User talk:CO2 doubter

Note

Once upon a time, there was a man who joined an online encyclopedia project. The man did not understand the project's goals, and so he decided to submit his ideas in the form of fables. Encyclopedia articles are not done in the form of fables - there is no article about the Brave Little Actor who Assassinated Lincoln, after all, and the article about the Candiru Fish does not give personal names to individual candirus, no matter how cute they may be.

When the project's administrators saw the man's fabular contributions to the project, they deleted it as "not an article", because - after all - it was not!

The moral of the story: don't be an idiot. Your submission's merits (or lack thereof) aside, it should have been obvious to you that it was grotesquely inappropriate. It's gone. Don't try that sort of thing again. DS (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect. I was trying to point out the lunacy of the current craze to limit CO2 emissions. What better way to do it than with a fable relating to an earlier story based on trying to fool the masses. Apparently you don't understand that and chose to ignore the implications of the problems I identify with the current analysis. I guess political correctness has come to Wikipedia.

CO2 doubter (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play the martyr with me, Aesop. There's a time and a place for fables, and this is neither. I was trying to point out the lunacy of putting fables in an encyclopedia project. What better way to do it than to use another fable? Apparently you don't understand that and chose to sulk like a five-year-old child who's been told that, no, he can't scribble on the walls. I guess political fanatics have come to Wikipedia. DS (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my mistake. I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was to inform people about important issues. The fact that I chose to do this by relating it to a "fable" is hardly a reason for Wikipedia to ignore the questions I have raised. You must be an Al Gore fan. CO2 doubter (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order: certainly, but don't repeat it. Yes, the purpose is to inform. No, the fact that you chose to do it in a "fable" is absolutely a reason for Wikipedia to remove it; fables are inherently moralistic and cannot be neutral. No fable is ever factually true; they are all exaggerated and contrived. No, we're not ignoring the questions you have raised; we have several articles already on different aspects of skepticism of climate change. And lastly: I would have sooner gnawed off my own arms than voted for Al Gore in 2000 (or John Kerry in 2004, for that matter). Just because you're being scolded for breaking the rules doesn't mean that those who scold you are your enemies. DS (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I finally get it. To get something posted on Wikipedia requires it not be moralistic but neutral. Wow! Isn't that going to be informative.CO2 doubter (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That's exactly it. We don't always achieve proper neutrality, but we do strive for it. Please see WP:NPOV; in particular, I suggest you read the part where common objections are addressed. DS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for referring to your NPOV discussions. As I noted in comments there I don't see how you can be "neutral" about what I believe is a serious flaw in the analysis used that has resulted in the effort to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. I used a "fable" not to be moralistic but to equate the current "atmosphere" about CO2 emissions to a well known story where a few tried to fool the many. Sorry if that doesn't meet your requirements. Any suggestions towards achieving my goal of informing your readers of my concerns about that analysis.CO2 doubter (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrator, Exactly what part of my recent submission on doubts about CO2 effects does not meet your NPOV standards. The IPCC report is hardly a neutral assessment of the issue involved; namely whether global warming can be attributed to GHG or to solar activity. As written in my article, there is substantial data showing that global air temperatures correlate with solar activity variations (artr@oism.org). If that is the case then there is no need to include a GHG “forcing factor” to agree with historic temperature measurements and the sensitivity to future GHG emissions is eliminated.

The IPCC predictions for adverse GHG effects would seem to be belied by three events. 1) The “medieval warming period” prior to any anthropogenic GHG emissions (~940-1020AD) when Northern Hemisphere temperatures warmed to the point that southern Greenland was covered with forests and Saragasso Sea temperatures were higher than recent temperatures. 2) The global cooling that occurred from ~1945 to ~1975 when some climatologists were predicting that the dramatic increases of GHG emissions after the war were going to result in an “ice age”. 3) The significant drop in global temperatures since 1997-1999 to the present, while GHG emissions have continued to escalate.

Surely your readers need to see this “side” of the story. CO2 doubterCO2 doubter (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, My final attempt to get this side of the story posted

Dear Administrator

The vast majority of the climatologists warnings about the adverse effects of CO2 emissions is predicated on the global air temperature increase from ~1980 to ~ 2003, with the peak temperatures occurring during the 1997-1999 period. During this period, the estimated atmospheric CO2 levels increased from ~360ppm to ~.380ppm (i.e. 036% - .038%). Climatologists tend to disregard the fact that from ~1945 to 1980 global temperatures decreased during a comparable increase on atmospheric GHG levels. (Led to some predictions of a GHG induced “Ice Age”). Recent global temperatures have decreased relative to the peak 1998 levels, again with escalating GHG emissions. The current climatologist’s models would also seem to have difficulty in explaining the “medieval warming period” (circa 950-1000 AD) during which parts of Greenland were covered with forests and evidence exists that significant areas in England and northern Europe were warmer than today.CO2 doubter (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Your edits are introducing bias and seem to represent a minority view. We have similar debates from time to time on The Holocaust, David Irving, evolution, intelligent design and so on. WP:UNDUE sums up why adding the other "side" is not always appropriate. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John; The fundamental question in this whole CO2 debate is whether measured global temperatures correlate better with solar activity or with GHG levels. There is considerable data that shows increasing solar activity causes global temperatures to increase. I attempted to point out three instances where measured temperatures appeared counter to presumed GHG predictions. The fact that my "facts" do not comport to popular opinion does not seem justification for excluding them.CO2 doubter (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]