William Connolley (and Polargeo) vs Lar, Global warming wars Options

[Cla68]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

[Malleus]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

Lar doesn't either. He's quite happy to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, or thinks they are.

Just in case there's any doubt though, I firmly believe that WMC's position is at best dishonest.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Ottava]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

Lar doesn't either. He's quite happy to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, or thinks they are.

Just in case there's any doubt though, I firmly believe that WMC's position is at best dishonest.

Can't we just ban em all? Bring me back too. : )

The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

So Sanger got it wrong? It's not adults peddling porn to children, but children peddling porn to adults?

I think that is the argument most pedophiles make: "she came onto me".



By the way, what about the BLP issues of Lar accusing WMC of doing something sneaky on Wikipedia regarding Climate Change in a parallel manner to "climategate"? Isn't that a big no-no? I don't really see any diffs or proof (no emails released yet).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Lar]

By the way, what about the BLP issues of Lar accusing WMC of doing something sneaky on Wikipedia regarding Climate Change in a parallel manner to "climategate"? Isn't that a big no-no? I don't really see any diffs or proof (no emails released yet).

Although it may be convenient for others to allege that I have said this, as far as I am aware I have made no such suggestion. I ascribe no ulterior motive, allege no grand conspiracy, and have full faith that the folks I have concerns about are acting in what they believe are correct ways from noble motives.

My concerns are more nuanced, that the playing field is not level, and that control of articles has been exerted over a long period of time. That the articles on the science(1) generally are accurate and agree with the scientific consensus is great. But in this case the ends do not justify the means.

1 - I disagree with their emphasis, the lead article on the Global Warming topic should be more about the socio-politico-economic aspects of this, which are going to be world changing, rather than the specific scientific points... those should be in background, in depth articles rather than the lead. I also disagree with what I feel is spin control by certain editors (I struggle to find a term that won't immediately cause backlash among those editors) to hide details of some of the messier political machinations in the scientific community around (among other things) how the results are presented and verified.

I'm sure some will contend it is already, but there are a couple of admins, including Lar and LessHeard, who are actually trying to correct or manage the behavior of WMC and some of the other regulars in those articles. I hope that they will be able to continue to do so.

Or maybe they'll wise up and move on to other areas where they don't have to be aggravated on an hourly basis. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

It's tempting.

[Ottava]

Although it may be convenient for others to allege that I have said this, as far as I am aware I have made no such suggestion. I ascribe no ulterior motive, allege no grand conspiracy, and have full faith that the folks I have concerns about are acting in what they believe are correct ways from noble motives.

My concerns are more nuanced, that the playing field is not level, and that control of articles has been exerted over a long period of time. That the articles on the science(1) generally are accurate and agree with the scientific consensus is great. But in this case the ends do not justify the means.

1 - I disagree with their emphasis, the lead article on the Global Warming topic should be more about the socio-politico-economic aspects of this, which are going to be world changing, rather than the specific scientific points... those should be in background, in depth articles rather than the lead. I also disagree with what I feel is spin control by certain editors (I struggle to find a term that won't immediately cause backlash among those editors) to hide details of some of the messier political machinations in the scientific community around (among other things) how the results are presented and verified.

"but WMC is not a very civil person. He does not suffer fools gladly. (and by his definition, many of us are fools) He has a history of baiting others he is in conflict with until they explode. I am not the only person who holds this view."

That right there is from you in the RfC.

I've seen people without the protect of admin status be blocked for making such accusations without "diffs", even if hidden behind labels of "my opinion".

If my ArbCom statement can say I violated BLP for a talk page statement that a guy wasn't a respected writer, then you making a comment about a person who has a biography on Wikipedia like the above is definitely a BLP violation.

[Lar]

Although it may be convenient for others to allege that I have said this, as far as I am aware I have made no such suggestion. I ascribe no ulterior motive, allege no grand conspiracy, and have full faith that the folks I have concerns about are acting in what they believe are correct ways from noble motives.

My concerns are more nuanced, that the playing field is not level, and that control of articles has been exerted over a long period of time. That the articles on the science(1) generally are accurate and agree with the scientific consensus is great. But in this case the ends do not justify the means.

1 - I disagree with their emphasis, the lead article on the Global Warming topic should be more about the socio-politico-economic aspects of this, which are going to be world changing, rather than the specific scientific points... those should be in background, in depth articles rather than the lead. I also disagree with what I feel is spin control by certain editors (I struggle to find a term that won't immediately cause backlash among those editors) to hide details of some of the messier political machinations in the scientific community around (among other things) how the results are presented and verified.

"but WMC is not a very civil person. He does not suffer fools gladly. (and by his definition, many of us are fools) He has a history of baiting others he is in conflict with until they explode. I am not the only person who holds this view."

That right there is from you in the RfC.

I've seen people without the protect of admin status be blocked for making such accusations without "diffs", even if hidden behind labels of "my opinion".

If my ArbCom statement can say I violated BLP for a talk page statement that a guy wasn't a respected writer, then you making a comment about a person who has a biography on Wikipedia like the above is definitely a BLP violation.

You changed the subject to refute something I didn't say. Is your animus now so great that you're willing to overlook anything I point out just to try to score points against me? Ok whatever.

[Ottava]

You changed the subject to refute something I didn't say.

I pointed out that you have been going after him in a way that violates BLP. You denied it. I pointed out one example of it. If you don't like it, you can always strike the comment from the RfC. As long as it is in print, I stand by my assessment.

[Lar]

You changed the subject to refute something I didn't say.

I pointed out that you have been going after him in a way that violates BLP. You denied it. I pointed out one example of it. If you don't like it, you can always strike the comment from the RfC. As long as it is in print, I stand by my assessment.

I don't think you've shown that commenting on inappropriate editor behavior is "going after" them, much less violating BLP. Again, your animus is showing.

[Ottava]

I don't think you've shown that commenting on inappropriate editor behavior

You made unsourced negative claims of a highly disparaging nature about someone who has a biography on Wikipedia and is living. You have done so on multiple pages dating back many months. The BLP violations would warrant large blocks by this time if people actually enforced our policies appropriately and fairly.

[Lar]

I don't think you've shown that commenting on inappropriate editor behavior

You made unsourced negative claims of a highly disparaging nature about someone who has a biography on Wikipedia and is living. You have done so on multiple pages dating back many months. The BLP violations would warrant large blocks by this time if people actually enforced our policies appropriately and fairly.

The claims might be currently unsourced, but are they untrue? You've been around enough to know, if you aren't blind or biased. The truth is not "disparaging" if it's true.

This is a side issue really. WMC, et al, are not happy that I'm not turning a blind eye to their activities, and it takes a massive effort to actually demonstrate that the claims are untrue, witness how hard it has been so far to even get them to concede that there are groups of editors that edit in the same areas and that I identified some. Each point is argued in detail and then when you get to the end, it's characterised as "trivially obvious", but if you'd said that at the go, you'd not get anywhere.

Just another example of where WP "governance" (not government but governance, and the quotes are because it's governance in name only in many areas) isn't working.

But go ahead, attack me for pointing out what most honest folk know already instead of working to resolve the problems by making constructive contributions to the discourse.

PS... when you quote me please don't cut me off in midsentence quite so much. Makes it look like you're trying to twist things around.

[Ottava]

The claims might be currently unsourced, but are they untrue?

Same argument I made about John Beer. I provided a few sources that agreed with me that his work for Britannica was him selling out. ArbCom didn't care and called me an egregious BLP violator anyway.

Source the damn statements! Start a counter RfC with diffs! Send this damn thing to ArbCom. It would be like King Kong vs Godzilla. Toyko will be destroyed regardless of the victor.

PS... when you quote me please don't cut me off in midsentence quite so much. Makes it look like you're trying to twist things around.

It is my way of trimming the fat of the argument. If you want, I could just bold the portions of the quote that I am responding to?

[Cla68]

I believe this has been dicussed in WR before, but as many of you are aware, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, which purports to show a link between CO2 levels and global temperature increases, has had a controversial history. Two amateur statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (M&M), were able to get a paper published in a scientific journal criticizing the research that went into the graph. In response to an inquiry by the US Congress, an additional investigation by statistician Edward Wegman (check out the talk page for that article) upheld M&M's findings. Further papers since then have defended the graph, but recently David Hand, one of the top UK statisticians, said that he felt the graph's results were "exaggerated".

Perhaps in response to M&M's findings, Mann and some colleagues set up the RealClimate blog, the staff of which spend a lot of time and effort defending Mann's hockey stick research and attacking those who criticize the graph. As you all are aware, Connolley used to work for RealClimate, and in fact was one of its founding members

Here's the thing, if the hockey stick graph, which was the centerpiece of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and the IPCC's Third Assessment Report is false it does not mean that humans aren't causing global warming. It just means that Mann's research is lousy and scientists looking for the cause of the warming that occurred between 1900 and 1999 (according to the CRU, there hasn't been significant global warming increases since then) need to ask Mann to redo his methods if he wants to be part of that effort.

My impression is that Connolley is not just trying to push the human-caused global warming theory in Wikipedia. He is also trying to support the efforts to defend Mann's hockey stick research. If so, then this makes Connolley's Wikipedia agenda more dishonest, because it means that he is not just POV-pushing, but trying to use Wikipedia to support a friend's controversial and unproven research. In the past, Connolley and the editors who support him have tried to introduce RealClimate links into the AGW articles. They have recently backed off of this because other editors have tried to follow their lead and use sceptical blogs as sources.

This post has been edited by Cla68: