User talk:DHeyward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Saturday
12
July


Please add comments to the bottom

Notice of ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Page protection at Bundy standoff. Thank you. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up, DHeyward. After reviewing several hundred edits, I have proffered a rather strong opinion on the subject at ANI. Eaglizard (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification[edit]

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate change v. Global Warming[edit]

It may help you understand why you feel like you are banging your head on a wall on the global warming article is because the editors there are largely insiders from the climate "science". In other words, they are not only writing their propaganda on wikipedia, but they and their chums actually write the "scientific" papers which they insist you quote in order to make any changes.

About 7 years ago, someone did force a change - but within weeks a new paper had been written and published just to ensure that change had to be removed.

The only saving grace, is that these editors are so appalling biased in their edits - that most reasonable people can spot that it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.50.16 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not correct. The scientist in that area that I am aware of editing is WMC and he no longer is a scientist in that area, though he is broadly an expert in mathematics. There are many editors with broad expertise. The issue with the articles is that they are too attached to the debate between advocates and sceptics when it should be much more detached. The way to toe the line is to keep to the science. That means the lexicon of science should be maintained. The cutting edge debates on whether there is missing heat and where it might be is interesting but has no bearing what global warming or what climate change is. Scientists in the literature are very clear in the differences in global warming and climate change. Wikipedia should correct the misuse of the terms and inform the reader as to what the correct terms are. It's very difficult to cover the suggestion that surface temp datasets are incorrect (global warming) or that heat is being stored in the ocean (climate change). Terms like "unequivocal" have been rejected by scientific societies and scientists because it is antithetical to the scientific method but is much in the political arena. Secular use and arguments should be removed and corrected from all articles in the broad arena of climate change. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"Terms like "unequivocal" have been rejected by scientific societies and scientists because it is antithetical to the scientific method" That ignores fact that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" is verbatim from the largest of the scientific literature reviews anyone does on the subject. But I'll forego further debate here now, since it really belongs at talk:global warming attached to a proposal for article improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It's only used by scientists when talking about historical record (i.e. GMST rise since the 19th century is unequivocal). Mixing it with terms like "continuing" is where political meets science. You won't see many scientific organizations talk about whether the present has any "unequivocal" components let alone the future. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)