User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

climate?

I suspect you might be able to help with this. Where around here is the place for general discussion of articles about climate, please? (To be clear, I mean some page for high-level coordination of article editing, as opposed to pages where editors make accusations about one another's behaviour, which sadly is all that I've discovered so far.) I ask because I was browsing the list of "most wanted articles" and was astonished, given the age of the project, to discover Climate of Asia and Climate of Africa listed there. I would like to draw attention to these somewhere, as they seem to be such obvious and major omissions. I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate, which looked promising from the page title, but given that the last comment before mine was over six months ago, it seems likely that I am looking in the wrong place. Many thanks. Scil100 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Climate is moribund, and was never very active to begin with. On the broader issue I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone edit climate-related articles on Wikipedia. Better to write about your favorite band, a vacation spot, or something else like that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, which I will certainly bear in mind if tempted to do more than minor edits to climate-related articles. Disappointing, but given that (for example) this google search found this rather than what I was looking for (per my original question), I guess not ultimately terribly surprising. Scil100 (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Just noticed that the last four words of my last comment were an unintentional acronym.Scil100 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

Ha! Good one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

essay

My thought was to put it right out there that WP:V is a farce. I think what you're saying is in the same vein, but I really would rather have the WP:V not aliased. Perhaps

• WP:Verifiability leads to truth

is a compromise? Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A chance to review a met article during the FAC process

Numerical Weather Prediction is at FAC right now. You've made comments regarding articles in the past well after the review process has ended. This time, you have the chance to be a part of the review process yourself and make sure it's worthy of its status on here. You know how this works...it will likely be on FAC for a couple weeks. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Actually I don't know how FAC works, as I've steered well clear of it in the past. But the larger point is that I have lost almost all enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. I wish you well with your article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did take a quick glance and suggest off the top that you get rid of the UAM stuff, since that has nothing to do with NWP. I'd eliminate the material on wave modeling too; while interesting, it's something of a tangent. I'd go even further and suggest you keep this article completely separate from the one on climate models -- all of your discussion on accuracy, etc. applies only to NWP and not to climate projection, which is a fundamentally different problem. The public already has enough trouble confusing weather and climate (you know the good old "if they can't predict the weather next week how can they predict the climate 50 years from now" stuff). Also the statement "it is impossible for long range forecasts�those made at a range of two weeks or more�to predict the state of the atmosphere with certainty, owing to the chaotic nature of the fluid dynamics equations involved" is incorrect -- the chaotic nature means that we can never predict the atmosphere at any time "with certainty", even one minute ahead. All we can ever obtain are approximate solutions, which get worse and worse as time goes on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yo Boris - I've helped on geology FAC's before, so I can offer some advice. Basically, you're an "expert" reviewer (well, I apply the quotes to myself, you probably actually deserve them). That means that you don't have to be the one who checks WP:MOS, etc., but you just have to check things for factual accuracy. My general way of working it is to go through the article in one browser window and edit the FAC page in another (though text editor may be safer - that darn "X"). I fix the little details that I can as I go through, while giving a play-by-play of more major issues I see and (often) suggestions of how to fix them in a bullet list on the FAC page. It's definitely time-consuming, but since we both want WP to be accurate, I think that a healthy vested interest (and excitement about the topic at hand) helps it happen. The one other thing I do is add refs when it's an area that I know about. Hope that's useful! Awickert (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have deep misgivings about the whole FA enterprise and thus it would be hypocritical for me to participate in it. I hesitate to say this, because people I respect (SandyGeorgia, et al.) have put a lot of work into it. But as a matter of principle I'd rather not contribute to the FA process absent much-needed structural reforms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Just yesterday/today I found it really worrysome that Tony didn't want to believe me that an entire section was completely wrong (i.e., over half a dozen statements constituting most of the section were just plain false) because it had been through FAC twice. In spite of the fact that FAC can clearly stand for "facts aren't compulsory", people think it somehow makes stuff true. This is the most worrysome case I've come across (edging out the huge inaccuracies of Hawaii Hotspot, which I sunk on its third try as it was about to pass, and for which I think User:Resident Mario probably still hates me... but whatever, it was wrong), and kept me up for two nights fixing it.

That being said, the FA enterprise is going to continue no matter what I do, so I figure that the more I bitch (I mean, constructively contribute) about factual accuracy, the better. Awickert (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

[unauthorised interjection] Yay, many thanks to Awickert, well done! A shift away from the focus on style over accuracy is overdue, every little helps. [coi � I'm a duffer at writing compelling prose, so biased] . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Four words for you on prose-writing ability: I went to MIT. Lets commiserate :). Awickert (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the MIT grads I know can write very compelling prose. Albeit only in Lisp. MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail twice! I know no Lisp :(. Or Scheme :(. Python and some C/C++. And Bash, but that has no grammar anyway. Awickert (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Naughty naughty! Don't bash Bash - its a Turing complete language :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortran FTW :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My Bash has no grammar. Awickert (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the check. Originally, other editors had asked for some additional information on the applications of NWP; as such, the urban airshed and wind wave models were added to the page. I understand your point and mostly agree with it, since going in depth into a lot of ancillary topics is a good way to write a textbook but a poor way of writing a Wikipedia article. However, maybe we could satisfy everyone's concerns by reorganizing the article to identify those as applications of NWP? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, having a distinct "applications" section would be good. Still, the UAM per se has virtually nothing to do with NWP and doesn't belong. Maybe replace it with a more general discussion about the use of NWP in the context of air pollution such as predicting the potential for stagnation events. The wave modeling is more relevant, in part because of the two-way interaction with the atmosphere (predicting surface fluxes in highly disturbed sea states is something that people are working on). Lots of interesting stuff about military applications you could add too. For example the Navy is just as interested in NWP over land as over water -- the way one of their guys explained it to me is that the ships sail on water, but most of their targets (at least in the present day) are on land. Again, good luck but I really don't want to be part of the process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Splitting out an application section was a very good idea Boris. Thanks for the input. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• A question. How are air quality models and TC models, which are limited in scope and not global in grid size, different from limited area models? Curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article was using the term "limited-area model" in two senses: one, as a synonym for a regional NWP model (which is the way the term has customarily been used, e.g., LFM), and then to describe these other applications. Of course a (dynamical) TC model is indeed a limited-area NWP model. Given that, I think the material on dynamical TC models should be moved to the section on "domains" and trimmed down a little. (As a general comment I'm not quite sure why the article gives so much attention to tropical cyclones as compared with forecasting of other weather phenomena. Nothing against TCs, which I am presently modeling as we speak write, but still...)

I've never heard of non-dynamical air quality models like the UAM referred to as "limited-area models," though I could be wrong. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the two of us who expanded the article were from the TC project. Still, that would constitute a point of view (POV) slant, which should be avoided, so we'll have to make it more well-rounded, somehow. There is an air quality model we use which runs off the NAM known as CMAQ, which I believe is dynamical. I'd have to look up more about it though. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I recall CMAQ has MM5 at its core, extended with lots of chemistry and so forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

CMAQ can accept inputs from MM5, but it can also use e.g. WRF-ARW.Hal peridol (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The glass is half-full

If it makes you feel better: "... hauling climate scientists before Congress and challenging their findings could easily backfire, as many representatives lack a sophisticated grasp of climatology and run the risk of making embarrassing errors." ([1]) It must be difficult to be so sure that scientists are wrong, yet simultaneously so totally ignorant of the basis for their conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The goal is theatre, not science. To those folks facts are irrelevant and being wrong is a badge of honor, showing that you're not a pointy-headed ivory tower intellectual. I have a thesis on the "revenge of the C students" which I hold as an explanation for the broad trends in modern U.S. politics.

The most interesting bit is the proposal aimed at "forcing Mr. Cuccinelli to open the books on his investigation of Dr. Mann." Speaking of openness, I have long thought it would be interesting to trawl through 12 years of emails from (names redacted) to see what precious nuggets might be revealed. "Climatgategate," anyone? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Have either of you read Richard Hofstadter's Anti-intellectualism in American Life? (Gah-- needs a better article.) While that was an analysis primarily of the McCarthy era -- and the long history preceding it -- it's really the same stuff, eroded by a few more wash and rinse cycles. For those with the loudest voices on the political stage, there's a pride in not knowing anything that ya havent larned yasself by a-workin wid ya hands, and this attitude goes way back (as the people who ran away from Europe 'yearnin ta breathe free' typically were only overachievers in the er, less intellectual endeavors, such as greed, exploitation, and rapine). Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a big fan of Hofstadter's. The American Political Tradition is one of the few books that literally changed the way I think (granted, I read it at a formative age). Hofstadter is especially timely now - Anti-Intellectualism in American Life came up during the 2008 election, with its Palinisms and its assertion that Obama was "elitist" because he was visibly intelligent. And, of course, The Paranoid Style in American Politics is the definitive dissection of the Tea Party movement, even though it was written 45 years beforehand.

Boris, if there is a human being alive who could withstand the cherry-picking of 12 years of private email by his enemies, I haven't met him. I suspect that eventually, the private correspondence of the professional "skeptics" will be made available for public perusal by legal means (cf. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library), rather than by Russian crackers-for-hire a la Climategate, but who knows. It's a strange world. MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Bringing it all back home there are parallels to an Arbcom case. Almost anyone would be sanctionable after a selective trawl through their contributions including this guy. In ARBCC there were editors sanctioned on both sides who shouldn't have been. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Parameterization

• Thanks... sincerely. And I hope this doesn't take away from the thanks, but could "explicitly included" be changed to something like.. ummm... "fully represented" or "completely defined" or "represented in full detail" or... something that suggests that the parametrization is, in some sense, a reduction/simplification? I realize that all models are in fact reductions and simplifications, but... parametrization is yet one more layer of abstraction... – Peacock.Lane 11:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

on either a global or regional scale

• Hi. I kinda like "on either a global or regional scale" in the lede of NWP. No, I'm not being a petulant brat. :-) First, there is nearby, subsequent reference to "improvements in regional models". Second (and I may be dating myself here), the first thing I think of when I see the words "forecast the weather" is the local weather person showing a map of a three-state area; those global CNN maps are not the first thing that springs to mind... so "on either a global or regional scale" puts that info right up front, preparing cognitive spaces for later concepts. Thoughts? – Peacock.Lane 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly of the opinion that definitions should be direct and concise as possible. The fact that the forecasts can be global or regional is not essential to the definition of NWP. I'd prefer that the definition sentence be very tight, and if we need to introduce the idea of global vs regional we do that in a separate sentence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that definitions should be tight. Note that I tightened it from its previous state. In this case, I would suggest that a mention of domain is in fact a part of the definition. However, I will see if there is a sentence between that one and the "enhancements" bit where this phrase can be introduced. Thanks. – Peacock.Lane 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wegman and GMU

Current events reminded me about something else. Do you know if anything is happening there? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything, but then I haven't been making an effort to keep up. There are a couple of bloggers who follow the story. My guess is that GMU is in no hurry, and hoping that the whole thing will blow over without any action on their part. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Wegman report called for improved 'sharing of research materials, data and results' from scientists. But in response to a request for materials related to the report,GMU said it 'does not have access to the information.' Separately in that response, Wegman said his 'email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,' and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the 'work was done offsite,' aside from one meeting with Spencer." ([2])

O tempora o mores! MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn about interpreting our German affair - but on the upside, apparently there still is enough respect for academic achievement that people plagiarise to swindle themselves to a title. I suspect the mechanisms of both cases are parallel - political staffers with little knowledge of and no respect for academic work provide the input material that is then slightly massaged and passed off as brand-new insights by the "authors". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Witch is dead. Took too long for comfort, but over 50000 signed the PhD student declaration and more than 1000 professors chimed in as well.... Interestingly enough, the PhD-Students used Google Docs and Facebook, the Professors stuck with manually processed email. Old farts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wie gehts? Herr Wegman will no doubt find it salutary. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But without Baron zu Guttenberg, who will spearhead the push to rename the Brandenburg Gate after Ronald Reagan? MastCell ^Talk 06:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Baron von Monckhofen ? . . . dave souza, talk 21:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Climate denial"

Hi. Could you please take a look at [[Koch Industries�]] (hist) and let me know what you think about this Greenpeace sourcing? Relevant talkpage discussion is here, fyi -- i know the article section needs cleaning up copy-wise, especially since it's meant to be a summary of the daughter article. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing to the Grauniad is better than sourcing to Greenpeace per se. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Boris, I generally have a very high opinion of you, but if you comment on AN as you just did without a proper look at the situation, or if you see that Ludwigs2 is right here but decide to go for his head anyway for political reasons, then I will obviously have to reluctantly revise my opinion.

The dispute is about stuff like the following, which some people insisted belonged in a prominent position at pseudoscience:

"Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health. Pseudoscience is a claim or practice that assumes to be scientific but lacks a scientific basis. Superstitions, beliefs that are irrational and usually involve cause-and-effect relationships that are not real, are categorized as pseudoscience and quackery."

The source for these three sentences was an article "Pseudoscience, superstitions and quackery threaten public health" from the British Journal of Psychology. The article very obviously deals only with medical pseudoscience, although it never makes the fact explicit.

I am sure you can see the problems with these sentences: Astrology, creationism and belief in the inadvisability of walking under a ladder or crossing a black cat are no more of a threat to public health than collecting stamps or using electric light. Also, since when are astrology and creationism quackery? Since the authors are very obviously not talking about pseudoscience in general, the paper is also an exceptionally poor source for a general definition of pseudoscience. (We already have excellent sources for this, from several philosophers of science, and of course the various attempts at defining pseudoscience are extensibly discussed in the article elsewhere. It's most absurd to insert just one of the competing definitions in a random spot, quote-mined from a source that is only marginally relevant, and to present it as the only, and absolute, truth.)

We as scientists at Wikipedia need to keep our house in order. I find it distressing when, for whatever reason, serious scientists support postmodern "skeptics" such as QG in their absurd attempts to fight pseudoscience with the tools of pseudoscience. Hans Adler 00:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel you're extrapolating a general statement of concern over the activities of certain editors on that page to draw a number of of unsupported inferences. I don't think that's something a good scientist should do. ;-) Specifically, where on earth did the business about "going for Ludwigs2's head" come from? That's truly a puzzle. To be honest I think that the 72 hour block (or any block) for Ludwigs2 was wholly unmerited, but that's Sandstein being Sandstein.

Anyway I appreciate your taking the time to comment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You certainly encouraged the anti-Ludwigs2 mob with your comments. Of course you are not responsible for Sandstein's temper, but you are in part responsible for derailing the thread. I didn't bother to contact the others who were more active in doing so, simply because I don't think as highly of them. Hans Adler 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fads and Fallacies and personal attacks

Hi. Thanks for your message on my talk page. While I agree that in general it's best not to refer to someone's politics at all, the description "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" certainly does not apply here. Being a Green is not discreditable in my view or, I'm sure, in the view of most British wikipedians. I believe Greens support organic farming, with which too I am sympathetic. Gardner attacks organic farming, so I wondered whether WMC might admit that even in this limited respect Gardner was less than perfect. (He didn't.)

On the other hand, I am bothered by his personal attacks on me, such as I am beginning to doubt STG's good faith and I think you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The latter remark in particular is completely untrue, and occurred where I was trying to establish a rational dialogue with him, which now seems impossible. Since you've shown an interest in our interaction, perhaps you could advise me here. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Solar energy

Would you consider Solar energy to be related to climate change? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally would not. But I'm also not Boris. NW (Talk) 22:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe it would be safer to write about Solar. Incidentally, if you haven't read the book, you should - if only for the scenes in which the protagonist is confronted with a social scientist who argues that genes are merely social constructs rather than concrete entities:

Beard had heard rumours that strange ideas were commonplace among liberal arts departments. It was said that humanities students were routinely taught that science was just one more belief system, no more or less truthful than religion or astrology. He had always thought that this must be a slur against his colleagues on the arts side. The results surely spoke for themselves. Who was going to submit to a vaccine designed by a priest?

Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

@ WMC: In the real world, not unless you were talking about something like this. On Wikipedia, absolutely and unconditionally yes. (Good insights from MastCell as always.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Boris, you make it sound like there are a bunch of unpleasant, obsessive "editors" continually circling William, eagerly waiting to pounce on him for any real or imagined transgression. That's just crazy. :P

In all seriousness, if you can link the subject back to Kevin Bacon climate change in d6 degrees of separation, someone will make the case that it's a climate-change article. MastCell ^Talk 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@MastCell: Is Solar really that good a read? I saw read the first two chapters in the airport, and I was unimpressed—the novel seemed to drone on and on about trivialities that I really couldn't bring myself to care about, primarily the main character's miserable love and failing academic lives, I think. Did it get better? NW (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, McEwan's books usually strike me that way - at first, they seem sort of boring, full of finely drawn but superficial observations. You keep reading them, waiting for something to happen - sort of like Chekhov, at least to me. And like Chekhov, it usually hits me later on that there's something going on under the surface. On the other hand, Solar is definitely not Ian McEwan's best. But then, I had read this harsh review before the book, and it arguably influenced my reaction. Certainly the reviewer summed up the book's flaws better than I could have.

I thought that the best parts were those which described Beard's amazement and incomprehension when confronted with postmodern ideas about science and reason. The themes of his personal failings and ultimate comeuppance were a bit tired, as the Times reviewer picked up on. Of McEwan's books, Saturday was my favorite by far, but there are worse reads than Solar. MastCell ^Talk 05:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you're still causing trouble

You seem to have gotten a touch more cranky these days. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stay off my damn lawn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just urinated on it. Too late!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 17:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just spent an hour reading your page. Yes, I have no life. Must move to Soviet Union. Has to be simpler there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 05:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I love being considered an authority, but

on your user page you allude to something I wrote about something. What was it? You've piqued my curiosity. For better or worse. -- llywrch (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It was excerpted from this thread. That was actually written by User:TransporterMan (see tag at the bottom); sorry if it wasn't clear. But I do agree with your view that one of the reasons for the falloff in participation is that most of the things that most people care about already have articles on them. BTW how the heck do you pronounce your user name? It looks vaguely Welsh, but maybe not. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh that thread. Actually, there I wasn't putting forward that theory (one of many variants of "all the low-hanging fruit have been picked"), but my other theory: that everyone who would make a good Wikipedian -- someone who not only is objective, intellectually honest, & enjoys doing research, but finds writing encyclopedia articles a fun thing to do on a Friday night -- already knows about Wikipedia, & either is a volunteer or was one.

As for my username, I pronounce it incorrectly; some day I'll meet with a speaker of Welsh who will help me solve that problem. Where it came from is a very pedestrian story: I had to create a username for my first Internet account which had to have 8 characters, & my first choice was too long. My eyes happened on the spine of a book across the room -- The Poems of Llywarch Hen -- & found that dropping the "a" I was able to make it fit. I've kept it since then as the label of my online personality: Google for "Llywrch", & any user account you find is mine, & everything posted under that name I've written. (Well, AFAIK. Don't know why anyone would make the effort to impersonate me.) And I've been using for far too long now to worry about privacy; that horse left the barn years ago. -- llywrch (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth and Neutrality

I like your new sig; very understated. Although it did trigger the regexp matching described here. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I thought it might be too subtle. We could play Wikipedia Bingo: fill in one square for a user name with "neutrality", "justice", etc.; one for a user who claims any disagreement with their views is a personal attack; a user who claims "it's been printed in a newspaper so you can't keep it out"; a user who complains of "blatantly NPOV" edits. The first one to fill in all the squares gets indefinitely blocked in a secret decree by Arbcom. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is almost as awesome as seminar bingo! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

O I saw what you did there!!! - Alison ^d 03:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Aren't they cute? (It's my dog's birthday, not just April Fools.) The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Very cute!! ^_^ Better than the usual drivel @ ANI ;) - Alison ^d 03:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconvenient truths

I was curious what you thought about Muller's testimony. (You are still allowed to talk about climate change on Wikipedia, right?) It reminded me of this, for some reason... MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still allowed to comment on climate change, though that can't last long once Arbcom figures out that I actually know a little bit about the underlying science.

The proper answer to the Berkeley study is "well, duh." I've got to hand it to Muller, though, for his willingness to change his mind when confronted by factual evidence. Most of the contrarians are constitutionally incapable of doing that.

Note that "Richard Rohde" who "recently earned a doctorate in statistics" is actually our very own Robert Rohde, who recently earned a doctorate in physics. There's no excuse for the reporter getting this wrong as the info was only two clicks away; she even linked the website in her story. By the lights of certain respected content contributors who are adamant that "major newspapers are indisputably classified as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines, no matter what the topic is" we have to report that poor Robert Richard doesn't know his own name or what he got his degree in.

As for Curry, well, there isn't much to say. It's quite sad really. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute? You and WMC, both of whom are scientific experts on AGW, are not allowed to edit GW articles? WTF is the place coming to? Oh never mind. I left for 2 years because of this. I see the polite POV-pushing crowd still holds sway over things. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You managed to miss this fiasco? Lucky man. NW (Talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful, you'll be compromising your neutrality soon William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@OM, actually I still am allowed to edit GW articles, at least for now. After all the project has magnanimously declared that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." (You can almost see the gritted teeth through which that was said.) The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Boris: notice that Richard/Robert's name is attributed to Muller. So maybe he just gave them the wrong name - it's not unheard of for senior academicians to have trouble remembering the names of individual postdocs :P

Anyhow, we're just Wikipedia editors; we're not allowed to criticize things that have actually been published in print. The best we can do is present both sides of the story: While User:Dragon's flight's self-reported first name is Robert, he is generally considered to be named 'Richard' by independent, reliable sources. Let The Reader Decide! Any correction from Robert is, of course, self-published and a COI to boot, since he has a vested interest in his version of his first name. And when will Rohde naming controversy turn blue? Actually, given the prevailing mindset among climate-change editors, I should probably look for Rohdegate. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be getting harder to get away from that topic, but guess that source is invalidated as being part of the international conspiracy so brilliantly exposed by the blogs of retired mining speculators and the like :-/ . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC) ZOMG wot nxt? . . . dave souza, talk 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Expert editors are really vital and have a lot to contribute." Is it still April Fools' Day? MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard of too many problems within WP:MED. It seems most of those editors, Tim Vickers comes to mind as an example, are willing and able to follow WP's rules and make an effort to work within WP's collaborative model. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

True. Of course, WP:MED editors have certain advantages over climate-change editors. For instance, there is no medical equivalent to the ongoing multimillion-dollar effort to spread FUD about climate change (the closest analog was the attempt to obscure the health risks of smoking, and then of secondhand smoke, but those both died off after the tobacco companies had to publish their internal documents. You'd probably recognize some familiar names in there, though). Nor have we dealt with editors who create 600+ sockpuppets while antagonistic editors circle, ready to pounce whenever the sock-identification rate drops below 100%. Nor have we been targeted by partisans with a public platform and a limited understanding or interest in Wikipedia's actual workings.

We have an excellent group on WP:MED, many of whom are admins doing excellent (and undramatic) administrative work in addition to content creation. For all of that, WP:MED editors have been involved in quite a few contentious issues. There have been a number of ArbCom cases, involving ADHD and abortion & mental health, among other topics. What has kept these disputes manageable, in my mind, is that they have avoided attracting the attention of the wider class of Wikipedians who follow the drama du jour. I've noticed that there is a group of editors who travel around the site looking for Great Injustices to fight. Their involvement is typically what turns a dispute from a burning twig into a forest fire. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not allowed to talk about the specific topic area, so I can't respond to your ideas of why it is different from the medical topic area, although I will say that I disagree that the collaboration model can't work there as well as it works in the medical topic area. I haven't heard of that group traveling around causing so much trouble. Have they been involved in any ArbCom cases? Were any of their concerns found to be legitimate? I'll try to look myself to see if I can find who you're talking about. In the meantime, I think Skip Hammond's "atomic domino" theory of chained power-plant explosions needs to be added to the Nuclear power article. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoh -- maybe you have a sense of humor after all. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually sounds like a good idea MC. In the meantime, I might have to review Passive aggressive for some updating.23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@NW...I missed a lot of BS. Lucky for me, I always assumed that WMC and SBHB would take care of things. I'm wrong.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Would appreciate your expertise regarding this: "The ozone layer experiences the highest level of depletion on record as a result of cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere last winter." which currently appears in the "in the news section" of the main page and strikes me as misleading. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, had a look at Sciencedaily and was wondering how to change the main page to "a result of cold temperatures in the stratosphere last winter" when lo and behold, it changed! Is WP now psychic, or a helpful coincidence when many minds check a problem? . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has now become sentient. Be afraid; be very, very afraid. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the sentient bit is ok, the old hive mind. The terror from Boise is that misleading trash can make the main page due to inexpert reading of news items � but then if in it's in a major publication such as the Daley Wail, how can we resist? . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's wot happen when any old amateur fule can edit it � wot think you? Srsly my phrasing's prolly awful, but methink the sense of it's improved. Expert advice will be much appreciated. . . 19:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's OK given the constraints of the venue. My most serious concern is that while this is clearly labeled as Arctic ozone, it isn't specifically contrasted with Antarctic ozone which is what one usually means when referring simply to the ozone hole. I would bet that >>90% of non-expert readers won't recognize the difference (what's 20,000 km between friends, eh). But given that ITN is essentially a headline service there isn't much room for nuance. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the current version has been further tweaked and now has a link to arctic so those curious enough to follow it up might get an inkling. At least it's probably better than the previous impression that it was a worldwide record depletion. . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You done good, as we say in the Midwest. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A change of tune

A climate change denialist returns from the dark side. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to call Muller a denialist, because whatever his pre-existing convictions, he was able to revise them when presented with additional data. That's as reasonable a line between skepticism and denialism as any. The reaction to his testimony is telling, if unsurprising. Considering how often one hears climate science described as a "church" of AGW, it's interesting to see the "skeptics" rush to excommunicate the heretic in their midst rather than grapple with the substance of his testimony. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I just have a hard time stomaching the descriptive of "skeptic" to global warming denialists. I think skepticism has been traditionally reserved for scientific debunking of pseudoscience. It shouldn't be used as a term for those who have political or religious motives. Creationists should be called "evolution skeptics." Muller is a real scientist. He reviewed the data and determined there was something there. I actually was a global warming denialist until some cranky scientist, Dr. Raymond Arritt, had an opportunity to beat some sense into my brain. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

About blocks as punishment

See email first. Is this coming from somewhere or something particular? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no particular incident at play. In several major areas there is a divergence between what policy says and the day-to-day realities of the site, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that this divergence is not helpful. The homilies of "blocks are preventive, not punitive" and "adminship is no big deal" (to name two examples) are nice as ideals but simply don't reflect reality -- punitive blocks are routine, and adminship is a very big deal indeed. It's better for the policy pages to describe Wikipedia as it really is, rather than having to be read with an implicit "nudge nudge, wink wink." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that point is worth examining in more detail with more eyes. But policies are to reflect the standards users should follow and I made the distinction clearer more recently to cater for that divergance. Obviously, if standards have changed, that situation may be true (but the last time I checked, people were still strongly against punitive blocks). But if it's a matter of people doing things they shouldn't, that does happen too often (which can also be argued as a day-to-day reality, be it personal attacks, edit wars, socking, etc), except that it eventually catches up with them in some form of warning or sanction. If some admins are evading that catch up, be it with the assistance of peers, former peers, or responsible users (who aren't doing what they supposed to be doing in such a situation), that's a matter of non-compliance, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Per a recent situation where an admin was able to significantly violate the "be polite/civil" doctrine on here which was focused on a self-proclaimed racist on the wikipedia (and supported for their actions), I'm slowly coming around to the viewpoint that either the rules are not meant for admins on here, yet they are meant for everyone else, or that the rules can be thrown out when someone is considered very, very bad, whatever that means. Minorities on here, beware. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise a tough question. There are some things that are simply abhorrent and have no place here, such as open support of racism or Nazism. But those things are at one end of a continuum that runs through to reasonable minority views. How can we deal effectively with the former without unfairly squelching the latter? If I knew the answer to stuff like that I'd be Secretary General of the UN instead of a science geek. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely connected, because I don't feel like starting a new section. Have you seen Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Randy thoughts

See you've been chipping in, have added my own slightly convoluted tuppenceworth with a convenient link to In praise of& academic Wikipedians, Editorial The Grauniad, Wednesday 6 April 2011. . . dave souza, talk 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded (not too randily, I hope) there. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you saw this

From my talk page:

One possibility is to put more emphasis on editor retention. Jimbo has always shown far more concern for attracting new members than retaining current ones; at times, I have almost had the feeling that he takes a "bring 'em in, use 'em up, spit 'em out" philosophy. I'm not saying that we should abandon efforts to recruit new editors but that we should also pay some attention to retaining those who are already here. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no truth to what you just said at all. Let me be 100% clear about that. First, historically speaking, it is absolutely false that I have "always shown" far more concern for attracting new members than retaining current ones: precisely the opposite is probably my greatest failing. Where on earth did you get that idea? Second, the bit about "use 'em up, spit 'em out" is so wildly at odds with my personality and actions that I feel you didn't stop for two seconds to think about what you were saying before you insulted me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A new template for widespread use

Inspired by the high standards of integrity set by our political leadership, and by a fellow Wikipedia fan, I have created the following inline template: User:MastCell/NITBAFS. Clearly, many areas of Wikipedia are crying out for immediate and widespread application of this template. I think it will be a constructive and valuable addition to the project.^{[Not intended to be a factual statement]} MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very diplomatic. I also admire all the other editors in your area of expertise.^{[Probably bullshit]} Antandrus (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love something called NITBAFS. Anyway it brings to mind Ron "This statement is inoperative" Ziegler as well. Now I'm going to be muttering "nitbafs, nitbafs nitbafs" all day. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Catchy, right? I was thinking that if it's good enough for matters of national political import, then it should be good enough for medical discussions. "I think your chance of cure is more than 90%." "But the other doctors said it was closer to 3%!" "Ummm... right. That wasn't intended to be a factual statement." Accountability accomplished! MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OMFG

I officially nominate this comment as the best piece of psychoanalysis ever written in Wikipedia. Obviously, the Gulags need to hire him to train the medical staff. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 07:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pay it no mind; it's just Cla68 doing what Cla68 does. Not to worry as Newyorkbrad (one of the good guys on Arbcom) has his number (see the last sentence of NYB's comment here). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I honestly forgot (purged the bad experience from my memory?) that the case actually lasted four months... And that despite all these ridiculously short deadlines for evidence (in the middle of the World Cup!) Ahh, the good old days... Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems I missed a lot of bullshit while I was gone. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That, my friend, is the understatement of the year. Be happy you did miss it, and all the crap that preceded it. Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I posted this here for whining purposes! Boris' stage is like the Kremlin...many intrigues, and everyone watches. Now an online bible I find must.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 15:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on Cla68. He wasn't personally standing behind the diagnosis of Asperger's. He was just repeating something that he'd been emailed about other editors, without checking into its veracity or plausibility. It wasn't intended to be a factual statement. Just pretend that he wrote it on Glenn Beck's blackboard - it may or may not be true, but isn't it important to ask the question? MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so the requirement of verifiable sources does not apply here. I hate it when I misunderstand Wikipedia rules and regulations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk" Contributions} 18:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, little in arbcomm proceedings is actually meant to be factual statements. cf "Findings of Fact". Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You paint with too broad a brush, comrade. The Findings and Principles that arbcomm expressed here are unarguably sound. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't paint a building with the same brush you use to write on rice grains. Sometimes a broad brush is needed. Sometimes it just saves time (think how much more quickly Michelangelo could have painted the Sistine Chapel if he'd just used a roller... Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity

Regarding this edit, you forgot to add...It can be used as a measure of the number of climate change "skeptics" who will be offended by any given use of the term "denialist". Guettarda (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A touchy label. Disclaimer: any resemblance to any parsons livid or deaf is entirely coincidental. I assume no WP editor denies AGW. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CRU maintenance

I realize the terms can appear ambiguous or imprecise, but they are used in this context: Instrumental_temperature_record#Calculating_the_global_temperature. So both Wikipedia and the secondary sources use the term "maintained". I should point out that this word is used quite a bit as well and I believe it was correct based on it's usage. In other words: "There are two main global temperature datasets, both developed since the late 1970s: that maintained by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia [3] and that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.[18] Both datasets are updated on a monthly basis and are generally in close agreement." Is that wording incorrect? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by a "dataset." CRU and GISS perform analyses of data; they don't maintain the basic data per se. I think it would be much clearer and more precise to say "there are two main global analyses of surface temperature data, both...(etc)" The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The data is maintained by CRU and GISS (and NOAA). I don't see a problem with my wording, which I specifically confirmed and verified in three secondary sources before I added it. That's my own personal litmus test that I use when I add material; I always do research before I write. The secondary sources support this statement[3][4] (loads more where that comes from) and while we both agree that SS can be wrong about this kind of thing, it is also supported by the specialist sources. I think you are reading it in a way that is different from the average reader and/or source. For only one example, in 2001, the National Research Council (representing members from the NAS, NAE, and IOM, with support from NOAA) wrote:

Several research groups around the world, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, collect and maintain databases of both historical and present-day meteorological data and use them to produce estimates of regional and global climate change.[5]

I hope that helps clarify. I'm starting to think your objection is primarily due to the informal nature of the language. I realize that it might not be ideal, which is why I appreciate your input. However, this is the style used by the sources. That CRU is said to "maintain, update, and regularly analyze the best-kept set of global temperature records in the world"[6] is reflected by the best sources available. Perhaps you could improve that text further, but I think the word "maintain" should be added back. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of precise language but I'm not going to argue with Tom Wigley... What I was trying to get away from is the idea that CRU (or GISS) maintains the raw data and provide access to it. That's the job of the WMO and the individual national agencies, and I was trying to get that idea across by distinguishing "data" from "analysis." "Data" is an unfortunately broad term, but I guess we have to use it if that's what the sources say. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but aren't you reading more into the term "maintain" than is already implied? If you don't think it belongs and could be misread, let's leave it out for now. IMO, the term is being used to imply the simple act of database administration. You seem to see it differently. As you are probably aware, a DBA has little to no input on the nature of the raw data, which is consistent with your concern. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that Instrumental temperature record needed improvement, so had a go at it.[7]
HadCRUT is a combined analysis in which CRU compiles land surface temperature records, and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research sea surface records. Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets lists several such datasets and says climate data is distributed through The British Atmospheric Data Centre, one of the NERC Data Centres.
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets shows the HadCRUT3 dataset, describing it as a collaborative effort and giving download links. The CRU site is gradually being restored, and also offers downloads.[8]
The source cited in the instrumental record article describes CRU's work as "the production of the world's land-based, gridded... temperature data set..... In 1986, this analysis was extended to the marine sector (in co-operation with the Hadley Centre, Met Office from 1989).... the first truly global temperature record" Bold by me.
The land temperature records CRU compiles are those held by the Met Office and other national Met Offices, each of which lets CRU have use of the info for academic research only, commonly with a requirement that they do not pass the raw data on to others. . . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Support neded against the bourgois counter-revolution!

A call to arms! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The Bolsheviks took a hard line toward canines with monarchist sympathies. After all, the Grand Duchess Tatiana's terrier, Ortino, was liquidated along with his owner as a potential nucleus of anti-Soviet agitation. I doubt that Otto, First Dog Middleton of Cambridge will fare much better when the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives in Albion. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a funny idea, which seemed to have gone over a few of the supporter's heads. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comrade Andrwsc being commended for political acumen.[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government

Interested in developing this proposed policy further? Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, however I'll pass. Well intended but I don't think it has a snowball's chance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if others are interested. There is a lot of room to compromize (thershold for RFC approving election, how to hold elections etc. etc.), so the nay-sayers would have to be quite ideological about not allowing some significant fraction of Wikipedians to get something done. I suspect that while you may have a deadlock on some issue, you can still have a consensus that the status quo is not acceptable. You may then have 2/3 majority for elections to be held on that issue (the current proposal says 50% support is necessary). Count Iblis (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement issue in Microsoft Forefront

Hello, SBHB

Thanks for noticing the advert issue in Microsoft Forefront. I resolved the issue by making sure that all sentences are from a neutral point of view. However, if you still think there are some cases, you drop a me a note or talk about it in talk page.

Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Irony

Isn't that interesting. I'm sure we'll be hearing from all of those vocal advocates of integrity in research who came out of the woodwork after "Climategate". I mean, otherwise they'd just look like a bunch of ignorant partisan hypocrites. Heck, this was federally funded research - Ken Cuccinelli should be filing charges as we speak. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Apparently my English is not as good as I thought. To me, it seems as if Wegman excuses the plagiarism by pointing out that the text was not actually by him, but provided by a student he did not credit. But that's so obviously implausible that I must get something mixed up... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A certain Person Who Must Never Comment On Climate Change has a good take on the story here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This just in: the USAToday editorial on the woes of Wegman notes he was criticized for "use of unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia." My respect for McPaper just went up a few notches. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Into the abyss. Odd reaction from North, who seemed to me to have been stitched up at the hearings and said around that time "This issue is so polarized politically that it is impossible to simply inform the elected representatives. I was definitely under the impression that they were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine." Meanwhile, are others heading for a Fall? . . dave souza, talk 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Begs the question of why wasn't this "Asian student" listed as a co-author if he or she wrote such a large part of the paper? But the most interesting question of all is, how much longer can GMU stonewall on the "investigation" they're supposedly conducting? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• On a somewhat related topic... was that you representing in the background here? MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant. On the other side of the coin, reading this makes me depressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading WuWT generally is depressing... especially the commentary section. The YT video is great though :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the video is great! I'm working with Jason (Evans) on a project and will ask him about the story behind the video. As for the Wegman retraction, the response from the tinfoil hat brigade is hardly unexpected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Watts is justifiably upset. You see, he believes that it's reprehensible for an anonymous Internet coward to try to tarnish a scientist's credibility. This belief seems to date from sometime after "Climategate", but I'm sure it's quite deeply held regardless of its novelty. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)