User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2009

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


"Words fail me"

I have always felt that way, wondered what good a few words can do. Well, I've found they help a lot. Nothing can fill that sort of a void, but knowing people care helps. It really does. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Storch Paper considering Stern report

Hi Kim

I dont agree with the twinkle revert. Storch mentiones the Stern report as "einseitig", footnote based and refers to a general tendency in traditional climate politics, expressed there as well, to prefer mitigation and reduction and not to include adaptaion strategies. I think the - surely controversial - point given by an established climate scientist and his coworker is much more important than two thirds of the polemics (its sounding more like an assembly of press releases than an article.... ) stated on the Lemma now.

Please give a more detailed indication of your motives BR --Polentario (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. That Stern is only mentioned as a footnote, makes it a side-note in the Storch article, which is a reply to a polemic unrelated to Stern. You are doing WP:OR here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read WP:UNDUE. Storchs generic remark does qualify a general tendeny, the Stern report is seen as of the iceberg critized. However, I think the conflict is worth while mentioning. I'll see for a better place for the edit. BR anfd thxn for the quick answer--Polentario (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What you are doing is orginal research. Its not up to us as wikipedia editors, to define what is a "general tendency", we have to rely on reliable sources, that make that connection, keeping in mind the weight of the sides. An article such as Storch's would only have relevance for the Stern article, if several other sources had pointed it out as a general comment towards Stern. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I see youre on the formal way now. Be aware that Storch is not a loony sceptic but an internationally well established climate researcher with long IPCC experience. Stehr is the philosopher of the two. Lets close that so far. BR --Polentario (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course Storch is a very credible, and highly regarded, climate scientist. Is anyone (at all) disputing that? The point is: You can't just pick and choose, the references that you pick have to have a direct relevance. Its not a personal essay, where you can synthesize what you feel is relevant. That is what WP:OR is about.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, we do not relate our own personal views, but are instead delegated to relate what secondary sources are saying about the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

Hi Kim. While perusing several climate-related articles lately, I've noticed that User:Andrewjlockley has been adding material in prominent locations (often in the lead section), often unreferenced, and all of which speak about the clathrate gun and of geoengineering as the solution to global climate problems. I'm afraid that he's spamming his POV across the wikipedia climate pages. You can check his "contributions" page for examples.

He also has put several at least two climate change alarmist pieces of information on pages while either not stating counterarguments or simply stating an un-emphasized "other opinions exist".

He seems very enthusiastic, and I wanted to ask you (an admin involved in the climate science community) two things. (A) if you could give a 5-minute rundown of his edits and tell me what you think, and (b) if you agree that he's POV-pushing, to help me find a nice way to let him know that his contributions are appreciated, but shouldn't seem like POV spam. I didn't want to take the issue to him directly, since I've already disagreed with him and re-edited what he's done on comparing catastrophic Laurentide deglaciation to Greenland with counterpoints, and I don't want him to feel like I'm a huge meanie/be discouraged. So thanks for your time.

And by the way, thanks for all of your work on keeping Global warming sane; I haven't looked into climate on wikipedia before, and it's a whole lot more volitle than geology.

Awickert (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not answering this before now, i've been busy irl. First of all, lets get something clear: i'm not an admin. From a fast glance, as far as i can see, several others have taken up this one, but i'll try to help, since i agree that much of it seems over the top. I had noticed some of it earlier, but it seemed like a work in progress, and geoengineering, while a rather extreme measure, is considered by some fairly prominent individuals (as a last measure). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry - I really thought I saw the admin tag on your page. I'm working with him on Global warming, where I'm trying to temper his alarmist stance. Thanks for the help - I'm not a climatologist, and I don't want to be the voice of skepticism against everything he's doing. Awickert (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OK - the articles I'm worried about are:
  • Albedo (he added a full section on geoengineering, when the article is about the scientific concept)
  • Arctic shrinkage (a lot of changes, decent, but definitely alarmist POV)
  • Greenhouse effect (he moved anthropogenic to top and added an unsourced runaway climate section)
  • Arctic (he added a bunch of stuff to the bottom of the lead, with the most alarmist predictions)
  • Methane (added a sentence about clathrate and runaway climate; I've gotta tell him that the clathrate effect isn't supposed to work quickly)
I've started to look into them, and think I should just talk to him about it...
Awickert (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. My suggestion is to work on runaway climate change (and possibly [[geoengineering, haven't looked there) and confine discussion to those, until all sides are moderately happy. In the meantime, I'm going to oppose inclusion of runaway stuff elsewhere [2]. Oh, and I think you'd make a good admin, and would be happy to nominate you (err, or help find someone less controversial to nominate you, thus giving you a better chance of success :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm not sure how much I should do on runaway climate change or geoengineering, because those seem like places where extremes that I like to avoid in more mainstream articles would be put forward. I'll take a look and see if there's anything that's too POV.
As for the above, I've tagged/changed a bunch of stuff in all but Albedo (where I think it should be removed as irrelevant to the scope of the article), but haven't done anything too drastic because I tend to be more cautious.
Thanks saying I'd be a good admin... maybe it's just that I'm already a curmudgeon at 22... but I have to say I honestly don't really know if I'd want/enjoy the responsibility. Thanks, though.
Awickert (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP/John Theon

I'm glad you now agree that BLP should exclude blogs. You seems a little less enthusiastic about this policy at William M. Gray when the material was negative. As for the rest, I do not consider the Register to be an unreliable source, but looking over it again, the remark toward James Hansen should certainly be excluded—that's a BLP problem. His own words to the minority committee are not. Cool Hand Luke 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or to be more clear: his letter to the minority members is not good enough to attack Hansen, but his skepticism seems to be the only reason he's even notable, and the Register article shows weight. We should cover his skepticism or delete the article. Cool Hand Luke 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe you meant William M. Gray :-) - and the case there was rather different. Blogs should never be used for (contentious or controversial) information about persons - no matter if they pass SPS exceptions or not.
That's not what you seemed to think about using one to call Singer dishonest. --GoRight (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Very funny. Are you saying Singer wrote the report single handedly? Or are you saying that scientific crit isn't possible from a WP:RS (in this case the SPS exceptions do apply - since it isn't about the person). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Are you saying Singer wrote the report single handedly?" - Not at all. But WMC does. And the source explicitly refers only to Singer. Seems like a pretty direct attack to me. --GoRight (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As for the register - i still significantly doubt if they are a reliable source on BLP stuff outside of the tech branch. But that should be raised on BLP/N. As for the EPW minority blog - its unusable for BLP stuff. And that means that the mails are suspect...
I agree that there isn't enough here to merit notability - but there is a (high) chance that we will get confirmation from a good WP:RS, and there must be more data on him - even if it only exists on dead wood ;-) Which is why i haven't considered an AfD. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The Register is in no way, shape, or form a reliable source on anything remotely related to climate. At the last AGU meeting there was a presentation on how they had completely screwed up an "analysis" of Arctic sea ice trends and how it was like pulling teeth to get them to admit they had made a mistake.[3] They need to stick to there sphere of competence (IT), but apparently they're trying to broaden their appeal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - is it possible to get the full presentation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But here they're just being used to confirm that Theon is a global warming denier and sent a letter to a Republican committee. Just ordinary reporting; no expertise required. Cool Hand Luke 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) From what I've seen I'm not so sure they wouldn't quote someone out of context. If the story is for-real it seems very odd that it hasn't been picked up and expanded on by a mainstream source. It would be bad for Theon if we immortalized a skewed version of what he said. Theon had previously espoused a position more consonant with the mainstream view. In this light note especially that WP:V, under Exceptional claims require exceptional sources calls out "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So we use a non-WP:RS to confirm another non-WP:RS on BLP info? Where does this end? If its not reliable - then its not reliable. And that is what BLP is about... correct? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that in this context I think the Register is reliable. But I'm willing to sit on this. I think it should just be deleted, and unless further coverage is forthcoming, I'm going to nominate it. Cool Hand Luke 03:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that case was different. In that case you wanted to include unfavorable poorly-sourced information.
Did i really? I don't think so - but each his own opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's patently absurd to think believe publicized government correspondence is fraudulent. But since you seem intent at edit warring on the point, it should be deleted. I've looked. There's nothing. I'll nominate it with you. Even with the source, I wouldn't be happy about it. Low-profile partisan BLPs tend to be much more trouble than they're worth. Cool Hand Luke 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is where you go wrong. The blog is not "government correspondence" in exactly the same way that personal pages for senate members aren't. Its a political soapbox, where the minority party can freely express their views. This has been up lots of times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You deny that Senator Inhofe's office and the EPW are part of the government? Incredible. --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
To quote Stephan: Mu. (not all correspondence with or from people in governement is official or government correspondence) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Things have not changed much here... More to the point, Theon's e-mail is a primary source. It should not be used unless reported by a secondary source, which happened (The Register, which is a reliable source for that purpose). See WP:PRIMARY : "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material(...)".
Thus, as long as Theon's e-mail is not interpreted but only reported, TR is a reliable source.
This being said, this article is already ridiculously misguiding and of poor use, so add Theon or not, it does not matter much imo. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon. Cool Hand Luke 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Ray

Hello! I believe the content of my cosmic ray entry is valid and should be placed somewhere on Wikipedia. If not there, and if you believe that is an issue, where should it be posted?

This is the article:

In modern scientific Christian religion, cosmic rays are 'seeds of Satan'. In modern legend a serpentine race of aliens originated from the Orion constellation. Recent scientific reports say the majority of cosmic rays come to Earth from Orion.

Cosmic rays likely contain the vibrational and electrical field energies that bear the reproductive information of living electromagnetic fields as found by the Max Planck Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, and University of Sydney in 2007 in an article titled "Dust Comes Alive".

Cosmic rays are magnetically charged, and may be magnetized to the weaker spots in an electromagnetic field such as those on the em field around Earth, or in a DNA strand.

Cosmic rays have the ability to knock out DNA codons from their location. This is probably a cascading electrical function that leaves the hole re-magnetized and searching for something to fill itself with, but slightly lesser. This can go on and on, rereleasing inferior cosmic rays locally from the cavity left, like nesting Russian dolls. That is one way that electrical absence reproduces itself.

In Biblical Christianity the cosmic ray life form is Satan. In Kabbalism it is represented as a 9 or a 6. They function similar to sperm, but evilly and by rape and without serving a true species, merely being a wicked parasite. (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Without some very very good reliable sources it shouldn't go anywhere. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Editors on Wikipedia are not 'reliable sources' either. DasV (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats entirely correct. Which is why everything has to be referenced to (secondary) reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Schakowsky described Mann's seminal paper as:"....this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study"

You are obviously prepared to go to any lengths to prevent, without good reason, readers from seeing a fair and true comment made by a Congressional Member, whereby Ms. Schakowsky described Mann's seminal paper as: "....this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study". You and your Pals are "ganging up" to prevent other points of view. You claim a majority. I say Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Therefor I will change the text again. If you revert it I will take it up the complaint chain, as it is clear you have abused the edit process.MarkR1717 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

I take you initials in vain at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

GW too much noise

Can you comment please on the apparent misinterpretation of the source you cite? ThxAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Using CDIAC's figures directly

Currently the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions uses UN statistics from CDIAC. I would like to suggest that we use the figures directly from CDIA's own website for 2 reasons.

1. CDIAC's figures are revised after they come out. What they currently display on their website [4] are their latest calculations. Thus their 2004 data set is more accurate than the UN's data set that was obtained from CDIAC's first data set. I know this because I emailed them and asked them about the lack of correspondence between their own data set and that of the UN data set supposedly from them for 2004 and they responded by saying that the data set displayed by the UN had been revised.

2. CDIAC's figures on its own website are more regularly updated. The UN webpage has not been updated since August 2007. CDIAC's own website has 2005 figures and they indicated to me that they "are currently working on the final data for 2006 and expect to have that posted soon". Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore's nine errors

You should allow my edit because: First of all they a high court judge has said they are errors. Therefore it doesn't warrant quotes. (They are referred to elsewhere in the section as errors, without quotes, too.) Secondly, I came to the page looking for quick reference (on error number 8, as it happens). Future users may be looking for the same kind of thing. Must they go to the newspaper article? Why? (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No. A high court judge has not said they were errors. If you read the Dimmock case you will find that it is in fact the judge who uses the 'errors' (in quotes) .. it didn't originate with me. And your description doesn't follow the article... Perhaps you should have noticed the "alleged" part? There is an entire article on this btw.: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha. I didn't know the list was there (looked like the sort of article that would be heavy going). How do you feel about me changing "Further information:" to "Further information, including a list of the notorious errors:"? (Edit: I'm still not seeing the "alleged" part, in fact I can't find that word in the wikipedia article... where do you mean?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the "Notorious Errors" anything like The Notorious Byrd Brothers? That was a pretty good album. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I see now that "errors" in the judge's lingo is shorthand for "statements that were not representative of the mainstream." I thought Kim was just trying to imply "not actually errors". (Stop trying to distract me with The Byrds, it might work.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
OK: so I'm going to add the line "See also the above article for a often-cited list of nine departures from the scientific mainstream in An Inconvenient Truth." (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of talk "Greenhouse effect"

You give no reason for your reversal, apart from a "forum". Thus your action is quite arbitrary, may I invite you to seek arbitration? Until you can substantiate what makes you unhappy with my contributions and they are supported by a responsible decision, I think you should refrain.--Damorbel (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A sufficient number of editors have stated this for you. Sorry. You have a significant consensus against you (ie. you against everyone else), i suggest that if you feel that you are being mistreated, that you are the one that should seek arbitration.
Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected Broken link to Once a Soldier on Inhofe page.

The following is from the Inhofe discussion. I posted the correct link that remains broken in the note section.

(dis)honourable discharge? I don't see info to settle [11] either way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - its old vandalism, that hasn't been reverted. This article has had a rather persistant vandal for some time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is the vandlaised version? The dis-version? What is the source for the hon-version? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dis- version was vandalism. I have no reasons to suspect anything else. The SP4 and private part are probably also correct, but currently not verifiable (unless someone fixes the link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct link is however there is nothing about his discharge only that he received a Good Conduct Medal. rlmmlr 26 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlmmlr (talkcontribs) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Global warming" articles and biographies

K. Dabelstein Petersen plainly has a strong belief in the "global warming" scare, but he must not impose that belief on the Wikipedia entries he edits. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Being shirty

Sorry if I've been a bit short tempered with you over the last couple of days. You're usually pretty polite so I should not get you confused with ruder editors, even if you do agree with them. I've just been wound up by people using an axe when a scalpel would have been far better. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

gw lead int link

I shouted that rv of yours onto the GW TP. Hope you can contribute. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

Planting trees is not a minority view, see talk page. --Chuck (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


It will cost me $1300 a year to heat my home due to this tax. I only make $43,000. Fuck you.

Hmmm? I hadn't noticed that i have ever argued for a carbon tax, or that i apparently should be able to have any sort of influence on what seems to be american legislature.... Perhaps a more calm explanation of you qualms would be in order? Possibly without childish expletives? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hilarious. I'd copy it to your UP. :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not gaming!

Please see my talk for a response to you reasonable but incorrect accusation. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


to avoid edit war i tp'd in response to your rv of me on the ATP Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am watching the talkpages - you do not need to point out that you've answered or commented there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring at User talk:Isonomia

I think he's well within his rights to remove the warning entirely if he wants, but refactoring them creates an incorrect impression that you made the remarks as he presented them. Cool Hand Luke 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering

Hydraulic geoengineering has been moved to Large-scale hydraulic engineering projects. This may influence your comments at the AfD. Clarification requested. -Atmoz (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pls repropose if you don't like it as WP:NEO no longer applies. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the pot calling the kettle black

Look Kim, I'm well aware of the systematic bias you, Connolley and others are introducing into wikipedia. When I googled you, I got over a 1000 hits containing negative comments about the undue bias you are applying to climate change articles and I've confirmed much of what was said by examining the talk pages and history of many of these articles. This bias is clearly against wp:npov policies. Anytime anyone adds anything to a climate related page which contradicts your beliefs, you or a proxy keep removing it under some premise. In this case, you are complaining about references and when I supply one, you find a way to deprecate it. I know full well you are well aware of the references supporting what I say as your bias is even present in many of the articles which support hypothesis other than anthropomorphic forcing as the primary climate change mechanism. I don't see the point in tracking down all of the references when all you will do is find a way to deprecate them, besides, most of what I say is based on first principles, which should be reference enough. My only agenda is to get the science right, which is clearly something you seem unconcerned about.George2wiki (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've accidentally done three "reader tests" on the main Global Warming article, checking how the article deals with issues I've seen raised in different parts of the press. In each case the article failed pretty spectacularly, having nothing whatsoever on a man who appears to be a prominent dissident (Dr Will Happer), nothing on soot - and the article doesn't mention Antarctica! (I checked because sea ice there is not shrinking but expanding, and everyone from the British Antarctic Survey down apparently knows it). I reported the results of my "tests" as humbly as I can, even falsely claiming I don't know how to fix the glaring problem. The result is aggressive questioning, demands that I answer technical questions and when I demur, unwanted visits to my TalkPage accusing me of hand-waving. I've examined the TalkPages too, quite instructive how many civil and technical people over the years have been sent packing with a flea in their ear. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet more handwaving and a direct acknowledgement of breech of WP:AGF ("tests","falsely claiming"). And still you haven't replied to any questions. Sorry - but you have gotten an answer with regards to your questions about Happer, apparently you've just chosen to disregard them. Let me make it very clear then: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and personal opinions of various "prominent people" are not mentioned on the article Global warming, just as the opinion of the (to say the least) extremely more prominent scientist Stephen Hawkins isn't mentioned (here is his opinion). As for Antarctica, somehow you must have missed Stephans explanation[5]. We also do not mention this, because the article's focus is global and as an overview (which is why this isn't going in either (imho)).
Basically every answer to you boils down to: Popular media is a poor source for science. And WP is not the news. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reality check - Kim is constantly reverting my edits saying AGW is more severe than expected. You could almost accuse him of being a denier! So behave... Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar-lightbulb3.png The Technology Barnstar
You have a wonderful knack of being where you are needed most. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

long term effects of GW

Thanks for your patient teaching. It's hard work, and I don't agree with everything you say, but it's great that you're taking the time and effort to test me. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give it another kicking please? I want in in mainspace shortly. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith / edit warring / vandalism

See Talk:Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage#Bio-energy_with_carbon_storage. There is demonstrably no consensus for deletion, so please leave it alone until the consensus has emerged. In the absence of any new consensus for deletion, it stays. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Try actually understanding whats going on. There is no deletion - there is a merge. 2 different things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no merge. No content was merged. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Can you perhaps try and improve rather than just drive-by tagging? I'm often left wondering why the refs don't satisfy you. EG B&A clearly describe a runaway event, albeit a slow once. What's wrong with that? This has happened before, on LTEoGW, and it jsut leads to a quagmire with you repeatedly saying you don't agree with a version but never actually editing it constructively. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No where in the B&A article is the word "runaway" or "run away" used (not irreversible or any other wording to that effect). They are simply talking about a feedback effect, feedback effects are not runaway events. So it is definitively not "clear". The trouble here is the same as it has been every time, you do not relate what the references say, but what you want the references to say. Its the usual WP:SYN and WP:OR mess as usual, and the not very fun part of this - is that you've been pointed out before, that this reference doesn't state this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Andrew deliberately misstates things. The problem seems to be that he just doesn't understand the science, so he builds his own interpretation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Boris knows it. I would like to say that, in addition, he rephrases science in the way that environmental lobbyists would - for example, a positive feedback is not necessarily runaway, but if there are no negative feedbacks and only a strong positive one, it is; environmentalists just state "runaway" for popular appeal and to not sound dry. This is the fundamental issue over the past several months. Awickert (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm racking my brain trying to figure out how the Earth's climate system can have a positive feedback without any negative ones. -Atmoz (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The initial pulse of CO2 triggers a methane release, which over thousands of years triggers further warming greater than the original forcing. How is that not a runaway event? I try to write for the general reader, who uses familiar terms they read in newspapers and see on TV (NB I still aim to use the terms technically correctly). I think that's how WP should be written - aimed at the educated general reader. I'm not stupid, and just because someone disagrees with me doesn't automatically make me wrong in a scientific argument. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
So by your "dumbing down" of definitions to cater to the "general reader" - feedback becomes "runaway"? Interesting - but not really usable as an argument. A feedback is not per definition "runaway" - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea: the problem is in interpretation. I see the PETM, for example, and see a temperature spike, surrounded by some other ones. I think that something caused temperature to go up, and then it went down again because of some other factor. I wouldn't call it "runaway" as I would if, for example, a feedback loop caused exponential temperature growth until Earth was like Venus, and it never restabilized back to standard Earth-like conditions. However, "runaway" is in wide use in the environmental public literature and blog-o-sphere. In these, it basically states that our CO2 emissions will trip something in the Rube Goldberg machine 'o climate and cause enormous wild horrible rapid temperature change that threatens all of us. In any case, I think that we're butting heads because of different science and environmentalist interpretations of these things, as this is a topic that crosses both of those areas. So maybe we should define runaway climate change as popularly defined by environmentalists (because I think it is more widely used by them than by climatologists), and then look at what literature environmentalists cite to support it... not sure if they do that... but something like that could maybe put the brakes on this craziness. Awickert (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

James Hansen

Re: [6]

I agree the addition was unwarranted, but not because it's undue weight. It's already in the article as the last paragraph in the section James Hansen#Global temperature data. Well, maybe it is undue weight to say the exact same thing twice in one article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess i'm a bit tired ;-) But i still find the text itself giving undue weight to a newsbite, if there is anything interesting in it, its Hansen's usufruct comment. As it stands, it gives way too much weight to McIntyre, and the correction. Just as Hansen thinks the media did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's just say I agree with you, but don't think it's worth fighting over—which would most certainly happen if it was totally removed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Solomon article

Wow. I am perhaps 3/4 of the way through the first Solomon article (economart's reply posted 16 April at 9:29), and I just want to scream! At him, because he's just not getting it, and at you, because at first I see you being phenomenally articulate in explaining Wikipedia's policies and procedures, but in post after post, you aren't hitting the key point that I want to say, namely:

Sir, if we were to opt to abandon WP:RS and WP:V, and instead use your "truth", how would we recognize it?

I mean, Kim, I know that you know this (your posts are truly wonderfully clear and well-reasoned, with only one slip that I saw), but this question is so obvious that I don't see you saying it. After all, I want to say to him, If "truth" is so readily accessible, then why is it never used? Why do people disagree at all? Why fight and have policy disagreements and even wars? If the truth is so clear, the only reason for any dispute would have to be if you assume bad faith on the part—of all of civilization.

When I first came to Wikipedia, I enjoyed debating on the talk page, in the thought that I would find "truth". I didn't even care if I won or lost the argument, I just wanted truth to prevail. Actually, I still want that. But I recognize that that's not how we roll; we have to settle for consensus, and hope that it is grounded in WP:RS.

Anyway, I'm going to go back and finish the Solomon articles, then I have to go back to Bjorn Lomborg and tell you why I disagree with you there. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading your comments on the FP page. Unschool 21:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that in your post of Apr 20 2008, 4:37 PM, you come pretty close to doing what I had wanted you to do before. Good show. Unschool 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, its appreciated. The trouble here is that people in general do not see truth as subjective, as you can also determine from the comments, therefore its rather hard to boil things down to your single sentence, and at the same time try to bring across the point. The trouble is really that people do not weight their sources, they simply go by what their guts tell them, or what rubs them the right way according to their worldview - we all do more or less.... Thanks also for the "clear and well-reasoned", since this is hard to determine, as English isn't my native language, i have to work a bit ;-) btw. what was the "slip" you referred to? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered a post I made earlier today on the talk page of a silly little article that probably doesn't even need to exist; check it out; I imagine you'll understand the sentiment. That's not to say that you and I will see eye to eye most of the time. I just think we both understand the need for Wikipedia's policies. Cheers. Unschool 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Improving Global warming controversy.

Thank you for your note KimDabelsteinPetersen but for me it is unclear, I think you are suggesting that there should be some kind of limitation on the discussion over what is suitable content for the article. If this is the case there should be some guidance, are you able to indicate what ways you think will be acceptable for improving the article on Global warming controversy? In particular you seem to feel that I am not taking into account the "talk page" guide lines ; however I read this in the "talk page" guide lines where it says "should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles" Well an important aspect of the global warming controversy is the poor science e.g. the alleged heating of the Earth by a cold troposphere. Now this may not mean much to you, but it is common knowledge among those familiar with the Second law of thermodynamics that this does not happen in nature, heat flows only from a hot object to a cold one, if it flowed the other then perpetual motion would be possible. If you do not understand this you are not in a position to comment or even edit contributions of mine. As it is you freely interfere with my contributions. Perhaps it is that I, relative to you, am inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia and thus clumsey in what I do. The speed with which you delete my contributions and lack of explanation from you will not improve my contributions so I ask you to take a more positive attitude and see if we can improve Wikipedia together. Thanking you in anticipation and looking forward to a helpful collaboration. --Damorbel (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS as a gesture of goodwill you could remove this deletion [7], pleeaase!--Damorbel (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We discuss improvements to the articles, via a reliable sources, not by venting our personal original research on what we believe is correct or not. And i'm sorry to tell you (just as everyone else) that your "interpretation" of the 2nd law is nonsense. I will state this once more: The 2nd law is about net flow - not no flow. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen, thanks for you observations. Thermodynamics is a well established science, it describes the flow of energy in mathematical terms, there are many many reliable sources. You must be unfamiliar with this branch of physics or you would never make such a distinction as " net flow - not no flow", I notice you provide no reference for this; there are plenty of original works by Kirchhoff, Clausius, Boltzmann, Planck etc. where you can find out why your assertion is incorrect, for modern literature look here [8]. Your assertion would make me smile but for the fact that I regard Wikipedia as a valuable resource to be treated with respect, your assertion is disrepectful and marks your edits as below the necessary standard for the Global warming controversy in Wikipedia.

That a group of highly motivated people known as the AGW protagonists are very active in writing a vast quantity of literature, quoting each other extensively does nothing to validate their claims, claims that should stand in the face of reasonable criticisms made in the light of thermodynamics.

Nothing that have written so far indicates that you have any knowledge to challenge what I have contributed as being unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, so I hereby ask you nor to delete any more of my contributions and restore those you have made. Thanking you in advance.--Damorbel (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr./Ms./Dr. D. We've spoken before. Now I happen to spend almost none of my time thinking of radiative heat transfer; however, I have a few simple thoughts that I hope Kim won't mind cluttering his talk page (he of course has the right to kick us off :) ).
  1. You seem to assert that there can not only be no net radiative heat transfer from a cold body to a warm body, but that there can be no transfer period. By this, do you mean to imply that radiation given off by a 500K body may never reach a 1000K body? I really doubt this.
  2. If I'm wrong, and you do accept that a cold body's radiation can be received by a warmer body (though net transfer is always toward the colder), then continue: Imagine a warm body, next to a vacuum. The warm body will radiate into the vacuum, and after some period of time, the temperature will decrease until the rate of heat produced by the body equals the rate lost. Now imagine a warm body, surrounded by a cooler body, surrounded by vacuum. Would it not make sense that, if the cooler body could radiate some heat toward the warm body, that the warm body would then have a higher equilibrium temperature?
Granted, these are off the top of my head, but they represent my fundamental concerns with what you say (as myself, not citing any sources). Awickert (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not clear. It is essential to distinguish between radiation and heat transfer, the presence of a radiation field does not define heat transfer, no more than two bodies in contact defines heat transfer. Heat tranfer is dependent on temperature difference, always from hotter to colder, be it by contact (conduction) or radiation. Two bodies remote from each other and above 0K have both an electromagnetic radiation field, the magnitude of which can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law well known for the T4 dependency. If these two bodies have the same temperature then the fields are equal and no heat is tranfered. When they have different temperatures the heat transfer is proportional to the difference of the 4th powers, see here [9].

This is not ground breaking science, it has been around since the 19th century, why it is not more generally known I do not know, even those claiming to know about quantum theory seem not to realise that quantum theory emerged from this 19th century science.

I have copied this to my own talk page, I think Kim will be happier.--Damorbel (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for one more round, and then move to your talk if necessary. So it seems you (perhaps by a convention I don't know about) define heat transfer as net transfer of heat. That makes sense then. If I extrapolate your statement about heat transfer being proportional to the difference of T4 between two bodies, I would say that you would seem to agree with my previous statement that a body with a temperature intermediate between a warm body and a vacuum would thereby slow the rate of net heat loss from that warm body. I assume my conjecture of your opinion is wrong, because it goes against your argument. But my conjecture of what you say seems to work with my argument that a cool body between a warm body and a cold body may slow the rate of heat loss from the warm body and thereby cause the warm body to have a higher steady-state temperature. Awickert (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(See my talk page)--Damorbel (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Do you see any difference between heat tranfer and "net heat tranfer"? --Damorbel (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold Fusion mediation

Greetings, Kim! GoRight pointed out that you have been participating in the cold fusion mediation. I have responded on the mediation page itself, but in case you missed it (due to the recent flurry of activity), here it is for your convenience:

I held little belief that the list of editors to whom I sent notifications and whose names I included in the introductory section would be "complete". I have stated that all are welcome to suggest additional editors to be added to the "involved participants" list. In retrospect, I should have made it clearer that this included suggesting oneself. GoRight and Kim, if you wish to participate, which you are certainly welcome to do, I ask that you read through the introductory material and sign your name in the participation section. If either of you have issues with the mediation process I have laid out, please list them alongside your name in the participation section (as several other editors have done). GoRight, thank you for pointing this out. With so much discussion being churned out, it is difficult to notice all of the little things at once.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Temperature record of the past 1000 years‎

I am trying to understand why the latest data from 2000 to 2008 from one of the primary sources of Data on Global climate change is somehow not considered to be relevant ? Is the source considered not scientific ? Is there dis-agreement with the actual Data ? Isn't current data from the last 9 years, critically important to this discussion. If in the year 2019 its still getting colder, will we still be ignoring the data ? 2029 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hailtomaximus (talkcontribs) 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read this, which will answer some of your questions. The main point here is that you are cherry-picking two points on a graph, and assuming that its of import without having a secondary reliable source to state this .. That is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

Its clear we approach this topic for very different viewpoints.

Interesting that I am told I am cherry picking, when the graph stops at 2004 ? I thought that quoting NASA as primary source would be sufficient without a second source. I would love to see an updated graph. Its amazing that in 2009, the graph stops at 2004....this is a clear example of cherry picking.

I see that 30 years is now the minimum period to determine a trend. Isn't that Cherry picking to avoid the cooling trend from the 40s thru the 70s ? 30 years just bareley covers the recent warming period. Amazing.

In 1995, it was only 20 years from 1975 (Cooling), so thats outside the 30 years required for a trend.

Can you site a single source in the peer reviewed scientific journal that predicted the cooling from 2000(1998) to 2009 ?Hailtomaximus (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I, William Connolley, award you this Ceremonial Mace to mark your inauguration as Demon-in-Chief [1] of the wikipedia Global Warming pages. May your reign be long and fruitful, and may you find a worthy successor to pass it on to in due course William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re [10] it looks like you've taken over the mantle of demon-in-chief. Pity there isn't a barnstar for it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotflmao. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I grovel in awe of Your magnificentness and am unworthy of sharing the same intertubes as You. What are the secret scripts You are using to maintain Your omniscience over all the climate pages? I am humbly aware that once You tell me You may have to kill me, or have one of Your minions perform the task. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reversions

rv please keep WP:OR on your talk-page. WP is not a FORUM. (as you've been told repeatedly). State it with reliable sources without WP:SYN - and we can talk. using [[W)

Think you need to justify this, Kim.--Damorbel (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been justified repeatedly on your personal talk page, and everywhere else where you've peddled your misunderstanding about the laws of thermodynamics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Justified repeatedly? You say here [[11]] "I will state this once more: The 2nd law is about net flow - not no flow." Since this forms no part of thermodynamics (got a reference?) it is probably a misunderstanding on your part. Be so kind as to give some reference, otherwise it does read rather like a POV or OR, something I think you would be anxious to avoid. The concept of heat flowing in two directions is absurd. The mistake is to confuse radiation propogation with heat flow. This is mistaken for a number of reasons not least of which is that heat flows by a different mechanisms, two more are conduction and convection, but neither involve anything that could be described as net flow.

You claim I do not understand the second law of thermodynamics, do you have a link to an exposition of your understanding? With such an exposition we might get to some agreement. I am satisfied with this one Second law of thermodynamics, perhaps you can tell me where it goes wrong.--Damorbel (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can answer my exposition on your talk first...? Awickert (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to but if you want to maintain there are two kinds of heat transfer (net and some other) we are not only on the different platforms, we are not even in the same universe. Heat is not a vector quantity, radiation is; but, like I pointed out before, radiation is not heat. To expand, heat is basically the energy and momentum contained in the translational motion particles; when heat is exchanged between particles by the exchange of momentum the energy of the particles involved changes also. But heat is not the momentum (vector quantity) of the individual particles because, for a given (stationary) sample this sums to zero. However it is the momentum of the particles that is exchanged with those of another body that determines how heat is going to be exchanged.

When considering momentum exchange one tends to think of particle collisions as in kinetic theory, but it can also be by the EM fields generated by electric charge. At high densities the collision process dominates because collisions are much more likely than radiation exchange; in a (near) vacuum collisions become (very) rare whereas radiation (photons) just go on for ever!

The key point is that momentum and radiation are vector quantities; energy and heat (same thing) are not, thus the concept of "net flow" of heat is a non-starter. What frequently confuses people is the non-equilibrium condition of heat flow, generally described as Diffusion where heat move from a high temperature to a lower by random momentum exchange, this is sometimes (mistakenly) thought of as a vector quantity; it isn't and the idea that heat could diffuse in two directions at once is laughable.--Damorbel (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a Rule 5 violation ongoing here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you ever wish to do so, I broke the argument down into paragraphs for your responding pleasure. Maybe you don't realize this, but really do know what radiation is; thanks for your continued explanations. But I'll play your game and use nice terminology; radiation in both directions, heat in one. And yes, so long as you don't think that two bodies can both emit and absorb and therefore reach thermal equilibrium, and that this is related to their absorption as a function of wavelength, we are indeed in different universes. Awickert (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Kirchhoff total absorption/emission is not a function of wavelength since it occurs at molecular dimensions far smaller than the wavelength of thermal radiation. The spectral characteristics you see in radiating/absorbing gases and other materials are due 1st to the resonance characteristics of the gas molecules and 2nd these resonances modified by thermal collision processes, and 3rd Doppler effects (plus various scattering processes)

You wrote "you don't think that two bodies can both emit and absorb". I subscribe to Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, in the link you will find this statement "At thermal equilibrium, the emissivity of a body (or surface) equals its absorptivity." I can go a lot further than this. --Damorbel (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph: wavelength independence fails to explain simple phenomena (some types of radiation passing through different media with different success), and is entirely your reading of Kirchhoff.
Second paragraph: you miss my point: I'm just saying that two bodies radiating at each other will reach a thermal equilibrium.
Third, you may have an issue or two to take up with this skeptic of global warming who addresses the issues you take up.
Fourth, I'm done here, no point in continuing the debate as we will continue to see each others understanding of radiative heat transfer as incorrect. Awickert (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"wavelength independence fails to explain simple phenomena (some types of radiation passing through different media with different success" Wavelength dependent phenomena take place at dimensions more than 1000 times the molecular dimension for absorption and emission, that is why the integration over the wavelength for both is the same.

"and is entirely your reading of Kirchhoff." Not at all [12]

Looked at Roy Spencer's page being a AGW skeptic does not mean his physics is good, he has no analysis that supports his position. By the way, did you notice the date on Spencer's page you linked to? --Damorbel (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"I'm done here" Sorry about that but I cannot understand why you write on this page. Do you know KimDabelstein? Are you defending his deleting my talk contribs.? Nice guy eh? --Damorbel (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

On another tack, You said:

Your comment on Carbon dioxide, is not only outside of what is content related, but it is so full of errors that it is horrible. Venus should not be that warm because it is closer to the Sun (see: Stefan's law), and comment about what fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2 is ignorant (hint: 99% of the atmosphere doesn't absorb infrared, and is thus irrelevant to the greenhouse effect), and finally the anthropogenic part of CO2 in the atmosphere is >35% ((380ppm-280ppm)/280ppm)*100%. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephan's Law assumes equal input...the fact that proximity to the sun affects temperature should be self-evident to even the most closed-minded of zombies. If it did not, then Mercury and Pluto would have the same temperature, since neither of them have an appreciable atmosphere. Thanks for playing, but you lose. Proximity to the sun IS significant, whether you like it or not. Cite an ACCURATE source for your 35%, since the source cited on the CD page is invalid, since you pointed it out, I have called it into question on the talk page there as well. They didn't even do the math IN THEIR OWN ARTICLE correctly (375 minus 315 != 100)

Nice attempt to fudge their numbers, by the way, (changing their 315 to a 280, and their 375 to a 380) however, merely emphasises your own dishonesty. Redwood Elf (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you must like that Aqavit... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Dane - whatever did you expect? Aquavit is in our blood ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

You may wish to comment here. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The boosters are continuing to try to remove a balanced view from the page. See the new RFCs on the Talk page. Thanks for your comments. ► RATEL ◄ 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)

I've rewritten Heaven and Earth (book), about which you had expressed some concerns; see what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop censoring discussion panels

Hi, Kim. It seems You've deleted my thread in discussion on climate change denial. I'd like to believe it was a mistake. Don't do this anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Sorry, but you need to read up on WP:TALK. Wikipedia is censored in this regard, it is not a soapbox or a debate forum. As for the content, criticism sections are discouraged on wikipedia, since they are prone to becoming coatracks for POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Read "Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets". The fact that someone tagged me doesn't mean you're entitled to delete my thread from a discussion panel. This is rude78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Get an account, you will still be as anonymous as you want, but that way your reputation doesn't rely on such things, but instead on your edit-history. But its not for sockpuppetry that your edit is being removed (in case you didn't notice). You still haven't changed anything - despite being pointed out what is wrong, here, and in several revert summaries. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(since you started talks on 2 talkpages I post on both for those who follow our polemic)
Yes' I've read talk page guidelines and it says "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"...
You keep deleting discussion sipmply because you don't agree with my point and don't want it to stay visible to editors who might provide sources in the future. This is the kind of censorship I've never seen on Wikipedia before. If you don't like my agruments point that out in discussion. Instead you prefer to abuse the dicretional term of a soapbox which, again, doesn't entitle you to delete discusions. (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page. And as i said before - Wikipedia is censored with regards to what you can and cannot discuss on talk-pages, and what is appropriate for articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Calling my thread "a soapbox" is your discretional opinion. The problem is you usurp the right to decide what can be discussed and what cannot. (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry. The last part of you comment isn't supported by reliable sources, and is thus 100% your own personal opinion, and cannot be/will not be useful for the article. ie. it can't go in, per WP:V. The first part of your comment is content related, and might include a possible useful content related discussion - but the latter part isn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand You don't like the examplary arguments I gave for a proposed "Criticism" section. If so, discuss them instead of deleting/hiding them. Possibly this will result in good English-language sources from other editors. BTW editing discussion panels isn't as restricted as editing articles, thus sources aren't always necessary to start a thread. (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I added a few sources78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the support on my talk page. I suspect this editor knows just what they are doing, given their POV edits to Linux nav template.... something I've happened to notice you fixing... Yworo (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Watts


Re. and the 'meteorologist' / 'weather presenter' issue: no objections were made to my final arguments in talk. I believe that edit should stand. Of course, Watts' fans do not want this and are reverting the change. Your thoughts, please?

Also, re. the video incident, would you agree that it's noteworthy and just requires acceptable sources? MonoApe (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"no objections were made to my final arguments in talk." - I have corrected this problem, [13]. --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Update RSS & UAH

Please see my comments here Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunSw0rd (talkcontribs) 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

False illusions?

Re [14]: would you prefer to be under a true illusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Well i was very aware of the double negative there... (i wondered if anyone'd notice) :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Pedants are watching everywhere. Which reminds me of Brian Gardeners quote: the true scientist is not a pedant, but occaisioanlly has need of the services of a true pedant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Re: on Singer's talk page I see you included "there is nothing strange or new about this, no red flags are being raised". I am just curious what this means. --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the statement: "contrarian scientist", its replicated all over the place, so it doesn't raise any red flags at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Boris raising red flag every morning at Collective Farm Group, duty to Party always being performed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't crazy ...

Per our recent conversation regarding the way that reverts are counted, I happened to run across this blast from the past wherein we have a glimpse of what I recall the way they were counted, note the following:

  • That revert was totally unrelated to the other reverts. Also his comments were justified. Count Iblis 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just for measure the 1st revert isn't one - it gets self-reverted immediatly afterwards. (not that it really matters) --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    Actually it is. The self revert was only partial. Part of the original revert remained. As I see it. --Blue Tie 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now if things have changed to be more clear that is fine, I'm happy to live by the rules here. I just wanted to note that I wasn't making up my previous interpretation out of whole cloth, in case you thought I was somehow. --GoRight (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What is there that you think contradicts what i said before? Iblis is simply wrong, just as i was incorrect in my assumption that Raul's edit was a complete self-revert. And as i noted: It wouldn't matter anyways - since Raul got over 3RR no matter what. And he got blocked for it. (as you can see). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything contradicts you. It is just a comment on what I think are shifting norms. "Iblis is simply wrong" - By the current standard, yes, but by the standard in place back then? I don't think so. Iblis isn't stupid. He would have never made a statement so clearly at odds with the current norm, thus suggesting that the norm was different back then and it was in line with what I remembered. But if things have changed, they have changed. I have no problem with that as the new standard appears to be more objective which I like. --GoRight (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
My first 3RR case (which was dismissed), had the very same rules - and that was way back before "then". So i don't think anything has changed. I haven't seen any "new standards". You are putting too much into Iblis' comments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Bet you two cold Carlsbergs that this Bioextra person who did the moves is Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

May I join the bet? Two Tuborg on Scibaby. But you need to see the advantages, too! Take into consideration the 20-30 good edits scibaby does before engaging on the global warming articles and multiply those with the 300+ scibaby socks. He turns out to be one of wikipedia's most valuabe editors :-) (although one should probably take into account the valuable time Raul and you guys have wasted on him...) SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually when it is beer, i'd prefer Guiness, i'm simply a dark beer guy, despite living in a country obsessed with Pilsner. But to answer your questions: No Bet! I never bet on outside odds ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

Hi there, you've made many helpful edits to An Inconvenient Truth; right now it's undergoing a peer review and I would love if you could help participate, especially in fixing the prose. Thanks for your help!--The lorax (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Dear Kim, I would like you to consider, given that Solomon has written against you scathingly in the print media a number of times, whether or not you have a conflict of interest in now editing Solomon's biography. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what the conflict of interest is. I have no dislike of Mr. Solomon, nor did i take his op-ed as much other than the ventings of someone unfamiliar with wikipedia who was slighted (which i btw. have politely replied to - as you can see on my main page). Feel free to take it up on relevant notice boards if you feel that any of my edits/comments are problematic with regards to this or other things- --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


To all interested parties, I have opened the following discussion at WP:AN: [15]. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Lawson

Hi, I noticed you reverted my removal of the Nigel Lawson quote. There has been some decent and well expressed criticism of Lawson's views: that he fails to look beyond a hundred years, that he is perhaps selective in describing the consequences of global warming. I just don't think this is very good. The problems with this quote are firstly, taken out of context, this is an extremely vague criticism: it's uncertain whether the author is referring to Lawson's assessment of the scale of the problems caused when he speaks of "uncertainty" or whether he is saying the economic case is wrong. Secondly, as well as being vague, it is sanctimonious and patronising. This sentence, in particular "it is tempting therefore to just ignore this contribution to the debate, but a more positive approach is to re-address these uncertainties" adds nothing of consequence but it gives the impression the quote was selected as a way of calling Nigel Lawson names. Finally, and this is what I was getting at when referred to weight, Nigel Lawson is never given a hundred words to make his case. I don't object to a negative quotation, just not this sort of vapid negativity which only conveys the fact that someone didn't think much of his book. I'd suggest Richard Lambert from the Guardian.[16]-- (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, I've replaced the quote with a different critical excerpt. Having read the book, I honestly don't understand what that criticism was supposed to refer to and I get the impression its author has not read past the introduction. He has mistakenly assumed that Lawson's purpose is to gather lots of material from scientists who have said various things are uncertain and to turn it into an argument that no-one knows whether global warming is happening. It's a good generic criticism of books that are sceptical about global warming but has nothing whatever to do with this particular book, which basically assumes the science is correct. -- (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban heat island

Hi Kim D. Petersen,

The requirements of a GA are given here: WP:WIAGA; and I assessed the article for broadness and WP:verifiability as well as style and content. I verified the statements in the article against either the cited reference-article summaries or the references directly where I had access to them. I am not a subject matter expert, so I'm not in a position to detect undue weight. You had the opportunity over the last six days to make appropriate comments on the GA review page whilst the review was On Hold, but did not do so; and you were active on wikipedia during that time. OK you did add them after I had finished (and passed the article) and then moved them to this talkpage. If you wish to continue to object to my assessment and/or the classification of the article then you are welcome to take it to WP:GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I'm opposed to "See also"

Just wanted to say a little more on my feelings about "see also" - I am very much an outsider to the GW debate. For me, I don't care much about whether it's happening, because even if there is a 1% chance that GW is true, I want us to prepare for it. We scan the skies for meteorites that MIGHT have a 1% chance of hitting us in 30,000 years, but here we are quibbling about whether the GW evidence is strong enough to act.

So my view is, there is plenty of evidence NOW for us to start taking steps to avert it. The endless debate only gives the deniers (the true deniers, those who are acting in bad faith) a mechanism for stalling.

My concern here at Wikipedia is that there is such a strong need to discredit deniers, that we frequently cross the line into demonizing the opposition. This is a bad thing, because neutral readers like me who come along are put off by the overly negative language directed at skeptics and deniers. Also, it gives the deniers ammunition, e.g. "look at Wikipedia, beating up on this poor skeptic". We've seen it with Lawrence Solomon's articles, which were based on real concerns about (I believe) out-of-context implications that Fred Singer believed in martians.

My point in all this is, there is plenty of solid material to put in these articles without crossing the line into demonization. Take a guy like Plimer - it's clear he's evading Monbiot's questions, but does that make him a fraud? Maybe he's just clumsy or stupid. I don't know, only he knows. But when you add "see also: denier", you label him and accuse him, and passerby editors like me pause and say, "wait a minute, where does it say that?", and we end up distrusting the article and the editors who put the claim in the article.

That's why it's better, even if you disagree with him, to err on the side of caution, and to make sure the documentation is rock solid. If I came and saw a straightforward presentation of the Monbiot-Plimer interaction, I'd be inclined to distrust Plimer, but if I see "see also: denial" without any context, I'm inclined to distrust the article.

ATren (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Shocker: I mostly agree with ATren here. Saying "Plimer is a (whatever)" diverts attention from the blatant errors in his science and instead makes things personal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Does that repulse you? :-) ATren (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Errr.... no, why do you ask? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I just get the impression that you would. We are often on different sides of the debate (though, I suspect, not on different sides of most issues) and you have been pretty critical of me in the past. ATren (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The "shocker" was a reference to one CabalTM member daring to disagree with another. We're the "IPCCab", as Cla68 calls us, and are incapable of thinking independently so something must have gone badly wrong. As for your comment, it is likely I will be critical of you in the future. It is also possible that I will agree with you in the future. Even people that I disagree with 90% of the time, or 99% of the time, I've no problem agreeing with for that last 10% or 1%. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, I misunderstood the reason for your "shock". :-) ATren (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Interestingly enough i'm not convinced either way. I do not care whether Plimer is put down as a denier or not... All of my argumentation have been on points where there was misrepresentation (either way). It doesn't fit sceptic/denier/proponent/advocate/neutral/whatever to "bend" reality, or to grasp for straw to argue a point. Try going back over my arguments, and you will find that i'm not arguing either way. The Cooney situation is related but quite different with regards to both sources, and the reason for linking.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge BS

The usual suspects are trying to kill a perfectly valid page: 350 (organisation). Check out the talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 09:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I'm the usual suspect in question. Oh please help Ratel stop me from pushing my anti-environment agenda. -Atmoz (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Come on Atmoz, you know that you are a foaming around the mouth septic to the letter :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to the Denier-Cabal Atmoz! I am so excited that you have finally decided to join us! Now what about you, Kim? Aren't you going to join as well? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Too late Alex, i've already (almost) been labelled such this year[17] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of advocacy on Tipping point article

Please see my comment on that talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 02:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

your revert at Lindzen talk

Kim, I have noted this revert. My understanding is that any editor may remove the personal attacks of another editor, with or without that editor's permission, see WP:NPA. Now that I know about this scibaby sockpuppet, his actions are quite possibly criminal in many parts of the world. Thus, I regard Raul's accusation that I am scibaby as a serious matter. As noted, I have tried to discuss the matter with Raul but he didn't respond. So why have you reverted my edit? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a serious matter. But it doesn't fall under NPA. Ideally you'd talk this over with Raul. If he won't talk, then you could try requeting a CU on yourself (although since Raul said "based on contribs" not CU evidence, this might not change much) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As WMC said above - plus the really bad one. You refactored Atmoz' comment (which wasn't an personal attack no matter how you stretch the concept), which is not allowed under any circumstances whatsoever. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI I have raised an AN/I. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: learn about what you edit, convenient suggestion The Age of Stupid just watch a movie.

Suggestion: learn about what you edit, convenient suggestion The Age of Stupid just watch a movie.

Curiously, I received the same message from the same IP. I assumed it was related to the All Blacks & me reverting BLP stuff from Wayne Barnes. Perhaps we have both joined the same Cabal -- but which one? You have my permission to delete this if you want to delete the IP remark. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Its from a POV pusher on the subject of To those i believe i am in the same cabal as you (ie. denier (in their view)), because i remove those links as advocacy and spam. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When SYN is not SYN

diff ... the usual suspects.► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


[18]? WP:RS says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the New York Times in the United States". If you can't show me a policy that states that the NYTimes can't be used in that article, then I'm going to have to ask you to self-revert. Cla68 (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for another opinion. Cla68 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but i will stand by my revert. Both because of the sourcing problems with attributing this to a columnist in the NYTimes - and because of the significant WP:WEIGHT problem that this raises. You seem to have gotten the concept of "what is reliable in general" confused with "what is reliable in context". A column in the NYTimes is not appropriate to source a scientific statement like "evidence suggests" from, in an article that mainly concerns itself, and mainly uses, scientific references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


You have broken 3RR on Fred Singer and have been reported for it [19]. BluefieldWV (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You miscalculated. I did one edit and 3 reverts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well - it was I who miscalculated - 1 edit and 4 reverts which i unfortunately can't self-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Paltridge article

You posted a diff, and I don't know how you achieved it, except by spanning intervening edits. Here is the actual diff of when Simon actually removed the section. (I brought this here because I was getting edit-conflicted so much.) UA 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the (unfortunate) null edit in between. What i posted was in fact the net total of Simons edits, which was the intention :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
But his initial edit, which MoP reverted, was simply reinserting the material (even if it was in a different location) into the article. And the null edit seems to have been to simply place the edit-warring warning into the article history. Why is that "unfortunate"? UA 18:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)MoP reverted only one of his edits (the second one in a section move), which is unfortunate, since that seems to have sparked the whole controversy around MoP's involvement. Thus it seems as if MoP is taking a side - i've raised this on MoP's page, since the acknowledgement of this could defuse things a bit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on now, Kim. Not even Simon is claiming this was the "second one in a section move." His claim is that his initial edit was mistaken, and that he thought he was restoring the section when he made that edit. There's nothing for MoP to "acknowledge", here. Simon readded the section (albeit in a different place) after the edit-warring warning was placed. UA 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"Oh come on now" yourself :) Perhaps you should ponder a bit on why Simons first edit was with an edit-summary of "restoring". You are arguing that Simon's intention was to remove the section - which is by both the edit-summary and by Simon's later comments completely wrong. In any case (no matter if the first one Simon did was a mistake or not) - MoP unintentionally removed a section that the last 2 editors wanted, and which hadn't been proposed removed by any editor for over an hour. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


You're missing Simon's first edit. See this for a clearer picture; his first edit was effectively null, while in the second one he did what he had intended to do (restore the edit). After my warning, that was effectively edit warring. I reverted it primarily because it was a mistake, and he wasn't aware of the previous edit war. That being said, I can see how people can see that as supporting a version, even though it was done out of completely different rationale.

Apologies for not replying sooner, by the way. I didn't see your comment amidst all the edit-conflicts. Cheers, Master of Puppets 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, look again - what Simon effectively did was a section move. Your null edit in between doesn't count (of course). I know that this is not what you intended - which is why i've pointed it out :). Move: (A: removal, B: reinsert) - here you break the chain unintended by restoring A instead of going back to the version before A. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth good article review

Hi there, An Inconvenient Truth is under a good article review. Since you've been a major contributor, I invite you to make revisions that will help the article earn GA status.--The lorax (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

My answer to this isn't going to be very appropriate for the talk page of an article as it won't be about that particular page. However, I don't mind if you want to move it there to keep the conversation in one place.

There are some sources that are definitely reliable, and there are some that are not. I doubt that many would argue a meta analysis published in Science or from the Oxford University Press is going to be more reliable than a tweet by Randy. But the question of whether a particular source is reliable requires the answer to be either yes or no. I think that the reliability of Wikipedia is directly related to the reliability of its sources. For this reason, I prefer the line on what is a reliable source to be extremely high. I know that inclusion is based on verifiability not truth, but Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia, not a tabloid that repeats everything that's ever been said. Where the consensus of editors draws the line on what is reliable is going to be fluid as policy gets refined, editors come and go, and as the sources themselves change.

Sorry, I know that's a vague, non-answer. I have no strong opinions on the content. I don't think it's necessary for the article, but I don't think it's a problem that needs to be solved immediately with a BLP hammer either. For what it's worth, even though he is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, I don't think he's particularly notable. The book is certainly not notable. -Atmoz (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly ol' me

A sad tale of futility ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


So many abound.
Sometimes it's best to ignore
Till a block is found.
-Atmoz (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
God morgen. I would suggest fight the socks not the edits. The edits I have seen are really not that bad and I wouldn't class them as vandalism anyway, disruptive edit warring maybe but if you go down that path you both get a block :). Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
God eftermiddag. I do not necessarily disagree, scibaby does at times make good edits - the thing he was banned for though, was the disruptive nature of most of his edits. (see for instance the recent one here[20]). We are fighting the socks, on the average (in the last couple of weeks) there have been 1-2 socks per day, and all in all confirmed socks of scibaby number are >400[21] (not all are there). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC) nb: i agree with you on the polar bears/global warming article btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Puppeter template.svg

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Connolley for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn! You must really be desperate. Check my front. I'm locateable by latitude and longtitude. Sorry - but people can both agree and disagree with you without being socks or meatpuppets. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The cool thing about accusations of meatpuppetry is that unlike accusations of sockpuppetry they cannot be proven or disproven by objective means. One must instead attempt to divine intention. This ensures maximum duration and intensity of drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So based on the evidence, Ig must be a sock of NealParr? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was obvious? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
John Lennon put it best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Information.svg Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [22] ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Desperation... Oh dear. Sorry, but that particular contribution had nothing useful to do with improving the article. It was (it seems) an attempt to call cabal!. The civility of it could be discussed. You should take a look at the policy being quoted in that particular thread - and notice what bullet-point #2 and 3 state. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If you believe I'm being uncivil, please discuss it with me on the article talk page or on my user talk page instead of blanking out article talk page comments. When you blank things out, you call attention to them and raise the level of drama for no reason. Thanks. I'll be returning to that talk page next week. In the meantime, I hope you feel free to answer my remaining question during our exchange here. As for Irbisgreif, I'm glad he left. He was one of a small number of editors who have recently been behaving strangely. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuts on Stephen Schwartz Bio Page

Hello Kim Dabelstein Peterson. I see you have cut much material out of the BLP page . I am not familiar with the jargon of wikipedia but as the subject of the bio I find the material that you have cut germane and accurate. I guess I could simply restore the cut material but would prefer a more or less plain English justification of why you have cut the material and whether and how the material might be restored. -steve schwartz Steve1941 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the only thing i've cut in that article, was the category:American Jews, which i cut because there was no reference for it. I think you are referring to this[23] which was cut by User:Atmoz. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Noted; thank you. Steve1941 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I got sidetracked with real life, but finally responded in Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Inclusion_criteria_is_inappropriate. I can explain further, hopefully after going through the discussions already there in more detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


You Win

I'm resigning from Wikipedia. You are all so much the same. And the information in the articles cannot be relied on because of your sameness. Wikipedia should upgrade from a cult to a recognized full blown religion.

Enjoy your power thrills!

DasV (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. But the trouble was that you fail to understand what Wikipedia is, and what its not. Article talk pages are not "free for all" discussion fora, nor are they soapboxes where we can all shout out our personal views.(like [this]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, KimDabelsteinPetersen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war Mojib_Latif

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TParis00ap (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice (again!)

Hello, KimDabelsteinPetersen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For those of us in the peanut gallery (hey, thats the first time I've used that phrase) could you fill in the bits of the template about what the topic is. ANI is sometimes busy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning - only to one part?

You gave me an 3RR (even though I've not done 3RR). You didn't give ChrisO (talk · contribs) a 3RR even though he has done at least 3RR in the article Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident? Nsaa (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since i haven't had interactions with you before, i had no knowledge of whether you knew the policy or not. On the other hand i did know that ChrisO knew of the 3RR policy. Simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oki, thanks. Nsaa (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, KimDabelsteinPetersen. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm concerned

Kim, I'm becoming increasing concerned about your understanding of Wikipedia policy and how you are apply it to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. You warned User talk:Nsaa for breaking the the three-revert rule. Nsaa listed the diffs in question, and you said "All of the diffs are reverts" (emphasis added). I looked at just the first, and it is not a revert of a single character of a prior editor, but an addition with sources. Under your broad definition, virtually every change to an article would be a revert, and that is simply not true.

With respect to the issue of whether the documents were stolen you accuse me of Original Research, yet what I was saying was clearly not Original Research nor Synthesis.

I realize this is a contentious issue, and many people, myself included, may be guilty of reading and reacting too fast. However, this article is protected, so we have time to calm down and discuss issues in a rational manner.

I don't think this rises to the level that it needs reporting to ANI, but I urge you to read the points made more carefully.--SPhilbrickT 21:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be as concerned as you want - the very first [24] is a partial revert back to duchamps version which was removed here. Perhaps you should try to check things abit more first?
Kim, I fear you missed both points. You said "the very first [25] is a partial revert back to duchamps version which was removed here" Yet the first link is to an edit performed on the 25th of November, and the second link is to an edit performed on the 26th of November. I confess I sometimes have trouble reading diffs and figuring out exactly what happened, but I'm fairly certain you can't revert something before it is removed. Did you cite the wrong diffs?--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It was the wrong diff - and i forgot why i counted it as a revert. It is not the references - but the removal of "stole and" which had been edit-warred over for a long period of time. Its not that easy to notice, but its there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the second part, i suggest you reread your own comment[26], since you were the one throwing around WP:OR first. (and i responded with same).
On Original Research, yes I used it. I think I used it correctly. The discussion isn't who used it first, but who used it correctly. Explaining how a certain observation could plausibly not be a crime may well be Original Research, but that makes it ineligible for inclusion in an article, not ineligible for use in explaining on a talk page why supposed fact might not really be a fact. I did the latter.--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
To mirror you - i'm becoming increasingly concerned with your ability to actually verify things. Feel free to adress this on ANI since i have exactly nothing to hide or be ashamed of. (on the other hand you should apologize for your lack in thorough checking). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you give me a few examples of my inability to verify things? Like anyone, I make mistakes, but strive to do better. I did cite an opinion page of a newspaper, and later learned it was actually a blog. But "increasingly" implies multiple examples. Could you share, so I can improve?--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert war

One of the edits made was my original edit (and therefore not a revert), and another was a complete rewording of the claim (and therefore also not a revert). I made my three reverts and won't make more. However, the reverts made to the comment really weren't fair, since it came down like a ton of bricks saying "no, you're wrong", complete with strawman arguments and outright mob rule logic.

I guess Wikipedia is a place where if enough people agree with you, it becomes true, now isn't it? Macai (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but there are 5 edits. The first is the one i gave as "Version reverted back to", the other 4 are reverts back to that version. So you are at 4RR - not 3. As for the rest: Mu. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In re. Hudson on Climategate e-mails

Your note on Mr. Hudson (of the BBC) is appreciated. Apparently he had not received the full "" archive uploaded successfully on 19 November, but was instead referring in his post of 23 November to a sequence of e-mails apparently originating among some of the CRU correspondents, who were complaining about his on-air remarks in early October, and which he had received on 12 October. Mr. Hudson seemed to have found that string of e-mails reproduced in full when he examined the data dump contained in the uploaded archive. Thus his information serves as a sort of representative "biopsy" of the archive's contents to support the contention that this archive is, indeed, a true reflection of the working files (data, climatological modeling code, etc.) and e-mail communications of the scientists involved in the AGW fraud. Is this your impression?
What has been reported with regard to the best estimate from within the UEA/CRU information technology services department on a date certain upon which the information used to create the "" archive had been copied from their system? The account of the RealClimate hacking shows that on 17 November someone had succeeded in uploading that archive to their computer, but it should be possible to ascertain the time at which UEA/CRU security was compromised and the information was extracted from their computer system.
Please feel free to remove this note from your talk page after review thereof. Thank you. (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can think the Guardian and New York Times are not valid. This information is all over the internet, and the quotes from these two scientists have been quoted everywhere. And how do you see my article addition as "original research"? Exactly what do you object to. I believe that removing my contribution was vandalism. The person should have edited it if he wanted to, but he just removed it. That shows bias. Apparently he (was it you?) did not want the subject mentioned. SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Pete

Are you getting my message now?

Are you getting my message now? SanAntonioPete (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Pete


[27] seems a touch harsh. Have you gone over to the Dark Side? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened there - i haven't done vandalism reverts in quite some time??? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


He has mastered the art of being insulting and provocative while staying just short of clearly sanctionable behavior. Impressive, in a perverse way. The less time you waste on him and his kind the better. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but i also think that it is important to point it out when it happens. This particular one was imho not "short of", which i believe GoRight knows rather well, since he apparently doesn't dare to expand on what he means. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: global warming has peaked

I never said that global warming was ending. However, global warming, at least Wikipedia's understand of it, is defined as "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century", and in this regard, it can have a "current peak". It's like how we can have a "current peak" for population, even though it might go down for a while due to disease or famine or whatever. Same logic applies here; the temperature has hit its current peak since the mid 20th century on 1998, and global warming as a concept is contingent upon average global temperature and nothing else, ergo, global warming has hit its current peak.

But might I ask why you're so inclined to actually take the debate to my talk page? I'm not trying to be impolite or dismissive, but I was under the impression that the decision was largely made since most users (yourself included) were convinced that FAQ Q3 essentially refuted my claim's validity. Is persuading me of this of some significance to you? :O Macai (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The increase in temperatures since the mid-20th century" is a delta value, not the graph of wiggles (which are caused by various forcings (natural and anthropogenic)) or the individual temperatures. When you say that it has "peaked" then you have dropped looking at the delta value, and started looking at temperatures. I simply felt that you were entitled to a more thorough explanation than what article talk space allows. Sorry if that is disturbing you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah, man, don't think I'm being disturbed. I just didn't think anyone cared that much. I'm probably going to go back to editing politically uncharged articles - articles where people won't get upset if you cite a mainstream news source or some random book since there's little reason to lie about stuff. I might be being a bit cynical, but I'm kind of under the impression that articles like global warming, Marxism, and so on are so popular because everyone wants to verify that their POV is dominating the article, and if it's not, to try to impose it. Like I said, cynical, but I think it might have some merit. Off to calmer waters. Cheers. Macai (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: I agree with you cynicism. Just FYI, in case you don't edit science and engineering topics much, the use of scientific sources is highly, highly preferred for even non-controversial science and engineering articles, not because other people are necessarily trying to lie, but just because they can easily get it wrong. So even when I'm writing about sand moving in streams or flow in the Earth's mantle, I try to use only peer-reviewed journal articles and respected books as sources. Awickert (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On canvassing and harassment

I left a response for you on my page. Dimawik (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU draft

Dear Kim: Friendly notice. Bug out. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A friendly notice doesn't come with a predescribed outcome ("I could use some support, if you're willing") as your comment[28] was asking for (ie. "written to influence the outcome" or from the friendly notice section "if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected

I have locked Jim Inhofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week, as discussion seems to have devolved into edit warring. I would like to unprotect the article as soon as possible if discussion can be restarted. I am asking each of the participants to please affirm that until one week from today they will refrain from editing any material at that article that is related to climate change. The idea is to mimic the effects of the lock without the software enforcement. Unless there is a firm consensus at Talk:Jim Inhofe, please do not make any potentially controversial changes. I expect to block any editor who continues to edit disruptively despite assurances to the contrary. I am posting this message to all relevant talkpages; please do not take this as laying blame on any particular editor. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming sceptics

Hi I didn't know this category had been deleted already. I was looking at the article on Tim Ball and others and it struck me it would be good to have a category instead of a list. Why was it originally deleted? Regards I love SUV's (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page of the category (copied here):
Regarding earlier deletion: 1 + a later one which i haven't found the CfD link to yet (it was Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck comment

Hi just to let you know I unstruck User:Ling.Nut's comment here [29]. While I can understand stricking the entire discussion thread that started with a sockpuppet, Ling.Nut was replying to Viritidas and a sockpuppet replied to LingNut so that wasn't the case here. Perhaps you hadn't intended to struck Ling.Nut's comment anyway. I've left the actual sockpuppet's comment struck of course. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake - seems i started the striking too early, and hadn't noticed that Ling.Nut's comment got struck as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


You may not be interested, but check out the 'Matthew Effect,'and Mahoney, Michael J.: Bias, Controversy, and Abuse; Science Technology & Human Values 15,50-55, 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Kim, do you find it all inconsistent that you object to a Cato source as unreliable in a non-BLP, while accepting RealClimate in a BLP? Cato is at least as reliable as RC - Cato a respected think tank with a POV, RealClimate a respected science blog with a POV - so why is the former unacceptable while the latter is acceptable even though the latter is cited in a more restrictive sourcing environment? This seems inconsistent to me. ATren (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, i do not find it inconsistent, you simply have to try to understand more than just the surface of the arguments. The argument at RC is one about due weight as well as reliability of sources. Cato is not a reliable source on science nor on website critique... Michaels may be on the science, but he is representing a minority point of view, and it is very unclear as to whether his view on RC has any significant backing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the fact that the article has 2 praises and once had an entire paragraph filled with praise, one sentence criticizing the website does not give unequal weight. This leaves the minority arguement the only logical option to defend against criticism. The weight argument can only be made if you can prove they hold not just a minority view, but a view that amounts to pseudoscience. As we all know, minority views are welcome, but only if they come from notable and reliable sources. You cannot prove that Cato engages in pseudoscience and you cannot prove they are not reliable or notable. You may disagree with them politically but saying "I DONT LIKE THEM" is not good enough. That is as far as your arguement really goes. You are being incredibly inconsistent.(Meltwaternord (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
(e(c)You are falling into the fallacy of thinking that WP:NPOV means "equal time" to all sides.. It doesn't. Praise and critique must be balanced in such a way as to reflect the prevalence of each. Cherry-picking critique just because it's critique is False balance. And you are still failing to understand that Cato isn't a reliable source, they can only be quoted on issues where they are regarded as experts - or according to due weight where secondary sources have quoted them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As an example of Cato's unreliability their bio of Michaels says he was a contributing author to the IPCC AR4 when in fact he was not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing Cato's reliability per se, only their relative status as a source compared to RC. Both sites feature respected contributors and both have been quoted in media. From an objective perspective, I don't see how you can label RC as fundamentally more reliable than Cato. Yet KDP support RC on a BLP, and opposes Cato on a non-BLP, and I find that contradictory. ATren (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
If Cato is willing to misstate something as basic as the qualifications of their staff, what else could they be lying about? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets see:
  • Cato not a reliable source on science, not a reliable source on website critique, not a reliable source on BLP material.
  • RC reliable source on science, not a reliable source on website critique, not a reliable source on BLP material.
And in all cases the relative perspective of sources must be cited according to relative merit.
  • Pat Michaels, representing a minority point of view on science.
  • Scientific American representing a majority point of view on science.
Does things become clearer now? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Should capital crimes be expanded to fabrication & obfuscation like you support? rndhyd68.180.38.25 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, since i have never commented on capital crimes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PA on my Understanding

[30] -- I don't think you meant a PA on my understanding. Please be careful and talk directly to me on my talk page when you have concerns about me. You will find I am a very reasonable editor with a compassionate heart and fierce logic. Thanks kindly. I must take a break now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

William Connolley

Re William Connolley, could you please explain what specifically you object to in the edit you reverted here? Thanks.—Finell 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i can. Notice how the sentences after the "copy-edit" didn't flow, and how there were several pellingsperrors inserted. As well as how the distinction of what version of Encyclopedia Brittanica got lost ("print-version"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Actually the source didn't say anything about comparing Wikipedia specifically to the print version of Encyclopædia Britannica. The title of the source article is "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" and was comparing the online versions of both. The other problems that I wanted to address are:
  • Journals don't write articles; they publish them.
  • There is no need to cite the same article twice in one sentence (or even in two sentences).
  • The second citation of that article in the sentence gives the wrong title.
  • In "comparison of the relative" the word "relative" is redundant. However, I should have said "compared the".
  • Substituting the active voice for the passive is more concise.
  • In a numerical range like 900–901, only the last 2 digits of the end-of-range are kept: 900–01 (see WP:ENDASH).
Are there different solutions to these problems that you prefer?
I do see that I misspelled "described" . Could you please point out the rest of the "several pellingsperrors [I] inserted"? I guess we both missed the misspelling in Encyclopædia Britannica in the article.—Finell 06:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I may have focused too much on the spelling error (i was writing the above when i was rather tired). I was aware that the citations had been fixed but the rest looked worse (imho). Relative here is referring to the amount of articles compared i think - but go ahead and reinstate with the fixes, and chalk the comment and revert down to caffeine induced grumpiness ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


I don't know scibaby that well, but Fresno Area Rapid Transit (talk · contribs) seems familiar. Thoughts? Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like scibaby - >90% likely methinks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


You won't like my edit. There is some explanation here. --BozMo talk 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually i thought this already was resolved by the Singer thread on BLP - my concerns where on weight and spurious claim of a BLP issue, and since the ABC story says same - i'm not going to revert or otherwise comment. (sorry not to have answered immediately - i was rather concerned and occupied with the next section (below) - which is a *real* BLP problem). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to suppress information.

Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this rather disconcerting and have brought it up on ANI [31] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You reported yourself? That's very noble of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried. btw, I'm sorry the bullet points weren't entirely appropriate on either end (this is assuming both parties are reading), but it's meant as a blank civility agreement to just start over. Call it an "AGF Beans Platter", perhaps. One more try all around, but cramming beans up your nose or other WP:BEANS-worthy activities and *POOF*. Free to game to any sanctions. For parties not misbehaving, it's easy. Others? 90% of the time someone slips. There's very little room for gigantic ANI debate if someone stumbles after things being made that clear. It's a weird view, I know, but since there was no consensus moving toward anything whatsoever anywhere at all, at least this way I could claim I tried even if the debate went on indefinitely anyway. I don't know or particularly care about the "right and wrong" bit since I don't know the situation, but actions speak for themselves and here's one more try to behave. Wander over to WP:BLPN since that all isn't since that must-toted "content dispute" part isn't particular for ANI. Then again, you might have somehow dealt with that, I don't know. I haven't checked. ... Good luck. daTheisen(talk) 02:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Grundle is certainly not going to take advice - he is now in breach of his topic ban as well, since he just edited United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009[32]. Sigh. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Nb. i wasn't stalking - article is on my watchlist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No, because that is an international issue, not a U.S. issue. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You're not stalking me? Then how come you never edited Diane Francis until right after I did? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit would have appeared in Huggle or whatever other flagging tool script or displayof choice as a blind RR. New content was fully removed by one editor with 100% of the original plus more added in next edit. Seeing something like that would get me to check the edit history, at least, as which point it would have become fairly obvious if watchlisted. ...Or the article might just have been on watchlist already... or user was on RCP. A lot of explanations possible. Once seen, the edit summary given might as well be a big neon sign above the post screaming "ooh, patrol me!" To be honest, it's extremely weird things like that which get me into my more unusual edit work/discussings/???s.
Oh, then there's the fact that Kim didn't even respond to any other edits and was apparently content to collect evidence from above. daTheisen(talk) 06:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is launching an investigation into your activities.

You are becoming famous in the US for strong areming the wikipedia community. Several articles have been written about you, one of which is from CBS news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point me at that "investigation"? Since quite apparently no one has bothered to inform me about it. [btw. does that "fame" give any nice bonuses?] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes please do tell - we're all agog William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

Please do not ignore the edit war referral to Administrators, and let them do their job. Flatterworld (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but administrators are not a special category of editors, that you can just appeal to - please see WP:Administrators, they most certainly aren't the ones that "judge" on content issues. In this case there are clear guidelines that have to be followed, amongst these are WP:NOT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


As voting is evil and User:Rameses has not edited Scientific Opinion on Climate Change or talk, I think that the comment should stand with the note. Is this an acceptable solution for you? GoRight asked for clarification on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Answered over at your place :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked for it

You got it. A start, anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Scibaby Sock?

I have no idea about how sockpuppet investigations work, but I've noticed you've handled some details surrounding the scibaby socks -- this account[33] might interest you. Cheers. jheiv (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PA definition

I appreciate your concern here [34] Would you mind If we asked Alex Harvey how he received the comment? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Alex in his comment was extremely less civil and accused his fellow editors of bad faith ("...Any one of our millions of readers can see, here, that the editors don't care a bit about misrepresenting Singer's view, because the editors frankly don't like him...") - your rather one-sided blanking is not appreciated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What does this have to do with WMC's alleged PA, you seem to blame the potential victim? Are you implying that Alex's comments on how folks feel about Singer, warranted a PA? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Telling someone not to "whinge" is not a personal attack, though it may be seen as incivil to some. On the other hand a statement that says that other editors deliberately misrepresent the topic at hand (especially on BLP's) is a personal attack. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing reliable secondary source with original research

I am quite supprised that any editor would actually replace a reliable secondary source with original research[35]. This is the proposed lead to the article Scientific opinion on climate change:

Scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.[1]

Surveys of how scientists view the status of climate change research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and sea ice, but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of scientific models that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change.[2] Disagreements focus mainly on the magnitude and rate of change, the severity of estimated warming, and its projected impacts — both positive and negative. Moreover, wide variations of scientific opinion accompany model projections of a warmer world: if these increases in greenhouse gas emissions continue, global average temperature could rise anywhere from 2.7°F to 10.7°F over the next 100 years. Because so much of worldwide energy is derived from fossil fuels, options for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose major challenges and controversy.[3]

And this is what you replace it with this unsourced statement of opinion:

Since when did the article Scientific opinion on climate change not include the views of individual scientists? I have never seen original reseach substituted for a reliable secondary source in any article I have worked on. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, how about taking this to the talk-page instead of here? What you call original research is simply constraints agreed upon by consensus. Any articles on any topic can have such, since we cannot describe everything within a single article since there are limits to how big articles can and may be. And apparently most editors disagree with your objections, which should tell you something. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"Constraints agreed upon by consensus" sounds like a euphamism for WP:OWN to me. But how can you tell if reliable secondary source represents the concensus or not? Does the addition of sourced content have to through some approval process that I am not aware of? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Once more: Take it to the talk-page of the article. Consensus is amongst editors of the article, and has nothing to do with ownership. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have taken it to the talk page, but it seems you don't want to discuss the issue there either. For an editor who is so keen on consensus building according to your edit summary[36], I don't understand why you would not want wider input into this discussion by removing the WP:3O template?. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read what WP:3O is for. It is used when 2 editors can't agree - to get a third opinion. In this case there are significantly more than 2 editors, and therefore the 3O tag is misplaced. And contrary to what you say, i have made my position clear on the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#hatnote removal

Thank you for starting that section after reverting. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to read this from you..

Kim, unless I'm missing something, your actions on skeptic BLPs does not mesh with this statement. In my experience, you have been more than willing to accept opinions in BLPs for skeptics. Can you explain the discrepancy? ATren (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are surprised. Since i have been stating this always, and am quite consistent about it. Now try and sit down and read what i've written in different places (for instance on BLP/N) and combine these. Here are a couple of clues: Biographical material, regular material, exceptions to SPS, Biographies can contain regular material, articles can contain biographical material..... If you cannot determine what i mean from this ... then i'm sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Kim, Solomon's criticism of Connolley's work at Wikipedia is no different than opinions cited on skeptics' works in their BLPs. In the former, you cite BLP and remove; in the latter, you fight to keep. Your position is inconsistent. But no point in continuing debate here; rather, I will cite the above diff on skeptic pages from this point forward, starting with Lindzen and Singer, and you can present your "clues" to the audiences there. See if they get it.
The double standard on these articles is obvious, and it needs to be rectified. ATren (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have problems with reality here. Solomon's opinion article isn't about Connolleys "work", he is commenting on the person in specific. (biographical material). But lets put that aside for a moment: Even on the wikipedia subject, it fails WP:SPS (which op-eds and opinion sources approximate to) - Since Solomon is obviously not an expert on Wikipedia (so it doesn't fall under the "expert clause"), and it also raises a lot of red-flags by making claims that you as a wikipedian should have noticed where wrong. (just the headline should have made alarm-clocks ring in your head ... do we really have >5000 climate change articles?)
Of course you will probably ignore what i've just said (since you've done so before), but check when i comment on self-published sources, whether i mention the exception clauses for SPS, and whether i comment on whether its biographical material or non-bio material. I do make an effort to stay very close to the rules and policies ATren. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me summarize some of the aspects i look at with Opinion sources:
  • Expert/Non-expert
  • "Red flag" claims
  • Noted commentator on the subject?
  • How well regarded is the commentator?
  • What is the commentators record for being correct?
  • How well regarded is the specific media regarded on the specific subject?
(and of course other things)
All of these should be straight-forward and something that all wikipedian's should do.
[in this specific case - S fails 1(not expert),2(raises red flags),3(more like infamous),4(hmm),5(not very good),6(not regarded highly)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Kim, your comment on Connolley's talk (the BLP, not the editor) was direct and unconditional. No nuance there. Now here you present this series of arguments which somehow delineates the hair-thin distinction, and it's mostly based on your perception of the content in question or the people involved. Have you ever stopped to consider that for judgements like "How well regarded is the commentator?", your own judgement may be significantly swayed by your POV? Solomon is a columnist for a reliable national newspaper (Canadian), is fully qualified to comment on Wikipedia (are you really saying he's unqualified to comment on an encyclopedia?) yet you apply your own standard of judgement and dismiss him as a source. Then you go to skeptic articles and defend similarly sourced material that aligns with your POV. It's a double standard, no matter how many wafer-thin arguments you raise to defend it. ATren (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes ATren, i have stopped for a moment and considered that. Specifically because i've been at the other end of Mr. Solomons pencil, and therefore might not have been objective. And despite this i still come to the same conclusion. You seem to have missed my point on WP:REDFLAG - can you spot the red-flags? So yes, considering all the errors that Solomon made in this Op-Ed and in all the others, i have to say that "Yes, Solomon is apparently not qualified to comment on Wikipedia" since he hasn't taken the time to research the subject sufficiently, and from this we also can determine that either the editorial oversight at the newspaper is non-existing, or hasn't checked or verified anything.
Now, have you considered that your personal POV isn't clouding your view? It seems to me that you haven't even considered the quite obvious errors that Solomon makes here - how come? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my POV is irrelevant, because I am not trying to cite a laundry list of subjective criteria for inclusion. My rule is simple: if it is reliably sourced and relevant, include it; otherwise, exclude it, and that goes for both skeptic and supporter. You, on the other hand, are actually judging the content and the authors even though we're not supposed to do that as long as the source is reliable. So don't try to turn this around to my POV (nonexistent as it is on this issue) when it is you who are enforcing your own value judgement into these articles. ATren (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you? I seem to recall that you have had rather a lot of conflict with WMC. Perhaps i'm mistaken? And sorry - but WP rules - this isn't reliably sourced. And you seem to be rather mistaken about what our purpose as editors is... We have to judge the reliability, weight and context of sources/references, that is what we're here for - otherwise we'd be a news-agregator and not an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The reliability of opinion articles in newspapers is an open question; they receive less editorial oversight, rather than no oversight. I've seen the distinction applied inconsistently. I do agree that in a BLP it's best to err on the side of non-inclusion. However, if you have been a prior target of Mr. Solomon's articles, you should probably recuse yourself from this. If the reverts need to be made, they can be made by an editor who isn't personally involved in the dispute. (And yes I think that probably applies to Atren also.) Wellspring (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree on the reliability of opinion articles - it is usually a grey area. In this particular case (Solomon) i doubt if there is any editorial oversight. Finally with regards to reculas, it has been turned at AN/I with the general consensus that WMC didn't have a conflict of interest with regards to Solomon (same for me). The reasons for this was that a journalist/columnist/writer/... could otherwise "veto" people he didn't like, by mentioning them in their articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Your removal of my comments [4] on the Global Warming talk page is censorship pure and simple. This is inappropriate in general and especially in a medium that purports to present the best current understanding of scientific findings and ideas. If you disagree with my views then say so and explain why on the discipline-specific talk pages - that's what they're for.Dikstr (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but wikipedia is censored if you do not stick to WP:TPG and WP:SOAP. Your comment was unrelated to the article, and 100% about editors (see also WP:NPA). Something which isn't discussed on talk-pages. I've pointed out the relevant fora for you on your talk, to put this "information" if you truly want to go on about it. But t:GW is not the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation of how and why you delete other editor's comments on Wikipeidia talk pages. I have, on one rare occasion, deleted and/or refactored talk page comments in the past for similar reasons, so I understand where you're coming from and appreciate your goals. Situations spiral out of control when talk pages start being about editors and stop being about the article. The difference between what I have done and what you are doing is that I had permission from the repeated perpetrators to take these actions. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19_Talk_at_Redshift for how that permission came about. If you are assuming this role of deleting talk page comments that are unrelated to the article and are 100% about editors, it's also critical to be consistent in your actions and remove all posts that match these criteria instead of only the posts from those who may disagree with you or your friends. That leaves you and your friends free to violate the policies you mention while others are not. I would appreciate an explanation about why this post was not deleted by you. I look forward to your reply. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The answer is obvious. You're lost William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim & William, from WP:TPG "Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale." This means "deleting without prior discussion is bad practice", don't you think? --Damorbel (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You ARE from Vejle, Denmark and have no business editing any english section of any wikipedia page. Refrain from editing any page concerning global warming or anything regarding science. And tell that to your friedn Schultz and Helle. None of you have any background in climate change science and it show. Political agents from europe are strickly prohibited from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you please point me at the policy that states that you have to be english to edit wikipedia? (hint: no such thing exists - and the english wikipedia is the international version) And wow! you read my facebook page - woohoo its getting exposure ;-) [incidentally my current location is clearly viewable on my user-page with GPS coordinates - accurate to within a couple of meters, so you didn't have to look to facebook for that information] -- Kim D. Petersen (talk)

More censorship! Is Kim part of the East Anglia Global Warming cabal? Or a sympathiser? See here: The above could just as well have been for personal attacks on another editor. Please follow the rules for wikipedia, or step away until you've calmed down enough to be able to do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC) and note this link:

I see the makings of a conspiracy here. Is Kim one of William's friends? Likely, as she monitors the GW pages on Wiki. Anthropogenic global warming is real. But these hard core Greens want to hijack the debate about the effects of AGW. The IPCC itself has said the lower bound effect is likely a mere 5 cm rise in mean sea levels over the next 100 years. Nothing to worry about, but the hard core Greens don't want us to know that. Further research is needed, not action. I will be heard. Posting from Washington, DC, where I remain as a former lobbyist. Have a nice day. And no I don't care if you delete this passage or not; this is for your consumption, not for anybody else. Raylopez99 (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! Wow! Doh! I'm busted! Yea! And goodness! They will notice that i personally fixed a lot of thermometers and shovelled the MWP in Denmark under the carpet, and burned the treerings that showed the wrong things - oh damn! What shall i do? Ooooh me ooooh my.
Fun aside - i have rather a lot of problems seeing your connection between my comment and the Google groups link. But then again - i'm also amazed at your (lack of) detector skills. I'm male - not female (its on my user-page - right here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you edit the truth?

Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both

From what you linked to in the edit on [[37]]

How can you state that Steve mcintyre is not a reliable source? Your censorship of the facts is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talkcontribs) 08:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:RS and WP:V which is our policy on what is and isn't a reliable source. Climateaudit is not a reliable source for such information. (and neither is the other blog) Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Would a national newspaper be a reliable source then?
However steve mycintyre is a reliable source, i would like to hear your reason as to why he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talkcontribs) 08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Take your time and read our policy on reliable sources - i linked them in the previous reply. Whether or not McIntyre is a reliable source, has nothing to do with your or my opinion. You may also want to read our policy on what material that can be included in biographies of living persons (BLP) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok thank you, i believe i may use a national news paper as a reliable source.
However it clearly states "they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question;" and steve mcintyre is an authoritave source on climate change. I shall however use a newspaper as my source instead.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talkcontribs) 09:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but McIntyre is not an "authoritative source" on climate change, by any stretch of the mind. He writes about it on a blog (or at least a subset of it), which doesn't in any way give "authoritative" status.
As for using national news papers - it depends on what kind of article, and which news-paper it is. For instance Op-Ed's and editorials are not reliable for more than their authors opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"He writes about it on a blog (or at least a subset of it), which doesn't in any way give "authoritative" status." That statement is not true. McIntyre discovered Mann's massaging of the data, he is thus the most authoritative person on the matter apart from Mann himself. He may be a lesser athority on some other matters but this is about Mann's treatment of his data and Kim Peterson's opinions on the authority of Mc Intyre this matter are just an irrelevant POV and should carry no weight in assesing suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Damorbel (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to differentiate between what you perceive as reality and what is documentable as reality. For instance the statement that Mann should "massage" data (whatever that means), is relying entirely on McIntyre's viewpoint. (and ignoring (for instance) Von Storch's view - or any of the other paleo-people). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Rule 5, Kim. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule 51/2, "A "Rule 5" claimant is identified as a meatpuppet". Please don't do it Boris, you can do better than that. --Damorbel (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"For instance the statement that Mann should "massage" data... is relying entirely on McIntyre's viewpoint". Nothing at all to do with "McIntyre's viewpoint", everything to do with McIntyre's researches. McIntyre is well qualified at detecting defective statistics, deliberate or otherwise and his results are supported by the facts, and bizarrely enough in Mann's case, also by Mann's reaction to McIntyre's work and the CRU emails. Kim, for you to assert a statement is a POV is quite insufficient, you should at least be a little informative as to why you dismiss McIntyre's work, up until now you have shown precious little appreciation of it, neither have you shown the slightest willingness to understand it, with your enthusiastic editings surely you should show just a little understanding of what you are writing about?--Damorbel (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so from what i can see here is that KimDabelsteinPetersen has allowed his pov to infringe on the neutrality which is meant to be used in editing articles.

However i have found some other reliable sources such as the wegman report which also shows that mann`s "hockey stick" is fraudulent. I believe it is important to have the full truth of the hockey stick there on mann`s article, do you not? Would reports from senate hearings be acceptable sources from your pov? mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rule 6: Kim is male. Needs a FAQ I reckon. Can we have "pocket guide to zealots"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we have "pocket guide to zealots"? I`d have thought you had one already. I have edited my post to get kims gender right. What is rule 6 btw? and can i have a link to these rules i keep seeing please. Once mann`s page is available for editing i shall update it with the new references i have. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How exciting! Rule 6! Another (private) meatpuppet rule. I wonder what rules 1-4 are? (Boris has given us an idea of rule 5, I invented Rule 51/2) now can we please please have a link to these rules? It gives the impression that there is an inner sanctum of editors who have privileged access and powers. For the sake of Wikipedia will someone explain about these rules so that we can all understand them and abide by them, or are they just a silly fantasy? --Damorbel (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting on a link to these rules? Also kim, you say a blog may not be used as a source but realclimate is used as a source and it is a blog is it not? mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SPS pay special attention to the exceptions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"pay special attention to the exceptions" Forgive my plodding ways, but is this supposed to imply that RC is something other than a mouthpiece for AGW/CO2 apologists. I seem to remember posting about atmospheric potential energy only to have the very existance of atmospheric potential energy denied by, er, Bart, was it?--Damorbel (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

revert on rating global cooling page

You state "Not your choice to make (nor mine) - and it certainly shouldn't be used as a "pressure item" for content disputes" on reverting my downgrade of the global cooling page. Are you asserting that ordinary editors may not grade pages on quality scales? Pray tell, who is qualified according to you to judge whether it's a b or a c article? TMLutas (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can do it, but i personally think that members of the respective projects should be the ones that do it. And i will stand by the "pressure item" comment - since that was rather apparent from your edit-comment, and the surrounding context. Now i think you have some explaining to do on the talk page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This page talks about popular press stories from the 1970s but any efforts to include popular press stories from the current decade have repeatedly run on the rocks of the insistence that only peer reviewed articles are to be used. Treating decades unequally seems to be a habit with the AGW crowd. I don't recommend continuing on that path. Just to be fair, I did look at the project rules. What I did was allowed by the rules of the project but in case of controversy, evaluation edits should go to discussion and the rating set up by consensus. I think that getting people on record whether they think that *nobody* in reliable source land has talked about global cooling this decade and therefore a section is not justified would be an excellent idea, but only if the point isn't mooted by the inclusion of a 2000s section. If you want to run the discussion in parallel and not serially, that's up to you. At current moment, I'm waiting for your response on the global cooling talk page. Have you gotten the right paper this time? TMLutas (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone actually notice or care whether an article is a, b, or c class? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen apparently cares, though not enough to follow the rules laid out in the project FAQ which argued against a revert and instead opening up a section in talk to achieve consensus. TMLutas (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


I made a comment in reply to another editor's observation which I believe you can be of assistance with. Thanks/apologies.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael manns page

Might i inquire as to why you removed the reference to this [[38]]

This is an important part of this guys bio and i would like to know why you removed it. I have mention is the talk page of said article that i will be writing up a section about the hockey stick for his bio, i hope you will take a part in this. --mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not :-) [but only because i wasn't the one who removed it (check again)[39]] It was removed by Threeafterthree, because it is already linked in the lede (per WP:SEEALSO "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section,...") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 :) Sorry my bad lol, sorry but i do not see the hockey stick controversy anywere in there, what is the lede --mark nutley (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Lede/Lead is the introduction text. It is linked under Hockey stick graph --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kim, we can contiue this on the mann talk page --mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

fourth assesment report

this appears to be on the verge of another edit war [[40]], looking at your reason for your last revert should you not do a usercheck before reverting an article based on what you might think is a sock? I do not want this article locked out again. You also have not responded in the article talk page, when might you do so? Thank you --mark nutley (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you're new here, I'll butt in on Kim's talk and explain. "Scibaby" is a long-time vandal who continues his or her actions via hundreds of new accounts. Someone who has been here for as long as Kim is an expert at finding which accounts are Scibaby sockpuppets. Ideally, one would perform a checkuser first, but Scibaby's abusive behavior is so ubiquitous that waiting for checkuser would simply allow an abusive individual to change wide swaths of Wikipedia for unacceptably long periods of time. Awickert (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks awickert, 100`d of accounts, wow there`s a guy with to much time on his hands :) mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Good stuff I love SUV's (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This section is also rather a mess. It is supposed to be about scepticism and debate, but is mostly about 'awareness'. The section, if about scepticism and debate, should briefly summarise the reasons that sceptics give, with brief replies if necessary, and a link to a sub-article that discuss sceptical issues in more detail. I would put this on the GW talk page, but someone called Tony Sidaway insists on deleting anything I put there. If you read what I say, it is mostly about the logic of the article, and explaining the issues in a clear way that ordinary people can understand, rather than a litany of which scientists and organisations support the hypothesis. I love SUV's (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi you recently showed interest in the following article [[41]] and the inclusion of new text, one of the editors has asked comments [[42]] and i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on this as i believe the consensus currently is to allow the new text it. Thank you.mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings

If an editor removes material from their usertalkpage, please do not replace it - the removal may be taken as evidence that the post has been read. The warnings remain visible in the history, which due diligence requires be checked to inform any admin actions. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Vandalize the Monckton Article

Per WP:VAN I am making a good-faith request you not engage in further vandalism of user improvements to the article about Lord Monckton. Your wholesale reversions are not constructive. Without discussion or comment you deleted a quote I added about the President of the Czech Republic commenting on issues of tax policy. There is no "mainstream" or "consensus" on tax policy issues in any nation on the world and the published opinions of a sitting head-of-state are germane to any encyclopedic entry. Please review WP:VAN if you need help. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but my disagreeing with you on whether your contribution was an improvement or not, has nothing to do with vandalism. The rest belongs to the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Making wholesale edits without discussion under guise is vandalism. Please discuss edits on the talk page to obtain community consensus. An opportunity was offered to you. Contact via your talk page became necessary when you made the choice not to engage the community in discussion prior to edits. Please review WP:VAN if you need help. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Strangely enough there are lots of discussions on the talk-page, and yours isn't supported by them. So it is really you who are ignoring things, and making "wholesale edits" that go against consensus. Sorry. Under no circumstance are your or my edits vandalism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the case. There is obviously a vibrant back-and-forth both ways, as evidenced in the discussion page. Further, no discussion at all has occurred about inclusion of the Czech President's views, of the views of Daily Telegraph staff, or of any of the specific edits I contributed. The spirit of WP:NPOV would demand individual contributions be evaluated individually, not lumped into a verboten "positions" that can't be uttered in an entry, regardless of source. As I said, there is no consensus on questions of tax policy, which was among the contributions you deleted/vandalized. Aggressive edit-waring by you without attempting a civil discussion when offered can not be tolerated in interest of WP:CIVIL. You have been reported for WP:VAN. Please suspend your vandalism efforts until admins can have an opportunity to review this case. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD. Sorry but a content dispute is not vandalism. And your insistence on calling it such indicates a rather strong WP:BATTLE mentality. WP:NPOV is not a "equal time" concept, as i've stated before - it is a description of how the mainstream sees reality, if something is outside of the mainstream (as Monckton rather clearly is), it must be described that way.
Your argument about the Czech president is rather amusing, since if you had picked any other state-leader, then a disagreement with Monckton's viewpoints would have been a given, thus cherry-picking the Czech president is undue weight and a breach of NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have a citation for another head-of-state who has mentioned Monckton - positively or negatively - by name you should definitely include it. Do you? Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Kim, isn't it about time to hang it up? I mean, really. What are you trying to prove here? Lexlex (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
¿Que? Hang up what? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't get any more clueful, so they :-(? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang up your keyboard, as in: time to find a new hobby. The whole basis for your raison d'etre is imploding whether you want it or not. As this is feeling like a troll, I apologize. But I just can't believe that you, of all people and someone I truly respect here, continues to drink the Kool-aid. Lexlex (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but i disagree. Lets assume for a moment that every conspiracy theory out there about the CRU emails are correct. Then what would the results on the science be? Temperature record: Hadcrut, GISS, ...; Paleo-reconstructions: Mann, von Storch, Osborn, ...; Rest of the science: Everything still there. Try reading Eduardo Zorita's "climate reconstructions and future climate projections"[43] and consider what Zoritas comments on this whole issue have been.
The cool-aid here is that people apparently think that if the works of 2-10 scientists is suddenly missing then all of the science would disappear. Sorry but that is not how science works. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"if the works of 2-10 scientists is suddenly missing then all of the science would disappear" Unless of course they had been peer reviewing each others papers. --Damorbel (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it still wouldn't work - unless they peer-reviewed all other papers. That would be rather hard wouldn't it? Especially for all of those papers that doesn't fall into their expert area. But lets again take the very very worst scenario. All of the Tree-ring-people go away, and all of their research is null and void. That still leaves all of the sponge, sediment, boreholes, ice-cores, stomata etc. proxies, and would still give us much of the same results => Nothing changed.
Nb: A thing that most sceptics ignore is: What would the consequences be of a warmer than present MWP (and a colder LIA)? Would it mean that GW is null and void? Nope. It would actually mean that we'd have to increase the expected warming - since climate sensitivity would be higher. (cold MWP => low climate sens. warm MWP => high climate sens.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have a sort of faith thing about Peer review. Check this link, peer review is a way editors, unable to evaluate the papers themselves, find by a very inexpert procedure someone to give them a bit of advice, they have no real basis for deciding to accept or reject the advice. Like all editors they are really trying 1) to please their publisher and 2) to sell their publication. An editor/publisher is often hoplessly biased (see what a foul effect the Royal Society has had on science).
Re. your "Nb:"- para. Sorry about this but what you write is a jumble of obscure acronyms. I've tried a few like MWP (Mid (something?) Warm Period?) but it doesn't seem to help. Acronyms should always be identified, preferably at the beginning of a contribution, it helps to avoid time wasting. But nice to have your response, thanks. --Damorbel (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
MWP Medieval warm period, LIA Little ice age, GW Global warming. I'm off for New Years Eve festivities - Happy New Year! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)