User talk:Ed Poor

I respect your scientific expertise, Dr. Connolley, but try to bear in mind that we are writing a neutral encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to distinguish scientific and political debate and you're failing to. This will lead to meaninglessness. Voters don't get a vote on the science (indeed, as people are fond of saying (possibly inaccurately) no-one does). Lets stick to the science here, which is what Gavin meant I think. The evidence from TGGWS is that there isn't much to debate - otherwise why would they have to fake their data and mislead Wunsch? If they are interested in having a proper debate on solar variation vs T, why didn't they show the up to date figure presented in fig 1 of Damon and Laut? Please provide a considered answer to this question William M. Connolley 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I just promised Raymond to stay out of climate. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I was looking for. You ought to provide an answer here. Are you interested in this stuff or not? Or you can just be interested in the politics but not the science if you want - its not obligatory William M. Connolley 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with Raymond's permission I'll leave you with this. I am interested in both the science and politics of global warming.

Partisans on both sides have been sloppy, but just as you side with AGW, I side against it on similar grounds. You are convinced that scientific evidence supports AGW; I'm convinced scientific evidence support natural warming.

I've been following a lot of scientific issues over the years, such as nuclear power safety, enviornmental carcinogens, DDT, etc., and frequently found out that the media hype is contradicted by the calm reasoning power of science a few years later.

I had hoped that Wikipedia, by remaining neutral on scientific controversies, would enable each political side to learn a bit about the other viewpoint. That way fence-straddlers might actually learn something. With nothing harder than high school math, it's easy to see who's using the statistics correctly.

But I am disappointed, because apparently the logic and math of science is way over the heads of the average (literate!) person. Why, the idea that a hypothesis is tested indirectly by deriving inferences and testing those isn't even part of our scientific method article. Why? Too much logic? A => B. If not B, then not A. I've known that since grade school.

So, I'm off again. Enjoy your work . . . --Uncle Ed 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks, Ed, for your comments on my user page. I don't know if you followed the arguments that led up to that discussion but I totally agree with your comment re: starting a quarrel about whether someone is quarrelsome. Those guys have knocked it off for the time being but I expect that as soon as I have something to add to one of the pages they have ownership issues with, that the accusations will start again ... sigh. csloat 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag bombing

Tag bombing articles [1] that run against your personal bent is not constructive editing, Ed. Why am I not surprised this is exactly what you chose to do after creating that tag? FeloniousMonk 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to agree, and say that I will revert all uses of this tag by you from now on.JQ 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "tag bombing" is, and what FeloniousMonk meant by the phrase "run against your personal bent".

Pointing out weasel words is within policy, isn't it? How is it "not constructive" to request attribution for a phrase like "has been criticized as"? FM himself has recently fixed a number of articles which I tagged or used Wikipedia:text move on.

I hope this wasn't done in a spirit of "there wasn't really a problem, see how wrong your previous edit was?" but rather in a collegial, "oh yes, I see the problem you pointed out, and now I've fixed it". --Uncle Ed 02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was misused in Steven Milloy. If you'd read the article in full you'd see that all the criticisms were attributed. If you want it to be useful, be less indiscriminate in its application.JQ 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, perhaps you're saying that unattributed claims are okay in the intro, provided they are attributed further down, in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 03:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that. An intro is supposed to cover main points. But if you want to fill the intro with links, feel free.JQ 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format breaking

Hate to tell you this, but you've killed the formatting of the Jonathan Sarfati article. Don't put carriage returns after references - the Wiki software interprets them as paragraph breaks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. I'm a computer programmer and (usually) very careful about the results that my coding produces.

I added some MORE carriage returns (CR) and inspected the HTML produced by them. The Wiki software did not interpret them as paragraph breaks.

Two CR's in a row, however, will produce a paragraph break. Maybe that's what you meant? If so, please point it out. --Uncle Ed 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So it seems. But it's an awfully choppy-looking article. Perhaps we needs to combine it up into paragraphs? Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself needs a lot of work, with paragraph breaks being one factor. Generally, we start a new paragraph when introducing a new aspect of a topic or if it just "looks too long". We don't want to intimidate the reader, but make it easy for them to find the information they are looking for. (We can't assume they'll read the whole thing from beginning to end.)

Let's discuss an outline at the article's talk page. --Uncle Ed 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]