User talk:William M. Connolley

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

---

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public, on your talk page. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives. As of about 2006/06, I don't archive, just remove. Thats cos I realised I never looked in the archives.

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Linda Hall editor

User:204.56.7.1 has been blocked four times in the last month for 3RR (once by you). He is now performing wholsale reversions without comment (see at Radio [1]) This user as you probably know, has a long history of refusing to collaborate. He ignored my talk page request. Any suggestions? --Blainster 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet [2] KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And to think

..I knew you when. Why didn't you mention this?

• KNOW IT ALL - Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did my best with them :-( William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN3

To William M. Connolley for the thankless job of maintaining WP:AN3. It is appreciated -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• The few times that I've dabbled in WP:ANI/3RR, I've tried to be fair, but I universally get hit with a barrage of malcontents on my talk page and others that send me threatening e-mails. I don't know why you continue to take care of this for us, but thank you for doing so, as I know that I wouldn't be able to last more than a day at it. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [3] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [4]

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). [5] FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving the models

I find this to be a fascinating example of the improvement of weather models over time. Do you happen to know of any comparable quantitative metrics by which climate models can be seen to have improved over time? Dragons flight 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic. The one I'm more used to seeing is the length-of-useful-forecast graph, which shows similar improvement. However... no I don't know comparable pics from climate models. The obvious problem would be that you can't do it year-on-year, climate models being far less frequent: the hadley center has arguably only had 3 model incarnations. They do have a "model index" which finds that hadgem1 is better than hadcm3, but I don't know if that was ever applied back to hadcm2, much less to other centres William M. Connolley 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

when you say 3 models, does that include or exclude improvements in spatial resolution as computing power has improved? Dragons flight 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant hadcm2, hadcm3 and hadgem1. There are others, but it could get complex. Do you want to include atmos-only models? Those are the "official" releases, sort of. There are various experiments with different spatial res, but its not clear if those were meant to be improvements... William M. Connolley 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment I am just sort of curious about what is being labeled a "model". I could see the term being used to refer to either a set of coupled differential equations (which might then be implemented on a variety of different grid sizes), or to a specific implementation on a specific grid size. Do you ever take your differential systems, and leaving them as is, try to increase the number of grid elements through the use of more powerful computers? Dragons flight 17:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. "GCM" means the full set of code, on the whole. Ie, big set of PDEs and params on top. But also, in general, it means a specific config and setup. "hadcm3" means a given code version, plus given ancils (e.g. land sea mask), plus a given resolution. You *can* run it at, say, higher rez; but there is no guarantee that its better. But yes, I know there were various projects with higher rez versions... the problem is that because of the about grid^3-4 dependency, you can't run much higher rez, if the model is anywhere close to state-of-the-art William M. Connolley 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I've given you one before, but...

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For doing a task that makes me grind my teeth just thinking about it, this star is for you! Syrthiss 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks even more :-) William M. Connolley 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

)

Just for amusement

AfDing articles on people can be quite interesting. This one for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Siegel has written far more in the AfD debate than he ever did in the article he wrote about himself... He may well be notable but... --BozMo talk 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well. I don't think I'll vote William M. Connolley 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No. But smile perhaps. He probably deserves to stay but the indignation is disproportionate to the point of entertaining--BozMo talk 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I learnt my lesson at William Connolley a long time ago and now stay away William M. Connolley 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. BTW I have some nice (low res) pics of the family of baby stoats which live in my garden which I might send you for your blog. They are very playful. --BozMo talk 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delightful! I'm very jealous. Do send the pic. In return, I could start a stub about an ex-oilman turned charity exec. Err, or I could *not* start it in exchange... William M. Connolley 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not. Okay, I will find some pics/small vid clips) on the other PC and email them, probably tomorrow. As for the threat... I have enough scientific publications to pass WP:BIO and not enough appetite for it to knit a baby gnat's sock "like I want a wart in the middle of my forehead" I think is the expression. We also boast some baby owls, bats in our attic, three varieties of deer, hares, rabbit and badgers in the garden but no pics yet. Glorious Suffolk. --BozMo talk 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

okay try http://catesfamily.org.uk/stoats.jpg and then in a couple of minutes stoatsclip.mov from the same place. First is 2M second is 6M. --BozMo talk 23:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cute or what! I'm now insanely jealous. When I blog them, do you want (or unwant) attribution and/or copyright? William M. Connolley 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Any copyleft with attribution to my homepage would be kind (but I wouldn't insist). I notice Stoat has no picture and will put a cut jpg up there. I think the way that they bounce around in the movie is quite informative and if you can find a way to get that into Wikipedia format you are welcome to aswell. I don't have the tools. --BozMo talk 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

stoats again

Aha! The userbox on your userpage has the deleted stoat image in it. You could update the box with the new one. I'd do it if I could work out where these silly boxes live. --BozMo talk 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just when I was going to upload that stuff, I find you've done it! Still I've put it into my userbox now. Thanks again William M. Connolley 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for boldly speaking the truth... sbandrews 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you. Now I can hit people with it :-) William M. Connolley 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Block of Editor

Please take a look at this: [6]. As a matter of principle, I do not like having entries made to my block log. There are essentially two parties http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=edit&section=35 Editing User talk:William M. Connolley (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediain this dispute, one Greek (Miskin, NikoSilver, Domitius, and Yannismarou) and the other non-Greeks (Geda, Twospoonfulls, Mershad, Mardavich and me). Yannismarou blocked me citing WP:POINT. I read this policy page carefully and cannot find anything that applies to my discussion. Thanks! NN 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your block was only one hour. You could raise this on [{WP:ANI]] if you like and Y might get a slap on the wrist. I can't tell whether you were or not POINTing. Your comments on the t:S page appear to be wrong, though: K protected the page; Y edited it (which he shouldn't have) and then self-reverted (the correct response). Also, quoting blocks of policy is almost invariably a bad sign: take my advice and don't do it! William M. Connolley 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

When you say "quoting blocks of policy" do you mean my copying a lot of text from WP:POINT page or do you mean referrring to the fact that I was blocked? Thanks, NN 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean copying the text. Just link to it William M. Connolley 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. Thanks for the advice. Also please note that Y self-reverted at 18:52, this was after my block expired and I challenged him at 18:45 [7]. While he did do the correct thing is self-reverting, it was only after being challenged. Thanks again for your advice and your time. NN 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, but nonetheless he *did* SR and you should probably give him credit for doing so William M. Connolley 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will keep that in mind. Have a good weekend. NN 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I have posted to WP:AN/I [8]. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. NN 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved with an apology from Yannismarou. Thanks for your time and advice. NN 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite what he says, Nayan Nev has been an extremely disruptive editor. He has been extensively edit-warring on the limit of 3RR[9] and has invited Iranian users to edit-war on his POV. He has removed referenced information and has explicitely denied to abide by WP:ATT principles. He continues to randomly invite Iranian editors from Iran-related articles, who are apparently even more disruptive than him [10] [11]. Some have POV-pusher and vandal past (see User_Talk:Immortals) and are basically invited [12] to edit war - following Nayan's reminder on 3RR [13]. Yannismarou actually tried to speak in Nayan's stead in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Nayan kept attacking editors, starting new sections and trolling in a way I've never seen before, and all this during the others were trying to reach a consensus. Which forced me quit the conversation and Yannismarou put on him a one-hour block, only after explicit warning. The debate was basically started due to Nayan's incapability of respecting the WP:CITE policy and make edits our counter-edits that are based on credible sources. The article was basically locked as a result of Nayan's organised edit-warring[14] [15] Miskin 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Miskin as the matter has been resolved on WP:AN/I I do not understand why you wish to prolong it? Also Connelly is a pretty busy guy, so his talk page is hardly the appropriate place to have this discussion. Accordingly I will not respond to any more messages on this page, will respond elsewhere. NN 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan evaporation and Global warming

I wrote the article about pan evaporation just this week because there was reference to it all over the Global warming, Climate change and Global dimming articles. It's very relevant to all three topics since it's primafacie evidence that the epiphenomena do exist. Please don't get into an RV war with me. And, I really don't care if you are an admin. kgrr ^talk21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, please don't start an rv war. And I really don't care if you aren't an admin. PE is of marginal relevance and I disagree with your assessment of it as PF evidence William M. Connolley 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop the [expletive deleted] RV war. Give me a chance to provide you with a reference rather than deleting a fact that you don't like. Try practicing a little NPOV rather than deleting because it does not meet your opinion sir.

Climate scientists regard the pan-evaporation data as the most convincing evidence of solar dimming[[16]] kgrr ^talkKgrr21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be polite; and perhaps try not to pretend that this is a one sided "war". And no (as you yourself seem to recognise) horizon isn't a good enough ref for its importance William M. Connolley 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if your edits are disputed, its better to find the ref *first* before re-adding William M. Connolley 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Rather than deleting my documented facts because they may be in conflict with your opinion, why don't you provide a contribution with links to real references stating that radiometers are proof of Global dimming to the article??? Current there is no reference to the radiometer evidence in the article. Your contribution certainly could help. Why don't you lead by example rather than starting RV wars? kgrr

If you can't stop insisting that I started this silly war, please don't post on this page any more. As for the radiation: the article already says so: see t:GD William M. Connolley 22:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. This will include what I feel was an inappropriate 24-hour ban against me for 3RR and interpretation of policy against me.[17] --Iantresman 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'll have a look William M. Connolley 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

At WP:BLP, it says: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply." Yet, you blocked me anyway, at the request of the editor who was re-inserting the poorly sourced and derogatory material. Please explain. --Tsunami Butler 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The material was sourced to Political Research Associates, a professional research organization that is often used by journalists and which has been deemed by the ArbCom to be a reliable source, and to The Washington Post. There were therefore no BLP issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

I want to express my appreciation for the photo you uploaded; its shadow and contrast really bring out the relief and allow the user to see it well. I wish all the photos uploaded were as carefully composed. --StanZegel (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thats very kind to stop by so politely. I did take care over the photo - I have very fond memories of that pulpit from a cycle trip in 1986 William M. Connolley 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal & future selected articles

GW is our best article. The ones that are more directly relevant to energy are not so good, though some are quite passable - and those are the ones I tend to be less interested in. The ones about future energy use should be most relevant - the SRES scenarios, for example. But that one is a bit thin. We had an "exciting" edit war about peak oil which would potentially be interesting but sadly that didn't lead to improvements in the article, the war being a bit premature William M. Connolley 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm thinking that it would be good to have Global Warming to coincide with Live Earth in July. Peak oil deserves to be there too at some point. Gralo 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour of User:Dahn

Hi William, please add your input here I tried to help him, but I failed. He started to stalk me also, then he started with personal attacks. I would like to reporte his personal attack vandalism. I think WP:PAIN should be reactivated. Thanks! --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. If you're accussing him of personal attacks, please list some. Ditto stalking William M. Connolley 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi William, today I saw a revert war between User:Dahn and User:Icar on this article: Valter Roman. Then, because of this, User:Dahn started to attack me, even if I tried to calm him down. He didn't. Well, I had to report him on WP:ANI here I had to report such a nasty behaviour. Many other users had made complaints against him. He just made me "straw man"..See the diffs on WP:ANI.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for clear evidence of personal attacks; ie diffs. Please don't post here again unless you supply them William M. Connolley 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle

I am very disappointed to see an administrator, who should show a good example when it comes to editing from a neutral point of view, making edits describing a programme as propaganda - [18]. It is not your place to judge this film - it is described as a documentary by multiple external sources, you failed to cite a reliable source identifying it as propaganda. I hope you'll take a more measured approach to editing this article in future - it's clear that the content is irritating, even offensive to your POV, so it's more important than usual that all your edits are clearly without agenda. Thanks. QmunkE 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It was blatant propaganda - even C4 call it a polemic William M. Connolley 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Polemic. Do you understand the meaning of this word? Obviously, polemic is not the same as bad or even propaganda. Einstein was polemic. Nicola was polemic. In the future, I ask you refrain from such blatant POV-pushing in articles. ~ UBeR 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The film is propaganda (the wiki defn fits it well). C4 don't admit it; but calling it polemic is close. Einstein wasn't polemic. William M. Connolley 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If The Great Global Warming Swindle is blatent propaganda, so to an equal degree is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth so why do you not act in a consistent manner? Perhaps you favour the Gore POV, but that is not the point. Objectively both shows are out-and-out propaganda, or neither are. Thanks. JEM.

This seems to be the skeptic view point: that the two are equivalent. However, I have seen no-one who appeared in Gores film disown it, as Wunsch has TGGWS; Gore faked no graphs, unlike TGGWS; Gore gets the science essentially right, unlike... I will admit Gore misleads by implication sometimes: see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/01/grumpy_review_of_an_inconvenie.php. But the two are not in the same league.

(I am not setting out a skeptic POV: I'm asking for consistent comment.)

The fact that someone in one film disowned it and in the case of the other one no-one has (to my knowledge) does not determine which is propaganda or not. It cannot.

To take an extreme example as an illustration: No-one who appeared in Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph des Willens" repudiated it. Therefore by your reasoning above, it is not propaganda.... do you believe that? Of course not. Thus, being disowned or not does nothing to determine what is or is not propaganda.

In any case, who can seriously doubt that An Inconvenient Truth is propaganda and intended to be, even if it happens to be in a good cause? Thanks. JEM.

TGGWS

I agree, they wouldn't care. But some other people might (hint, hint). Raymond Arritt 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm being dim. I can think of various possible answers but none very convincing. Who? William M. Connolley 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Once you've got the various frauds all sorted, post a summary (with pictures) to RC. Lots of journalists look at that. I see there's some discussion buried in the comments, but the forgeries should be more prominently displayed. Raymond Arritt 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick change of subject

Hi, doc. Long time no see. I found something which might be of interest to you, as a working scientist:

• The boundary between pathological science and outright pseudoscience is not distinct. Both are usually marked by a strenuous objection to allowing others to try to prove one's fantastic theories to be wrong, while immediately meeting every objection with ad hoc hypotheses, denials of conflicting data, and ad hominem attacks. [19]

Have you seen anything related to climate science in which anybody made "strenuous objections to allowing others to try to prove their theories to be wrong"? or have you noticed anyone meeting objections with denials of conflicting data and ad hominem attacks?" --Uncle Ed 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly... take a look at the reactions to my demonstrating the TGGWS faked their 20th C temperature graph. The man with two legs just can't admit it. Now if MBH had done that... :-). See the section Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#The_hard_science_in_the_film. It looks like they have faked pretty well *all* their pictures William M. Connolley 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that something important happened beyond the end of their version of the graph. You were too busy ranting at my initial (entirely reasonable) request to make that point clear ("Had you been sensible enough...") and I didn't figure out what you were trying to say. I don't think either of us did as well as we would have liked. Man with two legs 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly failed to explain it to you. Have you understood now? If so, do you still think it reasonable? William M. Connolley 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The graph correlating solar activity with temperature was, to me, the most convincing thing in the whole program which is why I was interested in seeing it again. Knowing it had been materially knobbled changes things. Man with two legs 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah good. I'm surprised about fig 12 though, which you still don't seem to accept. You realise they've moved 1988 to 2003, thus omitting all the warming from 1988 to 2003? William M. Connolley 20:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side with Dr. C. on this one, although I have not seen the film. One thing science cannot have is fudged data. Charles Babbage spoke out against "trimming, cooking and forging" [20] --Uncle Ed 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no difficulty accepting that, but it was not what I was looking for. What struck me was the absence of correlation between the temperature and the CO2 level, other than the fact that they were both vaguely going up, in sharp contrast to the hyper-convincing solar data as presented. Before I realised that the solar data had been fiddled, that error seemed sloppy but not very important. Man with two legs 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you need to look at the graph on attribution of recent climate change, to realise the other bit they aren't telling you: namely, that no-one is claiming an exact correlation of CO2 with T. There are other factors involved, and when you take those into account you get a fair match. One of the several things wrong with the solar idea is that the proposed fit is *too good* - it leaves no room for all the other stuff William M. Connolley 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you are tempting fate! Man with two legs 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Chide

Chiding stephan? I wasn't chiding anyone in particular, as I've now made clear. In fact he inserted his remark above mine! As for Uber's remark, I've no idea what he means. Cheers. Paul Matthews 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looked like you were responding to his message of 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC). Thanks for clarifying on the page, though. I agree we often end up with discursions; and in fact we suffer trolling too William M. Connolley 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Betting page

Hi - just to let you know that I've nominated User:William M. Connolley/betting on climate change for deletion here. Martinp23 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for any kind of sense of fun. I see you've flushed out a few of the usual suspects though. Hey ho William M. Connolley 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't understand who I've "flushed out". Please assume good faith in my actions - your page is a blatant violation of WP:USER, and may fall under the speedy deletion criteron for advertising, as it's clear from the fact that you've set this page up that you expect to make money from it. I'd hope that you'd see the sense to delete the page yourself, or otherwise stop using it. Martinp23 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious about the "advertising with the intend to make money" claim? I could understand a WP:POINT argument (he makes a point, although I don't see the disruption, or a WP:USER argument (although again not a strong one). But your claim is plain absurd. --Stephan Schulz 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a weaker point, but I do stand by it (though my conviction in it is clearly wavering by the gfact that I didn't speedy the page :)). In any case, the underlying point is that WMC, and anyone who participates in the page, is trying to use a free knowleedge base, built on free software, to make at least some money through what WMC affectionately (and in an incivil (IMO) way) calls "fun". Martinp23 21:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

May I provide some context? The links that WMC provides are to James Annan's offer to skeptics, which is discussed here. Raymond Arritt 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted reply) Sorry, this is not about having a sense of fun - you can't just choose to ignore policy, especially when the page in question is to publicise your point of view on global warming. And "usual suspects"? The only contact I've had with you as far as I can see is over The Great Global Warming Swindle - although I can see you have had interactions with UBeR in the past. As with my comments earlier, as an administrator you are supposed to show an example and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:USER and your last comment strays towards violation of WP:NPA by insinuation. QmunkE 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I do quite agree with QmunkE on the issue of setting an example. I suggest that you step back and take a proper look at your behavoir, and perhaps disengage from Wikipedia for about a week - trust me (from experience) it will do you good. Martinp23 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't expect to make money out of it, and I haven't. However, I was wrong about QmunkE and I apologise for that William M. Connolley 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming debate

Hello. IntelligenceSquared held an interesting debate on Global Warming. Based on the votes of the audience, those who said it was not a crisis won the debate. I thought you might be interesting in reading about it. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about the debate, if you have time to listen to it. [21]RonCram 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a transcript available? William M. Connolley 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidently not. I thought there was a link to listen to it, but it appears they are selling DVDs of the debate. The DVD for this debate is not yet available. Too bad.RonCram 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey ho. All we have is the result :-( and [22] William M. Connolley 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I, being naive and trusting, followed the big fat link saying "DOWNLOAD DEBATE TRANSCRIPT" on the top of the page ;-). --Stephan Schulz 23:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't there when I looked - but thanks William M. Connolley 09:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Help please

I'm writing to you because you're an admin, presumably with contacts who might know how to handle this situation.

I have run across a new user who claims to be a professor at UC Berkeley. However, neither the user page nor the edits seem in keeping with such a person. It looks like either a case of identity theft (impersonation) or maybe somebody shoulder-surfed a username and password. The user is User:Richard A Muller. Look at the edit history, particularly the recent edit to User talk:59.92.172.76. This is not the work of a professor, believe you me.

Please check it out and let me know if I can do anything to help. Thanks. --Cbdorsett 08:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked on WP:ANI. I suspect all may be OK; that message was in response to some bad vandalism William M. Connolley 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've aked User:Dragons flight to look into it - as far as I know, he has co-published a Nature paper with the real Muller, and should be able to find out who is who. He is only on occasionally at the moment, though. --Stephan Schulz 09:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I emailed Muller too William M. Connolley 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the latest word, please? I noticed that Wikipedia has an official policy about threatening lawsuits, and that's what flagged my attention in the first place. Cbdorsett 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming debate

I've been following the global warming debate with interest, and (despite knowing how controversial it can be), looked up the Wikipedia page on The Great Global Warming Swindle after seeing the documentary (or propaganda, if you prefer) on television. One thing I did notice is that that program used clips from this other UK TV program on climate change with CGI pics on London under several metres of sea water. I can't remember the name. Do we have an article on that? (While looking for that, I found Global dimming - I've learnt something new there). What I really want to know though, is whether you thought the program (The Great Global Warming Swindle) made any good points? Do politicans and scientists over-present things to get votes and funding? Are there vested interests in a 'global warming industry'? Carcharoth 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK TGGWS made no honest points at all (when you use the correct graphs the solar correlation breaks down; etc etc). See various posts on http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/. Nor have the producers responded substantitively to the scientific criticism. Do politicians over present things? Of course. Does that have any bearing on the science? Of course not. If the prog had stuck to politics, I would not have cared. But it pretended to present science, and instead presented lies William M. Connolley 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I've been reading about the 'fiddling' of the solar data (above), and that is shocking, I agree. I forgot to mention the criticisms of 'environmental journalism' levelled by Nigel Calder, who, along with Carl Wunsch and Syun-Ichi Akasofu, was the talking head that impressed me most. Again, not a lot to do with the science, but everything to do with skilful presentation of a viewpoint (especially given Wensch's complaints that his position was grossly misrepresented). But it does make me wonder if there is a disconnect between the scientists and the journalists and politicians? Carcharoth 16:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also managed to find Cosmic_ray#Role_in_Cloud_Formation - which has the rebuttal about how the levels have been measured since 1953 and have shown no trend. Oh well. It never ceases to amaze me how complex the whole topic is - in some ways the science is simple to understand, but like any weather or climate forecasting, the interplay of different factors is mind-numbingly complex. Carcharoth 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One final comment (after reading through the many comments at the Real Climate website post) - I have an unwatched copy of An Inconvenient Truth at home, and I think I will watch it tonight to see how it compares. Carcharoth 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AIT ought to annoy you; it does me. OTOH the science is correct rather than wrong. Thanks for the CR page - I've corrected that somewhat, it was badly wrong. Calder was shameless - he made a prog in the 70's pushing global cooling that was hopelessly over-enthusiastic; he still believes it all; and yet had the gall to complain of being mislead during the prog William M. Connolley 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I've split the little thread below off. I don't want to get into a heated discussion! Though Calder is a convincing speaker, I don't know enough of his history to judge. I did read up on the history of the Greenpeace 'co-founder' Patrick Moore, and that was rather interesting. Anyway, I've now watched AIT, and didn't find it at all annoying - in fact I rather enjoyed it. Rather depressingly, I think this means that any moderately well-presented program can suck me in and convert me. But the bits about Al Gore's personal life were very interesting, especially his university class being shown the ongoing results of the original measurements of CO2 levels, and the stuff about his 6-year-old son's car accident and his sister dying of lung cancer. I also have an environmental book he edited or wrote a forewrord for a while ago, and have followed his career ever since, including his nearly being President of the US. Compared to TGGWS, AIT was so much better. I really do want to tell everyone to watch it. I'm also grateful that it reminded me of Carl Sagan's works and (by mental association from me) the works of Isaac Asimov warning of environmental disasters. I kind of lost touch with all that. Maybe I can head back in that direction with some of the impetus provided by AIT? Thanks for the thoughts, and if you don't mind me asking, what did you found annoying about AIT? Carcharoth 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Calder and other stuff

(new section split off by Carcharoth 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

AIT ought to annoy you; it does me. OTOH the science is correct rather than wrong. Thanks for the CR page - I've corrected that somewhat, it was badly wrong. Calder was shameless - he made a prog in the 70's pushing global cooling that was hopelessly over-enthusiastic; he still believes it all; and yet had the gall to complain of being mislead during the prog William M. Connolley 18:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Calder was/is quite a distinguished scientist, so I'm not sure that "shameless" is a good choice of words. He wasn't the only one to expound on imminent ice age threats in earlier years - I believe even a number of pro-Global Warming scientists have stated categorically that the Atlantic Conveyor is about to switch rapidly into total ice mode. And this latter point has recently been contradicted by other scientists. Shifting sands. I guess none of us should leap to harsh words when it's difficult to pin down believable accounts in such a complex subject. An intelligent layperson reading the evidence and the various debates at the moment could well be excused for thinking that despite the bold prognostications, anthropic global warming is still just a theory, albeit a convincing one. MarkThomas 22:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Calder was never a scientist. He was briefly editor of New Scientist. You are wrong about the Atlantic Conveyor, and about global cooling. And you're wrong about the rest. I agree that if you want an excuse for doing nothing, its easy enough to find the words you want. But the science is out there, starting with a fairly good wiki global warming page, if you're actually interested in the truth William M. Connolley 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For someone who was never a scientist, his name is on an awful lot of science books. OK then, science journalist. Often quite a fine line between the two. On the Conveyor, in what sense am I wrong? I am arguing that categorical statements were made in recent years by a number of good scientists that the Conveyor was about to collapse totally, lurching us into a precipitate Northern Ice Age. As the Wikipedia article itself appears to bear out, this has turned out to be much less clear, with conflicting evidence and the reverse of prediction (apparently) although it is still hotly contested. My point being that with such a complex system it is simplistic and absurd to take a categoric position, and the same could be said of at least some (possibly you included) climate scientists on anthropic drastic global warming. MarkThomas 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

His name is on a number of pop-science books. And no, the line between is not fine at all, its very broad. As far as I know, various people have warned of the risks of the conveyor stopping, but no-one has started that it *will*. But maybe you can find a good quote? As to taking a "categoric" position, I think you're objecting to a strawman. I take about the same posiution as the IPCC - e.g. [23] - all of which is fully supported by the science William M. Connolley 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be fairly well covered for a strawman. My first Google search turned up this selection of appropriately grim leading scientist quotes, although to be fair some said it was debatable. Nasa Science 2004 Headlines MarkThomas 23:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for pointing out the obvious, but the title of that article is "A chilling possibility" (emphasis mine) and if you read the article there are no categorical predictions that the conveyor will collapse. I have never seen a prediction of the certainty you claimed above, but I'd be interested to see if you can find one. If such statements by reputable scientists do exist at all, they're likely exceedingly rare and are certainly not the consensus.

If you're talking about the "grim" writing style, well, that is something that's subjective and usually chosen by journalists, not scientists. --Nethgirb 06:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I agree that science journalists are actually rarely scientists. They may (I would say should) have been trained in science, but are rarely practicing scientists. I personally learned early on that scientists actually have rather boring jobs, and need to be able to knuckle down and do often repetitive, thankless work, sometimes with, rather horrifyingly, no results at the end of it. Journalists have a completely different mindset. Science writers are a bit broader, though depressingly Wikipedia conflates the two professions. Some science writers come from journalism, and some come from science. I have no opinion on the Great Atlantic Conveyor, but can recommend Atom by Lawrence Krauss for a refreshingly different type of science writing. :-) I've never read anything by Calder. Carcharoth 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lots of it. You mention the CO2: well, thats plotted in spikey red. But of course its only spikey if you take 6 month measurements. If you use more its a nice smooth sine wave. Does spikey look more dangerous? And the flooding of Manhattan, etc. And the spread of disease William M. Connolley 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So it's all just madcap science journalists in search of exciting stories misinterpreting the wise prognostications of infallible proper scientists then? What about all those Horizon specials on TV on the Conveyor which featured numerous talking head scientists spreading doom and gloom about the imminent Collapse of the World As We Know It following the Ice Age About to Strike. I distinctly remember numerous programmes like that in the 70s and 80s. Perhaps they edited for coolness but I do seem to recall they were all credible scientists. MarkThomas 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your memories convince you, of course, but you cannot expect them to convince me or anyone else. Try global cooling for example. You need some references of more substance William M. Connolley 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not from the 70s, but the Independent in 2004. "Robert Gagosian, the director of Woods Hole, considered one of the world's leading oceanographic institutes, said: "We may be approaching a threshold that would shut down [the Gulf Stream] and cause abrupt climate changes. "Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates." Global warming will plunge Britain into new ice age 'within decades'. The Independent (U.K.) Jan, 25, 2004 MarkThomas 09:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically he is correct: we *may* be on such a threshold. Personally I very much doubt it. The indep is notoriously over-the-top in any coverage of GW type stuff - don't trust a word is says William M. Connolley 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

William, I respect you, but you do seem to shift grounds when you debate in way that might be considered more journalistic than scientific by some! Not that I'm critical of that, rhetoric is a useful skill. But clearly here it was Robert Gagosian and not the Indie. I am losing track of your point - are you now arguing that even when scientists are quoted accurately, they shouldn't be? That's what was really going on in all those TV dramas er I mean serious scientific programmes. Talking heads were incited to say controversial things in ringing tones which later turned out to be, well, rubbish. I'm totally positive that our esteemed global climate scientists would never be influenced by anything as unworthy as ego or paycheck in such transactions. :-) MarkThomas 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've shifted my ground. You have retreated from I am arguing that categorical statements were made in recent years by a number of good scientists that the Conveyor was about to collapse totally though - your best quote is a "may", and doesn't mention ice ages. Even with that, I think he is getting a bit excitable. FWIW, my real position is that if you care what scientists think you should read their papers not the newspapers William M. Connolley 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The spiky red line was an annual measurements version of the Keeling curve, right? I suppose spiky might have been more 'scary', but from the looks of it, the graph has been published in spiky form many times. I admit, Gore could have shown the smooth curve when he mentioned the Earth breathing with the seasons, but I found the Futurama clip more annoying. For a moment, when Gore said "I think this is a better explanation", I was really expecting a fresh, new way of explaining the science. But then I got a dud Futurama 'funny'. I wasn't laughing. I did laugh though when Gore said that he didn't find the "I was the next President of the US" quip funny. He might have been joking again, but it is difficult to tell with him. He talks well, and you can sense the emotion behind the words, but his face is curiously expressionless. I do admire him for doing that slideshow thousands of times, though. Anyway, when is the real documentary going to be made? After AIC and the various TV documentaries and docudramas, is there enough out there for the real story to be told, or will AIC be the definitive story? Carcharoth 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need to watch the whole episode? Crimes of the Hot. Carcharoth 14:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming May Have Accelerated

Check this out - A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – Global dimming sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground. Richard A. Kerr (16 March 2007). "CLIMATE CHANGE: Is a Thinning Haze Unveiling the Real Global Warming?". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) "GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS". 15 March 2007. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) Kgrr 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CO2 in the atmosphere

Could you elaborate on the calculation of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, since you changed my contribution. Calculating the partial pressures with the barometric formula I get about 2/3 of what your simple calculation of 5e18*0.00058 gives.

You are wrong - CO2 is mixed. See the CO2 talk page William M. Connolley 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that possible? Other gasses exhibit this phemomenon, O2 and N2 differ even less in mass and they differ in concentration along the height! CO2 does as well. Perhaps not as much in the troposphere due to convection and turbulent mixing but mauna loa is 3 ppm lower that on the surface

You are wrong. O2 and N2 are well mixed within the turbosphere William M. Connolley 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I admit it's not as big as the barometric formula would suggest buet there is a difference: mauna loa

I don't see how you get what you want out of that page. Which numbers are you using in which way? William M. Connolley 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the difference between te mauna loa values and surface values. surface is slightly lower!

If you mean ML and the global mean (I wish you'd quote actual values; I also wish you'd sign properly) this is just due to the mixing time, which is a different effect. Its nothing to do with weight William M. Connolley 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I habe no idea how to sign. I now see that Mauna Loa is actually higher than surface...... Sorry for the confusion! I agree that it is well mixed!

[[24]] Geelhoed 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing warming pages

Hi, doc, glad to see that you are around today.

I laid some groundwork for discussion by creating Modern Global Warming Period, but I need your scientific and editing help.

I'd like to split the global warming article as follows:

• The Modern Global Warming Period
  1. just the last few decades, say 1970-2007, or
  2. from the coldest part of the recent Little Ice Age to present (approx. 1880-2007)
• Global warming - a general article about historical warming periods and what scientists think caused them
  • Anthropogenic global warming - either a section or a spinoff article about manmade warming period(s) and anything people do which makes the climate warmer worldwide
  • Note that manmade warming can also be regional or urban, so this should be an integral part of AGW.

We also need information about climate models. The first thing readers want to know is the extent to which these are considered scientific theories:

• Are they based on hypotheses which are falsfiable?
• Do they make predictions which can be tested?
• Do their proponents offer tests which could potentially falsify their theories?
• Are all climatologists and other involved scientists agreed on the definition of "pseudoscience" as entailing a refusal to conceded that one's theory ought to be capable of falsification?
• Do they agree that if data are found which (1) are agreed to be valid but (2) which conflict with predictions made on the basis of the theory, then (3) this shall be deemed to disprove the theory?

My purpose is not to advance or undermine any point of view, but to lay out both sides of every question that has 2 sides. If there are any aspects of climate which are utterly uncontroversial (among scientists), then those aspects should be treated in [[Politics of global warming] or Global warming controversy. What I want to work on with you are matters where a significant minority of scientists (or papers) disagree. Also, matters where there is significant scientific disagreement with widely held political positions.

For example, if partisans assert that "Antarctica is warming" but a peer-reviewed journal article asserts that "Antartica is cooling" or "Antarctic ice overall is increasing", that information should be in Wikipedia. If it's a "minority scientific view", of course, we wouldn't want Wikipedia to portray it as having wider acceptance than it does. --Uncle Ed 14:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain to be convinced that this reorganisation would be a good idea. Remember we already have attribution of recent cliamte change. As to the "scientific theories" bit... I think this is a naive attitude. GCMs are built on basic physical principles, with approximations. They are "tested" in reproducing the current climate - there is a vast literature on this. How "good" they have to be, by whatever measure, before you let them loose on the future, is inevitably a subjective choice William M. Connolley 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:SPADE -- no, Ed, creating a POV fork is a bad idea. Raymond Arritt 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

not sure Dr. C's page is the place to ask you this, but why do regard my proposed reorganization as a "POV fork"? Do you mean that there is a consensus of Wikipedians that we should not make it easy for our readers to see just how much (or little) scientific support there is for each of the aspects of climate change theory?

• We can take this to your talk page or mine, if we're cluttering up William's talk page. But I just glanced at NPOV, where it says:
• pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the promotion of minor or fringe views. The term may be regarded as incivil and should be used with care and only in unambiguous cases.

I don't want to 'push' so please give me good guidance on how to "dispute the neutrality" of the current presentation without being "pushy". (You'll note that I self-reverted and offered to work together.) --Uncle Ed 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mir Haven

I have seen that you have in 2006 blocked user Mir Haven because of page about Franjo Tuđman. I am afraid that in last days I have started revert war with him. Signification of words revert war is that he is deleting my parts of article with sources and changing it with statements without sources. Please check last changes in article and tell me your thinking. I do not ask you to block him but only to see and tell what you think. If this become revert war then you can say who is right ! --Rjecina 9:50, 21 March 2007 (CET)

Next time you ask someone this sort of thing, please provide a link tot he history in question. Assuming I've guessed right, you should both be discussing this on the talk page William M. Connolley 09:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Polemic/doc

I can accept this, though others continue to remove the first word and seem to want to push the 'compromise' further in their direction. See the talk page for definitions I provided. I'll leave it for a while to see how it settles out, though a simple 'documentary' or 'documentary film' is inappropriate. Skyemoor 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, good. I think its best to rv to pol-doc; rving to just pol only prolongs the war William M. Connolley 19:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

For me, the question is about whether we should brand it as "polemical" (thereby casting doubt upon its veracity ourseves) or merely quote Channel 4.

Are we, as contributing editors to an encyclopedia, trying to discredit this documentary? Or should we step back, refuse to take a position on whether it is truthful or not? --Uncle Ed 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a reasonable compromise, which you upset, leading to renewed edit war. That was bad. Once it settles down again, we can discuss on talk, if you really must, though I don't see anyone changing their minds. As far as I can see it objectively fits "propaganda" which would be my preferred description; but I'm prepared to compromise. I hope you are too William M. Connolley 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to admit here that you want a particular wording because it fits your personal evaluation. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeeesss... I personally think thats the most accurate description that best fits the facts. I could edit on the basis of your personal eval instead, but that would be silly - no? William M. Connolley 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it's the not the evaluation of me or you that counts, but the evaluation of reliable sources. See WP:NOR. -- TedFrank 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perish the thought! My personal eval is that the movie is not polemical at all, and I think Channel 4 was wrong to call it that. But if they did, we will be accurate to quote them. It's only fair to give them the first say, since they are premiered the film. Why not let each side speak for itself? --Uncle Ed 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One staff member at Channel 4 called it polemic. Contrast that with universal agreement, from both sides, labeling it as a documentary. ~ UBeR 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such agreement. I think its propaganda, not a doc. But I'm prepared to compromise. Skyemoor seems to share the same opinion. It must be obvious by now that we're not going to get a wording that everyone likes - something that everyone can live with will have to do. We had a compromise - it was pol-doc - and Ed upset that, regrettably, leading to a large number of wasted words William M. Connolley 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on every other political documentary is "documentary film." Political documentaries with which you disagree or personally feel inaccurate don't get different treatment. See WP:NPOV. I don't get to relabel documentaries I think are propaganda, either. -- TedFrank 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal or professional musings on the matter, you certainly understand that "propaganda film" is completely unacceptable, right? The multiple violations in that sort of statement should not be foriegn to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you were an administrator. I've raised the issue on WP:AN/I. -- TedFrank 20:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've got the obvious answer. No one likes wikilawyering, and your attitude towards your pet tags is indefensible William M. Connolley 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:NPA

"I've blocked you for 24h"

Now that would have to be one the biggest wins you could possibly give me.

I have reduced you to abusing your position of power in that you use it when you are not in a neutral postion, to attack parties with whom you are at odds. Moreover, I have reduced you to hypocricy in that you denounce things that I say while failing to apply the same policy to things that you say.

Ah, it keeps becoming clearer and clearer to me why you are so willing to be unethically deceptive in your support horribly misleading "research".

All the best, HalfDome 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have to be so nasty? And what's this about winning? I wish you would say what your objection is before scolding the man. --Uncle Ed 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you oblivious to the obvious, Ed? ~ UBeR 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's two obscure, uncivil references in a row. One more you're out! ;-)

Seriously, though, would anybody care to clue me in? Dr. C. and I go way back; and I have an intense disagreement with him on a matter or two; but my desire for civility and harmony trumps that. --Uncle Ed 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And I for one appreciate your level-headedness. Skyemoor 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It was this one [25] William M. Connolley 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Global dimming

William, thanks for your edits. When should we re-submit the article for GA? Kgrr 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure... when its ready, but not too early. The early stuff - London on clouds - isn't clearly relevant William M. Connolley 12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

let's take London out. There's not a good source for his work anyway. I think the section that ties Global dimming to Global warming still needs some work. I'm pretty much done with the references for now. They all either have a link to a PDF or an abstract Kgrr 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Global warming fatigue

Good Lord, what a mess tonight... User:Blue Tie started with a round of tag-bombing, and is intent on editing the article to conform to his "beliefs" that the current warming period is nothing special.[26] Throw in the usual drive-by vandals and POV pushers and it's too much for one person to keep up with. Please have a look and fix what you can. Raymond Arritt 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, what a waste of time. I think the best thing is to establish a sane version and return to that - DFs most recent seems to be that William M. Connolley 12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fatigue, errors, ennui & edit conflicts: Sorry, old bean, but I stepped on one of your comments:

• Sigh again. You resolutely refuse to see the obvious when its against you. Your "actual history" stuff is nonsense - there is no way to do this stuff through natural history, of course. The sense from the charts is also obvious: sol/vol cooling from 1950 William M. Connolley 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did so without prejudice to the issue at hand. Please revert my comment or whatever you feel is needed to restore the flow of the discussion. Upon request, I will self-revert. --Uncle Ed 15:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish you'd take that stupid "according to the IEA" out of the GW lead. Why did you put it in? William M. Connolley 16:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Being fair to Ed, that was User:Blue Tie. His practice is to tag-bomb, then when sources are provided he will either (a) speciously claim that the source does not support the statement or (b) manipulate the text to imply that only a single oddball source supports it. Raymond Arritt 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. That is not my "Practice" and there is no evidence for this claim unless "tagbombing" takes on some ridiculous meaning.

2. I am not interested in speciousness

3. I am not interested in manipulating or oddball sources.

I consider this statement a personal attack based and composed of lies about me. --Blue Tie 17:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly RA is correct. Raymond - Ed restored it, so he takes responsibility for it William M. Connolley 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, without prejudice to the issue, do you need your comment restored? Raymond 'tagged' me for it. Is it still a problem, or may I remove the "newbie nudge" template from my user talk? --Uncle Ed 16:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring others' legitimate comments is not done, period -- that's why there's a warning template for it! Go and sin no more. Raymond Arritt 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverts or other edits

I do not mind marking my edits as reverts, when that is what I am doing, but if I am not simply reverting but making my own point, I may not do it. I may also simply forget sometimes. I am not doing it to annoy you, but I will not mark rv every time you believe that I ought to. It's just not gonna happen. Not a matter of being rude or unpleasant, but I have been on wikipedia a while and I mark every edit using my best judgment on how to do so.--Blue Tie 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You should mark as rv anything that counts towards 3RR - that includes partial reverts William M. Connolley 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that a policy on wikipedia that you can cite or is it your personal rule? --Blue Tie 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling William M. Connolley 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing User Pages

Please stop vandalizing user pages. You are not authorized to remove my comments to another wikipedian. I avoiding warning you previously about this out of courtesy and I am not using the standard wikipedia vandalism warnings because you are a sufficiently mature user that you should not need one. But you are not doing right. --Blue Tie 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop issuing fake vandalism warnings William M. Connolley 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Might be time to protect the page for 24 hours. The changes/reverts are running pretty fast and non of it is adding value to the article... --BozMo talk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)--BozMo talk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't protect it myself William M. Connolley 08:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why. For any reason which would prevent me from doing it next time? --BozMo talk 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm too heavily involved. You're not, I'd say. Tell you what - unprotect it and then you can block Uber and Blue Tie for 3RR :-) William M. Connolley 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR only did three on my count: the edit correcting my error wasn't a revert (and I apologised on his talk page). I also wouldn't block UBeR on principle this time since he once reverted once me in the period and another admin should do it. Blue Tie I agree was 5RR, and none of the reverts were to me but as you say the article is now protected. --BozMo talk 10:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Count again: [27], [28], [29], [30] William M. Connolley 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay agree. Anyway lets see how a newbie Admin on his third day since election runs the consensus discussion... --BozMo talk 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck :-) Does having more people to take on the trolls help? To get rid of trolls you need (a) people prepared to ignore them and (b) people prepared to rm their comments when irrelevant William M. Connolley 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One must also consider the possibility that their own certainty about a topic may numb them to the need to move away from 'objectivity' and into the realm of 'neutrality'. If there is a dispute at Wikipedia about whether something "is a fact", shouldn't the article refrain from endorsing any side in that dispute?

Is it trollish or vandalistic to suggest that an article refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions?

Anyway, the framers of NPOV didn't think so. --Uncle Ed 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of undue weight. There are people who disagree with all sorts of theories (evolution for example has far more opponents amongst scientists than global warming does). The article should represent the overall size and importance of differing groups. Personally I doubt that things are as cut and dried as the current scientific consensus makes out (because narrow scientific judgement is always myopic; as per Y2K) but I edit Wikipedia to reflect the consensus not my own personal views. --BozMo talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bozmo (except I don't think the current assessment says things *are* C+D). Ed, you're in danger of trolling here yourself. The talk page of GW is drowning in words; the last thing we need is more philosophical wurbling. It is trolling to go round the same loops again and again. We could also do with fewer black helicopters [31] William M. Connolley 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for a tangent, but... BozMo, OOC, what is this scientific consensus on Y2K which you mention? I think I saw you mention it one other time and I'm not sure to what you are referring. --Nethgirb 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I woz wondering too. I'd blame anything there on the computer folk William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is not perfect but exists. See Year 2000 problem depending what you remember: in 1998/1999 every relevant expert told everyone disaster was imminent, salaries for IT specialists and the cost of IT systems went through the roof, people were claiming the cost of Y2K was more than that of World War 2. NO ONE said "don't worry". Then the moment arrived and nothing went wrong. One guy in leeds had a credit card refused because the computer thought it was 99 years old. No mid-air aircraft crashes, no auto-launches of Russian missiles, none of the disaster. Was it just that the whole planet was so systematic and careful that every tiny glitch was sorted or was it a huge con? With hindsight I am sure it was mainly a "con" of some sort (cock-up not conspiracy) and it shows that a huge community of specialists can con the wider population. Was it the same kind of consensus: no. Are there other differences: yes its only an analogy. Does it mean that the broad scientific community should take salt with the next scare: yes. --BozMo talk 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I think that is rather selective memory and press hyping again. In 1998/99 I already was a relevant expert at least to some degree, and my opinion has always been that things can break, but that it is unclear how many things will break. Of course, most at risk were large old legacy systems, and much of the Y2K work that was done was on exactly these systems. Fixes included such seemingly trivial things as rules about how to interprete two-digit years in various fields (i.e. a system will be broken if 2 digit years are always implicitely prefixed with "19", but the same system with the same behaviour will be fine for its likely lifetime if years<=30 are interpreted as years after 2000).--Stephan Schulz 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, however you look at it, it wasn't a *scientific* misjudgement William M. Connolley 13:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There aren't such clear edges to what is and isn't science. I am not, I repeat, saying this is the same scenario: but there is a lot of trust involved between experts and the rest of us. --BozMo talk 13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Post hoc? I was sure of the gender of all my children post hoc. I said it was an analogy not a repetition. But for context, young Stephan, in 1998/1999 I was the CEO of a fuels business with $1bn of turnover (3% of the world's acid rain) across 60 countries and recipient of countless audits/customer queries/shareholder enquiries/consultant presentations about the impending doom triggered by every media article... not to mention writing legal letters of reassurance left, right and centre and getting "red traffic lighted" by spotty teenagers who claimed to be experts (not you since I think you were already 30 by then Stephan :) ). There was not even a doubter of the stature of Monckton to be seen writing in the right wing papers. Perhaps the communication between technical and management was imperfect but I can assure you that the level of consensus even when based on very flaky science meant you had to have some character not to hand the vault keys to the IT department. I have managed through about 20 deaths, >$100m liabilities (and been unsuccessfully sued for more than this) but that one was a nasty experience I remember well...No doubt in some ivory towers the concern was less. Where were the deniers then when we needed them? Easy these days when we won't know for a decade.. --BozMo talk 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR issue

Well, it's already protected, but here's hoping it gets resolved quickly. Hate to have an FA protected for too long. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a gang of trolls, POV pushers and wikilawyers there who will talk about it endlessly and never agree to anything sensible. So its rather unclear to me how the dispute will get resolved William M. Connolley 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

You reported me as having violated 3rr Here. This is my first known instance of policy violation. I feel badly about it. No action was taken but I still feel badly about it. I was cited as having reverted you 2007-03-25T13:46:48 here. I specifically apologize to you for the error and the angst. Though there was no action taken, I have voluntarily blocked myself from editing wikipedia articles and talk pages for 24 hours from the date that this notice was filed on the 3rr board. --Blue Tie 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that pretty well all you did in the 24h before then was cause trouble on GW, which your reverting was instrumental in getting protected, I think your voluntary block is nothing but a trick on your part. Do something more convincing: stop for 24h after the page prot is lifted William M. Connolley 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. You seem to feel that matter is one of punishment. I am told it is otherwise. But nevermind. Your proposal is inherently unfair, but I will accept your proposal on two conditions:

1. You agree to cease the failure to assume good faith and engage with me and others in honest and respectful dialog according to rules of civility and good conduct.
2. You specifically restore [this edit].

If you do those things I will agree to stop posting for 24 hours when the block is lifted. If you do not want to agree, that is a choice you make. However the latter point about restoring that edit is not really optional as far as I am concerned. It was an egregiously bad thing to do. --Blue Tie 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether your voluntary ban was meaningful. I don't think it was, for the reasons I gave. I assume good faith when I can. In your case, I would be prepared to reset the clock for (1). For (2), no: who do you think RA was referring to by Wikilawyers? William M. Connolley 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase the bit about the "trick" please... --BozMo talk 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you mean. Would "meaningless" do instead? To be clear: I think that BT is losing nothing from this "voluntary block", which is why I said "trick" in the first place William M. Connolley 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"trick" implies some accusation of attempt to gain by deception. Meaningless is better (and more civil) --BozMo talk 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, slightly concenaling my true opinions, I'll make do with meaningless then William M. Connolley 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you here

With all the disinformation around, it's nice to know that there are a few scientists here on WP who aren't willing to parrot whatever their corporate masters send in a memo. Be well and to the extent that it even matters, know that you have the respect of a lot of us! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. It *is* nice to know that occaisionally :-) William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second Ryan's statement - I find it very reassuring to have you around on the climatology articles. Raul654 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't feel like taking it back after I hack Inhofe... William M. Connolley 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To Bdj

Can you give an outsider who's been pretty much frustrated to the point of leaving the page a quick-and-dirty as to why the page on Global warming dedicates less than a dozen words to the highly publicised controversies surrounding the science? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can. Firstly, this page is primarily about the *science* over GW - not the politics or press. Hence, it tries to give a balance of the science, not the press coverage. If you're basing your expectations on the latter, you'll be disappointed.

Secondly, what do we have? there are a few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming and A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences and Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; and the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation. and There is a controversy over whether present trends are anthropogenic. For a discussion of the controversy, see global warming controversy. . And a whole section on solar variation. So I guess your "less than a dozen" is meant rhetorically.

Thirdly, what controversies are you expecting? Solar is in there; HSC isn't (and maybe should be touched on, though its not all that relevant).

Fourthly... its just about impossible to talk about this on t:GW while everyone is wasting time rehashing old arguments about "consensus" and sourcing William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense about the science, although it would be nice to see a better cross-section of the interpretations. Regarding your "fourth," it's why I just cut to you. Thanks for the straight answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your query

Hi William, it's correct that we're not supposed to use wikis as sources (except in very limited circumstances, namely in the same way we'd use any self-published source), but I don't see how that would apply to the instrumental temperature record. We're allowed to use any primary, secondary, or tertiary source that's reliable. I don't know what kind of source the ITR is, but it seems to me something we ought to be using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What we are talking about here is to not repeat references already contained in sub-articles. I.e. when referencing the instrumental temperature record in global warming, it should be sufficient to Wikilink there, not to repeat the references over and over again. --Stephan Schulz 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. It's almost always better to repeat the references, unless the material is completely uncontentious, in which case you could simply link to the Wikipedia article and anyone who wants to know more can read that. But if the claims are "challenged or likely to be challenged," as the policy says, then it's better to supply citations even if they've been repeated elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is compatible with your original reply, sorry. How can we cite ITR in this way if tertiary sources are forbidden? WP:OR sez Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source... All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). This, as written, would appear to imply that tertiary sources are forbidden. I would suggest that it needs to be re-written. William M. Connolley 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how this can work with WP:SUMMARY. For complex topics, it's easily possible to go multiple levels of recursion. Repeating all references will destroy the whole idea of using summaries. --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the wikilawyers would tell you thats only a guideline :-). It points you are History of the Yosemite area, which indeed is woefully unreferenced, by the absurd standards some are pushing. So I think WP:OR is miswritten, and needs revision William M. Connolley 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would need to see the specific example to understand what the issue is. But generally, tertiary sources are allowed if they're high quality; the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, would be allowed. The secondary/tertiary distinction can be a bit of a red herring that's best ignored: what matters is whether the source is a good one, and whether it's used correctly in the article. As for summary style, you summarize the contents of another article, but in summarizing, you presumably make a couple of claims, so these particular claims should be sourced. That doesn't mean you have to repeat every single source that's in the main article — just sources for the particular claims you're repeating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thats what I would have thought. But I don't see how this is compatible with a literal reading of the OR policy, as quoted above. Its all very well to agree in friendly discussion with you that the policy is a red herring... but its not pleasant to have the policy quoted in unfriendly edit wars. If you want an example, then consider: For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Wikipedia article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. How does that sound to you? William M. Connolley 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point, the policy needs to be tweaked. At the moment, there's a discussion about whether V and NOR are to be merged into ATT, so I hope we can leave any tweaking until after that's decided. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a good idea to leave it, otherwise we'll get edits like this being done on the basis of over-zealous interpretation of the current policy William M. Connolley 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing the article adequately cites it sources? ~ UBeR 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When an article achieves FA status, the adequacy of sourcing is a major criteria. The article passed that hurdle a little while back and the quantity and quality of citations have improved even after that. Are there areas that could be improved? No doubt, but overall the article is adequately sourced and the current round of nitpicking is not helping to improve the article. Vsmith 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert

Why did you do this? [32] It's more sensible than most of the comments there. Raymond Arritt 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sssssshhhhh! I had to remove it or people would know about our sekret plans William M. Connolley 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth! --Stephan Schulz 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. ~ UBeR 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, stop prevaricating, you should be choosing your favourite version of GW not messing with the sekret kabal's kunningly sekret deliberations (who left the door open?) William M. Connolley 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indo Aryan Migration

Hi, I am facing deletion for my additions in Horse & Chariot sub-section of above article. I have provided well ref. sentences. Today, Crculver deleted my additions for spoked wheels having 2 ref. These 2 references are published after Mallory - 1989 , but his ref.can be found as it suits deletor's views. It's usual to delete well ref. related points in article by some people, who wants to hide from readers newer developments in the controversial subject. You can even have a look at Sarasvati river or Indus Valley Civilization which are interconnected topics and I am facing similar deletion problems. WIN 12:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration#Deletions_by_Dab and it seems you are accused of copying from Kazanas and that the horse stuff is a hoax. But how am I supposed to judge who is right? William M. Connolley 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

History of the Yosemite area

William, you are aware those templates are made for a reason. They aren't exactly "stupid." Maybe read over WP:V or WP:OR? ~ UBeR 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The template is of course sensible enough, but the use in this case isn't. And your use of "rvv" is inappropriate. There's a question (well 2) waiting for you on KDP's talk page. Isn't it time you laid this one to rest? William M. Connolley 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you've seen this

Have no doubt who it is that is driving the attempt to inject undue doubt and confusion into the public debate [33]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen it. I'm not familiar with the group... my suspicion is that many people and groups will say this, but landing a real hit is very hard William M. Connolley 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would call the exposure of the actions of now-disgraced WH appointee to the NASA press office George Deutsch a real hit. This goes beyond mere allegation:

"The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming."

"The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists."

"The NASA response to the Senators is an important concession that manipulation of scientific statements occurred and recognizes other allegations of inappropriate editing of scientific materials."

"In the time it took NASA to acknowledge that the censorship of Dr. Hansen was inappropriate, new charges of suppressing climate science have arisen at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Forest Service,” Lieberman said. “Reports of this disturbing practice have now arisen at four federal agencies: EPA, NASA, NOAA, and the Forest Service. It is time for the White House to stop suppressing important climate change information that the public has a right to know and needs to know."

"In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times."

"[Deutsch’s email] continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”" CLIMATE EXPERT SAYS NASA TRIED TO SILENCE HIM, NASA Admits Wrongdoing In Not Allowing Top Scientist To Discuss Climate Change Research, NASA CHIEF BACKS AGENCY OPENNESS

Oh what times these are. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)