User talk:88.110.76.120

If you came here to leave a comment I would appreciate it if you confine comments to the appropriate topic talk pages where others can see them and leave this one alone. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia. To acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• Rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
• Utililize a vast array of editing tools

And your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing!

Irbisgreif (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 88.110.76.120. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 88.110.76.120. You have new messages at Irbisgreif's talk page.
Message added 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

{{help}}

I am having some problems with an editor on the global warming discussion page. I want to explain to someone wanting to add some information that in my opinion it is perfectly valid, but that it will not be allowed because, again in my opinion the article is does not have an NPOV and is subject to heavy censorship. I want to encourage them to fight to stop the censorship and try to bring the article to a NPOV but ... try as I might my comments are being censored by an admin who clearly doesn't like me. What can I do? Do I just not add any comments? Do I complain about the admin, particularly when i really don't want to penalise him because he has been a valid contributor. I just want to see NPOV, and I'm struggling to see how to achieve that in the face of very hostile admin edits.

And just to be clear. There is good evidence that the group of scientists that are at the core of Global warming has been very "fast and loose" with the evidence ... and I simply can't stand by and watch people misuse science to mislead the public like that! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Dispute Resolution.--Res2216firestar 18:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaving messages for a blocked sock puppet seems a bit futile which is why I guess they are being deleted. Handon's account is one of more than 400 [1] of an abusive sock called Scibaby. --BozMo talk 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bozmo, thanks for the information ... although if I was put off things just because they were futile, don't you think I'd have given up trying to get the "other" side of the global warming evidence aired on wikipedia? But seriously, I'm not giving up. I've just read just one too many reports of blatant fiddling with the statistics by so called "scientists" to let people like WC get away with his pessistant abuse of the wikipedia principle of honesty and neutrality. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And you know Bozmo, if you were a scientist, you would know I am right. You would know that science only works when we hear all the evidence and when we have an open and honest debate, where we demand that we are skeptical about the evidence and do not assert more than can be backed up by the evidence. WC is not a scientist, he is a politician, he is there to squash the open debate we need to understand the climate and sooner or later his type will get the boot from real science --- and dare I say it, if mankind is heating the globe, the result of booting WC out of science will be that more people will find the evidence of manmade global warming compelling precisely because it is clear it is being properly debate and not censored.

And ... let's be honest, if the case really was that strong, why on earth would people like WC have to censor any contrary evidence? He doesn't even have the strength of conviction to believe his case can hold up to public scrutiny. 88.110.76.120 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is amusing to see someone complain of censorship whilst silently scrubbing messages from his talk page, as though that meant people couldn't see them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

William, I know you have done a lot of work on climate. I understand that you are passionate about the subject, I can even believe you are not amongst those who support the abuse of statistics. What is very clear is that you have never shown the slightest inclination to see fair play to let all the evidence be heard. You have abused the wikipedia system and removing your comments is just my way of saying I want to have nothign to do with your sort of censorship. I will defend your right to say whatever you wish, but I will never defend your attempts at censorship ... but why on earth am I bothering, you will never ever value anything I say because you don't value any other opinion than your own!88.110.76.120 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

removing your comments is just my way of saying I want to have nothign to do with your sort of censorship - well its a fairly heavily encoded method of communication; you'll pardon me for having failed to understand it, I hope. The problem you have is that you're just saying the same old wrong things that have been said so many times before. I don't value what you say because I've evaluated it: you're wrong, and not even in a new way. If you read the archives you'd know that. Meanwhile I perhaps should explain that I was a scientist of sorts - I dno't think you should explain that. It doesn't make the slightest difference. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

William, time is on my side. Each month on continuing cooling trend is another opportunity to ask "how long does it has to cool before you will stop lying to the public by telling them it is currently warming". People aren't stupid, they've heard often enough that it is cooling to know that any honest article will mention the cooling QED: an article that doesn't mention the cooling is clearly biased, I don't have to change the article to win! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile I perhaps should explain that I was a scientist of sorts (see my page here), but am not really any more and that WMC does not work in climatology any more either as far as I know. Also although I am personally not sure about the treatment we give to global warming sceptics on WP I think that the article Global Warming itself is roughly a fair reflection of where the current scientific consensus is.

Bozmo, I'm not against the general thrust of the article, only the exclusion of minority evidence. It particularly annoys me to read in a significant minority of reports on global warming very educated rebuttals of the theory of manmade global warming - a view that simply isn't covered by the article.

Worse still, is because people like WC are extremely even hysterically hostile to any edits that include contrary information, it never will be possible to cover the full range of evidence in any meaningful way.

Clearly, as a general principle I do not personally believe scientific consensus and I can see lots of way in which it can be falacious. I believe NP=P which is counter consensus and I think Genetically Modified food is more dangerous than consensus holds it to be. But the job of WP is to reflect the consensus and it does that fairly well. --BozMo talk 22:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget genetically modified food. Do you know how much anti-biotics are fed to cattle at just the low level doses that are ideal to develop anti-biotic immune bacteria. Why do we have anti-biotic resistance developing so quickly? It isn't because humans fail to take all their doses, it is because we have created the ideal growth medium for resistance: low-level repeated doses, fed to huge numbers of cattle kept in highly insanitary environments.

As for scientific consensus, if it is signalled properly it is the right thing to do in a situation with limited knowledge afterall it is better to get the opinion of the experts than not to get it. Where it goes wrong, is when consensus gets portrayed as science not opinion, where contrary views get censored, where the open debate, cut and thrust of challenge and counter challenge is censored and replaced with some Stalinist party line stiffling future debate.

The problem with WC, is that he is still fighting the stalinist battles of the 1990s in a stalinist way trying to convince people there is warming. His view of global warming is now dramatically out of tune with the mainstream media, who have stopped bothering with his obsession of "was there warming" and now debating whether the latest pause is meaningful, whether there are other potential causes than CO2, and to be honest, apart from the scandal of cherry picking statistics the Hockey stick is dead and buried because I've not seen any serious defence of the hockey stick graphs for ages. The other big chunk of articles are the "global warming could ..." ones, and another chunk is "how to stop Global warming", there is also huge political controversy about the IPCC, there's the hearings where it is reported (by the sceptics) that the committee sided with the sceptics. In a normal article such controversy would be reported in the article - you wouldn't report evolution without reporting that certain christian groups hold to creatism. You wouldn't have an article on the age of the earth without covering some of the less orthodox views. Controversy is part of any subject, and the reporting of controversy is a hallmark on an honest article!

The majority view is that the 20th century warming was caused by mankind, the minority view is that we don't have the evidence to pin the blame on CO2 and we can't say it has to be CO2 when there are many potential mechanisms that could result in warming. I really can't see why any one who cared about the science wouldn't want the reader to have all the information so that they can make up their own mind from the evidence - that is how you teach science, learning how to make use of contrary evidence is the hallmark of good science, scientists aren't afraid of evidence that contradicts their current views, because the only way science moves forward is by challenging and so changing our current views.88.110.76.120 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I read your comments an hour ago, had a coffee and read them again. I have no idea who you are but you seem to have a longer history on WP than your edit history might indicate. I think you seem to be constructing a view point from too little data and then looking to confirm your view, and imagining people as fighting battles etc is a little eccentric, almost like Don Quixote. At any rate although there are elements of the view which I recognise there are elements of it which I don't recognise at all from the data I can see. I don't see anyone fighting Stalinist battles, I don't regard journalists as the determinists of scientific consensus and I don't see suppression of view points in WP (there are plenty on the "controversy" article which is linked to from the main one). The one thing which does bother me slightly is the ad hominem way in which the bios of some sceptics are not completely respectful but children will be children I suppose. --BozMo talk 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bozmo, I really think global warming is a bit like those pictures of two faces which if you look carefully are also a vase. Some people look at the "picture" and they see one thing, others looking at the same data see something entirely different. It is not that either of these views are wrong, it is just that people interpret the same evidence in different ways, and having "crossed the fence" so to speak, I know how it is possible to see the same thing in very different ways. So, I know why WC is so convinced that he is right. He looks at the picture sees a vase and thinks: "how on earth can anyone see a face"? Because he sees the evidence one way, he looks for supporting evidence (as is human) and he meets with like minded people who reinforce his view that no one in their right mind could possible see faces. Add to that his belief in doomsday unless everyone else looks at the data and see that there is a vase waiting to ... whatever, and he must think I'm the spawn of satan telling outright lies for some covert reason probably involving multinational oil companies.

So, whilst people like WC clearly abuse the system of wikipedia, I have to admit to a little admiration to his commitment (one I can't share) and that I can understand why peole like him do what they do and dare I say it, I might well be standing side by side using every tool in the wikepdia armoury to remove "unhelpful" edits left right and centre. But whilst I understand his position, and accept that it is not easy for him to tolerate "hostile" edits, all I want to see is an article that accurately reflect the whole range of evidence on the subject and gives reasonable prominence to those who see the evidence as "manmade warming" to those who see the same evidence as "natural/nothing to worry about". And the worst thing, is that I'm not going to spend the huge amount of time it would take to make the editors like WC see that their position is indefensible - sorry! Frankly I'm only writing this text to vent my frustration at the "lies" in the article and frankly don't like many of the people who oppose man made global warming and think if the big oil corps want me to waste my time protecting their profits they have another think coming.88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bozmo, I used to edit wikipedia, but then I came across the global warming article, and to be frank, I've never met such a bunch of intolerant people in my life (and that includes many "skeptics"). At the time I accepted global warming, but I could see that there was an arguable "other" case, I tried quite extensively to get very simple changes through that simply made the article more understandable by the public. At each and every attempt people and notably WC blocked the change. This was not the reasonable edits of a reasonable editor, but clear and blatant political attempts to hide contrary evidence. Following that episode, I actively went out to look at the evidence myself and to be honest when I looked at the "evidence" I felt I personally had been misleading other people by actively promoting the idea of manmade global warming. of course, any attempt to edit the article immediately resulted in people like WC removing the edits and I quickly saw that any further attempts to edit the article were useless in the face of such unwikipedia like attitudes. So, to avoid ever being tempted to add my own edits, in order never to give the article the credibility of my edits, I decided to avoid signing on again. It's my protest at the censorship by people like WC.

However, your reasonable words inspired me to look one more time at the article. And as countless times before I couldn't read past the first sentence because it so clearly articulates the bias in the article: IT IS CURRENTLY COOLING, the projection did not hold. So, I've given it another go. Of course people like WC will see this as an attack on their firm belief in manmade warming, they will perceive my very modest attempts at NPOV as "not improving the article" and either it will be removed, or they will use the usual tactic of just trying to outnumber, outtalk and be like 100 wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But I will have the moral victory, because I know that no scientist fears the evidence, and by surpressing the evidence they show they are not the scientists they pretend to be.88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cooling: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to help you, please keep it short

I want to help you. I'm from medical part of Wikipedia, hello, which usually has better publicity than climate.[2][3] What you're saying makes sense, and you deserve to be treated better. However, I seriously don't have the time to read the complete works by [your name]. William M. Connolley has a reputation: you know, I know, and so do most editors. When you repeat that, it's disparaging, as if you're assuming we all don't. I'll be flat, if you believe in truth, you can't start by assuming lies. Have you looked at William's comments? There's a reason why Wikipedia lets William go, and it's not his attitude, but because he keeps his comments plainly to the point. I want to help you, but you need to keep your comments short. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC) ChyranandChloe, thanks for your comments. I must admit that whilst I enjoy reading about global warming I'm not a passionate believer in either side so any kind of editing is just a bit of fun which I do in spare time when, e.g. I need a bit of distraction. I'd love to help out with the actual article, but my experience has been that you don't get treated seriouisly unless you engage in some kind of full scale combat with shear numbers of editors counting for far more than common sense and tolerance and frankly I do not think that should be necessary. No idea how to tackle this problem, and whilst I can highlight it, I'm also quite aware that my own editing style means I personally may not be part of the solution!!!!!! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

---