tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post203388910237940237..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: A comment by Alex Harvey: CLIMATE CHANGE ARBITRATION BIAS AT WIKIPEDIAeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-6062885206616811602014-07-16T15:57:26.976+02:002014-07-16T15:57:26.976+02:00"I agree with HvS, we've learnt a lot abo..."I agree with HvS, we've learnt a lot about wikipedia battles, it seems to be not much different from the discussions in climate blogs."<br />No, it is different in one way. If there are a majority of one side on wikipedia, they win, that's all. People looking at the page will see only one side's point of view on every single issue and that's all there is to it. As I said before, I tried a few times, but it didn't matter what the issue was; the end result was always that the page reflected only William Connolley's views on climate science.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-566786252190722042012-05-29T18:40:16.712+02:002012-05-29T18:40:16.712+02:00Anonymous:
Verification is not the only issue, as ...Anonymous:<br />Verification is not the only issue, as you can read here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability<br /><br />See in particular the section on reliable sources. This makes it clear why it is a problem to use Plimer's book. Just like WP Editors would reject a citation to Erich von Däniken's book on Egypt (even if correct) or to Gavin Menzies' books when describing Chinese ships in the 15th century.<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28460208925738411512012-05-29T13:07:46.648+02:002012-05-29T13:07:46.648+02:00Bam / I know you like to be "right", and...Bam / I know you like to be "right", and you have little respect and fantasy for your opponent's view's. On the other hand, you possibly have noticed that this debate is gaining no more momentum in terms of exchange and breadth.<br />Thus, a repetition especially for you and some anonymouses: <b>Write down your opinion on what you think about this debate and what you have learned - and then let this ebb out</b>. Even though this would represent a kind of respect for the position of your opponents.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8254865453354508782012-05-29T09:00:27.203+02:002012-05-29T09:00:27.203+02:00Bam,
I thought WP's rule was "Verifiabili...Bam,<br />I thought WP's rule was "Verifiability, not truth"? In other words, Wikipedia contributors are not allowed to decide which independently published secondary sources are true, just whether they are verifiable. This means that if Plimer is used as a source for information that no one contradicts, such as the information that Cla68 tried to use it for, then there isn't a problem, according to Wikipedia's rules, if I understand them right. So, the editors in that discussion appear to be trying to change Wikipedia's rules to fit their own agenda, which is that only scientists that they like or agree with can be uses as sources. They obviously don't like Plimer, judging by the comments in that discussion. Do Wikipedia contributors also reject the use of other books or newspapers as sources for CC articles if they don't agree with what the source says or if they don't like the sources' authors?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-74056838947764940962012-05-29T08:01:04.029+02:002012-05-29T08:01:04.029+02:00Alex Harvey, what is the problem with the section ...Alex Harvey, what is the problem with the section you quote? It accurately shows that multiple scientists have pointed out that Plimer is wrong. Objective analysis of Plimer's book shows he is wrong.<br /><br />A defense attorney of WP would have a field day if Plimer tried to sue WP for defamation or libel.<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-21845968845090923832012-05-29T07:56:19.752+02:002012-05-29T07:56:19.752+02:00Anonymous @137:
the issue clearly is one of using ...Anonymous @137:<br />the issue clearly is one of using a reputable source. Cla68 included a non-reputable source to replace a reputable source. That is not in accordance with WP's policies. As user ChrisO mentions, Erich von Däniken may well have said some things right about Egypt, but you still would not ever use it as a source for statements about Egypt.<br /><br />Cla68 even manages in that discussion to claim Plimer is an expert. He isn't. He has zero peer reviewed publications on climate.<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64385495092390125762012-05-29T06:35:12.933+02:002012-05-29T06:35:12.933+02:00At Kim Dabelstein Petersen's suggestion above,...At Kim Dabelstein Petersen's suggestion above, I read the discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_61#RS). Basically, from what I can see, what happened is that a portion of the text in the article was sourced to a self-published paper from a blog. So, Cla68 suggested adding Plimer as a source since his book, which is a secondary source and apparently more in accordance with WP's policies, confirms the information as accurate. Cla68 dropped it after other participants were able to find other, published sources. What strikes me from that discussion is the partisanship on display by most of those involved. Even if it turned-out that Plimer's book was accurate on that point, they were refusing to use it as a source. In other words, they appear to have a list of scientists who are acceptable to use as sources and those that aren't, no matter if they agree that the "forbidden" scientists have gotten at least some of it right. Isn't that a violation of WP's arcane "Point" policy, if not NPOV?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2894994478938362532012-05-28T12:00:03.800+02:002012-05-28T12:00:03.800+02:00A good deal has been made of the discovery of Cla6...<i>A good deal has been made of the discovery of Cla68's forbidden-books collection. In particular, references to Ian Plimer and Christopher Booker have made a lot of noise.</i><br /><br />PLEASE, DO NOT EXAGERATE!<br /><br />I was the one mentioning it ("In my humble opinion a person who bases his view on AGW on books such as these, is quite simply not qualified to alter any texts on this subject on Wikipedia. But of course, I could be wrong.") and I don't believe such a big deal was made out of it subsequently. Why you choose to make such a statement is beyond me. A strawman to again show how those crazy alarmists are suppressing neutrality?<br /><br />Anyone interested in Ian Plimer, can have a look at this wonderful <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs" rel="nofollow">debate</a> with George Monbiot.<br /><br />The most neutral and balanced thing that can be said about Ian Plimer is that he distorts and d/misinforms on such a scale that it it's very difficult to being reduced to just a 'mistake', or a 'misjudgement' (not an ad hominem, please don't delete my comment, I can substantiate my statement), and that he should be he completely ignored, as should anyone who d/misinforms and never retracts the d/misinformation.<br /><br />Of course, that d/misinformation serves a purpose (making sure the greenie commies don't change anything about the wonderful way societies and economies are currently functioning), and so there has to be a call for 'neutrality' on Wikipedia, so that it may never be ignored. First the d/misinformation is let loose to delay, then we get some more delay from endlessly talking about the suppression of said d/misinformation. A wonderfully successful tactic, I would say.<br /><br />I guess this was my closing statement, although I wasn't a real contributor to this discussion, except for making a remark about Cla68's choice of books on global warming, which was gratefully blown out of proportion by champion of neutrality Alex Harvey. Looking forward to your next neutral guest post on Klimazwiebel, Alex.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-39466932665355606682012-05-28T11:40:28.385+02:002012-05-28T11:40:28.385+02:00Andreas> BTW: I've never visited CC-pages i...Andreas> BTW: I've never visited CC-pages in WP before. When I was interested in an assessment of climate science, there's an excellent and free source made by real climate experts, it's called IPCC-AR4 WG1. That's the gold standard ;-)<br /><br />Agreed. And wiki does somewhat struggle, nowadays, to try to say anything useful that isn't simply copying out of that, which is boring.<br /><br />I don't think you'll find anything on wiki (within the science articles) that disagrees with IPCC (for example, I just recently took out some overenthusiastic extremes stuff from the GW article, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=494365601&oldid=494341515; if they were thinking, that would cause von S, AH and PT to wonder if their characterisation of me was correct). So, agreed, IPCC is the gold standard and it is what wiki uses, and this is correct.<br /><br />What saves wiki is that IPCC is largely indigestible to the general populace, and of course the linking to a great variety of supporting articles. But, you also won't find useful stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports in the IPCC report itself.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-67359971096993865702012-05-28T11:10:44.554+02:002012-05-28T11:10:44.554+02:00(part 2)
3) As was pointed out WMC and others rem...(part 2)<br /><br />3) As was pointed out WMC and others remain banned from contributing to biographies of living people. Of course, there is nothing to stop other climate activists from inserting the desired attacks into biography pages. Arbitrarily banning those who appear to be the worst offenders is hardly a sustainable solution to the problem.<br /><br />4) Andreas can't get over this error I made in the wording of my post at #70. It is true; I was writing quickly and didn't notice what I'd written was not quite right. As it happens, though, what Andreas writes is correct nonetheless - <i>It was surprising to see how little some wikipedia contributors know about CC</i>. In fact I said this in my article. I only know of two regular CC editors with relevant qualifications to write about science in WP CC.<br /><br />But the point in #70 is important. I was misled by similar information found elsewhere on the internet about the causes of the 'ice ages' for years (and I mean 'ice age' in the sense that the late Stephen H. Schneider meant it when he warned in the 70s of a coming 'ice age' - i.e. a period of glaciation in the 100,000 year cycle of glacial-interglacial periods).<br /><br />In 2009 I discovered an essay by Richard Lindzen that referred to a paper by his former student, Gerard Roe. I found Roe's paper extraordinary; it turned my understanding of ice ages on its head. I read most of the papers citing it and compared these explanations with those found at places like Wikipedia and Skeptical Science. Eventually I contacted Prof. Roe and asked if I had understood all this. I reproduced this correspondence with permission at Lubos Motl's blog, where I was at the time disputing Motl over his own one-sided presentation. Nonetheless, Prof. Roe agreed that Skeptical Science's explanation of the ice ages is not quite right. To me, 'not quite right' means 'wrong'. And by extension, I infer that Wikipedia is not wrong, but biased. I stand by this point. <br /><br />I also have seen little interest by scientists at the more activist blogs of communicating to the public the insight of Gerard Roe's paper. It's not that scientists are unaware of it; even James Hansen acknowledges it in the peer reviewed literature. It appears to me that many activist-scientists are happy for their readers to go on believing that CO2 is indeed the primary cause of 'ice ages' when they know full well that it isn't. I say this because I see them make incorrect statements at scientist blogs and these never get corrected.<br /><br />So I ask Andreas if it is right that the public is misled about the science for the sake of action on climate change? If I am a high school student with a keen interest in the ice ages is it fair that I am misinformed in this way? <br /><br />5) Andreas also marvels that the science appears to be mostly right in Wikipedia. To be sure, I also assume that it is mostly right. But so what? The purpose of seizing control of Wikipedia is to control information consumed by newcomers to the climate change debate. Newcomers are school children, university students, hobbyists, and politicians – not people who are going to evaluate the scientific content. Of course, Andreas – the IPCC documents are where most go for the science. I have not read most of Wikipedia's science articles. This whole point you've raised, although perhaps not intentionally, is a red herring. <br /><br />--<br /><br />I will have more to say about the goings on in Wikipedia in the future. I thank commenters for their feedback and it will certainly be considered if I write another piece. I also thank Prof. von Storch kindly for his open-minded willingness to discuss these issues and in general for this excellent blog.Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88092099131397929582012-05-28T11:02:31.518+02:002012-05-28T11:02:31.518+02:00(part 1)
@All, I'll make various responses to...(part 1)<br /><br />@All, I'll make various responses to points raised.<br /><br />1) Aside from an error that I discovered myself, after about 1 week and 132 comments, nobody has challenged any of the detail in the post, except in general terms to question whether Cla68 was really 'neutral' or as good an editor as I said he was. WMC asserted that <i>Just about everything written by AH is either lies or deliberate misrepresentation</i>. His subsequent lack of point by point rebuttal and refusal to answer questions speaks volumes.<br /><br />2) A good deal has been made of the discovery of Cla68's forbidden-books collection. In particular, references to Ian Plimer and Christopher Booker have made a lot of noise.<br /><br />It is important to understand the historical context of <i>why</i> these two skeptics figured in so much discussion.<br /><br /><i>Plimer</i> - In 2009 Ian Plimer wrote a book called 'Heaven and Earth'. Even before it was published, climate activists had launched pre-emptive attacks from Ian Plimer's Wikipedia biography page and from another page created to discredit his book. My own background is in history and philosophy of science and I worked primarily on biographies and historical articles. So I was also personally involved in defending Plimer from attacks along with Cla68 and Peter Tillman and others. This is not because I agree with Plimer; I don't. It is because Wikipedia is above all (supposed to be) neutral. Neutrality is Wikipedia's mission statement. It is the reason it is not privately owned, or even publicly owned.<br /><br />After all the skeptics were banned, the activists had their way at this page of course. Ian Plimer's biography now records that,<br /><br /><i>In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book in which he says that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, and do not give the weight he thinks is appropriate to other factors such as solar variation.[33] Scientists from many disciplines have reviewed the book, and have accused Plimer of misrepresenting sources,[34][35] misusing data,[34][36][37] and engaging in conspiracy theories.[38][39] They describe the book as unscientific,[40] and containing numerous errors from which Plimer draws false conclusions.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]</i><br /><br />Of course there were positive reviews of Ian Plimer's book and followup statements by Plimer himself but mention of these is forbidden in Wikipedia. Having banned the skeptics, the activists got their way in the end.<br /><br />Plimer's biography contains other attacks and I no longer know how accurate the article is. I regret that I have no energy left to defend the likes of Ian Plimer from attacks that I think he at least partially deserves.<br /><br /><i>Booker</i> - <br /><br />As with Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker also wrote a climate skeptic-type book in 2009. This (presumably) explains why Cla68 was defending Christopher Booker to the observed extent in Wikipedia pages, although I was not involved there.<br /><br />For those of you who love Wikipedia, keep in mind that sooner or later the activists in Wikipedia <i>will</i> attack a living person who <i>will</i> fight back and fight back hard in court. If this person wins in court, quite a conceivable outcome, Wikipedia will be hurt. If it ends up bankrupt, it will be sold (or taken offline).Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-21575277317285673822012-05-28T00:58:35.577+02:002012-05-28T00:58:35.577+02:00@131,
Cla didn't like a particular blog, whic...@131,<br /><br />Cla didn't like a particular blog, which [i]does[/i] pass Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources. (the particular rule is [[WP:SPS]] - [i]Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work [b]in the relevant field[/b] has previously been published by reliable third-party publications[/i]).<br /><br />He exchanged it with a book that is [i]not[/i] a reliable source under all Wikipedia rules. <br /><br />Now you interpret it as Cla expressing an opinion by [i]demonstrating[/i] that it is ridiculous, if i understand you correctly - and this might be a valid interpretation .....<br />... there is just the problem that this is disruptive editing under WP rules - the specific rule here is WP:POINT (do not disrupt editing by trying to make a point).Kim Dabelstein Petersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722809257228519047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-5472727816351469972012-05-27T23:48:15.346+02:002012-05-27T23:48:15.346+02:00Kim Dabelstein Petersen,
You say that Cla68 was &q...Kim Dabelstein Petersen,<br />You say that Cla68 was "plugging" Plimer's book, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer&diff=prev&oldid=358123874 ) Cla68 adds pejorative information to Plimer's article. It looks like the point Cla68 was trying to make is that if you want to source something to blog, which is again'st WP's rules on reliable sourceing, then why not add information from Plimer's book, which is a reliable sources according to WP's rules. He showed that you were using a double standard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61000257848394715822012-05-27T17:30:51.843+02:002012-05-27T17:30:51.843+02:00#128: "... but I guess further exchanges of c...#128: "... but I guess further exchanges of comments will not prove anything, convince nobody to change positions ..."<br /><br />You are an astute observer and an honest broker. My own experience on Wikipedia suggests that you have already gained sufficient insight into the behind the scenes machinations of Wikipedia to draw your own conclusions about the neutrality of the CC information found there.<br /><br />I wish to thank you for providing a forum in which some small aspect of those machinations can be brought into the light of day.GoRighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10456169466546981082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35039769410913072992012-05-27T17:09:44.295+02:002012-05-27T17:09:44.295+02:00My final remarks:
I agree with HvS, we've lea...My final remarks:<br /><br />I agree with HvS, we've learnt a lot about wikipedia battles, it seems to be not much different from the discussions in climate blogs. <br /><br />I stick to my conclusions in #67, all further comments gratefully confirm my post. Furthermore it was interesting to see that all contributors from both parties see themselves as being the middle ground.<br /><br />It was surprising to see how little some wikipedia contributors know about CC (AH and ice ages, PT in #100) and almost more surprising, that the wikipedia pages relating to climate change I've checked in the past days are quite well. Some tends to the skeptic POV, some to the AGW-side.<br /><br /><br />@ all wikipedia contributors<br /><br />Thanks for your work at wikipedia. And calm down a little bit, the results show that wikipedia rules work rather well instead of all attempts to put in some kind of agenda.<br /><br />BTW: I've never visited CC-pages in WP before. When I was interested in an assessment of climate science, there's an excellent and free source made by real climate experts, it's called IPCC-AR4 WG1. That's the gold standard ;-)<br /><br />Best regards and thanks for dropping by<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18163700762633341852012-05-27T16:19:19.466+02:002012-05-27T16:19:19.466+02:00I have added an update by Alex Harvey at the end o...<b>I have added an update by Alex Harvey at the end of the post.</b><br /><br />On the other hand, I got the impression that we have learned a lot about what is going on behind the curtains of Wikipedia. Likely different people have learned different things - but I guess further exchanges of comments will not prove anything, convince nobody to change positions - I suggest, let's come to an end. A final comment by the various contributors, a last declaration for the time being, and then let's move on to something else.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53815797204706231102012-05-27T10:11:28.705+02:002012-05-27T10:11:28.705+02:00Alex Harvey, I cannot confirm something that is no...Alex Harvey, I cannot confirm something that is not true. I am not Tony Sidaway.<br /><br />I did have a good look at the history of this supposedly oh so neutral and nice cla68, and found this the most obvious example of cla68 making disruptive complaints about others, since anyone with even the slightest mathematical or chemical competencies can check the chemical formulas of talcum and white asbestos (on Wikipedia, if need be) and note that the two are not the same.<br /><br />And since when is a request for sanctions a "minor incident"?<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-13550351833192917792012-05-27T07:04:54.225+02:002012-05-27T07:04:54.225+02:00Bam, would you be so kind as to confirm that you a...Bam, would you be so kind as to confirm that you are Tony Sidaway himself? A bit of googling shows that Tony Sidaway and his alternate account Tasty Monster has made a [point about talcum powder and white asbestos a number of times using a similar wording. It also seems that only Tony Sidaway himself would remember a minor incident of being challenged for changing 'disputed' to 'false'. Thanks.Alex Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591760549272940968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-12463938490850547042012-05-27T04:06:09.941+02:002012-05-27T04:06:09.941+02:00RE: WMC @ 122, GoRight @ 123
WMC: I didn't re...RE: WMC @ 122, GoRight @ 123<br /><br />WMC: I didn't recall where you'd put your note. And I'm pretty sure there was some followup correspondence, probably on your talk page. I distinctly recall mentioning your objection to Zorita, who was gracious about it. A trait it would be to your advantage to adopt.<br /><br />The Klimazwiebel regulars are getting a good taste of the Wiki Climate Wars in miniature here. Sigh.Peter D. Tillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00342712377224906147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2726327031880321212012-05-26T21:39:16.508+02:002012-05-26T21:39:16.508+02:00#122: WMC, "Pity you didn't simply quote ...#122: WMC, "Pity you didn't simply quote me, rather than constructing an invalid paraphrase."<br /><br />Pity you didn't fully quote yourself: "Needs some evidence for notability (an odd assortment of 'notable' pubs isn't it)"<br /><br />On wiki how can that be reasonably interpreted as as anything other than a threat "to challenge EZ's 'notability'"? You obviously considered his publications to be lacking notability in a Wikipedia sense. The mere statement is a challenge of notability in and of itself.<br /><br />Or is there some alternative interpretation of the scare quotes you used that eludes me?GoRighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10456169466546981082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77386881114950967202012-05-26T21:16:33.374+02:002012-05-26T21:16:33.374+02:00#121: "Probably the poor man would have been ...#121: "Probably the poor man would have been elected for sanctioning by the likes of Alex Harvey and cla68 for being "rude" about another person (the pope)!"<br /><br />It is interesting and telling that AH and Cla68 are being cast in the role of supporters of the Pope.<br /><br />When one considers the entrenched power structures at play, both then and now, I should think that they are more properly cast in the role of Galileo.<br /><br />At least this should be true if the climate science is as settled as the IPCC disciples continue to claim.GoRighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10456169466546981082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83970016993206741802012-05-26T20:54:38.372+02:002012-05-26T20:54:38.372+02:00PT: Pity you didn't simply quote me, rather th...PT: Pity you didn't simply quote me, rather than constructing an invalid paraphrase. What I actually said was "Needs some evidence for notability" which was, and still is, correct.<br /><br />[And, for anyone interested in the wiki-ese: were you really expecting anyone at all to have been able to find that userspace talk page, without telling them? You created the EZ page by cut-n-paste from your userspace draft, instead of moving it as you should have, which would at least have provided a hint I could have followed back.]William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17975350435874086152012-05-26T19:53:28.241+02:002012-05-26T19:53:28.241+02:00Hans, your summary of my views versus your views a...Hans, your summary of my views versus your views are not correct. I do not mind pointing out uncertainties or doubt, but do mind if these are not put in the proper context.<br /><br />A funnier discussion would be how certain contributors to Wikipedia would have treated Galileo's way of getting his message of the heliocentric system across. Probably the poor man would have been elected for sanctioning by the likes of Alex Harvey and cla68 for being "rude" about another person (the pope)!<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-20286393271647303172012-05-26T19:42:08.050+02:002012-05-26T19:42:08.050+02:00Alex Harvey, I refer to one of the pieces of "...Alex Harvey, I refer to one of the pieces of "evidence" provided by cla68 to get Tony Sideaway sanctioned. The story is in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals2<br /><br />BamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-21715857972409111422012-05-26T19:41:02.179+02:002012-05-26T19:41:02.179+02:00@WMC, #118
>Presumably you're deliberately...@WMC, #118<br /><br />>Presumably you're deliberately not providing any reference, in an effort to be annoying.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tillman/Eduardo_Zorita<br /><br />>Your made-up nonsense is of no interest to me.<br /><br />Heh. Stings, doesn't it? It truly is *very* weak tea. In my opinion, of course -- but also that of many other scientists outside Climate Science. <br /><br />Since I'm not a regular here:<br />I'm a consulting geologist, based in northern New Mexico, USA. I earned a B.S. in geology and chemistry at Rice University, and a M.S. in geochemistry at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill). I've been interested in paleoclimates since student days, am well-read on the topic, and have considerable experience applying statistical analyses to geological data.Peter D. Tillmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00342712377224906147noreply@blogger.com