User talk:DarknessShines2

RfC on Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

FYI, I've saved you the trouble of getting the RfC going, and done it myself.

Thanks man, i was just about to do it myself :-) mark nutley (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mann

I just deleted the discussion from the MWP article, as it was going nowhere. I implore you to please address the individual paper and the science that surrounds it in a discussion section, if you choose to bring it up again. I do respect your opinion if you don't like the guy. I have no opinion on him. But a bunch of newspaper articles complaining about not that paper, along with your opinion, really don't cut it for removing a paper that compiles a whole ton of data, published last fall in a major journal. (Note that early work that said the MWP was "global" did not have global data.)

Plus, it's common knowledge in the Quaternary geology community (at least) that the MWP was not global.

Most importantly, this kind of use of talk pages is why there is so much backlash against skeptics in global-warming-land. It's not productive, it's about opinions rather than the article, and it's not going anywhere. It's just overall extremely frustrating for all involved!

But if you do find a comment on the Mann article (by which I mean the scientific comment / response process), or anything else like that, I'd be happy to email you the article in hopes of making the skeptical community a more enlightened and effective opposition. And that's what this is about: we can't go around screaming at one another, this isn't commie vs. wingnut blog-o-sphere. This is writing an encyclopedia, and if you (pl., the "skeptics") just complain and offer unsubstantiated reasons as to why you think you are justified in saying that the paper is wrong, time will be wasted, tempers will get short, and your cause will go +/- nowhere. Well, actually, your cause will lose ground because others will lose their patience. Arguments here need strong teeth, and if you edit a science article (no matter how "popular" it may be, I spend most of my time on un-popular science), those teeth come from the scientific literature. Awickert (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to remove that myself, i had not noticed it was mann`s new paper which had been used there. I thought it was the hockey stick. mark nutley (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - then sorry about my snarkiness on the removal. That makes more sense - thank you. And the offer to send you papers is still open, if you're ever interested. Awickert (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

please add

Thank you for adding my edit. I've posted a follow-up as I hadn't noticed that Quiggin repeated his assurance not to edit targeted BLP's in his re-edited post at Arb-com. The follow-up is complete including an indentation, thanks again for adding the second post.

Also, could you post a link to the "history" for the arb-com specific complaint section or mainpage? I can't seem to locate it - perhaps a link will make it clearer. Thanks again 99.135.173.194 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)