 | This user has been adopted by Arbitrarily0. |
 | This user has a Strong Password. † |
 | This user is a citizen of the United States of America. |
| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
| US | This user uses American English. |
 | This user comes from the U.S. state of Georgia. |
About Me
editMy name is Adam Thompson, and this is my first article creation or article edit on Wikipedia. The ongoing anthropogenic global warming dispute has compelled me to create an account in an effort to bring some balance to the Wikipedia articles in question. I teach 7th grade History, as well as other subjects, and was the first of a small handful of teachers at our school to endorse the use of Wikipedia for casual research. I have more recently been spurned by some of my co-workers for having endorsed the use of Wikipedia, specifically as a result of real or imagined bias by certain Wikipedia editors. The ongoing concerns center around the growing scandals ('Climategate', Copenhagen et al) and apparent attempts to hold certain Wikipedia articles hostage or manipulate data to reflect unfair bias or conflicts of interest. I find myself regretting my initial endorsement of Wikipedia, for in some minds the climate-specific bullying brings into question the accuracy of all ~3.5(?) million Wikipedia articles, and at least one of my peers believes I am a part of this, merely because I endorsed the casual use of Wikipedia, and that I am trying to 'erase' the Medieval Warm Period, This could not be further from the truth.
While not a Historian in the strictest sense, I do enjoy history quite much and it is my favorite subject to teach. I chose the name Adam.T.Historian because I have a very common name, and a Wikipedian already has an account named Adam Thompson, to whom I have no affiliations or contact. Further, I thought "Adam.T.HistoryTeacher" was just a bit too long. I do hope to contribute to Wikipedia History articles and stubs in a significant way after I get settled in, although my settling in may take some time as I've jumped straight into the "baptism by fire" associated with a very heated topic where little actual consensus, but much polarization and combative behavior, exists.
Open Letter to CRU/IPCC/AGW Workers and Adherents
editThe word skeptic is used in Climate-related Wikipedia articles and talk pages all too often as a derogatory way to lump non-adherents together as if they are some fringe group. If the scientists who question the validity of anthropogenic global warming are skeptics, then I ask you, what does that make you? All scientists are supposed to be skeptics. Skepticism is the very pillar of good science. The rule of thumb is the scientists making the claims (The Climactic Research Unit as an example, in this case) have the burden of proof, and like all proper science, that burden of proof MUST be presented in peer-reviewed journals and include peer-reproducible results. Keeping data and models private are contrary to the spirit of good science, and I hold the scientific community in contempt for having not latched on to this fact in a more timely fashion. I have personally witnessed things in the CRU data and e-mails which are in fact questionable at best, the least of which isn't one of the CRU workers stating he would rather delete data than hand it over to a FOIA request. We would all do well were more scientists rightly called skeptics. I ask everyone who reads this, what are you, a skeptic or a bandwagon passenger?
While some well-intentioned scientists have been taken in by the bandwagon, I ask where is the consensus? Produce verifiable data that shows the alleged overwhelming consensus, inform the world as to how many climate-related scientists are pro-anthropogenic global warming and how many are anti-AGW. Saying something does not make it so. Discrediting your opponents will not change a single fact. Holding certain Wikipedia climate and history articles hostage is only helping to bring the truth to the forefront, so I do thank you for your tenacity in that regard.
John Christy, lead climate scientist, co-winner of the IPCC Nobel prize, and IPCC scientist, writes: No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
More to follow
editI'm currently in the process of looking around other user pages on Wikipedia for ideas about what is typically added to user pages, contents subject to change or expansion. Adam.T.Historian (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)