Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Evidence

message: This is far more complex than Cortonin implies. It takes two to have a war. Anyway I created Solar greenhouse (technical) on Mar 17 and moved the Real greenhouse section from Greenhouse effect to it in hopes of defusing the edit battle there. The battle moved. On Mar 22 I asked them to stop and volunteered to try to write a compromise article (although I was not totally neutral). WMC accepted and Cortonin sort of accepted. I asked them to back off for a time to hopefully get input from others. I did the rewrite and Coronin almost immediately did a ten part edit to conform the article to his POV. I reverted and asked him to give it a chance and began to try to make it more neutral. Cortonin seems most impatient and has responded with several edits and lengthy talk explanations that strike me as being off the mark and essentially confusing to the issue. He now here tries to phrase the issue as being totally WMC's fault. There is far more to it than he is telling. Vsmith 05:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Cortonin's Addendum 3: 

message: Since I was witness and sometimes participant during the incidents covered by Vsmith in his comments on the project page, I concurr with his representations and general assessment there.  I was not a witness and did not review the evidence he presented just above here on the discussion page, so my confirmation does not extend to them.--Silverback 18:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I concurr with Vsmith's statements added to date on the project page 

message: I would like to add endorse Vsmith's summary of the edit war at solar greenhouse (technical).  I observed the same edit war, and had the same impression of what transpired.  Guettarda 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vsmith's statement of 18:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) 

message: POV or difference of interpretation. I and two or three others define the greenhouse environment starting with one of the most basic and important factors: suppression of comvection.
Cortonin and his glazing researchers (refs) start with that as a given, and proceed to investigate the agreed important factor of IR absorption.
Seems this could be reconciled and I have been working toward that (as I learn, I don't have access to his 30 page ref.) in the compromise version that Cortonin keeps basically reverting, compare this, his most recent complex revert with this, which compares his most recent with his previous revert edit. 
However, what is pertinent to this discussion is that Cortonin is still engaging in a revert war and ignoring a call for a truce and the comments of other editors. 
Vsmith 03:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 17:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Cortonin's "blog" above 

message: * Cortonin and Scot E. Wilcoxon seem to take issue particularly with WMC's dismissal of people like Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg, Nils-Axel Morner, the SEPP, S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz. More importantly, the words defamatory and disrespect. His criticism of Mörner in particular was called ad hominem.
** I believe I did not comment on all those people.  I commented on WMC's attacks on Mörner rather than WMC improving the description of IPCC's work on sea levels.  Later I commented on WMC's insistence on his POV in the SEPP article.  I believe ad hominem is the proper terminology for the behavior of attacking an individual rather than dealing with the person's subject matter.  I generally ignored being defamatory and disrespectful of editors and have focused on examples of his pushing POV over factual information which seems much more specific than a "punctuated equilibrium" question … and someone bringing "punctuated equilibrium" into a relevant article often is a hint that results of those "debates of the 80s"  are not present where they should be. (SEWilco 07:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Evidence presented by Guettarda 

message: Ok, the comment I ended up making did not quite match the one that I started out to make.  In light of the fact that it ended up a comment applicable to Lomborg & Crichton, not Morner, I have modified my statement slightly.  Guettarda 13:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: On Evidence presented by Guettarda 

message: In the current phase of edit warring it seems that Cortonin keeps better track of time - his 4th revert missed a 3rr vio. by about 36 minutes , this following his report of WMC's timekeeping error on 3rr. Hmm...- following the letter of the law. Vsmith 20:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Cortonin's Addendum 4 

message: Unfortunately WMC unjustly sufferred a 48 hour block, that should have  been only 24 hours.  I note this for the arbitration committee's consideration.--Silverback 14:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Does that mean he's got a free pass for another 3RR violation? :) Guettarda 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the block log, the duration of the time was correct at 24 hours.  Perhaps it was simply a browser cache issue.  It could not have been a 48 hour block, because his first edit, another revert, was 39.8 hours after being blocked.   — Cortonin | Talk 17:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 20:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit for time served 

message: Are we supposed to state if we agree or disagree with all evidence, or is it sufficient for truth to be spoken by one person?  Does more people agreeing make something more true?  (SEWilco 19:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence by Consensus 

message: This thing reads like a jungle. Its a debate more than a compilation of evidence. Hedley 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jungle 

message: WMC requested that I clarify my understanding of NPOV here.  He stated:
:But also, my reading of the NPOV policy is that if 90% of the scientists agree on something (however one might determine that I'm unsure) then the article should give, very roughly, space in the article proportional to this balance of views. On this kind of balance I argue that the GW articles currently overweight the skeptics opinion.  -- WMC
This would perhaps be an expression of the so called "scientific point of view", where Wikipedia would simply report the majority beliefs of scientists in a particular field at any particular time.  This is, however, not the policy of Wikipedia, and the NPOV page explicitely says that it is not.  Instead, the NPOV page states:
:First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.
I have tried my best to get the climate articles to conform to this policy, and I have been met with great resistance, which continues with aggressive persistence.  For example, consider this edit.  WMC is trying to categorize the groups of people on opposite sides of the global warming debate as either "accepting the scientific evidence" or "denying the scientific evidence".  To categorize people in this manner blatantly endorses one side as correct, in direct violation of NPOV, as I explained on the talk page prior to his last revert.  This form of pushed POV endorsement has to stop.  Either we change Wikipedia policy to be pro-environmentalist rather than neutral, or some action has to be taken to get WMC to stop making it such.   — Cortonin | Talk 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response clarifying my understanding of NPOV. 

message: Cortonin has chosen a rather odd example for his efforts to conform to NPOV. Global warming controversy is an article about a scientific subject that is considered controversial. The most basic part of any science article or topic is the evidence. Now the article breaks the dispute into four points of view based on the evidence. Three points of view differ by interpretation of the meaning of the evidence, where the fourth simply rejects the evidence. Cortonin feels that the use of rhe word evidence in this case is somehow POV and would change it to a supposedly neutral - think that ... The basis of the article is the interpretation of the evidence, so how is his change NPOV? His and others edits are basically designed to weaken the article and thereby push their skeptic POV by making the debate appear to be about beliefs or thoughts rather than scientific evidence. Cortonin tries to hide behind the NPOV policy while he and his allies push their skeptic POV in their edits by hiding the evidence and attempting to weaken the science by the use of often absurd qualifiers.
Cortonin scoffs at what he refers to as the so called "scientific point of view", where Wikipedia would simply report the majority beliefs of scientists. Now, just how is a science article in an encyclopedia supposed to be written if not based on the theories and evidence for them first from the viewpoint of science. Again the importance is on the theories and evidence, not the beliefs of scientists. If there are differences of interpretation among scientists, these differences or disputes should be reported also, and this is the tricky part - deciding the amount and detail of dispute coverage. This is where a level of scientific consensus must be considered. Then, beyond that, if there are political, economic, philosophical, religious, or other disputes regarding the science they should be discussed either as sections within the article or in separate linked articles. The science of the article should not be qualified or belittled just because someone disagrees or has read some popular but misleading account. It should be pointed out that this current flap was initiated by User:JonGwynne who has been recently reprimanded by arbcom for POV pushing and Cortonin is in this case supporting the recently rebuffed POV edits of JonGwynn.
Further, in the current edit wars regarding greenhouse function in Solar greenhouse (technical) and Greenhouse effect Cortonin insists on pushing his personal interpretation of getting the physics right and essentially refuses to meet any efforts at compromise. It's not about whether his interpretation is right, it's more about recognizing that it isn't the only right, that other interpretations can also be right. His position here is quite at odds with his NPOV statements above. See the edit histories and talk pages on the above articles. -Vsmith 01:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Cortonin's example of NPOV

message: Consider my recent changes to that same Global warming controversy.  The beginning is not about evidence, it is about beliefs in several concepts by individuals.  My most recent change was more basic, as I realized the first issue was simply whether climate changed...and climate often changes in various ways.  The real issue in that sentence was in the wording "by how much", which actually does not mean 1 degree but rather it means "more than it usually changes".  Is there POV in asking "does climate change" or "does it change more than usual"?  (SEWilco 05:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW Controversy NPOV 

message: It is not my choice to not follow the "scientific point of view", it is simply Wikipedia policy to follow the neutral point of view instead of the scientific point of view, which specifically means not endorsing one group's view as correct.  This is particularly important when describing a controversy between different groups, such as global warming controversy does.  Endorsing one group as "accepting the scientific evidence" and another group as "denying the scientific evidence" is specifically saying that what one group thinks is true, and the other group is just in denial.  And even if a particular editor thinks this is the case, it still violates NPOV.   — Cortonin | Talk 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Vsmith's response above

message: WMC said I "couldn't resist jumping on the bandwagon", and mentioned an edit I made.  It is here, and the reason given was "We should use both. It puts the zoomed in graph in a larger context, which is critical for understanding."  I think that pretty much covers it.  More information is better, more depth is better, more perspectives are better.  Exclusivity and tailoring the information to present a narrow view, that's not so good.   — Cortonin | Talk 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The context is already in the article with the 2000yr plot just two sections down . This makes the new graph redundant and unneeded. This incident shows dramatically the POV pushing style of Cortonin, he immediately rushes to welcome and support any skeptic who has read MC's novel and drops by with some edit designed either to confuse or belittle the climate articles. Vsmith 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to WMC's comments about the 400kyr graph. 

message: There are apparently two prominent P.A. Stotts.  I thought the IPCC article was discussing the Peter Stott, 
: (William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The absence of good global temperature measurements is another topic altogether.  Most simply though, Europe does not equal the Northern Hemisphere either.  I thought the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was pretty general knowledge, but here's one of the first links google gave me on it , and if you want more detail, follow the references in Hass HC, "Northern Europe climate variations during late Holocene", Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 123(1-4), Jul 1996.  There's plenty more in the literature on it, but that's a start.   — Cortonin | Talk 02:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Lot of Stotts 

message: My apology for commenting on the evidence page rather than here with this comment: . I will try to remember in the future. Seems there's been a rash of this "forgetfulness" there :-). Vsmith 16:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology for comment on evidence page. 

message: I apologize if WMC found said comment offensive.  I suspect he found it more opportune than offensive, but regardless, I apologize anyway if any offense was taken.  As said before, it was intended in the context of H.G. Frankfurt's philosophical essay titled, "On Bullshit", where the term is used to indicate a disregard for whether or not something is true (where in fact, it can even actually be true), as differentiated from lying, where something is known to be false.  I now see that the others here are unfamiliar with this context, and have interpreted it in an older vulgar context, so I have removed it.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankfurt reference 

message: With so many things being labeled "obvious" here with so little justification given, or defended with gusto, fiat, verbosity, or ad hominem rather than justified argument by sourced content, I think everyone involved in this dispute should read Why smart people defend bad ideas.   — Cortonin | Talk 10:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 11:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I regularly do.  Do you?   — Cortonin | Talk 18:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 18:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a key aspect of that debate was that there were a bunch of people arguing that the obviousness of everyday intuition trumped the complex reasoning of modern scientific thought *cough* greenhouses *cough*.   — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 20:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Cortonin, I'm glad I read that article.  Now if only some other people here would read it and, more importantly, consider whether or not the article is describing them.  I saw clear descriptions of several folks here and am reasonably sure that they would deny this to their graves.  One of the most important things I learned when I was growing up was that it is OK to admit when we're wrong about something - a lesson that WMC would do well to learn for himself one of these days.  --JonGwynne 03:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why smart people defend bad ideas 

message: My central premise is that if you want to understand a physical system, you need a detailed physical model, with equations describing its behavior, and which has been experimentally tested.  And if you want to make sure it's at least of basic quality, it should be peer reviewed.  You present a large number of commentaries which disagree with edits I have made, and zero peer-reviewed papers containing experimentally confirmed detailed models.  That the lot of everyone here prefers to go with commentaries without detail over the work of people who bother to do crazy things like, say, take out an infrared thermometer and make a measurement, is frankly sad.   — Cortonin | Talk 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Sheldon