What Do We Think About Climate Change

messianic deniers don't need facts

 

Wow, you learned a new word.

 

now Ill teach you a new word

FACT, The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept

 

Oh shizenhowzen it was better when everyone was whispering - - the text was too small to read so I did not bother... The climate, as with the weather, will change...

 

ya thats not how science works
science collects and analyzes data
then forms a hypothesis
if the hypothesis seems to be valid then it is developed into a theory
if the theory is able to predict then it is considered a working theory
example of a non working theory might be that of the big bang
example of a working theory might be that of Rapid Global Climate Shift

in either case you dont get "provable" or "facts"
you get data and predictions that result in the verification of a theory

cheers
B

 

Wow!
Big bang is not a 'working theory'
Ans Climate crap is a working one....

Now I have seen everything.
Boston, have you ever considered taking up teaching?

 

William M. Connelly (Real Climate founder) has been banned from Wikipedia

In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months. (Credit: WUWT)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...d_decision#William_M._Connolley_.28various.29

From Wikipedia pages (excerpted):

William M. Connolley (various)

William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
8.1) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole - which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC's regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.

William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation.
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [18], [19], [20]) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page. [21]] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page.[22] After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.

William M. Connolley has shown Ownership
8.3) William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.

William M. Connolley BLP violations
8.4) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements.

William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons
8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.


I think this is the kind of zealotic attitude -from whatever camp- we should avoid here. I do again a friendly calling for all of us to try to keep a civilized and useful debate from now on, avoiding personal attacks and centering discussions in the climate change debate, for the sake of this thread. On my side, I'm ready to do so (humbly recognizing I'm not innocent), or then quit from posting here anymore.

 

Don't be crest-fallen, Guillermo. Everyone who visits this thread and posts with an opinion has said something harsh, in the heat of the moment, on both sides. We all are red-handed in this. Humility is a virtue, but you should be proud of the solid stand you have taken in the face of scathing attacks from the dark side. I don't believe I am alone in this opinion.

 

come to the dark side, we have cookies

 

well at least your consistent

make false accusations
spread disinformation
pretend doubt
make personal attacks

sounds exactly like classic agnotology to me

next will come a few straw man arguments followed by cherry picking data

 

looks to me like the agnotologists (deniers) have invaded wikipedia and what few actual scientists were hard pressed to keep up with correcting the misinformation

might be important to note that wikipedia is a open on line encyclopedia that anyone can gain edit privileges into
needless to say the deniers have taken full advantage of this fact and through tactics similar to Guillermo's managed to get one of the only real scientists sanctioned for his efforts to correct the denalist spin

 

I'm not crest-fallen Hoyt. I'm just tired and boried of trying do as good and honest contributions as I'm able to do from my laymanship in these matters, just to have to put up with permanent personal attacks and scorning, and then finding myself as an idiot entering in useless diatribes because of my treacherous Spanish hot-blood.

Some limited hot discussion is spicy and desirable to keep the thread interest up, I know and agree with, because all of us are humans, but the permanent scorning of the opponent, incorrect and biased assumptions about intentions, appeals to authority as the only resource, blind true believing instead of clear thinking and scientific debate with numbers and reasons, lack of understanding and refusing to appreciate and consider all efforts and contributions, as well as the endless political ranting, make this thread to be a not attractive place to be at all if attitudes do not change. And this not only a fault of the AGW camp, let me say.

Anyway, thanks for your support.

 

Addendum: Robert Watson (scientist)

The recent mini-edit-war over Robert Watson (scientist) is this case in minature. If you only have time to look at one thing, look at that. Hipocrite has provided the relevant diffs, so I'll just interpret them as I see it.

An anon added some text. It was wrong. All the scientifically literate edits agree it was wrong [478] [479] [480] [481] [482]. Even those less happy to judge the scientific content agree that the edit is impermissible as SYN [483] [484] [485].

So, removing it was correct and re-adding it was wrong. How then did we end up in an edit war? Answer: because some of the "skeptics" revert unthinkingly, merely to cause trouble. And despite an extensive conversation on the talk page, and on my talk page, to which I've contributed, not one of the "skeptic" reverters has shown up to explain themselves. You should read MN's explanation where he as good as admits that he didn't know what was going on but reverted anyway.

As I said at the start competence is required. If you leave the "skeptics" in charge of pages like Robert Watson (scientist) they will be full of meaningless drivel William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 

Do you see what I mean, Hoyt?

Good by.

 

maybe if you were not following play by play the denialist hand book you would find a more engaging environment

of course you might also think of apologizing for making false accusations and for lying about having made claims against my tenure at university as well

little things that go a long way towards credibility and trust

I am merely setting the record straight when false or misleading information is presented