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:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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).

Any real scientist knows, from the history of science, that most theory will eventually be superseded by better theory. And any real scientist knows that this is not a typical scientific controversy -- there is a lot of political pressure, big bucks are involved, and there is a kind of McCarthyism afoot that demonizes the "deniers." Competent climatologists will tell you, in private, that all the theorizing is based on an extremely selective array of data, and that major factors, such as the influence of solar activity and cosmic radiation, are excluded from consideration, because that might undercut "the message."

[Milton Roe]

Any real scientist knows, from the history of science, that most theory will eventually be superseded by better theory.

The "better theory" is usually merely one with more bells and whistles and refinements, though. Rarely does it flatly contradict the old theory. Einstein's theories reduce to Newton's in the limit of slow speeds and weak gravity; they don't say Newton was wrong. Quite obviously, to first order, Newton continues to be right. Which is why he's still taught.