Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The Image listed under the Global Warming section for 1995-2004 mean temperatures reads as:
Mean surface temperature anomalies during the period 1995 to 2004 with respect to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980
How is it fair to compare a 40 year time span with a 9 year time span?
Wouldn't the average temperature be lowered using a broader range of 40 years?
What about the time between 1980-1995? There is no listing of temperature data here.
what about the recorded temperatures before 1940? The way it reads you could als make the argument for Global Warming using the following: Between the hours of 12:01am-7:00am the average temperature was 45 degrease. then from 2:00pm-3:00pm the average temperature was 96 degrease. This is proof that the earth is rapidly warming.
Where does the data of the Earth warming without man's intervention play into the climate models of today?
How did man cause the Climate Optimum?
If Glaciers are receding from Greenland, Who is to say its a bad thing? The Vikings, as you well know, lived on Greenland while it was Green, and prospered there for a few hundred years, only to be killed off by Global Cooling while entering the little ice age.
Do you have data on the average Earth Temperature throughout history (from core samples and what not) to compare it to today's temperature to see if what we are experiencing now for temp is even "normal"?--Zeeboid17:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid,
I hope you don't mind my contacting you but it is urgent. I just got this message from UBeR, he is being attacked by William Connolley & co. and needs our help:
Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV.
Thanks, -- Brittainia00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Global Warming skeptic userbox
Based on comments you've made on the Global Warming Talk Page, I thought you might be interested in having a userbox on your user page that expresses your skepticism of anthropogenic global warming. It looks like this and will also add you to :Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming]]. If you're interested, put the following on your user page:
One of your userboxes say you are a broadcaster. Are you a broadcaster for Race to the Right, by any chance, along with Tony? If so, are you in the St. Cloud area at all? ~ UBeR23:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For always seeking balance in the face of systematic attempts to thwart your efforts, you are hereby awarded the Resilient Barnstar. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Whats not Civial about that edit? Even if it was not cival, which it is... You are the LAST person to be talking to anyone about Civality.--Zeeboid19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Valour
The Barnstar of Valour
In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Misplaced Pages should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the Apple, Inc. Talk page
Please be careful not to overwrite or delete others' comments as you recently did on the Apple, Inc. Talk page. I'm sure it was accident but please be more careful in the future. Happy editing! --ElKevbo23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Arguing against the notion of anthropogenic global warming makes you a conspiracy theorist?
According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
JC
WMC, I did not rev a copy violation, I reverted your removal of something that is under discussion, -you are correct. My apologies. and you are POV Pushing - no William M. Connolley17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies accepted, but I am not the Environmental Activist editing to mantain my views on environmental sites remember. I am just an Electronic Medical Record Training Consultant who's outside views when it comes to this stuff are far less Bias. Its quite odd how everything that is submitted that could detur from the GW Cause is rejected by you and your group, yet things that support you and your group's cause are taken in and defended. As an Environmental Activist, and someone that makes money out of Environmentalism (Climate modeler) you can understand your own Bias when you see it? Perhaps not.--Zeeboid18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Global warming mediation
Hi Zeeboid. I am writing to you because you recently voted for option 2 in the "straw poll" at Global warming. We are currently pursuing a mediation request related to this exact topic. We could use some input from some concerned people like you. Please feel free to visit the page, and to post some comments and support for our side. You can visit the request at this location: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25_Global_warming. Thanks for your help. --Sm890020:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap...If I posted on y'alls User page for every unanswered question, unexplained rv or insufficient reference to a nebulous guidelines I would be posting on y'alls User pages 30 hours a day, 10 days a week, 60 weeks a year to MAYBE keep up. Besides, I took the use of "some" as intended to prevent the description of a problem, while accurate, from tarnishing the impecible reputations of one or more editors and/or admins; however, the issue itself needs to be brought out and discussed. Leaving the identity out prevents those who are incapable of keeping the focus on the topic at hand from trying to shift focus to others. Kind of helps minimize the 'kill the messenger' M.O. that some editors and/or users have to "defend" (or deflect) each other.
No, Tony, I'd say thats pretty accurate. And Stephan... I am using the timeline to answer questions used by this question here that went unanswered.--Zeeboid20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Could you list for me, Nethgrib, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Taken Away
Added Back
So, it is acceptable to delete other's comments on the talk page without any discussion or explanation? I'm learning more about the Misplaced Pages culture everyday. -- Tony21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Both lines taken away
Added Back Again
+ ::::::::It would appear William realy does not this question asked, after removing it twice from this page. Could you please cite for us the WIki policy you are refrencing? Also Could you answer it for us, William, you know... from your neutral point of view? Could you list for me, William, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You banned Tony and I for WP:SOCK here and I need to know a few things.
I am looking to find out form you what the accaptable amout of time for two people who know eachother is to vote on the same topic as I can not find a polocy that voting within 5mn of each other violates. I don't want to break policy in the future, and not to break policy in the future, I need to know spicifically what I violated. What specifically warranted the block? you listed the polocy, but didn't go into it any more then we admited to know eachother. I just want to understand better here, as from what I understand from the info listed, we were banned from voting within 5mn of eachother.
Also You claim to have given us time to defend ourselves. How much time...where was the 'here's the charge' diff and how much time until you blocked us?
I just want to understand EXACTLY what you blocked us for. If it was for voting within 5mn of eachother, then how long is needed for two people who know eachother to vote on a topic, and where is the policy that lists this? It is not clear when there are different reasons given in different locations by you.
Hi Zeeboid! Just wanted to thank you for backing me up a while back at the Global Warming talk page a few days ago. It's nice for a person when their efforts get noticed, especially since I was specifically trying to be positive to everyone there, not just those in agreement with me. So I really appreciated you backing up my efforts to try to promote some inclusiveness. So thanks. BTW, it does seem like things have improved steadily there recently. I feel this is due to the efforts of everyone. So thanks a lot. Please feel free to email or write anytime. See you. --Sm890000:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added clarification to my final response on the case page. Please let me know if this is to your satisfaction. Arkyan • 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I only reflect the treatment given. You demean at every turn, and I reflect that, though more blunt. If you want to be one to breach about being civil, you need to start being civil.--Zeeboid16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
John Christy
Please self-revert on the Article as you are now above 3RR when counting in the WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT revert. Since you are aware of these policies - there should be no excuse not to do so. --Kim D. Petersen21:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid has clearly made three reverts, not even counting his self-revert. You're mistaken, Mr. Petersen. ~ UBeR22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry UBeR - but you may want to look a bit further into this diff. The request is entirely appropriate - and Zeeboid did the correct thing. --Kim D. Petersen23:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeeboid... Just to let you know that I've voted on the discussion to keep the "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" article that you have written. Your discussion page is on my watchlist after seeing your input in the Apple computer related articles. I have to say that you should get a barnstar for sticking to your guns and fighting to keep unpopular but relevant-to-a-comprehensive-view information on Misplaced Pages. I don't know if you are familiar with the politics of Quebec, Canada in reference to laws restricting the use of the English language and access to English schools but you may find the heated discussions on those pages (such as the "English-speaking Quebecer" article) interesting. Keep up the great work! CWPappas17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, i'll check that out. Thanks for the koodos, it takes alot of energy to try to keep others from limiting conversatoin.--Zeeboid17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. GreenJoe19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No more then 3 have been made in a 24 hour timeframe.
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
GreenJoe 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I really have to read these template message first. I will be reporting it once you hit revert #4. GreenJoe19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I expect no less. It's every editor's duty to be vigilant. I didn't block you, I'm not an admin and don't have that authority. I apologize for giving you the impression that I did. I didn't read the template message. It's my fault. GreenJoe19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries mate, by your apology, I can see you are a reasonable person. why not us discuss this reasonably?--Zeeboid19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours.
3rr Was not broken by either GreenJoe or I. Neither of us reverted more then 3 times within 24 hours.
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=3rr Was not broken by either GreenJoe or I. Neither of us reverted more then 3 times within 24 hours. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=3rr Was not broken by either GreenJoe or I. Neither of us reverted more then 3 times within 24 hours. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=3rr Was not broken by either GreenJoe or I. Neither of us reverted more then 3 times within 24 hours. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. GreenJoe 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No more then 3 have been made in a 24 hour timeframe.
