk (check the literature on this, e.g. Kaufman’s work), any possible correlation needs to be established via a technique called cointegration (so far, worth two real Nobel Prizes). However, green house gas forcings are integrated of the second order, while temperatures and solar irradiance are integrated of the first order. This implies that they can never be (linearly) cointegrated (this is a mathematical result). More general tests, such as polynomial cointegration tests (by Beenstock and Reingewertz (2009), two econometricians who know what they are doing), furthermore reject any long term relationship. These results are a HUGE red flag (methodologically), and were this a (phenomenological) economic model, it would have suffered a fatal blow as a result. So, I would conclude that these findings deserve at the very least a section on some global warming pages. (I could go on about statistics being abused by climate scientists / amateur statisticians, but I’ll snip).

Now honestly (please) imagine what would happen if I were to enter the discussion on the GW page, and attempt to add a section containing some of the issues listed above. I suspect that first, I would be called an idiot (probably by Connolley, he’s apt at that) because some pseudo-statistician at RealClimate has already ‘debunked’ this. Then, after showing references etc, I would be told that types like Beenstock are not climate scientists, so they don’t know what they are doing. Any personal contribution, simply to convince you guys that I'm not talking nonsense (I actually replicated many of those tests myself), would be dismissed as 'original research' (again, lawyer-speak). You guys would then gang up on me, hiding behind policies, start reverting edits, I would revert back (probably, due to my inexperience, breaking some peculiar wiki standard in the process), and it will result in me being banned or something similar. I would then leave in frustration.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. If you do so however, I challenge you to join me, and I will show you the statistics and papers, and we can make that edit together. However, judging by how you guys have been dancing around the CRU e-mail leak (and yes, it’s most probably a leak, as a software engineer you can read and understand your peer’s analyses of that, so let’s not start with RS lawyer speak), I have very little faith that you guys are actually looking to learn something new. To me it seems like your POV’s are set in stone.

In summary, people are frustrated by your control of these pages, and by the fact that when they come with some valuable information and results that contradict the AGWH (objectively valuable, even if it doesn’t always conform to RS standards), rather than being given some open-minded help by you experienced editors in putting their contribution in a proper context, they feel the full blunt of your clique’s influence. Often enough, it is YOU guys who decide what a RS is, because, even though this is a wiki-wide policy, slightly different standards apply to different topics and editors' discretion is the key. In the context of the AGWH, we can, especially after the CRU-leak, conclude that not all voices were equally represented in the debate as the peer-review process was performed by climate scientists, so RS is very tricky term here.

So, please, let's skip the formalities, and keep it real.Viddythes (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. However agitated my tone, this las edit was done in good faith. I hope you can see that. Viddythes (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this, but I think invocation of Rule 5 is a better approach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the exposition, and accepting the invitation to "correct you if wrong": (1) the effects of greenhouse gases is based on theoretical and empirical results, and is not simply phenomenological (absorption/emission spectra and soforth). (2) Temperature and greenhouse gas forcings absolutely do not follow a random walk (I checked Kaufmann's work, and from a quick glance, he uses this as a statistical test). If they did follow a random walk, what a funky world it would be! Awickert (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Awickert, that 'invitation' referred to me contributing to the GW page, not the actual topic, but since you pull my tongue, here's an answer to your 'questions' (indeed, you should have added question marks :).

A phenomenological model is based on observed and established relationships (look up the definition of phenomenological as related to physics). However, this does not make it fundamental (i.e. derived directly, and with that I mean DIRECTLY, from fundamental physical laws). It still must be directly tested and not indirectly via e.g. lab-based radiation absorption experiments or some partial tests of some partial effects. As of today, I have seen no convincing empirical test of this supposed relationship between CO2 and Temperatures (and I have seen a few rejections). And remember, a hypothesis cannot be its own proof (so no GCM's).

Anyhow, I shouldn't go totally OT, by explaining the finer details of cointegration here, there are plenty of places on the internet to do that much better than I can (Nobel prize website is good start), but let me state this very clearly: Statistics deals with what we observe and a lot of series (most of them actually) observed as a random walk are, in reality, not actual 'random walks'. However, if the tests classify our observations of them as such, we must treat them that way for the purpose of correct statistical inference. Cointegration is then the correct way to establish statistical relationships between these perceived random walks.

Also, I suggest you read Kaufmann's papers again. He treats those series as I(1)/I(2) for the purpose of statistical inference, as the ADF test statistics classify them as such (i.e. we observe them as such). Given that, we cannot relate them statistically without bending over backwards, through e.g. polynomial cointegration (and even then, any long term relationships is rejected). These are conclusions on the basis of what we OBSERVE, not on what some climate scientist dreams/smokes up together while pondering on a melting glacier.Viddythes (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The warming provided by carbon dioxide is provided by fundamental physics. The composition of the gas is known, as are its energetics and the shapes of its bonds and electron clouds. If one takes this along with incoming solar radiation its interactions with the atmosphere and the Earth surface, then the whole deal appears. But I think you mean that the complexity of the natural system makes the fundamental approach difficult.

As per this being OT, I'm not interested in discussing statistical methods for analyzing temperature changes, but I was responding to your statement, Given that temperature and green house gas forcings follow a random walk, which is incorrect (it is deterministic, not stochastic), but you've clarified what you meant by that, so thank you.

One of my major issues on the global warming pages is accuracy and clarity in writing, so I suppose I can close by saying that it is very important to be correct and write in a straightforward and interpretable fashion. So I thank you for clarifying. Awickert (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

KDP, i appreciated your analysis, however wiki has room for all RS POV, from my observations, as soon as a newly sourced POV is included it's deleted and attacked. The solution is to better manage were the best place for inclusion belongs. There is too much prejudice against "unscientific" sources it these articles. After all, it is the un-scientist who will have to buy the scientific POV if there is to be a balanced POV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A partial solution to the problem would be the std NOTNEWs approach: don't allow stuff in until it has aged by at least, say, 3 months (as a bare minimum). This would put a lid on much of the froth, and would prevent over-excitement. Anyone with a genuine interest in the subject can wait that long; anyone who can't, should be doing something else anyway. This would also allow time for corrections; the most obvious example being the FOI law-breaking froth over the CRU hack, which now turns out to be wrong. The other RS problem is that newspapers are considered RS's for stuff like the CRU hack, even when they make multiple mistakes. Many good blogs actually do a far better job that the papers do. The RS noticeboard isn't much use in this regard, as witness the skeptics common threats to take stuff there so they can stuff it in. But overall, froth is the main problem, and delay the best solution William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That idea may have merit. How about we create a page in the Climate Change project, like a holding pen, so that nominated sources may be better sorted out and aggregated there. Aged like fine wine for appropriate distribution. That could sort out a few issues before they hit the articles. I guess this proposal should be reviewed in the Climate Change project page. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Verification

Hi there -- I'm a little confused as to why the following was labelled "verification failed" -- could you please clarify? Thanks in advance, Jprw (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"In 2009, the blog was attributed in The Guardian as identifying fundamental flaws in the method of recording data and measurements during the Catlin Arctic Survey."

Sure - read the article. What WUWT pointed out was that the data wasn't "live" (amongst many other bloggers - they were mentioned as an example). There is nothing in the article about WUWT (or others) having "indentified fundamental flaws....". More specific, the sentence about WUWT is: "Bloggers including Watts Up With That also picked up on the fact that biotelemetry sensors designed to send the team's individual heart rates and core temperatures to a "live from the ice" website appeared to be repeating the same data."

Or in other words: Bloggers thought the data was live, it wasn't. Not quite as exciting :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see now that it is "lacking something". Thanks for the thorough explanation. Cheers Jprw (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it can be reworked -- The Guardian seem to be making a passing nod to WUWT's ability to collate and assess information. Jprw (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be rather extreme peacocking don't you think? There has to be better references than an article which only mentions WUWT in passing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

3 verification failed

Curious why you did this? The first one about judith curry is spot on Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere It`s right there in the article? I think the third one is now fixed, and the second one is ok as that matt ridley thing is in ref no8. Would you look over the catlin arctic one again and tell me what you think know please? mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark the connection is more than weak. She makes the statement "Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere" - Its not possible (especially considering that the rest of the article doesn't mention Watts) to make the connection. Maybe she included Watts in the "Climate Auditors" or maybe in the "Blogosphere" - that cannot be verified. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to sure i follow you Kim, here is the entire paragraph Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month It`s in there with Climateaudit, looks open and shut to me? mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that she calls McIntyre and the audience at climateaudit "Climate Auditors" - but the connection to WUWT is not called it - speculate on why she says "and" instead of "in the". As said: It is a guess whether she means that WUWT is a CA - but we cannot guess. You simply want it to read that way, try critical reading instead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I`m not the only one who read it that way :-) I added this ref along with the other one mark nutley (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"According to Leo Hickman at the Guardian, Judith Curry attaches the label "Climate auditors", to WUWT" is an acceptable use of that source. Opinion sources cannot assert facts--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks mate :~) mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RWP

What do you think of this? It appears to support the other stuff in the article? mark nutley (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating, and great to get another proxy mechanism (one that i hadn't heard about earlier). But only very useful if your article is called "RWP in and around Iceland". Combining bits and pieces yourself, is what is called original research, making a conclusion from it (as you've done) is a synthesis - and that is not allowed on Misplaced Pages --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you an interesting (hypothetical) question: If most locations in the world had at least one decade, somewhere in the 16-17th century, that was warmer than the last decade of the 20th century at the same location. Would that mean that the world was warmer then, than in the last decade of the 20th century? (think a bit about it, and do notice what i say, and what i don't say) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this, for now i am  :-)

GA initiative

I've asked WMC if he would be willing and able to help take the Watts Up With That article to Good Article status. As my request details, me and a couple of other editors have almost completed preparing the DeSmogBlog article for GA nomination, and I think it would be great if both reached GA about the same time. Observing your interest in the Watts blog article, I suggested to WMC that he ask you to assist. As you helpfully did with the DeSmogBlog article, could you properly format the references for the Watts article? A list of references is located here. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Climate change research: Weather hampers Arctic mission