William Connolley demands topic ban be lifted, on Climate Change articles Options

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Right here. I am impressed by his imperious style. Obviously everyone should bow down before him.

[SB_Johnny]

Right here. I am impressed by his imperious style. Obviously everyone should bow down before him.

More power to him. The guy pretty much got banned for being a bit harsh on people who deserved it, from what I understand.

[Guido den Broeder]

Right here. I am impressed by his imperious style. Obviously everyone should bow down before him.

More power to him. The guy pretty much got banned for being a bit harsh on people who deserved it, from what I understand.

Really? When he was an administrator, the guy banned me from Wikipedia when I asked him not to editwar with another user over spelling. Others were treated in a similar fashion.

[Cla68]

Right here. I am impressed by his imperious style. Obviously everyone should bow down before him.

More power to him. The guy pretty much got banned for being a bit harsh on people who deserved it, from what I understand.

Really? When he was an administrator, the guy banned me from Wikipedia when I asked him not to editwar with another user over spelling. Others were treated in a similar fashion.

Fortunately for WMC, Wikipedia doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.

Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Wikipedia to artificially socialize their positions.

[radek]

To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong.

Here's the thing:

"scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming" = something like 90% of them. You gonna be generous, let's say 85%.

scientists that "recognize that they might be wrong" = this one's more of a guess. There really isn't much of a reason to doubt it, evidence wise. So, as a scientist, you'd really have to be an ultra-skeptic (and really, "recognizing you might be wrong" to a scientist would mean something like assessing the probability that one might be mistaken but nm). So out of that 85%, 90% probably don't see a need to doubt that they're wrong (not in any significant sense).

.8*.1=.085 so basically you're saying that you only respect about 8.5% of scientists (plus presumably some fraction of the remaining 15%). If that's the case then it's probably not a good idea to get involved in the editing of science-related articles.

(D'oh! Sloppy math corrected)

This post has been edited by radek: