Talk:Kyoto Protocol/Archive 2

message: Once again you are engaging in incivil conduct.  If you don't think Stott's statements belong in the intro, then put them somewhere else.  Calling them "nonsense" is simply rude and incivil - and demonstrates that you have nothing substantive to offer in response to them.  In spite of the fact that they reject your deeply-held personal beliefs on the subject, they are relevant to the discussion of Kyoto and your deletion of them is nothing more than censorship.  Are you so afraid of opposing views that you seek to stifle them wherever you can?  --JonGwynne 04:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't get to censor criticism of either yourself or your idealogy.  That wasn't a personal attack, it was an objective statement of fact.  You engaged in incivil conduct in violation of wikipedia policy.  The header was simply an observation of that fact.  If you don't like being labelled as a violator of wikipedia policy then I suggest you stop violating it.--JonGwynne 14:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Philip Stott has been quoted in a BBC online interview , talking about a fundamental "contradiction" of the Kyoto Protocol: "that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."
Which I removed as it doesn't belong in the intro - or perhaps even in the article. Stott is, by my reading, calling the climate researchers, on whose work the protocol is base, liars. That seems rather inflammatory and not really relevant. Vsmith 13:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, you don't bother to explain why it doesn't belong.  You express your personal opinion that his statements are "inflammatory" and claim they aren't relevant.  We'll leave aside the overtly POV nature of this claim and skip right to the fact that at no time do you bother to dispute the factual accuracy of Stott's statement.  Oh yeah, and Stott's statement directly addresses the Kyoto Accord - that isn't disputed either, despite your unsupported claim that it is irrelevant.  To respond to the only substantive point you actually make in your rebuttal, there is no indication that Stott is calling climate researchers liars - his use of the term is somewhat ambiguous, he might just as easily be referring to policitians.  In fact, I think that is more likely.  A climate researcher who understood the mechanisms underlying global climate (to the extent that they can be understood at the current time) would be unlikely to subscribe to the view that global climate can be managed "by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions".  Such a view doesn't pass the laugh test - yet it is something that policitians might tend to latch onto in order to serve their political rather than scientific agenda.  In any event, this is pretty clearly just another case of your idealogical censorship of views you find objectionable.--JonGwynne 14:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: "Stott is, by my reading, calling the climate researchers, on whose work the protocol is base, liars. That seems rather inflammatory and not really relevant."  No, that Stott phrase does not mention scientists, and is referring to a contradiction within the Kyoto documents. Stott is saying the politicians creating the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are liars.  Stott is saying the concept of controlling the complex climate through only greenhouse gas emissions is a lie which goes beyond scientific uncertainty.  If this concept is false, is this relevant?  (SEWilco 18:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do me a favor SE and keep an eye on this.  Because of local politics and a handful of biased administrators, I am not allowed to revert Global warming-related articles more than once.  So, alas, it will have to be up to others to try to maintain balance here.  As you can see, they even try to censor facts about themselves in the discussion page - No Marco, you don't get the censor facts here either.  It is highly inappropriate for you to modify other people's commentary here in any case.  Please stop doing it.  If you have anything to say on the subject, your comments are welcome.  Your attempted censorship is not.--JonGwynne 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: -) Politics and biased administrators have banned you, "the others" are POV warriors and do not have a balanced view. Oh, and yes they always attack personal while "you" present objective facts and if "they" cannot argue anymore the only thing "they" do is censoring the article. -- mkrohn 08:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd stop trying to censor other people's statements, it would be a big help.  I'll remind you that it is highly inappropriate to edit other people's comments on this page.  This is a place where everyone can speak their mind without being censored.  The statement that VSmith is in violation of wikipedia policy isn't a "personal attack", it is a statement of fact.  Wikipedia policy states that incivil comments are verboten and yet VSmith makes them.  It isn't an attack to point this out.  It may be embarrassing to him to be called on his violations but that's his problem.  BTW, your assessment is essentially accurate.  ;->  --JonGwynne 23:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Your deceptive (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they weren't deliberately and maliciously deceptive) descriptions of this header notwithstanding, you have no right to censor or edit my statements on this board in *any way*.  If you disagree with them, feel free to express your disagreement in whatever manner you deem suitable - but you may not edit *my* statements.  It is not a personal attack to describe violations of wiki policy as violations of wiki policy.  The fact remains that your comments re: Stott were incivil and, as such, a violation of wiki policy.  You have no basis to consider the factual descriptions of your actions to be "personal attacks".  They are not attacks in any way, shape or form but rather factually accurate and completely impersonal remarks - unlike, for example, your own comments regarding Philip Stott.--JonGwynne 01:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s.  I notice remain unwilling or unable to justify your removal of Stott's remarks regarding the view that global climate can be substantively affected by attempting to modify minor factors that influence it.  This is the entire basis of the Kyoto Protocol and his point is directly on point.  But, based on your actions in the past, it seems pretty clear that you won't tolerate legitimate criticism of the position of the IPCC and those who support Kyoto.--JonGwynne 01:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you're still not allowed to censor my comments.  And I notice you've still failed to justify your censorship of Stott.  What's your thing with censorship?  Are you really that worried that your position can't withstand scrutiny that you have to violate other people's freedom of expression on the subject?--JonGwynne 05:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  JonGwynne's complaint against VSmith 

message: So there is a lot of talk here (as well as many other places on the internet) about everything that is involved with this protocol; the people, the consequences etc etc...
Nowhere is it defined what this protocol really fundamentally is.  How was it decided how certain countries can pollute less by 2010, while others can pollute more? How is this based on population density and land area exactly? What other factors come into play? When a country starts to buy credits, the more it buys, the more expensive they get, what forumla does this follow?
Who made up all these formulas? What univerisity/what prof.? Was there other formulas that were also being concidered?
In my opinion, these are the questions that it all comes down to, and I think it would be super helpful if they were addressed here.
Thanks,
-jet
: Start with the first sentence in the article and click on something in there: "The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), " (SEWilco 18:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are having trouble finding logical reasons for the decisions because they are political decisions. (SEWilco 17:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentals of what Kyoto Protocol really is? - The math 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should consider re-reading the version you reverted.  The one you substituted is not only inaccurate, but grammatically incorrect.  It is not generally considered correct to insert a paragraph break between two sentences conveying a single thought.  The section "the Kyoto Protocol is predicted to reduce the average global temperature by somewhere between 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003), compared to the increase of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 predicted by the IPCC" goes hand-in-hand with the "Because of this many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol".  I know, because I wrote it.  Your POV attempt to change the meaning of this section and undermine the inherent flaws of the KP are unacceptable and, more importantly, unsupported by any evidence.  The feeble attempt to rationalize the flaws of KP by citing wishful thinking on the part of politicians and activists is also POV and, therefore, inappropriate for wikipedia.  You want to write an editorial for some blog then feel free.  But do please spare wikipedia your cant.  --JonGwynne 02:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have the complete Nature reference? I cannot find the specific paper. The complete reference should be provided or at least the main author.Rolva 23:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: I'd like to know why William M. Connolley restored the text I deleted.  The statement "Even though China is currently exempt, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is expected to declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and make itself no longer exempt" is based around weasel terms.   It claims that China is expected to declare itself Annex I without saying who is doing the expecting or what their evidence for that expectation is--"it is expected" is used to avoid making an unsupportable assertion outright. Ken Arromdee 15:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an unsupported assertion, but who knows if its unsupported? Not that I've tried to check. I think you're being too picky. The current text is probably worse, though. William M. Connolley 19:16:25, 2005-09-03 (UTC).
Noticed that the later edit changed this again, but I don't feel the replacement is any better.  It's literally true that China can choose not to be exempt, but it seems very strange to follow a criticism of China for doing something by pointing out that they could do something different in the future.  We don't say "the USA rejected the treaty, but the US could ratify it in the future".
The only way that line makes sense is if it's there to suggest that China *would* do such a thing, not just that they could.  In other words, it has the same problem as the original version of the line. Ken Arromdee 15:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is expected to 

message: I think there needs to be a section that resports the results achieved by the protocol and putting those in perspective.  For instance, UK is on track to achieve its goals, however, the calculations don't include the carbon loss from the soil which apparently, coincidently is estimated to have completely canceled out that achievement.  The "achievement" is further dwarfed by two orders of magnitude by the peat bog fires in SE Asia in 1997 alone.--Silverback 13:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A perspective or results would be a good idea, but one written in an NPOV manner, which I don't think the above is. The article should certainly mention that carbon loss/gain from soils (and forests?) is outside the protocols scope (this is at least in part because good data doesn't exist for most of the world). William M. Connolley 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  perspective or results section? 

message: why does vsmith keep breaking the link? the section talked about the objective of kyoto and then pointed to a link to it. but the link says nothing about objective. the objective isnt even mentioned in links he puts in. i will put in the correct link to the objective.  if he wants to change it he should say why.  it is better to have link to objective and to talk about it yes?
: Dear anon, the KP article frequently suffers vandalism and people are naturally suspicious about anon edits, especially when banned folk like JonGwynne edit it.  An edit summary like "fix broken link" is considered deceptive when the link was not broken. If you mean "swap linkto point to different page" then say that. But the link you removed points to something specific - section 4.2d - so shouldn't be removed.
: But I agree that the text you mention re objective would be useful there, so I've added it , with link. I trust you are happy now. ps: it is considered good form to sign your additions here, using ~~~~. William M. Connolley 08:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: link to objective

message: "Some public policy experts who are skeptical of the global warming hypothesis see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative."
While we're at it, why don't we have an unsourced quote about the Illuminati being responsible for the protocol? And maybe something about evil terrorist aliens. Another controversial subject, another very low quality article. At least Wikipedia is consistent. (I know several people have put a lot of hardwork into this article, but as with most other controversial subjects, the article has ended up garbage). 220.237.34.36 09:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit less ranting and a bit more editing would help. Remove unsupported text if you see it and don't like it. William M. Connolley 10:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crud 

message: It appears there is a rather silly edit war between SEW and WMC over this. As the page has been stable with inline links I see no reason for SEW to make a unilateral change. Reach consensus here or elsewhere on the footnote thingy, but stop the edit war. Leave the article style as is (with inline links) until the dispute can be resolved. It seems to me that one reason SEW is pushing his footnote method here and in other climate related articles when he is fully aware of WMC's opposition is to start an edit battle with the purpose  tripping WMC up and getting him to violate parole. SEW is clearly trolling here as he seems to be on a vendetta to have WMC censured for anything. I will revert any attempts by SEW to emplace his footnote thingy here and on other climate related articles until this dispute is resolved or taken elsewhere. SEW can play with his favorite footnote thingy on other articles (given consensus there). Now, discuss! Vsmith 16:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More detail is preferred over less detail.  Wikipedia:Verifiability prefers more detail about sources over fewer details.  Within this article, demonstration of the need for more details is that at least one inline link was pointing to a dead URL; I found the referenced info and provided more detail about the source in case it moves again.  (SEWilco 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't need to trip up WMC.  He's been ignoring his parole for months and there are plenty of examples.  (SEWilco 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a consensus for the cumbersome easily broken footnote scheme here. Wikipedia:Verifiability mentioned above reccommends inline links. Vsmith 12:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I see a need for a References section which should include the expanded inline refs much as reccommended by Wikipedia:Verifiability and your notes section would be useful as such without the easily broken numbering system. I'll modify it as such later - no time right now. Vsmith 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The version which you implemented broke the links to each specific source citation and required more effort to access and verify citation entries.  It also changed the style from the previously accepted numbered style to a previously unused Harvard style.  The numbered footnotes follows the established numbered style for this article.  Direct links to a source were either not being used much, or nobody cared to report so many dead links.  (SEWilco 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discussing and reverting is better than just reverting. But it would be even nicer if we could establish consensus first. Currently, it is nearly impossible to work on the article. To throw in my opinion: I prefer the inline links. The current scheme is much harder to maintain - to add or remove something requires work in two different places, not just in one. And if I understand it correctly, if one inserts things in the wrong order, the numbering scheme breaks - this spells disaster. As others have pointed out, it is also much less convenient for the reader. Full references at the end is nice and reasonable for a paper document. But on the web it just means we have wasted one of the advantages of hypertext - the direct, clickable link.  And AFAIK nearly all the references are to web sources, and the only extra information we get is when it was accessed. If you really think that is useful, put it into an HTML comment. Finally, why are these links less likely to go dead than inline links?--Stephan Schulz 07:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read WP:FN.  Inserting  or  in the wrong order does not cause disaster, and renumbering has been minimized.  The links still work even if a numbering sequence problem occurs.  The link's name allows correction of such problems.  The fact that there are many dead links suggests that the directly-clickable links are not being used much.  More complete citations tend to include at least the title of a document (making searching for a new location or different copy easier), although in some cases the inline link becomes a full journal or book reference with additional info.  The date also is helpful when a link goes dead so people know whether it recently went dead, or sometimes the date when an archive copy may become available six months later.  (SEWilco 08:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The consensus for the article style has been to use numbered links, whose appearance I've retained.      I had used the WP:CITE general name Notes for the section, but I changed it to References.  (SEWilco 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, the issue is inline links - numbered or otherwise. I would like to work to improve the current version, but until SEW stops his instant reverting with phoney excuses, what's the point? There was no damage beyond use or repair as he described in his recent edit summary, simply an effort to reach consensus and improve the article. Vsmith 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links to citations were damaged beyond use.  I had to rebuild them.  Inline links are too fragile; even your version had one citation with a different reference, and two inline links were different from the link in the related citation.  (SEWilco 07:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an amazing bit of confustication :-) - Actually it's called gaming the system to avoid 3rr vio. as what we have is a revert w/out the numbers - truly a work of art :-). What on earth is driving this aversion to consensus? The consensus I see, as stated repeatedly, is for inline links and no one besides SEW seems to want his pet notes thingy. So there's an error or two, not surprising, thanks to SEW's creative revert game it's hardly there long enough to see. I'm tempted just to go back to the inline link version w/out refs - tired of this garbage. Vsmith 13:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is needed are full and reliable citations of sources, not unreliable and unused inline links.  (SEWilco 14:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Inline links have many disadvantages so were not incorporated in Wikipedia:Footnotes.  Are you against clear and robust citations for some reason?  You prefer many inaccessible sources in articles?  You want to encourage minimal citations for statements which you allow to remain in articles?  (SEWilco 15:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet, the clear and wonderful advantages of your pet method are somehow unrecognised by everyone else. Could it be that there are some problems with your method? could it be that they are listed, below, and you have not even tried to engage? I want the articles to be as well referenced as possible. That means making references *convenient* so that people aren't put off. Your method is cumbersome and... its all listed below. William M. Connolley 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Convenience is not more important than verifiability.  What is listed below is incorrect.  Read WP:FN.  (SEWilco 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience and verifiability is my goal. As well as consensus here, a point missed by SEW. The anon added double that and strange out of place character you refered to were themselves not an improvement, stop being deceptive in your edit summaries. Thank you, Vsmith 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're in luck.  Wikipedia:Footnotes describes templates which allow convenient referencing to source citations.  The long-standing consensus here has been to use citations with numbered labels, a style which you suddently changed.  (And I wasn't being deceptive in my edit summary, just mentioning why I didn't restore those edits which WMC deleted without mention.)  (SEWilco 04:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What luck! Wow - but your not listening to the consensus here. It is for inline links or do I need to shout INLINE LINKS :-). My apologies for that last deceptive bit, I mis-read the summary. Vsmith 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  URL-only inline links do not contain enough information and are too fragile for required verifiability.  References which are not linked to citations are also fragile; as Vsmith's example showed, text could mention a citation name which did not exist, a citation can exist whose text reference is wrong or missing, and the URLs in text and citations can be (and were) different.  Even if Vsmith fixes those errors, future problems will be similarly difficult to find and repair.  Hyperlinking the reference and citation by name simplifies verification and repair.  (SEWilco 05:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't know 'bout a vote, what is your preference? State it and it will, hopefully, be considered by everyone here. Vsmith 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use footnote, but with autonumbering (which will use superscript). Looks more academic. Bu then again, its merely facial changes. =p __earth 06:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes vs inliners 

message: I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever...
* it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
* its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
* its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
* perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed
Fans of this exciting dispute may like to look at global cooling too.
William M. Connolley 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors who want to learn how footnoting is done should read WP:FN.  The above description has a number of errors.  (SEWilco 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes vs Inlines 

message: SEW continues to fail to see sense. Lets quote some wise words from his own talk page:
: WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page.
That was by User:SlimVirgin but I'm sure we'd all agree with her. William M. Connolley 17:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you prefer to replace Harvard-like style with a numbered style?  (SEWilco 17:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SEW is playing games. The issue is direct inline links (either numbered or Harvard) vs. his notes thing which forces an awkward jump to the notes section to find the link. A reference section is needed also, but is not the point of controversy. Direct numbered inline links were the style previous to SEWs notes edit. His notes have been turned into an alpha list (which I agree, needs refinement) as a reference section. I plan more work to improve the style if SEW will stop reverting to his notes thingy against consensus here. Similar work is needed at Global cooling when SEW stops contrarily reverting to his notes style there. Vsmith 21:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMC quoting SlimVirgin 

message: I think its time for: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 22:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you liked that, you'll love Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. William M. Connolley 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There is some meta stuff about cite that may in future provide a way to resolve the ref dispute: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php though at the moment it doesn't seem to have the capacity. But a page/user customisable ref format should be the future. William M. Connolley 21:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco]] 

message: An anon added;
: 	Interestingly, despite ratifying the agreement the Canadian government has done little to curb greenhouse gas emmissions. A recent study showed that Canada has cut its emmissions by 1% over the past 10 years while the USA which did not ratify Kyoto has cut their emmissions by 45% over the same period.
I've removed it, because the values for the US are certainly junk. Whether the canadian ones are right I don't know. See this  sci.env thread, which will point you to a table of data. The US trend on GHG's is upwards. William M. Connolley 16:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent conference in Montreal brought up some new numbers: a 13% increase in emissions for the United States versus a 24% increase for Canada. If confirmed, perhaps these numbers could be worked in? Shame on Canada!216.208.211.58 21:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the us/canada comparison 

message: The success or failure of countries to meet their commitments is split up by country, with no overview on how things are going overall. Given that the failure of some ratifiers to follow through is given by some (eg Mark Steyn) as a reason why others should not sign, shouldn't there be some summary? After all, the aim of the protocol is to reduce carbon emissions, not to have people signing bits of paper, isn't it? Andjam 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to follow through on commitments