N.Nahber

Welcome!

Hello, N.Nahber, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Global Warming Edit

I deleted your Svensmark add -- his Galactic Cosmic Ray theory hypothesis for global warming is really just fringe stuff now and not considered a serious alternative explanation anymore, and you were comparing a unpublished paper to a peer-reviewed analysis. Plus he already has way too many refs already on the Global Warming article, and there has been a debate on the Talk page about moving/removing those. -BC aka Callmebc 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have undone your merciless deletion. If you read the reply of Svensmark & Friis-Christensen you will find that the Lockwood&Fröhlich article - which generally is quoted as a definite dismissal of Svensmark's Cosmic Ray theory as far as the last 20 years are concerned (it is not so much disputed for previous times) - is seriously rebutted. By looking at just one data set, Lockwood&Fröhlich conclude that there is no link between solar activity and climate. Since there is however a significant correlation in tropospheric temperature data, this link cannot be dismissed so easily. By the way, on top of the cosmic ray correlation there is a linear trend of global warming that could be either anthropogenic or a positive feedback effect, as Svensmark & Friis-Christensen explain. So this is certainly not fringe stuff - it is about real data, and about the care that is required to analyse and interpret them.

Note also that this as yet unpublished reply is a reply to a paper which has appeared only in October 2007. So it hardly could be published yet. (And the Lockwood&Fröhlich paper was certainly quoted before it was published!) Replies to published papers are part of the peer-reviewed publication process and we shall have to wait and see whether and when it gets published. However, since this reply is not just an expression of some outsider's opinion but about an analysis of relevant data by recognised scientists, I think an up-to-date source of information, which I want Wikipedia to be, would benefit from having this link to this rather relevant information - even if it might appear inconvenient to some.

And no, I'm not having vested interests here. I'm a scientist who is working in a completely different field, and I'm trying to keep an open mind about the global warming debate. N.Nahber 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure you're a "scientist". Svensmark's hypothesis may have had some merit for consideration 10 years ago, but now it's basically not only just fringe science, but outright crackpotty nonsense in the face of all the collected evidence and research since. And it's not just Lockwood & Fröhlich -- this paper clearly shows that there has been a lot of bogus curve-fitting going with claims of solar variation being a factor. I'm therefore going to again delete your add. If you again have an issue with that, present your case to the Global Warming Talk page instead of putting it in your edit summaries. If you are a real scientist, you should welcome a little "peer review," no? -BC aka Callmebc 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, someone else has already beaten me to removing it. -BC aka Callmebc 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not of importance, I happen to have some 80+ peer-reviewed publications in physics. I also don't doubt there has been a lot of bogus curve-fitting, but to characterise the recent preprint by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen as outright crackpotty nonsense proves that you are too involved emotionally for meaningful discussions. So I take up the suggestions to move to the Global Warming Talk page. N.Nahber 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss the substance at t:GW. I just wanted to comment re the "I'm a scientist". People are expected to WP:AGF, so your claim to credentials should not be dismissed. But also, such claims have been made in the past with no basis. So its best only to say such things if you are prepared to back them up, which would mean identifying yourself, I presume William M. Connolley 21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If required, I'm prepared to back up my claim that I'm a scientist by identifying myself, but I did not mean to speak with authority in this case. As I said, I'm from a somewhat different field, so I am not Svensmark or one of his collaborators, and I'm also not Danish. I just wanted to suggest that I know a bit about publications in peer-reviewed journals, both as author and as reviewer. And I think I can tell outright crackpots from scientists that aim to satisfy basic principles. By which I also do not imply that the Svensmark reply is beyond any doubt. N.Nahber 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree with S&F-C but its clear they aren't crackpots William M. Connolley 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello N.Nahber! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 277 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Walter Thirring - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)