User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive 2007

Global Warming Controversy

Looks like you & I are in agreement on this topic. Good edit HERE. --The Outhouse Mouse 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Email

Kim, please check whatever email account you have associated with Wikipedia. I sent a note about something that may be of interest to you. Raymond Arritt 04:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Clouds at Mars

Hi Kim, I saw your helpful edit at Mars Global Warming. I just wanted to point out that there are clouds at Mars but that they are relatively thin and infrequent. Hence any effects from cosmic rays would be negligible. So our implicit main argument (global warming at earth cannot be compared to our current understanding of Mars' climate) still stands. --Jespley 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - guess i have to read up on that one :-) --Kim D. Petersen 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Kim, I had not found the Wegman report actually, the links that I was able to locate seemed to have gone bad. Thanks for your help. Mishlai 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(original message moved to from user page to this talk page) Mishlai 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POTY identity confirmation

I confirm I am the same user as 80.62.90.39 --Kim D. Petersen 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming edits violate WP policies

Please review WP:AWW and WP:OR. Please make sure that whenever you modify a controversial article that you avoid slanted words like "numerous" "few" and "consensus" without a direct citation. Thank you. --Tjsynkral 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not fall under WP:AWW because the wordings are documented on the subpages - the subpages are created because the evidence/citations are long and complex. It cannot be described as WP:OR because the sources on the subpages are leading direct support for the sentences - its not WP:SYN for exactly the same reasons. You are adviced to read the archived discussions instead of trying to reopen something that has been discussed to an extreme length already. --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but subpages cannot be used as references. ~ UBeR 23:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - of course they can - the only alternative is to have massive monolithic pages that each provide the same points and references all over again. If at any point a section of a page is becoming to massive - then you have to either cut down the section or start a subpage (and do a summary) if the subject is sufficiently important to the page. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your complete ignorance and disregard for Wikipedia policy. Let the record show you fail to comprehend the fundamental principles of how Wikipedia gathers information. ~ UBeR 02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Applause - thanks for not providing basis for your statement - and engaging in less than civil discorse.

Here is my take on a monolithic version:

While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, there are few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming

Now i could add more to the first statement - and i could continue with the second. But i think this shows my point. --Kim D. Petersen 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about subpages

You edit with these words: (certain => numerous (as the reference shows), insert "a few" (again as the reference shows). If you want these out - then you have to edit the subpages - otherwise you are asking to prove a negative.)

I have seen you reference subpages before. What subpages are you discussing and why do they have to be revised before this one can be?--Blue Tie 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Numerous is established on Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, which is directly linked.

A few is established on Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, which is directly linked.

The reason that all of this are on subpages is that the references would fill to much on the current page. It's been a long time since these two where forked off - exactly to meet this problem.

Please refer to negative proof to see why it is not possible to prove this part - but only to disprove it. --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not negative proof. It has to be proof that a verifiable and reliable source has specifically stated "most scientists" and "few scientist." That is totally dissimilar from negative proof. ~ UBeR 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i disagree. That most scientists agree with the the consensus is either true, and the subpages are very much a demonstration of this - or can be demonstrated as being false, and even quite easily - find any number of academies/statements to balance the (currently) overwhelming number described on the Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change subpage to counter the academies statement. Or find any number of scientists to include on the Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming so that you can demonstrate that the statement of "few" is incorrect (btw. "relatively few" or "minority" is my preferred wording which are accurate and quantifiable wordings). --Kim D. Petersen 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your synthesis is not valid here at Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR its only a synthesis if you take out of context things and compile them. These pages are specific to the questions: Is there a consensus / a prevalent scientific opinion - and Is there a general opposition against the consensus / majority view. It is btw. not difficult to document each - you can just pick the references from the subpages and put them on the page as documentation. This is a question of either having a lean page or a monolithic page. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's synthesis when you do not have a source saying "most scientist believe" and "few scientists believe." Your subjective opinion of what is few and what is a lot is not welcome here. If you don't have a source saying it, then you have no right to add it yourself. And by no source, I mean you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. My version ("While this conclusion has been endorsed by scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.") Is clearly neutral and is not synthesis. The same cannot be said about your contributions. ~ UBeR 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry UBeR - your sentence is misleading (and thus not neutral). --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for answering my question. Now I understand. But I disagree with you. I do not think that the subpage for the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change supports the use of weasel words on this page. And numerous is too non-specific. Even worse is the notion of "few". That the "subpage" describes only a "few" does not mean that "only a few" exist. That would be a logical fallacy. Neither of these two words are objectively supported but few is especially weak. Both are weasel words. --Blue Tie 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, i agree that the subpage only describes a subset of opposition - but there is a large jump from assuming that the true opposition is more than 2 orders of magnitude larger - and that still constitutes a minority. As i've said before - i personally prefer either "minority" or "relatively few" both of which are accurate and quantifiable. As for the academies - the documentation is very solid - but it would be silly to include each reference on the page, when the subpage is there. It both makes it easier to examine the basis for a reader - and make it easier for subsequent editors to dispute it. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly do you calculate 2 contributions (yes - two blocks of edits [1] and [2]) as violating or even coming close to violating 3RR? --Kim D. Petersen 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (edited --Kim D. Petersen 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

I calculate because I count the last 24 hours, not the last 10 minutes. ~ UBeR 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not an answer because those two blocks are the only contributions i've made in 24 hours (or even 80 for that matter - and iirc even for the whole of March.). --Kim D. Petersen 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I count to the contrary. ~ UBeR 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How? I need to know - because i do not want to violate 3RR. So please state your evidence - if this is a technicality that i've overlooked - then i need to know so that i do not violate it unwittingly. --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is locked anyway. ~ UBeR 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that still does not explain anything. I do need an answer please. Otherwise it seems that you are trying to intimidate. I'm assuming that there is a technicality that i've overlooked. But from 3RR - a block of edit is considered one edit - and unrelated edits are not counted - so once more - please elaborate on this technicality. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've elaborated here. ~ UBeR 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that will hopefully describe the technicalities. --Kim D. Petersen 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

If anything, I would've probably marked that incomplete, and asked Uber to provide specific "previous versions" reverted to. From looking at it, only number 4 and 5 are reverts, the rest just look like edits to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes because you have look at it from a larger context (i.e. further back). Just because someone doesn't mark "rv." in their edit summary, it doesn't mean they're not reverts. One, she reverted Blue Tie's edits that removed "most" and "few," clear weasel words. Second, she's reverting the attribution of the IPCC's claim (the appropriate way, per WP:V) to "scientific consensus," which is not verified by the source (WP:SYN, if you will). Third, she's removing attribution again, this time from the EIA. Sixth, she's reverting my edits I made that were correct to her version which is not supported by the ref (even after it was discussed on the talk page). ~ 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR i'm willing to acknowledge that each of the 2 blocks can be considered as reverts - thats acceptable. But the fact that i did each edit seperately is not acceptable as documentation - i could have done each block as one single monolithic edit, but that would have decreased the amount of explanation i could do in "edit summary". This is not trying to dodge a technicality - if you look at the edit timings you can see that i did them in succession. --Kim D. Petersen 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The rule states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Most disturbing though is that you chose not to discuss anything on the talk page, but rather reverted six times. Do you see how reverting six times violates the rule that says you cannot revert more than three times? I don't know how I can make this any clearer. ~ UBeR 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No UBeR i do not see this - the 3RR page specifically also states that: "Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule". And i believe that this is exactly what my edits are. --Kim D. Petersen 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They aren't. ~ UBeR 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you at least describe why they are not to be considered this way? If you are right - then i'll have to do monolithic edits in the future - and never try to explain each.... Because small edits may be considered reverts by your definition of the rule. How is anyone going to be able to do more than 3 edits to a page in case you are right? Each edit may be considered a revert after all. --Kim D. Petersen 01:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page is protected now anyway, so it rather is a moot point. Uber, generally the way I see it, is if you can't be bothered to go find the supposed "previous versions" that have been reverted to, I can't be bothered to do it either. Without any specific previous versions cited, most of them just look like regular edits. I would strongly encourage both of you to put this time into trying to resolve the dispute over the article, so that it won't need to stay protected for too long. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I will get you the previous versions after I'm done watching this program. ~ UBeR 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade the point may seem mute in the context of the page - but in the context of my edits its rather important. Since i'm stuck here with an (apparently) faulty interpretation of what you can or cannot do - and how to edit without being blocked.... Sorry to be insistant on this - but i really am troubled by this. --Kim D. Petersen 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC) comment - if i follow UBeR's view about the 6 reverts (i've done exactly 7 edits on the page in March) - it seems to me that when you edit something (even small things) then its a revert - this (to me) looks as if you can only do 3 total edits to a page or subsection without the risk of being slammed with a WP:3RR violation. --Kim D. Petersen 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, for clarity-you would not have been blocked anyway, you only reverted twice. Hope that clears it up? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - thank you. That was my own interpretation as well. (again sorry to have been insistant - but it does impact how i can or cannot edit :-)). --Kim D. Petersen 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that unlike you, Uber actually has broken 3RR on the GW page. His report of you was probably a smokescreen to disguise this William M. Connolley 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Unfortunatly it seems that the GW page dispute is going to be yet another tedious discussion over consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to discuss. There is a lot of trolling going on there which should not be encouraged. Both BT and Uber should have been blocked for 3RR; had they been the page probably wouldn't have needed protection William M. Connolley 09:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably correct. Btw. can i ask where the rule that you cannot refer to subpages for documentation is? I've been looking for such a rule - but cannot seem to find it. It seems to me (as you can see above) that in some cases this would require you to have monolithic pages, that restate the same things again and again. --Kim D. Petersen 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The wikilawyers are fond of making up and/or overinterpreting rules, when it suits their POV. I'm not aware of any such rule: who asserts its existence, and in what context? William M. Connolley 09:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming#Page protection - Summary of current issues with this article 3rd comment (i presume it is UBeR - but its unsigned and i don't want to traverse the history to find the specifics) - this appears to be the whole crux of the dispute... --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it. I've pulled it out to see who defends it though. It will probably just degenerate into another pointless round of lawyering William M. Connolley 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William is wrong on several points including the 3RR violation, so nevermind him. I cannot believe you choose to ignore such a fundamental policy. It is stated clear as day. Lawyering, in my opinion, is OK so long as those people who choose to ignore the policies can at least grasp the ideas Wikipedia has for creating its encyclopedia.

Lets have a read, shall we? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Some might assert that this is simple "overinterpreting," but lets see what Mr. Wales himself has to say about it. "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." So what constitutes original research? "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." Saying "most scientist believe" and "few scientists believe "without any source saying such, your are engaging in original research. (This statement applies directly to what I just said: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.") Simple as that.

Most importantly (and as such, I will bold it for you), Wikipedia states it in fairly simple English, so I hope you can understand the following message: "Just as underlying facts must be sourced, claims of consensus must be sourced in the presence of differences of opinion. Claims that 'most' or 'all' scientists, scholars, ministers (or rabbis or imams etc.) of a religious denomination, voters, etc. hold a view require sourcing, particularly on matters that are subject to dispute. In the absence of a reliable source of consensus or majority view, opinions should be identified as those of the sources." Do you two understand now?

So there's also been some argument about how I can put some bracket around some words and suddenly those words become true. For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Wikipedia article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is a tertiary source (if you don't believe me, check WP:OR). Fortunately for our readers (unfortunately for you two), Wikipedia does not allow tertiary sources: "All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources." Wikipedia calls this fundamental to writing an encyclopedia, so I don't quite understand how you two choose to so easily ignore it. This isn't about building a monolithic article, as you proclaim, but rather building a fair article. I hope you understand. ~ UBeR 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is yet more making up of rules (and evading 3RR, but thats elsewhere). The JA example is wrong. Uber seems to want to turn wiki into an endless repetition with no sub articles William M. Connolley 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Making up rules? They're written here and here! These quotes are not made up. Nor are they taken out of context, which is why I give you the source of these for you to actually read over the whole policy. If you chose to ignore them, so be it. ~ UBeR 17:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding this edit, this may add some context. Guettarda 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My appologies, Mr. Petersen

Assuming your username is also your given name, I wish to apologize for using the female gender when referring to you. It was foolish mistake, overlooking the fact Kim is often used for males as well as females. Mr. Arritt informed me that I was incorrectly referring to you as female, so I apologize for that and meant no insult. ~ UBeR 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Appology accepted. Are you also btw. going to appologize for your mistake about 3RR - and your comment here which is also incorrect? (follow the timelines please). --Kim D. Petersen 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Todd Shelly

I'm almost certain it's the same "Tom Shelly", and I can't see any harm in disclosing that the guy is a university researcher. We need to save our reverts for the important stuff. ;-) Raymond Arritt 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - i have the feeling its the same guy as well - but i don't believe that we can attribute it on a feeling. And no - i can't see any harm in the disclosure either. --Kim D. Petersen 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gray

hurricanes are very much part of the climate - and atmospheric science (one of) the basics of climate science. - arguably Gray is a meteorologist not a climatologist. But I agree the edit was POV William M. Connolley 16:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Had there been more space in the summary, i would have added that while the edit may be factually correct, it leans in a direction so that it provides a specific POV ;) --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on TGGWS

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the page. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

Erm - sorry Tjsynkral is that supposed to be intimidating? I suppose you are talking about this edit [3] explained here [4]? I think that you should make the the case before WP:AIV or WP:ANI instead of tagspamming here. --Kim D. Petersen 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

National Union of Mineworkers

Hi Kim, I don't see the problem adding the name of the documentary that Lawson appeared on when he was suggesting that Global Warming was being hyped (used as an excuse if you will) to close down pits and promote cleaner nuclear energy. I would have to watch it again though. You're right about the middle east, he did say that, I remember that and didn't edit it myself.

Kim, the conservative party during the 80's and mid 90's was hardly reknowned for their man mad global warming fears. I honestly believe they did see it as a way to close down pits and promote cleaner fuels.....and break up the NUM to boot... --Dean1970 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean that may be your view - but you are putting words into Lord Lawson's mouth - his exact quote is:

“ She was very concerned always, I remember, (when I was Secretary of State for Energy), to promote Nuclear Power. Long before the issue of Climate Change came up, because she was concerned about Energy Security, and she didn't trust the Middle East, and she didn't trust the National Union of Mineworkers. So she didn't trust oil. And she didn't trust coal. So therefore she felt we really had to push ahead with Nuclear Power. And then, when the Climate Change, Global Warming, thing came up, she felt - well this is great - this is another argument - because it doesn't have any Carbon Dioxide Emissions - this is another argument why you should go for Nuclear. And that is what she was really largely saying. It's been misrepresented since then. ”

Your (or someone elses version) quotes him for: "the theory of anthropogenic global warming was exaggerated to promote cleaner nuclear power over coal, thus covertly weakening the NUM's influence in government energy policy." - this is not something that i can find any basis for in the text.

Personally i don't think this documentary is notable enough to be mentioned on the NUM page - but since its there - it actually has to be correct. --Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, hence I cleaned up the grammar --Dean1970 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, You're right, no where in the transcript is the word "exaggerated" to be found, its possible POV on my part.

Though, the transcript doesn't really visualise the points made in the documentary. The protracted and often times violent miners strike was in a way the genesis for the IPCC, because for the first time a [tory, no less] Government took the theory of man made global warming seriously. It may well just be a coincidence that at this time this government fearing for the future of ice-caps in the north pole decided to look into nuclear energy (over coal) as a way of saving them, I don't know. Regardless of ones own views, I think it merits a mention on the NUM page. I agree with you that Lawson cited both the NUM and the middle east as a cause for concern over energy security but I thought that the UK was actually a Net exporter of Oil thanks to the North Sea, or at least the reserves they extracted supplied its energy needs. I apologise for rabbiting on about this, the article as it stands looks fine. --Dean1970 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warning

More of a recommendation, but I had to use the pun somewhere. Please be careful about making reverts on global warming, as the edit conflict is still hot. I sugest you try to avoid making rapidfire edits at all, even if they aren't reverts, since it can't be possible to carry on whole discussions between them. It just heats up the dispute. Instead, try staying just at the articles talk page until an agreement is reached, even on some small point, and only then make the change on the article. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - i thought that was exactly what i've done... All edits (except one deletion - which wasn't controversial and immediatly explained on the talk page) has been updates of quotations. (actually one removal of linkspam). But i thank you for the warning anyways - it's appreciated. I have followed the debate both on the talk-page and on the WP/AN pages, so i'm well aware of the dangers :)

Fwiw i believe that this kind of oversight is needed. --Kim D. Petersen 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you

Beckyvolley 22:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

August H. Auer Jr.

Your recent edit summary implies that you deleted the "leading scientists" language based upon your own original research. Can you please explain the criteria you used for "leading scientists"? The language you changed was supported by a reference.--Africangenesis 17:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the reference isn't reliable. It doesn't adhere to WP:RS. Its an editorial/whatever on an internet/voice over IP providers site. Please reference sources that are reliable and have an editorial process that can be considered more than just a reprinter of press-releases etc. So what i did was to look over the list and check if it was even close to true - and guess what? It wasn't. (which was WP:OR on my part - but supported by the WP:RS missing - it has to be striked. --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have to remember the "close to true" criterion. Wouldn't you have to be familiar with the New Zealand scientific community to be informed when making this analysis? The New Zealand Press Association should be considered the source of the article. --Africangenesis 18:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What you now have added is a press-release. Still not a WP:RS. Remove the "leading scientists" part - which is what i'm arguing about. Its WP:WEASEL - and "real world" check will tell you that its not even close to true. So unless you really are out to misinform the readers - and thereby engaging in POV pushing - i suggest that you find a neutral wording. --Kim D. Petersen 18:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the New Zealand Herald reference a press release? What is the indication? They even list it under "National News", which would seem to have required editorial judgement regarding its import. I am willing to learn.--Africangenesis 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The NZ Herald is publishing (unedited) from the NZPA. No indications of writer - no indication of source. Try to use WP:COMMON... Is it correct that they are "leading"? Or have you simply zoomed in on a word/sentence - and are trying to push it? May i suggest that you try to look up the various scientists? Could you give me a reason for accepting this - as more than just POV pushing? Explain to me please what defines "leading" and secondly explain to me "who" is saying that they are leading.... --Kim D. Petersen 19:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The NZPA is a news service, like the AP or UPI. Their stories are often reprinted verbatim, and sometimes have bylines and sometimes don't. The story does not read like a press release, or have the background material or disclaimers that press releases usually have. Whatever it originally was, the NZ Herald, a reputable source, has vouched for it. I don't need news stories or a consensus statement to push "my" POV, I just follow the evidence in peer reviewed journals.--Africangenesis 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The date format used in New Zealand is day/month/year - 10 June 2007.Your expression as year/month/day is not correct! - (203.211.79.131 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

If you set up your preferences, to the desired dateformat - it is correct. The format [[YYYY-MM-DD]] will render according to your preferences. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Michaels

Dear user Kim D. Petersen: You wrote on my user talk page:

Would you please stop deleting something with the comment: "Remove unsourced opinion" - when the reference is quite clear at the end of the text - and if you'd bothered to check it - you'd find that the paragraph is (almost) verbatim from it. It's attributable and is from a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Kim D. Petersen: Sorry if I seemed to be doubting your word on the sources for the material on Tom Wigly. I did not doubt that Gelbspan referred to Wigley as "one of the world's leading climate scientists", I merely disagree that, as written, the sentence made it clear that this honorific description was clearly Gelbspan's conclusion, since only the statement by Wigley that you included in quotes was clearly from The Heat is On, with the introductory material, as I said, being in the "voice of Wikipedia." I was reluctant to repair the paragraph because I thought that perhaps the phrase "one of the world's leading climate scientists" might be a direct quote and should be presented as such, but I had no easy access to the source to check this. I gather from your remarks on my user talk page (i.e. it is almost verbatim) that it does not belong in quotes, so I have left it as is and merely reorganized the paragraph to make the source of all the conclusions presented unambiguous. —Blanchette 04:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanchette - the reason that i said (almost) is because i haven't checked it letter for letter - but from what i can see its entirely verbatim. And as i've said on the talk pages - its not Gelbspan who is saying this - again i have no idea where you are getting that idea from - but the article from the Pacific Institute that are stating this in the 2nd last paragraph - about the authors.

Please, Please, Please - read the actual reference - thats what its there for - since you keep mixing Gelbspan into this - i have no choice but to assume that you haven't bothered to do so. Please do. --Kim D. Petersen 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Kim D. Petersen, now I know what you're talking about. I'm sorry I didn't understand what you meant sooner. I managed to find the source of the entire paragraph in question in the Michaels article. Because of the way you (I mean someone) formatted the paragraph in the Michaels article it was not obvious which reference (Gelbspan or Pacific Institute) went with which piece of information. I have reformatted it as a block quote since the entire paragraph (minus their inline citation) was taken from the Pacific Institute article. My only change was to replace the Institute's inline citation of Gelbspan with an ellipsis and a Wikipedia-style reference. In the future, maybe you (anyone) would consider using block quotes for this kind of material written by others, and help people like me avoid confusion. The block quote icon is the second from the right on the edit toolbar. Thanks! —Blanchette 21:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Zeeboid 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Christy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

An Inconvenient Truth

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. GreenJoe 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As you can see there is already such a warning on my page - so it really is unneccessary to bring this policy to my attention. I'm fully aware of the consequences, and the reasons for this policy - and i agree with it. Which is why i haven't edited the page - since that time. --Kim D. Petersen 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Thamks for your comments on the edir conflict. You have done what I was trying to do in any case. Philip Cross 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to have warned anyone else

How can I have an edit war all by myself? BTW, have you thought about that Roesch email? It should have you reversing your vote on my proposed qualification of the models, and perhaps adding another cite or two.--Africangenesis 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You've reverted 3 times on Global warming within the last 24 hours - thats the reason for the warning. Such a warning is standard - and should only be given to an editor once. To make him/her aware of the policy. Since i couldn't see one on your page - i placed one there.

I haven't changed my view on your interpretation of Roesch - and i agree with WMC and RA that its OR. --Kim D. Petersen 06:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Asserting OR is rather convenient, if they don't have to back it up. The real issue is that Roesch's truth is inconvenient.--Africangenesis 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really - what you are doing is extrapolating from Roesch - and that is OR. Unless you can find sources that do this extrapolation. --Kim D. Petersen 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying a more positive albedo reflects more sun is not extrapolation. I was careful not to grab for everything I should be able to get.--Africangenesis 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Kim, please see my comments here. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? Their are alot of things you should be looking at to change instead of taking away something that is not only unique as far as I can tell but also a great way of performing individual action. Please edit things in the sandbox instead! I dispise people who consider themselves experts in what readers will like to be informed of.

Individual and political action on climate change

Saw your comment on William's page. That article is a mess; the mitigation articles as a whole are a mess. Someone should clean them up (I'm not especially interested in the topic). Raymond Arritt 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I had the page on my watchlist for some reason, and investigated it. I have to admit that i've shunned these pages as well. --Kim D. Petersen 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sea tmep rise

he is a professor, too smart to say what he said unless he meant it. tggws does cover his claims about programme. even quotes by subjects who later claim they were duped by the premise of a documentary can be used. Also, Durkin has counterclaimed that Wunsch was not duped. It's one mans word against another, something for courts to settle, not me, not you. By deleting it, Durkin is being called a liar, even though no court has found him guilty, only some editors on wikipedia. Wunsch claims, Durkin claims...i'm not bothered, this is wikipedia, i'm quoting from a documentary and adding to an article with refs to an article, not playing referee to their claims. --Dean1970 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since he himself (Wunsch) is saying that he is quoted out of context - then whatever context you are putting the quote into, would be WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 13:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That explains "published" quotes. This is a documentary. It didn't appear to me that what he actually said in the docu was being dubbed. I'm sure he stands by what he said about ocean temp variation, the 'memory' aspect, a change in ocean temp can be distorted as a current event when the time-lag (of several hundred or thousand years) is not taken into account. --Dean1970 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dean have you ever heard of a concept called "editing"? It can be used (and according to Wunsch was) to quote people out of context. You have no idea what context Wunsch is stating this - he could be talking about local or regional changes (which is very likely) - or he could be talking about global. He could also be talking about deep ocean temperatures - which is also possible and likely.

Baseline is: Wunsch is pissed about being quoted out of context - and misrepresented. He has stated this quite clearly - as well as creating a section on his website with the specific purpose of discrediting TGGWS [5]. So please do not quote him from this film - as it is documentable that Wunsch doesn't stand behind this films representation of his views. --Kim D. Petersen 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WagTV claim they did not misrepresent Wunsch. --Dean1970 14:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So what. Would expect them to state otherwise? Raymond Arritt 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what I think. It's what I know. The dispute between Wunsch and WagTV is unresolved with one claiming they were misrepresented and the other claiming otherwise. I'm not quoting from a published article. I'm quoting from what Wunsch claimed about Ocean temp variation, I fail to see where i'm misrepresenting his words! Unless of course Wunsch is wrong about ocean temp variation. Nah, I think it has more to do with me editing it into the section about sea-temp. --Dean1970 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The person making a documentary is the director. The person responsible for making the final cut. The docu is 75 mins long, some things have to be deleted to work it around and satisfy allocated time-slot given by broadcaster. --Dean1970 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dean, you are building up a strawman. Its simple: Wunsch is the absolute undisputed authority on his own views - and Wunsch is stating that his views are misrepresented and quoted out of context, in the source that you are using. Conclusion: Do not use that source to represent Wunsch's views. --Kim D. Petersen 14:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I back down and add it to a series of edits that are ommited for reasons I believe are personal. Like the one on tggws article itself where I added that some scientists don't fully acknowledge the role of the Sun, I didn't pluck that one out of thin air either. Nigel Calder claimed that there was going to be a serious discussion about the role of the Sun with regards to global warming that was put on the back burner because and I quote Calder:"They came out with the first big report which predicted climatic disaster as a result of Global Warming. I remember going to the scientific press conference and being amazed by two things. First, the simplicity and eloquence of the message and the vigour with which it was delivered. And secondly the total disregard of all climate science up till that time. Including, incidentally the role of the Sun, which have been the subject of a major meeting at the Royal Society just a few months earlier." I added it as a claim made in the docu, because it is an article about the docu...so generally..on wikipedia..it can be added. But it was deemed to be nonsense because other editors claimed no scientists dismiss the Suns role. Its simple: I'm not editing what scientists (based on fellow editors assumptions) think or don't think about the Sun. I'm basing my edits on the claims made on the programme. Simple! --Dean1970 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

New to wikipedia

Hi, you wrote that I had a change that had been reverted or removed on greenhouse gases. I'm not sure if this is the place to be talking about this but I don't see that it has and I would like to discuss this with whoever changed it. Thanks!--Nickstuckert 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ok thanks! Nickstuckert 03:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's IPCC criticism

Why did you remove it from the IPCC wikipedia article?

3RR

Kim, You have reverted 4 times on the "Scientists..." page in the last 24 hours. Please keep a close eye on your reverts. I have not reported this, because I don't like to do that sort of thing. --Britcom 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the correct number is 2 reverts - as one is a self-revert which cancels out another revert. --Kim D. Petersen 05:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

Ok, sorry. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single compromise version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

James Hoggan & Associates

Hi Kim, I don't appreciate your tone my friend. I was quickly looking for some refs I could add to the article because article was deleted before for a lack of them. I thought the publication was RS, it was about subject. So I included it. Nothing sinister. p.s. if smearing is your big concern, afford some of it to your pals. --Dean1970 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Dean, i wasn't commenting on your editing - but merely on the source - and had to cram enough information into the edit comment - so that it wouldn't be necessary to go to Talk... WP:BLP makes it very important that you do not add references such as this - without sufficient reasons - and getting background information about Hoggan would not be such a case. The NP article is rather obvious as a smear piece - so bad that the NP had to post the retraction. A Google search for "James Hoggan" finds quite a few sources to pick from. --Kim D. Petersen 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"probably a nice song" [6]

C'mon insincerity doesn't suit you :) --BozMo talk 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't listened... My Flash player can't play it. It probably is (or isn't). --Kim D. Petersen 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kettle

Ha,ha,ha. You should study hard Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black. Prester John 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

question about whois

Hi Kim. I have a question that's unrelated to out discussion about the inclusion of demandebate.com at Steven Milloy. Since you seem to know a lot about domain name registration I thought I'd ask you. Here goes: According to whois.com, Milloy registered demanddebate.com in April 07, but the website has News entries dating back to Dec 06. I look at this and think: the earliest the site went "live" was in April, and these older news entries were added to make it look like the site has been around for longer. But I don't know much about this stuff--perhaps there's a better explanation. Also, demanddebate.com doesn't show up (yet) in Archive.org queries, leading me to believe the site is relatively new. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. (And I know this busines is 100% WP:OR and I have zero intention of including this in the article.I'm just curious).Yilloslime 06:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing War on Michal Mann page due to Mr Petersen discussionless reversions

Editing War on Michal Mann page due to Mr Petersen discussionless reversions

Mr Petersen, I have added a single word "controversial" about "hockey stick" graph on Michal Mann page. This word is fair and moderate given the fact this graph is negates the two most important climate changes in the past millenium (warm Middle Age and Little Ice Age), promoted to a so-called worldwide scientific consensus by Mann himself inspite his work was single and quite small compared to the huge task, after this said in the peer-reviewed literature to be just built from flawed methodology and doubtful choice of proxies and now rejected by IPCC itself which has restored some warm Middle Age and Little Ice Age in its officla graphs.

I have provided these factual arguments in the discussion page of the article on Mann.

Following Wikipedia rules, you should get into dialogue through the discussion page. You have not.

Mr Petersen, Iam shocked that you behave as if you were the owner of the page on Michael Mann, reverting with no argument nor any kind of legitimacy this single, moderate word I have added.

Therefore, I expect to declare an official editing war due to your behaviour. Xavier 11:15 14 July 2007 GMT

I'm going on vacation for a week. In the meantime - i suggest that you read up on your stuff. MWP and LIA in IPCC reports and Hockey stick controversy is a good start. Try reading the report by the National Research Council as well. Mann's work has been confirmed by every temperature reconstruction since it came out. So yes - there is controversy surrounding the hockey stick - but its not controversial. You seem to think that because you have written the last comment on a talk page, then there is consensus - that is not the case. --Kim D. Petersen 11:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be rather nice if you'd read through the talk page as well - most of your argument is discussed there. --Kim D. Petersen 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop kidding. 1- You perfectly know I have read these articles : we had debatted in May on wether they are properly used in the article on Mann. 2- Hockey stick *is* controversial. It was controversial by itslef as soon as introduced in 1998, then in 2001 IPCC author Mann flawedly called it a consensus, in 2007 IPCC clearly states it as not a consensus, and now provides curves *with* warm Middle Age and Little Ice Age. The article on Mann as written now is deeply underinformative on the fact that the 1998 graph which is famous worldwide far outside the scientific world did negate (thorougly) Middle Age and (almost thoroughly) Little Ice Age, and was in the heart of the alarmists propaganda. The price to pay for those who have introduced such an absurd statement given the strong evidences reported by historians is to have it clearly written as a description of the work that has made them famous. You can claim their technology was at child time, or that science is made of a process of truth improvement, or whatever you like. You can claim they have good, safe results on other topics. I do not target them, but I want clearly written in wikipedia the part of the truth that is clearly known on what happend then, which has perturbated damageably the normal course of Humanity from flawed alarmism in IPCC. - xavdr 15 July 2007 00:09 -

The article on "hockey stick" controversy is usefull, but more usefull, essential for those who do not know yet, is a mention on some caracteristics of Mann graph inside the article on Mann himself. See discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Mann_%28scientist%29 for what I am about to introduce in this article about this. - xavdr 15 July 2007 00:09 -

WP:BLP

Kim, please read WP:BLP again. It clearly states: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article" No exceptions, please follow this rule. --Theblog 04:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Coal

Please help me out.
I can't find the text intended to support the coal reserves sentence in the article Energy_policy_of_the_United_States. Do you intend page two of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Underground Geologic Formations by Sally M. Benson to be relied upon? The closest I can find is this passing remark: "The United States has abundant supplies of inexpensive coal which could provide a secure supply of electricity for hundreds of years," which is vague, unsupported by any analysis or literature citations, and qualified to encompass electricity production only. -- Yellowdesk 05:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Verbatim from the second reference:

Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use.

From "Coal – A Fossil Fuel". US Department of Energy. February 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

And to be more specific (but WP:OR in the article) the estimate from 1995 [7] sets the total reserves at 496 billion short tons - the recoverable reserves at 274 billion short tons. Current (2005) coal production is 1,131.5 million short tons - which gives us 242 years (274000/1131.5). This assumes that recoverable reserves stay constant - rather than rise from technology making more of the total reserves available. All in all - even being conservative - i'd say we have >300 years. --Kim D. Petersen 10:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at them. -- Yellowdesk 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

I added a template to the talk page for the article Scientists Opposed to the Mainstream Scientific Assessment on Global Warming. At present, it is commented out. Since you seem to know what the exact requirements for inclusion are, would you be able to fill it out and uncomment it so the reference is there from now on? I really think it would help prevent the same questions from coming up again and again if we all knew what to look for. Thanks. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Archive

Sorry, I was not trying to cause a problem with the Global warming archive. I just knew that it was well overdue. Thanks for going and archiving some of the old stuff. =) Ayudante 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

Hi Kim D. Petersen,
Thanks for your support in the climate change denial dispute. It occurs to me that you might be interested in this task force, if you're not already familiar with it. Please stop by and sign up!

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Cheers, Cyrusc 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A thread for you to comment on

Can you take a look at this thread? Raul654 13:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, i can't say that i disagree. CE seems mostly to be here to argue and troll. --Kim D. Petersen 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See here Raul654 20:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Has the user 'Childhoodsend' been blocked from Wikipedia? I can't tell what has happened from the two links. Revolutionaryluddite 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what happened. Revolutionaryluddite 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I'm looking for userboxes that relate to 'Mozilla Firefox'. Could you refer me to some of them besides the one on your user page? Revolutionaryluddite 20:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (As a side note, I've been referring to you as 'Dr.Petersen' due to my belief that you, in fact, possess a doctor's degree. Is this correct?)

Sorry i don't know of any others. No i'm not a Dr. (i thought you might have been sarcastic... but assumed good faith - so i didn't comment). Drop the Dr. even with the real ones (such as Arritt, Connolley etc). Its not needed here - we are all on equal footing. --Kim D. Petersen 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The 'Dr.' reference was absolutely not indented as an insult. Drop the Dr. even with the real ones (such as Arritt, Connolley etc). Its not needed here - we are all on equal footing. Well, now, I wouldn't say that... I recognize my status. Revolutionaryluddite 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth

I noticed you reverted my edit of the article. You stated in the edit summary that the word "theory" is not used because it's ambiguous. I did not use the term theory. I used the term scientific theory which is not ambiguous at all. The term scientific theory has a very clear cut definition and is used all over the place in Wikipedia, correctly I might add. Also, I did not make this edit because I got the "last word". I made a completely different proposal on my last comment on the talk page for the article and no one responded with an opinion after over a week so I implemented it. You also stated "that you had the last word is an indication that people got tired of repeating themselves". People repeating themselves over and over again and not actually addressing the issues I raised should have no bearing. If editors keep repeating straw man arguments and then stop after someone makes a new suggestion to try and reach a middle ground I would take that as a good thing and worth trying. Anyways, I don't think your revert was very fair and I found the edit summary a little condescending and without merit. I don't know you personally so I'm going off the assumption that your edit was in good faith. It just seems like the status quo over at that article is to let agendas run it... Hopefully we can get that article the way it needs to be and back up to good article status. Elhector 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Viscount Monckton

Kim - just so you know, I was the one who tagged that page as POV :-) - on the talk page I wrote a small explanation (maybe it was not detailed enough, I concede). Anyway the article looks a lot better so removing the tag is probably a good idea :-) ugen64 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

denialism

Kim, many of the things you are objecting to in climate change denial are exactly the same problems cropping up at denialism, i.e. the use of poor sources, SPS, and personal opinion to define the issue. If you would be willing to help out there it would be much appreciated.

For example, right now "denialism is propaganda" has no direct citation. And "cranks" are a form of denialist relies entirely on two SPS by the same group and believe it or not neither of which directly says cranks are denialist. Instead editors there expect us to infer that they are from context. 136.152.153.36 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pielke and sea ice

Actually, believe it or not, he does say:

Thus, it is regional warming, not “global warming” that appears to be the reason for this melting…

He even uses scare quotes around global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, if you read the entire article, the sentence seems out of place (even if its a direct quote). Pielke isn't dismissing global warming as a cause - but is saying (my interpretation) that the warming in the artic is localized, and thus not a response to a general multiregional warming. He emphasizes two things:

• That the antarctic is not seeing the same response. Thus not uniform.
• That GCM's do predict this, and thus that predictions may be correct.

You have to take into account that Pielke's major gripe with global warming isn't that it happens - nor that the models may be incorrect (on a global scale) - but instead that we know far too little on what the regional impacts will be.

My take is that the quotes around global warming, aren't scare-quotes - but rather Pielke's way to show that it isn't the results of a uniform warming. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a reasonable interpretation, but the direct quote does strengthen Ron's position. I was about to make a similar change (as you made) until I came upon that quote. It does seem rather silly to suggest that global warming will not have local impacts. That particular quote may come back to haunt him (although I doubt it). I've noticed similar stylings from Lindzen who dances around an idea without actually stating it — as he knows the thing he is indirectly implying is scientifically indefensible. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert it again, for that reason (ie. direct quote) - even though i still disagree that its what he actually says. --Kim D. Petersen 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the point of reporting Pielke saying that ice is approaching a record min, when its already passed the record William M. Connolley 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I doubt he's changed his position on it being a regional phenomenon. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that as well - but you have to be careful in putting Pielke into the classical sceptics box (imho), even if you could convince Pielke that GHG induced warming is the major contributor - then i doubt that he would stop arguing for more precise regional modelling. Pielke's argument as i've understood it - is that the regional impacts are more important than overall global impacts (to the extent that he feels that global assessments are irrelevant). --Kim D. Petersen 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"you have to be careful in putting Pielke into the classical sceptics box" — duly noted. I'm not always as cautious as I should be. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't intended as critique, as much as a cautious self-critique. With some of the "septics" out there it can be difficult to assume good faith. ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An even better reason to remove it ;-) I didn't because i'm tired of arguing against Ron and his "Pielke says.." argumentation. In this case its a minor issue - if Ron wants Pielke's argument to look like a classical "septic", instead of his (in reality) more nuanced view - then its a minor concession to Ron (but might be a large disservice to Pielke). --Kim D. Petersen 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion

I have to admit, Ron's characterization of someone else as "confused" made me smile.[8] Raymond Arritt 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rain forest - effect on global climate

Kim, your knowledgeable assistance is requested for the following article: Rainforest
Specifically, the section titled "Effect on global climate". My objections are fully detailed on the Talk page there. Despite my efforts, there have been multiple reverts by the same swaggering editor, who is unresponsive to my calls for corrections, and the article has since been locked to IP editors such as myself. Any input you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.68.113 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Carbon offset

Hi Kim, you had recently reverted an edit of mine on the Carbon offset entry. I've since undertaken a literature search on the issue of methane emissions from plants, and found that the Nature article claiming that plants are methane emitters has been refuted by a very recent paper in New Phytologist. I've rewritten the section accordingly to include those new findings and their source. From what I glean (also from a recent commentary in Nature), the verdict is still out there as to whether plants produce methane (aerobically), even though the latest article has cast some doubt on that. If you have time please have a look, and see if the section is more balanced and informed now (I had only began work on this since a contributor had inserted this bit poorly worded and without a good source). Many thanks Malljaja 15:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AIT

Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I know we've been butting heads quite often over at the AIT but I wanted to let you know it's nothing personal. I actually like debating with you. You make well thought out arguments ;-) Elhector 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AIT & TGGWS

Sorry, I'm confused - on the one hand you are adamant that these are two separate articles, and that they should be treated separately (I agree), on the other hand, you are telling us not to discuss it at AIT but at TGGWS? Why? Do you mean we are discussing it in the wrong place, or that we should weigh into the TGGWS debate? Where exactly? That talk page is longer than AIT. regards --Merbabu 10:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a very good case for stating that TGGWS is controversial. It was (by the producers own words) created as a polemic. As you can read from the TGGWS discussions, it has been strongly opposed that the film be introduced in the lead as a polemic - and the consensus was instead to use the (apparently) less offensive wording of controversial. But lets instead continue on TGGWS - if it is still an issue. --Kim D. Petersen 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Reverted to revision 172053318 by BozMo; Engage in Talk please. This sentence is and has been subject to numerous discussions. using TW)"

You reverted with my edit in global warming with the edit comment:

"Reverted to revision 172053318 by BozMo; Engage in Talk please. This sentence is and has been subject to numerous discussions. using TW)"

However I had already addressed this in talk and I note you have not responded to it following your revert. So what exactly did you mean by "engage in talk" when at the time of your revert I had already done so?Zebulin (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Engaging in talk, means that you actually await responses. Especially on something that is (in the context of the article - and discussion) so controversial as your edit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Schulte Paper

Hi. It is perfectly reasonable to cite a reference to a current and prominent dispute. To maintain the impartiality of this page it is improtant that you do not make such major edits without first discussing the matter with fello authors. ThomDoughty (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AIT:Talk

I must formally ask you to stop censoring the discussion on the AIT page. The content you deleted is valid material for discussing on the AIT article. If you don't wish to participate in that discussion then feel free to refrain from doing so. Others are free to discuss matters without your participation and you do not have any right to squash this discussion. I intend to escalate this matter if you persist.

--GoRight (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that this discussion is only in one place. It would only be censorship if the information was removed - which it isn't. And frankly i have given my input to this discussion - on the first attempt that you had with WP:GOOGLE. You seemingly choose to ignore that - and a lack of consensus. Please read up on WP:POINT.

And finally - please do not threaten. If you are going to escalate things - then do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Its just a proforma [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Qmail page

As this chain of edits began with a constructive edit on my part (which, if you'll read carefully, removed none of the criticisms from the section, but simply condensed them to a reasonable size), your next revert is going to run up against WP:3RR. Instead of simply reverting the change, I suggest you come up with a more constructive way to express your editing objective on this article.

I note that between myself and Anastrophe, it seems unlikely that the original section is simply going to stand. If the section is important to you, by all means stick up for it, but know that it's probably not a productive use of your time.

--- tqbf 20:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

tqbf, i know that you have tried to condense quite a bit of things - but removing the references is not acceptable. Especially not because these are comments from members of the standardization commitee's. If you want to condense - then use the references. --Kim D. Petersen 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

References to mailing list posts are not acceptable on Wikipedia. --- tqbf 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that. Especially in this case. --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the thing you are trying to accomplish here? How can we help you improve the WP? What is your critique of the article as it stands now? --- tqbf 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that would improve the article, is to refactor the sections under critique into the text. As such the subsectioning gives it too much weight. And of course retain the references ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Thanks, though. --- tqbf 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Belated Happy Christmas and best wishes for the New Year William M. Connolley (talk)

Monckton - 2nd/3rd

Yes, I think you are right. It's darn confusing, keeping numbered/unnumbered nobility straight. Since the current Viscount Monckton attained that title in 2006, references to a "Viscount Monckton" in 1999 must have referred to the previous holder. Thanks for catching that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

From Front

Defaultsort

Hi1 This is a magic word, not a template, so please use a colon instead of a pipe: Thanks! :-) Flatterworld 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)