User talk:William M. Connolley/Old Talk 3

Global Warming

Your article on global warming is skewed and unscientific in its presentation. Please take into account that an encyclopaedia's purpose is to provide a factual, unbiased summary of a set of topics, not to push one's opinions. Phrasing a theory in terms of "proponents" and "opponents" is childish and does nothing to support the point of an article (viz., to convey information).

(William M. Connolley 16:53, 2004 May 21 (UTC)) Its not my article - I've just made the valuable contributions :-)

As to the prop/opp: that was Uncle Ed's contribution - go complain to him.

(William M. Connolley 20:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) note: this section has now been revised (by me))

Climate Change

Dear William, I also think that your edits of the articles about climate change are highly biased and they contradict the ethical rules of Wikipedia. Even when we only focus on the pages that I've visited - and climate is not my primary field, I work on string theory - it is clear that you have tried to censor a significant amount of information that you find inconvenient, and to create a very misleading impression that the whole scientific community agrees with you. I've studied the MM paper in detail, for example, and it is a great paper. You have no right to try to hide their findings from the public. Your statements that the scientific community is unified would only be true if you had the power to behave as various totalitarian regimes in the world and eliminate everyone who disagrees with you. Moreover, it is not hard to find out on the internet that you have a direct financial interest on propagation of various catastrophic theories because this is how you're paid. I ask you: Calm down, because your activity seems to be creating more harm than good. If you think that you know more about the subject than others, write concrete non-trivial statements from which the people can learn something. This is certainly not what you're doing right now - what you're doing right now is intellectually limited propaganda. --Lumidek 12:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)) You can't have read M&M in detail, or you wouldn't have described it as a reconstruction of past climate. As for "hiding" M&M - this is nonsense. Its linked from the Temperature record of the past 1000 years. I have had a hard time keeping the wiki climate pages from being biased in favour of the skeptic side. In turn, I ask you to calm down: your rant above does no good.

I have read the whole paper, as well as some extra documents behind it and the correspondence between M&M and Mann, and the primary goal of the M&M paper is to redo the calculation of the temperature index between 1400 and 1980, which they do. If you continue to say that M&M is not a reconstruction of past climate, then you are simply proving that you don't follow what's happening in this science.

Lumidek 17:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)) So if you're puffing your reading, you'll undoubtedly have read http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html, including the section:

Your graph seems to show that the 15th Century was warmer than today’s climate: is this what you’re claiming? No. We’re saying that Mann et al., based on their methodology and corrected data, cannot claim that the 20th century is warmer than the 15th century – the nuance is a little different. To make a positive claim that the 15th century was warmer than the late 20th century would require an endorsement of both the methodology and the common interpretation of the results which we are neither qualified nor inclined to offer.

M&M is *not* a reconstruction - because they aren't prepared to endorse the methods. They only claim its an audit of Mann. Perhaps you missed the nuance.

I understand the nuance very well. Of course that they don't endorse the methods; they are staying quite neutral about them, and I am not happy about them either. The proxies are unreliable, and the method is designed to regulate and underestimate the fluctuations in the past. I could say that Mann's (and MM's) methods are overly convoluted, and they result in searching for patterns that don't have to exist. Nevertheless, MM follow these methods more properly and more logically and avoid some errors. It is not clear whether the proxies and inputs are the best data that we can have about the past climate - but if they are, it seems that then MM is the best reconstruction of the past climate we can have right now, and Mann et al. is just an incomplete and erroneous preliminary version of MM. --Lumidek 09:51, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)) If you understand this nuance so well, how did you come to write:

Their findings seem to indicate there were several periods over the past millennium or more (including the early 15th century) when it was equally as warm as, or even warmer than, it was during the 20th century.

which directly contradicts M&M's own words?

As to your characterisation of M&M vs Mann: this seems to reflect nothing but your own biases. As is typical of people on your side of the argument, you present it as M&M vs Mann, and forget all the other reconstructions that are incompatible with M&M. Quite why you think M&M are reliable is a mystery to me. Check http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html and try to make climate2003 work. Check for updates "within a few weeks" of may 3. They are falling apart.

The words "...they suggest that there was a warm period in/until the early 15th century..." are implicitly containing "...assuming that the same data set and methods, as outlined by Mann et al., are taken seriously." I don't think that these conclusions are too serious - the whole field of yours is mostly pseudoscience dictated by ideology. Concerning other "reconstructions", sorry, but it just seems as a compound with 90% of bullshit. People are repeating random statements one after another, and if someone has different conclusions, your comrades - including yourself - don't allow him or her to publish. It's a totally biased game whose results have no value. Otherwise if I am on a side of the argument, it is the side of good science, as opposed to pseudoscience. I have no idea whether MM are gonna publish a new stuff and how much time it takes, but I also think that this has no direct consequences for the issue. --Lumidek 11:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is just silly. Quite why you have such a bee in your bonnet over this I don't know. You seem to feel free to arbitrarily dismiss peer-reviewed research you don't like as junk. You can do this of course: but I don't understand why you think anyone will believe you.

Delete tags

I am sorry. :-( Henri Tapani Heinonen 18:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Thats OK...

Hi. What was wrong with graviscalar and graviphoton? I thought that they are elementary particles. Is it only pseudo science? ;-( Henri Tapani Heinonen 06:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably, that the articles you wrote were too short. There are a couple of things you can do about this: simply re-create them, but with a bit more content, and perhaps links to some relevant articles - list-of-particles perhaps. Whatever: I'm not an expert in this area. If you do re-create them and they are shortish, add {{stub}} to them. And perhaps put a note on their discussion page. If you want to build them up slowly, you can start them off from within your user space. Or, contact the person who deleted them (a bit tricky now they are gone...). BTW, I didn't delete them: all I was doing was preserving the delete tags.

My user page

Thanks for reverting my user page. Those were the guys whose edits I kept reverting on There. I shouldn't have reverted it so many times, but that was before I found out about the three-revert rule. Thanks again, [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - talk - contribs]] 21:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)) You're welcome. I've had somewhat similar probs myself - I know it helps to have someone else on your side.