User talk:William M. Connolley

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

---

If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this.

---

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

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

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

Atmospheric circulation pic

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

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

Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

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

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

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

Linda Hall editor

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

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

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

User:Reddi apparently back

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

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

WP:AN3

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

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

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

The Templeton Foundation

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

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

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

Improving the models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

)

Congrats!

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

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

Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

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

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

Glad to have you here

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

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

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

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

To Bdj

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good handling of the issues at the global warming article

I'd just like to say that you have been handling all the edit wars and attacks from the dissenters quite well, despite their accusations of incivility on your part. Keep it up; Wikipedia needs more people like you. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, I appreciate it William M. Connolley 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't bite!

Please don't bite the newcomers as you appear to do here - hardly something which is going to encourage people to want to come and improve the article, is it? QmunkE 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - this newcomer seems to have fixed opinions and a regrettable tendency to WP:OR. If you're going to help educate them out of this, that would be great William M. Connolley 09:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The way the few of you that seem to own the GW article treat people who make edits is bad for wikipedia, particularly when it comes to civility. Some of them are only making changes since the article still doesn't meet the basic criteria of an FA. Others apparently reference articles some of you feel aren't up to standards. While I applaud your attempt at using quality sources, your execution is the problem. I hope all your sources are primary, and not blogs (which I saw reference to on the talk page), because that would be another wikipedia problem. Thegreatdr 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot resist asking if the crowd few you perceive as owning the WP article is a greater or a lesser few than the few many eminent scientists who are sceptical about important parts of GW? --BozMo talk 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All I will say is that scientists tend to be skeptics, evaluating the data for themselves. I can't think of many topics within the natural sciences where there isn't debate about some fine point of data or logic. I really can't delve into my opinions on global warming, because technically, I have to follow the party line set by the Climate Prediction Center. Thegreatdr 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't really want your opinions on GW. But it doesn't prevent you editing on the science William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is in answer to the message I left on your talk page, then: what I to ask what was specifically wrong with the article. Meta-arguments about ownership are all very well (I disagree with you, of course) but usually unproductive. What is actually wrong with the article? William M. Connolley 13:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than the tone on the talk page (which all need to work on), all references need to be in the same format. If an author's name is included in one reference, you must have authors in every reference. If you start using ref/cite web/whatever format, you need to maintain that format through the entire page. That appears to be a basic thing even for GA articles nowadays. Every statement, particularly if it states what some may characterize as controversial, needs a reference. The way we seem to work within the meteorology and tropical cyclone projects (as you are probably aware) is to include at least one reference per paragraph...but due to some people's views on the GW topic, this article needs to be referenced even better. You all are correct that wikipedia is about consensus views, not fringe views. You must be able to achieve enough stability on the page that you don't need to protect it every few days. Civility through the talk page appears to be the easiest way to achieve that. Thegreatdr 13:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm disappointed, I was hoping for some science (I'm not saying your complaints are invalid, just not so interesting to me). (a) I have no interest in the ref format (b) I disagree re ref'ing every statement - sub articles do this where needed (c) it hasn't been protected for quite a while now (d) civility - sounds good. I blame the skeptics, of course, but I'll see what I can do William M. Connolley 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will not discuss science concerning that article...it has led to infighting in the past, and I don't wish to get drawn into that fray for the time being. =) It's best to keep the science out of discussions about the status of a wikipedia article. Usually the science will be adequately covered by a well-referenced article...unrepresentative views (which can be found in newspaper or magazine articles, sometimes even in books) usually aren't published in what would normally be considered primary sources (such as refereed articles in journals and government-issued reports). Thegreatdr 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted that you have nothing to criticise on the science - this is my major interest in the article, as I've indicated above. Are you interpreting this too narrowly? It's best to keep the science out of discussions about the status of a wikipedia article - somewhat odd, as the NPOV disputes, which have been the major problem (pointlessly, as its now back to stable with no change from this perspective) have been about the balance of science William M. Connolley 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy has a job in the field and has identified himself on wikipedia, so it is dangerous for him to discuss the science in this area. I've demonstrated that I am perfectly willing to discuss the science on the GW talk page, if you are interested. Leave him alone. Are you really willing to discuss the accuracy and usefulness of the models frankly and in the open with intellectually honest admissions of valid points? Join me in discussing the substance of peer reviewed articles and not numbers of articles and numbers of scientists. You use the term "skeptic" as if it is a pejorative, instead of the proper approach for any scientist to take when reviewing the literature or conducting research.--Africangenesis 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaking wikipedia for a usenet group. Its clear that you have read a paper or two and have decided that all the attribution results are invalid due to model errors. Its also clear that the PR literature on attribution disagrees with you. Your opinions (unless published) don't belong on wikipedia. As for leave him alone - this is unwarranted and impolite on yuor part. In climate research "skeptic" has a particular meaning - it identifies a loose group of people who oppose GW theory on irrational grounds - it does not have the conventional meaning (we used to have a page on this, but it got deleted: the text was /gws William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you were using "skeptic" as a pejorative. With this in mind, the "Global warming skeptics" category, may be a pejorative or personal attack category. If "irrational" is one of the criteria for inclusion, then perhaps it is being misused, or at least, not enough documentation is being required before it is being used.--Africangenesis 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I use "(GW) skeptic" as a perjorative - it refers to people who cannot, or will not, evaluate the evidence fairly. You only have to look through the "list of sci" page - most of the "arguments" used on that page are wholly irrational (not all, mind, just most of them). But of course if you *are* a GWS (as the person creating and using that cat is) then its a compliment - bizarre as that may seem William M. Connolley 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really can't delve into my opinions on global warming, because technically, I have to follow the party line set by the Climate Prediction Center. This has to be the sadest claim I have heard in ages. A research center that dictates opinions to its members is worse than useless, and a scientist who "follows the party line" against better knowledge violates the basic ethos of science. If you cannot speake your opinion, leave. Or speak it anyways, and make them try to fire you. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Being silent is at least better than speaking in lockstep. As long as one's own work is not compromised, there is no obligation to correct all the world's or organization's wrongs. Sometimes you get stuck in quagmires, no matter how noble and just your motives and position.--Africangenesis 20:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NOAA is supposed to speak with one voice...end of story. Imagine what would happen if a hurricane approached the coast, and everyone within our organization was free to say what they thought within the NWS/NOAA. Same goes for Winter Storms and climate issues such as the ENSO cycle and GW. The papers/media would have a field day. And on the issue of GW, they have had a field day with Chris Landsea of NHC, amongst other researchers from various universities. We are Borg...oops, I mean a government organization. And please, civility. While all government workers do work for the people since we are your tax dollars at work, it is not your place within Wikipedia to tell me what to do, unless there is a specific wikipedia rule that applies to this case that I am breaking. Then you can point it out. Don't shoot the messenger. Have a nice day. =) Thegreatdr 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle

You removed this from the IPCC article, claiming that it is a "joke". I can't see any obvious mention on the film's article, its talk page or its website about it being a joke, however. Brian Jason Drake 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What I believe he means is most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find this 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. So no, it isn't literally a joke, but the joke is unfortunately on those who fall victim to it's propaganda.--Skyemoor 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite William M. Connolley 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't take sides. I think what Brian Jason Drake would say, with significant evidence from top scientists to back him up, is that most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. Gore's film and his Academy Award for it isn't literally a joke, but the joke is unfortunately on those who fall victim to its propaganda, including entire countries requiring all school children to watch and be frightened by that propaganda. That's what I think Brian Jason Drake would say, and it would not be idle speculation given the major scientists speaking out against Gore's film and the image it portrays. He would likely also argue that the same people pushing Gore's award winner are the same ones characterizing The Great Global Warming Swindle as a joke.

Now on wikipedia, it's POV to say one view is "laughable" while the other view is not, particularly where both views are deemed "laughable" by their opponents. On wikipedia, we are supposed to rise above the partisanship and present the truth. I say let Brian Jason Drake develop his ideas to see if they are wikiworthy before just shooting him down at the first opportunity. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I won't take sides.' Then you proceed to.

2. most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. Who are these scientists? My statement has the backing of the scientific consensus. Your's has Rush Limbaugh.

3. let Brian Jason Drake develop his ideas to see if they are wikiworthy. They were put on WP without yet being developed? He can always float ideas on the talk page, which is the preferred route with undeveloped ideas. --Skyemoor 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Personal attacks/arguments do not advance the issue either. Rather, they make one not want to get involved for fear of personal attack. All I did was use preexisting language in this subsection to illustrate how it could easily apply to the other side -- I was not saying it does in fact apply. All I said was you needed to hear out his full argument before shooting him down. Is that unreasonable? Is that a reason to be pulling out the howitzers/Rush Limbaugh arguments and the like to shoot me down as well just for suggesting people be reasonable and hear someone out? This kind of treatment is not wikifriendly. No one wants to contribute with buzzsaws shooting them down like you have been doing. Your talk page idea is the way to go. Buy why you just did not present that without the machine guns firing I'll never know. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try to address your point, which I take to be I think what Brian Jason Drake would say, with significant evidence from top scientists to back him up, is that most scientists who are at least aware of climate research find Al Gore's 'programme' to be so one-sided, full of errors and misdirection, to be laughable. I think this point is wrong. Most climate scientists have broadly agreed with Gores film. It is mostly correct. Unlike TGGWS it has not faked or misinterpreted any graphs or interviewees. If you look at the crit section of the article, its very thin, and some of it is nonsense (Balls bit for example). It seems to me likely that you disapprove of AIT: if so (or if not) what do you regard as its major error? William M. Connolley 12:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

His implication that the correlation between hurricanes, even Katrina, and global warming is strong. His claim that invasive species is a result from global warming. Extinction rates. That 300,000 people will die per year by 2025 because of global warming. Etcetera. ~ UBeR 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his implication is wrong, and said so. But he doesn't state it explicitly. I don't recall the 300k bit, but it seems quite likely, though the balance of plus and minus is rather harder to guess William M. Connolley 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not seen either movie and have no idea about the facts. I was just taken aback by that guy's attitude and was suggesting some fairness would be appropriate. I was even using his own language as an example -- it is not what I actually believe. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You Weaken your Own Case

William: In general, Truth can more easily withstand attacks by Falsehood than the other way around, which is why people who are wrong are usually more vehement in trying to silence their opponents than those who are right. In looking at various pages, I've noted that you've removed references to sources that contradict your views. Your doing that weakens the argument for your views, because it raises the suspicion that you are worried that your POV will not withstand scrutiny. Vegasprof 11:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've made allegations against this admin, it would behoove you to support your case. What 'sources' are you referring to? Did they meet WP:REF, WP:Verifiability, etc? Did you note the reasons given for any rejected 'sources'? Your accusations are built on no evidence, so your own case is weaker than a newborn lamb. --Skyemoor 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the "admin" bit is irrelevant. However, more specifics would be useful. Wiki needs to be balanced; I've removed refs at various times that contradict reality William M. Connolley 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. :-) ~ UBeR 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, UBeR. Since it is true that The Great Global Warming Swindle is notable, and since it severely criticizes the IPCC report, the reference to it should not have been deleted from the IPCC article. The fact that its content contradicts your view of reality is not relevant to that issue. If some reliable source claims that The Great Global Warming Swindle is itself unreliable, then that should be posted on that page. But unless you are quoting a statement that you made in a scientific journal article, your opinion should not be considered, since that would be OR. I'm sure that you agree with me, William. Vegasprof 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring WP:Undue_weight. A reference to TGGWS on the IPCC page is such. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just spent some time going over the history page for IPCC. There may have been a reference to TGGWS there when you last looked at it, and it might be back by the time you check it again, because it's been popping in and out in the "Great Global Climate Change Swindle Revert War"  :-) I have noted that there are lots of criticisms of the IPCC report on that page, although the one that is constantly being reverted is one of the severest, since it openly accuses the IPCC of deception. I fail to see the justification for excluding the reporting of this claim on the IPCC page. I would still like William M. Connolley to justify his deletion of that paragraph, as he did on 21:55, 1 May 2007 (the paragraph has since been re-reverted, and then re-re-reverted, in what seems to be an endless cycle.) Is the justification that the points raised by Paul Reiter are not reliably sourced, becuase they appear in a movie, rather than a scientific paper? If so, then any quote from An Inconvenient Truth is subject to the same criticism. Vegasprof 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

William, I know you're probably asleep now, since you live in England (I think) but please answer my question after you wake up (or whenever you find it convenient). If anyone else wants to debate this with me, I suggest we move that debate off William's talk page, as a courtesy to him. Either put it on the IPCC talk page, or even my talk page. Vegasprof 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is part of it; the non-seriousness of TGGWS is another; the unsourcedness of Reiters claim yet another (which report is he speaking of?) William M. Connolley 08:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tropics

Your last post at Satellite Temperature Record shows [deletia - WMC]. You remove a comment made by Christy because his comment only pertains to the tropics. Climate change theory suggest troposphere temps rise faster than surface ONLY in the tropics.Jepp 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, you've made that up William M. Connolley 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How embarrassing - my apologies - the report does indeed say that. Hmmm... needs some more thought William M. Connolley 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had another go at re-writing it to my taste William M. Connolley 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Who did that?"

That was 66.220.242.25 in this edit. They appear to be just a garden-variety recurring vandal and I've now given them their latest block (in a longish series of blocks).

Atlant 12:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlant and William M. Connolley: I am aware of a "garden-variety recurring vandal," only he/she's not too garden variety since he/she is a big wig in a major, nationwide organization who's POV he/she continually pushes and who relys on sock puppetry to spread those views. If the future of stopping this behaviour is the "latest block in a longish series of blocks," should I just forget about trying to have administrative action taken against him/her? Should I just continue to monitor and revert the POV edits, minding the 3RR rule? Note, I am the sock puppeteer's main reverter, but a number of others have been doing it as well over the many, many months of this person's single mindedness to insert the major organization's POV over wiki pages. Thanks for any ideas, and if you are overloaded on other matters, I'll understand. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can bring it up on WP:ANI and/or get the socks declared socks, which makes the blocks easier William M. Connolley 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer please

I am working on a page under my user space and a user is posting messages on its talk page. I do not wish to see his messages there because they are not relevant to topic. He is saying that I will violate WP:3RR in my user space talk page. I think he is wrong. Can someone clarify it please? Can I violate 3RR on a talk page under my user-space? I wish to work without disturbances from him. Looking for your reply. --- A. L. M. 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting to someone elses talk page when asked not to is impolite. You cannot really violate 3RR on your user space William M. Connolley 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --- A. L. M. 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

humm, he has reported me Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:ALM_scientist_reported_by_User:HighInBC_.28Result:.29. Can you look at it please? --- A. L. M. 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Made by, 58.178.82.24 Vandalism here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poison_dart_frog&oldid=127908083, and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poison_dart_frog&oldid=127908172 Malamockq 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - missed this. I assume its no longer current William M. Connolley 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

World Climate Report

Hello MDr. Connolley. You removed this clause from the page "but clearly evinces an acceptance of anthropogenic global warming" saying that you saw no such evidence. I then reverted it and added supporting evidence in two references. You then removed the clause once again, saying that the first reference didn't show such acceptance and that the second was not WCR. To address the second first, as I see it the Michaels article that I cited in reference #2 is relevant because he is the chief editor of WCR. His viewpoint dominates. And that article shows he accepts AGW and CO2 as an AGHG. Regarding reference #1, it reads "There is no doubt that fossil fuel burning around the world is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, and CO2 remains the number one anthropo-generated greenhouse gas." I think this is pretty clear and is in keeping with Michaels views as he has expressed them in numerous venues. I think this puts the burden of proof on you to provide clear and incontrovertible evidence that WCR and Michaels do not accept AGW. Finally, and I hope you don't take this personally as it is not meant as an ad hominem, but I note that you are a member of a rival organization to WCR, namely Real Climate. One might see a conflict of interest here, especially in the absence of any evidence against WCR and Michaels's acceptance of AGW. Cordially, Geoffrey Plauche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Veritas_Noctis)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veritas Noctis (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

RealClimate as a rival of WCR???? The mind boggles... Raymond Arritt 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the following to the discussion page for the WCR article earlier today: "I added another quote from the source in reference #1 ("[M]ethane is far more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 – the same mass of methane would warm the earth 23 times more than the same mass of CO2.") to buttress my claim that WCR accepts AGW. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)" Perhaps the first quote by itself isn't decisive on the issue of AGW, but the addition of this one (from the same WCR article) ought to be enough. By the way, I meant "rival" merely in the sense that they have often differing views on global warming. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 05:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh...and I dropped the word "clearly" too, if that helps. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 05:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This would all have been better on the WCR talk page - so I shall reply there. But Raymond is correct; and your assertion of COI is wrong William M. Connolley 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll keep that in mind about proper venue. I guess we disagree on the conflict of interest issue. I certainly wouldn't say it precludes you from monitoring the article, but I do think it places an extra burden to be objective. By the way, as you will see on the WCR talk page, I'll take your suggestion on wording it in the negative rather than making a positive claim. That is satisfactory. I just don't like to put nothing at all because the phrase global warming skeptic has a strong implication of rejecting the idea of global warming period or anthropogenic global warming, and I don't think that they reject either GW or AGW outright. Regarding the note you left on my talk page: I am aware of WP:3RR, thank you, but I don't believe I reverted more than three times. I only reverted two times yesterday, in fact. The other changes I made were not reverts. They were either unrelated to the issue being disputed or were separate attempts after the second revert to satisfy you on the issue (not an undoing of your own changes). Cordially, Geoffrey Allan Plauche 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)