User talk:Ed Poor/16

...and, please, check your mail :-) BRichtigen 11:43, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I have added the following reply to your note on my talk page.

Ed: I don't understand your comment at all. The only things I ever said about math was the comment above about "The other 'block magnet' is complex numbers, right?" and "I'd help if I knew more math". If you look at my contributions, you will see that my interest is in chemistry. I don't see how you can say that I am "concerned only with the most advanced math topics".

Either you are confusing me with someone else, or you are concerned that my chemistry contributions are too advanced. I take the latter concern, if that's what it is, very seriously. I have cleared the addition of the "density" and "number of stable isotopes" fields in the element template with both you and Jallen. And I have discussed the topic of accessibility in great detail on this page. If you believe that my contributions are not at the right level, please let me know, and I will take your concerns seriously. I'm here to make accessible contributions.

ElizabethK 19:09, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Nothing is too advanced for an encyclopedia, as long as it is introduced properly. If writers deliberately make material inaccessible, that would not be good. If you need help writing an introduction, ask others to help you. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

--₮K^/Talk! 23:21, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Ed,

Not disputing your change in categorization, but I confess to being curious about it. Why would Clymer be less of a "Founding Father" than others, given that he signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

I freely confess: he's not one of the Founders about whom I have a lot of knowledge, so I'm assuming you know something I don't.

Apart from idle curiosity, I'm also wondering if changes to the Founding Fathers article will be necessary; I'm just going down the list of red links there. --Benp 20:18, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Ed,

If you have the time, I'd really appreciate some guidance in this. I'd like to go ahead and get all the redlinks in Founding Fathers taken care of, but I don't want to create a lot of work for somebody else. If you can explain to me how you'd like to see the various names categorized, at least in a general sense, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance! --Benp 13:56, 4 January 2009 (EST)

AlexC's edits are suspect. Look at the AIDS talk and my response. His claim on the HIV page is also false since the scientific community does not recognize nor is there any publication supporting the claim. HIV does fulfill Koch's postulates for causing AIDS. The fringe group (less than 50 people world wide) that makes this claim that HIV and AIDS are not linked has not the scientific background to make the claim. The problem behind this is that this kind of false information allows for the spread because people fall under the impression that even with HIV they will not get AIDS. I would not consider a controversy since so few people would even dispute it, and those that do have been linked to other questionable practices.--Able806 14:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I've created Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS to address this question. Can we start by stating whether the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:06, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Sure we can set up a case, I do not know if it would be fair though, lol. To allow for both sides to present, someone with equal understanding of the fringe group would have to provide information supporting their position, which could be a challenge.--Able806 14:11, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I am fairly good at giving a layman's view of complex science - or finding someone else who can and simply quoting them. But you didn't answer my question: Can we start by stating whether the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:13, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Sure, we can start there. If you would like to add some of the links, I can source the publications and provide the counter. Should we do this in a debate style?--Able806 14:29, 7 January 2009 (EST)

If you're not going to answer my question, then no collaboration is possible, despite my initial enthusiasm. Thanks, anyway. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:35, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Ed, I am sorry, I thought I had answered your question. I said I would provide the evidence that links of the fringe groups are unrelated.--Able806 14:39, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I don't understand your answer. You said that those that dispute the idea that HIV causes AIDS "have been linked to other questionable practices." I wanted to know whether you agree or disagree that the "links" of the "fringe groups" are unrelated to the soundness of their arguments. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:46, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, I am sorry. I did misunderstand you. To answer your question, yes and no. I tend not to have issue with people's associations as long as their association is not a conflict of interest. In some of the cases with the fringe groups there are situations where the members of the group receive some financial recuperation due directly to their stance. This would be a conflict of interest since the compensation is not based on providing clear evidence but by providing biased results.--Able806 14:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, and how much money to people get who accept the HIV/AIDS hypothesis? (I can ask the same question about global warming theories.)

But I don't think we're going to be able to work together, unless (like me) you believe that a person's source of income is irrelevant to the soundness of their arguments. For example, Newton was a Creationist, but no one cares because his scientific ideas worked out (see Reproducibility of results). --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:22, 7 January 2009 (EST)

I am not sure exactly what you are getting at. Funding for research generally comes from three sources, government, academia and private. Government researchers are paid very little for the work that they perform since they are on the GS scale (at NIH most PhDs make between 35-40K; this excludes the lab heads and directors of course). Academic researchers (those whose funding is strictly grant based) are often paying more for materials than actually gaining any profit from their work (depending on the endowment of the university some professor's base pay is enough, however often the researchers have to augment their incomes 60-75K is the general pay scale for associate professors). The private researchers are where the profit for the scientist is the greatest, and also where the bias is more heavily introduced (Pay for most PhDs is in the range of 85-120K). For most HIV researchers they get very little in terms of profit since many of the cell lines and reagents are very costly. Unless the researcher is in private industry chances are they are not making much of a profit for the research they are performing. It costs almost 1 billion dollars for a pharmaceutical company to bring a drug to the market, which the patents are owned by the company not the researcher who developed it, so when the company does start making a profit from the drug it does not go to the researcher as much as it does the stock holders. What I mentioned above in regards to the HIV denial is that many work for private groups where the degree is used by the group to push the agenda more so than actual supported research. I keep an open mind when it comes to research (if the evidence supports the claim not a problem) however all research should be taken with a grain of salt and not accepted at face value. I am open to people's views as long as they have the evidence to support their claim, just as I would expect when I make a claim. I hope this answers your question and that we can work together on this. I did find it interesting some of the directions that the HIV/AIDS denial groups take and would have no problem doing the research to show the issues with their views (if there are any).--Able806 15:28, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Fair enough. How about starting with an article on Funding for scientific research based on your comments above. Our readers would love to be able to learn here - which they cannot discover even at Wikipedia - the influence of money on scientific research. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:01, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Very interesting proposition. I guess I could put together something about grants and the gov sector research.--Able806 16:07, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Ed, as per the Category:Conservapedia category redirects talk page, I'm to contact you about sending EdBot on a mission. All of the categories with the redirect template have had their pages put in their proper place (per the redirect template), except Category:Flags of the World, wherein all of the pages are locked. These categories can now be deleted. Thanks! WesleyS^Hello! 16:59, 8 January 2009 (EST)

How do I go about doing a disambig. for a term for which there is already an article? (I have started "anthem" but find the Ayn Rand novel has beaten me to it.) I don't want to have to type "anthem (music)" or whatever at every link. I would, of course, prefer that the musical definition be the primary term and the book relegated to "Anthem (novel)" but that would be too logical. I am also running into kings and popes etc that already have a namesake described. AlanE 14:14, 11 January 2009 (EST)

To disambig a page, use the "small" template at the top of the screen, type "For the _______, see ________." and there you have it! I already did that for the page you mentioned. JY23 14:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, and thanks. I know about that... I do that myself sometimes. I suppose what I am getting at is that an article on a major part of church services in many denominations of the English speaking world has to go through a fairly obscure Ayn Rand novel to be accessed. (Already there are mentions in various articles to church anthems - I just haven't linked them yet.) If it's got to be like that it should be the other way round. And what do I do about Henry I of France, and all the other kings, emperors etc? I can't just tack 'em onto the start the Angevin Henry I article. The anglophobes would hate that. AlanE 14:39, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Good point. Could you, on my talk page, if you would, make a list of all the Henry Is? I'm farily experienced in making disambig pages. JY23 14:44, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It sounds like what you want is:

• Anthem (book) - by Ayn Rand
• anthem - the music thing

If that's what you want, I can help you by moving each article into place. If there are any ambiguous links, we can fix them. There's no need to create a disambiguation page in advance, most of the time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:38, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, Ed, it is... and thank you! And since I wrote the above I have "learnt" how to "disambiguate" after the act (so to speak.) However, I am just calling in at the moment. We are in a locust-like plague of interstate and overseas visitors at present. My study is an overflow dormitory for the spare bedrooms, and I am suddenly chief tour guide, local expert and even chef. I should be free of them in a few days. I am taking a few days off from CP. OK? AlanE 17:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry. I didn't think to put book in the article title. ReneeStJ 16:31, 16 January 2009 (EST)

That's okay. Pick any title you want for your new articles. In the rare case when it has to be moved, an admin will do this for you. Keep writing! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:37, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Hi Ed. I noticed you moved Kernel to Kernel_(geometry), citing "not to be confused with operating system kernels like Linux". The article actually already had the definition for operating systems, as well as a definition used in algebra, however the formatting was not clear. If you move the page back to Kernel, I can spruce it up with some nice disambiguation formatting. -Foxtrot 22:17, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The main thing is to place information where readers can find it easily. Advanced math concepts - inaccessible to 99% or more of our readers - should not be "in the way". --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:21, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, since there are now two separate pages, I added a disambiguation page at kernel linking to them both. PS, can you move operation system kernel to operating system kernel? I think that was a typo. -Foxtrot 22:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Since the Kernel_(geometry) covers both the algebraic and geometric notions of kernel could we rename this article to Kernel_(mathematics)]] or perhaps split the article into Kernel_(geometry) and Kernel_(algebra)? AndyJM 09:23, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Please move Visible Light to Visible light? Thanks. -- JArneal 23:07, 3 February 2009 (EST)

• Yes, Ed would have been happy to do so, and since I have his proxy, I did it. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 00:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, TK! Maybe I should ask you next time... -- JArneal 03:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

No need to be that drastic. I knew from talking with Ed that he was extremely busy, and didn't want to hang you up. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 03:24, 4 February 2009 (EST)

In Google Search, the entry for ""Alger Hiss - Conservapedia" was changed today from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Alger_Hiss" to misdirect to the nonexistent Web page "http://www.conservativeencyclopedia.com/wiki/Alger_Hiss." Is there a way to ask Google to restore the correct link? FOIA 13:23, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Already answered on the contact us page, FOIA, no need to make multiple posts. Thanks. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 14:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Dear Ed.

Uzi is just beginning, Joaquin. --JMR10 15:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)

If you found that page offensive, then your powers of observation might be a touch out of date... given how strikingly similar the examples of Liberal trickery are to the now antiquated ideas of Jewish trickery. A page out of this very site's book, I'll point out that such ideas were a good portion of the justification of anti-antisemitism in western Europe directly prior to WWII, and the devastating consequences they had for our people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mccain2010 (talk)

Thank you for the link, Ed! MattL 11:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for your speedy attention to those couple of housekeeping requests. There are actually a few more templates in need of noinclude tags - if you're so inclined, you can find them via Category:Navigation box (which has hundreds of misassigned pages in it because of this error).

Or maybe we should leave it until EdBot comes out of retirement?--CPalmer 12:21, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, the page you helped me begin is coming along, slow but kinda steady, but i want to make one one, Leviticus 18, to go along with it, not just Leviticus which is done. I can begin a new page, but i want to add the the reftagger script, and find no help pages to do so, and so i thought i would ask you. i would prefer the KJV. And what is the max on a page size (kb)? WP is up to over 400 tops. Bless the Lord and Thanks. Daniel1212 23:37, 15 February 2009 (EST)

There is no max page size. If an article gets too long, an administrator might break into smaller pieces. But you're doing fine. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:07, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks. But with Leviticus, etc. is can grow much, God willing. But how to I use the reftagger in a Template for a new page?Daniel1212 00:39, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Daniel, are you talking about references? In a template? Check with Iduan one of our resident template geniuses! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If you're talking about the Bible verses that appear automatically (like this: Judges 4:8), you don't need to do anything. They're added to every page automatically - cool eh?--CPalmer 15:04, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, the latter is what i meant. I tried posting a Bible reference on a new page, but under preview it did not show it. I guess you have to save the page first. ThanksDaniel1212 19:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not seeing Bible links either, CPalmer. Do I need to set something in preferences? (I have a custom monobook.js script also.) --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)

No idea why it wouldn't work for you, but when I hover my mouse over any Bible reference (say Hosea 3:3) a yellow-colored window appears with the text in it. Maybe CPWebmaster is the person to ask? It's a great feature, as it saves having to link to a Bible website (or look the verse up in a real Bible).--CPalmer 11:55, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It is a matter of the skin selected, gentlemen. If you switch to the default "conserv" skin, the bible verses auto display. It formerly displayed for me using monobook, before the server crash of January, but no longer. If one can abide the horrible purple/magenta links of "conserv" and other odd color renderings, switching to it will give you want you want. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 12:25, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, I got my Bible references to work again. Not really sure how I did it though. But I can see the Barak reference in Judges 4:8 now. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:07, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, all I can say is, if you're not going -- neither am I. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 19:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Just want to commend the popup Bible references. Maybe in the future an internal link to a CP page could give a pop up preview, or a definition to a word. "It remaineth, the time is short." Perhaps to work freely, at least. Daniel1212 17:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ed...you have misunderstood. Read my (AlanE) talkpage under EMAILS. I have had two accounts since August 2007 - quite openly, you can read the three-way talk between me you and Terry - and now I am making sure that no one comes along and kills both of them in one swipe whilst deleting the inactive Guddle. If you have the wherewithall to delete Guddle after transfering Guddle's contributions (Major ones are Robert Schumann, and Crimean War to AlanE I would be most happy. OK? I am trying to uncomplicate things. AlanE 17:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

• Nothing can be transfered to an account already made. If you wish to do this, simply post on Andy's page, requesting it, and telling him what name you wish to use. It will need to be a user name not already taken/created. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So which one do you want to keep, Alan? --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

AlanE, please Ed. AlanE 20:36, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So we can either leave Guddle alone, or redirect 'its' uses pages to yours. If the lion's share of contributions are under AlanE, maybe it's not worth the trouble to have the webmaster update each Guddle contrib to "AlanE" though. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:46, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Um...is it allowable for me (AlanE) to go through Guddle's major contributions and delete Guddle's parts then reinsert them as AlanE?AlanE 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know of a way that the software allows that, Alan....do you? --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

G'day Terry - yes it does. I had a practice a little while ago. Check out Essay:Greatest Church Hymns‎ where I replaced Guddle with AlanE for two of the hymns. (I found this would work when I came back on site last year and found someone had changed a Heading, and I found 500plus words of article, written by me,were now credited to someone else...in a fit of selfish righteousness I copied all I had written to Word, deleted what I had copied, then entered it again under its real creator.) AlanE 23:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, I see, not really delete, delete, but (what would it technically be called?) but making a new edit, under your own name, as only those with Oversight on CP can delete, and remove from view. I get what you mean. Sure, if Ed doesn't object, I don't. Or I guess you could always make a list on Alan's user page, or an annex, noting the major edits of a former name. Whatever works for you best, Alan, I will agree to, in my generous spirit of cooperation tonight. ;-) -- --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 23:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Let's see how it goes....AlanE 00:39, 21 February 2009 (EST)

-:( ----₮K_/Admin^/Talk 02:51, 21 February 2009 (EST)

That's silly. Let's just redirect User:Guddle to User:AlanE and be done with it. No sense cluttering up the article histories. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It seems that there are now two pages for Occam's razor. This is probably because William of Occam was also known as William of Ockham. It looks like this could cause some confusion, so I bring it to your attention, as I have no idea how to solve this.

I will fix this. Watch Special:RecentChanges. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:17, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's here, but the substance follows.

An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-LuciusF 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'll reply at talk:reparative therapy. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Please check your email in about 2 or 3 minutes. conservative 14:15, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, please log on to yahoo messenger. conservative 15:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the rv Ed. I know little to nothing on the Island and the mainland China. I reverted that users work because of wholesale deletions and redirects. Can you make sure everything is properly reverted? Is there a template for that page? Sincerely, --jpatt 15:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

We had a similar fight over Taiwan at Wikipedia a few years ago. There is much resentment in the Communist world over the economic and military strength of the Republic of China. But if Mainland China would allow freedom of religion instead of torturing Falun Gong practitioners, then it would enjoy the same blessings that God has showered upon Taiwan. "What goes around, comes around", eh? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:47, 22 February 2009 (EST)

huh, interesting. One billion versus less than a hundred million, hate to be the island nation in a war. Though, God has done miracles with tiny Israel.--jpatt 16:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I moved O love of God, how strong and true!‎ to an article on its creator, Horatius Bonar, also with a redirect from its title. AlanE 17:11, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Alan. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:00, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Just thought I'd say "Hi". --Toffeeman 18:52, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Some comments. --Joaquín Martínez 22:38, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Please see my note here regarding your recent edit to the Obama article. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. --SStaples 18:53, 25 February 2009 (EST)

I do not wish to get into an argument, and so I have refrained from editing the talk page comment in question again, but since you have warned me I think it necessary to make the following points.

The statement that I was shocked by the flaws I saw in the article in question were as a result of my knowledge of statistics. The 'shocked' aspect of the statement is indeed an opinion, but as is stated by the Conservapedia Commandments:

"Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages"

You specify that what I had said was an 'appeal to emotion'. However, there is no mention of this in the Consrvapedia Commandments nor in the Guidelines, and though you may disapprove of my opinion, there is nothing in the rules of this site that prohibits my statement. I hope this can help clarify matters. RobertWDP 13:08, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Using inflammatory language to get your point across is not allowed. Saying "I'm shocked" is inflammatory language, not an opinion. An opinion would be that Mr. Schlafly' statistical analysis is wrong.

If you can't refrain from inflammatory language, indeed if you cannot distinguish between an appeal to emotion and merely "expressing an opinion" then you may as well leave the project. Or stay, if you want to learn how to write dispassionately - even about your own opinions. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:10, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I appreciate that it may well be an appeal to emotion in some sense but my point was that you had warned me to stick to the standards, and I was simply pointing out that I had contravened none of the site's rules. I will leave my comments as you edited them to avoid any argument, but may I suggest that if this in fact an official rule of the site then it would be beneficial for others and for future reference if it were made clear on the guidelines or commandments page for instance. RobertWDP 14:19, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I think if you read all the rules you'll find what I warned you against is among them. If not, I'd be happy to place it there if that will help you to write (and discuss) better while you're here. --14:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Hello, Ed. Could you kindly unlock the Template:NewEngandPatriots? They've made some roster moves that need updated. Thanks! WesleyS^Hello! 14:37, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for cleaning this up. I was really bothered by the highly negative characterisation of a film that's meant to be family-friendly and harmless. Pepperlynn 17:34, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed, I was told early on that I may include work that I have contributed to other sites such as Wikipedia here, if it is entirely my work. Well, you deleted Joseph de Tonquédec which is entitely my work. I started the aticle and contributed to it. If you go through the history you will see that others worked on reformating references or added tags. Unless there is some new policy here I don't understand why you deleted it. I would like to put it back. Dwain 12:08, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Did you tell anyone that it was your own work? What is your Wikipedia username?

We don't mind crossposting, but you have to alert us so a zealous deleter doesn't waste everyone's time. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:52, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

To be honest, I thought I did state on the summary line that I was the original author. I had a few Wikipedia names before I settled on Dwain, one I forgot the password to and another was a swear in another language. I'll repost the article then. If there is a problem, just let me know. Dwain 19:36, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

A notice on the talk page would be good, too. If this sort of thing happens a lot, we'll need a {{Wikipedia credit}} template. (Maybe there is one already?) --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Ed, please could you take a look at my improved version of the article? I think it's much easier to understand now. If you agree, would you mind moving it back out of my user page? Thanks, PMorgan 18:54, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Ed, I've made some more edits. It should be pretty clear now, I hope. Thanks, PMorgan 08:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks Ed, I appreciate it! PMorgan 17:38, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It looked like there was some improvement to our page on the Religion of Barack Obama, not to mention some good compromise, yet I notice it hasn't been implemented. What happened? --SStaples 23:14, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Ed-san. I have always been taught that kanji/hànzì are ideograms, i.e. pictures or images that convey an idea or word, rather than pictograms, which more or less represent a "thing". Although, now that I read your question properly, you can also refer to them in general conversation as "characters" as in "the character for feather is 羽." --KotomiT^nandeyanen? 12:16, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Jessica. I'd love to see an article (or a section of the Kanji article]] making that clear. Here are some possible article titles:

• Kanji
• Chinese character
• Chinese characters
• ideogram
• pictogram
• Hieroglyphics
• Hieroglyph
• glyph
• character
• logograms
• sinograph

One thing I hope we can do better than Wikipedia is to use clear, simple terminology wherever possible. And to explain jargon in simple terms, when a topic requires jargon. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:28, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Do you think an infinite block for ETrundel is a little extreme? I know I'm supposed to stay out this kind of thing but other than the one comment you blocked him for I don't think he has harmed the site at all. AddisonDM 22:06, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

• *Sigh!* But knowing that, here you are. Again. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:23, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

  Email me, if you're that interested. --Ed Poor ^Talk 06:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

for unblocking ETrundel. --KotomiT^nandeyanen? 16:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

My apologies for the delay in responding to the comments you made on my talk page, I have only just noticed that I had been unblocked and my talk page appears to have been locked, so I shall have to reply here. Certainly, I admit I fell into the trap of being complacent about my use of the term global warming.

Just to be clear, although I think it is obvious from my contributions so far, I am convinced that humans have made a significant contribution to the warming trend of the past 100-150 years. Indeed, solar activity has played a part, in fact I believe one highly regarded scientist has estimated that over the time period in question solar activity may be responsible for up to 0.2 degrees Celsius of the increase. Even when this maximum contribution is accounted for, along with various errors, there is still a very significant warming that cannot be explained by any known natural phenomena.

Tectonic processes should in fact be causing a very small decrease in temperature (although at this short time scale their impact is negligible anyway). Orbital forcings should also be causing cooling, by about 0.02 degrees C over the last century. The millennial scale cycle (commonly called a Bond cycle) that you refer to can in fact at most only account for 0.02 deg. C of the recent warming. Such a temperature increase as we are seeing over such a short period of time is unprecedented at any point in earth's history so far as we know. Logic thus dictates that natural processes, at least as they have been operating thus far, cannot by themselves explain this warming, and the calculations support this. Yes, solar activity has contributed to warming, but there is still a vast amount that it cannot explain, and as it stands, the only thing that can explain this is human activity. RobertWDP 21:00, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Well put, but incomplete. For example, there have been bigger and faster increases in global temperature in the last 2,000 years. Also, the millenial scale cycle is more like 2 to 4 degrees Celsius.

While you are more eloquent than I am, it doesn't matter if you ideas are based on errors.

Would you change your conclusions if you discovered that any of your 'facts' were wrong? --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:36, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

There have been examples where there has indeed been a greater temperature increase in a shorter time period, however, the only ones I can claim to be aware of are at a regional scale at most, or example, I believe there is a temperature record from the Greenland ice sheet suggesting a temperature increase of several degrees in just a few decades (the exact numbers escape me) during a glacial period. However, I am quite sure that on a global scale there is no comparable period in time. Though I would be interested to see anything that my contradict this, I am quite certain that the last 100-150 years have shown the most rapid global temperature increase that we know of, especially with regards to the magnitude of the increase involved.

If my views are based are faulty evidence then of course I would have to question the conclusions. However, time and time again science comes up with the same answers on the matter, that anthropogenic climate change is real. I would be most interested to hear any such evidence to the contrary. RobertWDP 23:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

You seem to be confusing science and authority. The major organizations have endorsed your view, but this just means that their leadership boards issued a statement. Do you think they polled their members? Anyway, science is not about authority or polls: it's the search for cause and effect.

A theory makes predictions. If the predictions don't come true, a true scientists junks the theory and starts over. You agree with this principle, don't you? --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I do not think I am confusing the two to be honest. I know several scientists active in climate research and also a few who actually study not the science itself, but the social science involved when it comes to global warming discourse. All of the research of the latter group shows that amongst actual climate scientists, there is almost complete consensus that global warming in the last century has been driven primarily by human activities.

For one thing, if a prediction does not come true then a theory would not simply be completely shredded, it's pretty much trial and error. Just because it doesn't work out exactly first time doesn't mean it's completely wrong, scientists are constantly adjusting their theories in light of new evidence. Certainly climate science is a very complex discipline. We do not yet fully understand all the mechanisms that make up the climate system, given its vastness and massive complexity. Climate science on a global scale does not have the privilege of being able to conduct experiments as easily as other disciplines, and naturally computer models have their weaknesses. It is obvious using basic logic that a computer model, with very limited processing power, time, money and input data, will never be able to accurately model the real thing, but the models are consistently being improved and are becoming more and more accurate. Indeed, although there is scientific consensus on humans being the cause of recent global warming, there is less consensus on the matter of the magnitude of the impact, and especially how this will take effect in the future. It is this matter that is so often portrayed incorrectly to show that there is no human influence on the climate and that it is all a 'hoax'. One of the most difficult things for climate scientists to do, besides their actual studies, is to communicate findings accurately to the public. This has left a great deal of room for those with political motives to fill the gap and to misconstrue and exploit people's lack of expertise. This is on both sides. There are many who deny anthropogenic global warming outright, and there are alarmists who inadvertently damage the very cause they are trying to promote. RobertWDP 23:52, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for that rather long-winded and meandering response, it's pretty late (or perhaps early I suppose) over here and I need some sleep. RobertWDP 23:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for the kindness and diligence of your reply, but you're still making logical as well as rhetorical errors.

Logic thus dictates that natural processes, at least as they have been operating thus far, cannot by themselves explain this warming ... - No, this means (as you had just said) simply that no known natural process is the cause. Genetics researchers often jump to a similar conclusion when, for example, they "estimate" that 40% to 70% of intelligence differences between the races are inherited via genes. Merely subtracting what is known about culture (including family life, upbringing, and early child education) from the data does not mean that the remainder has to fit into one's pet theory.

Have you seen Willie Soon's work? There's a nice graph correlating the length of the solar cycle with 20th century temperature. And don't forget the Maunder Minimum.

Neither of us should be pushing a favored view, not if we are trying to write encyclopedia articles about science. While advocacy is permitted here, it is generally restricted to the debate pages. Try to conform your article writing (and comments) to our guidelines. Thanks! --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:18, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

It is obviously implied in my statement that I am referring to only known natural processes since to make any claims about unknown ones would be quite ridiculous I think we'll agree. However, this is how science works, the theory of anthropogenic global warming can only be based on the knowledge we have, as we learn more and more then this theory will develop. However, it seems highly unlikely that we will discover any major global scale mechanism that can explain the significant temperature increases over the last 100 years. We have reconstructed the climate history for a significant proportion of earth's history, and nowhere do we see a global temperature increase of the rate and magnitude we have seen in the last century. Obviously, before major human influences there were only natural variations, but they very fact that the recent pattern is so drastically different from historical ones tells us that something different is going on. It therefore seems highly unlikely that there is a natural process that unknown to us suddenly develops or massively increases in strength 100 years ago. Although of course natural processes have partly led to the recent warming, it is only when human influences are taken into account that the warming can even begin to be explained. It's not simply a case of 'subtracting' from elements of knowledge, initially we were left with a big gap between what nature could explain and what we were seeing, but the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been able to fill this gap, and so thus far it is the best theory there is.

I have indeed seen some of Willie Soon's work. For one thing I should point out he is an astrophysicist not a climatologist, so his expertise don't fully cover the climate system. Don't get me wrong here, the Sun does play a significant role as many climate scientists have noted, but Soon has jumped to the conclusion whereas other scientists are still doing a lot of research on the matter. Sceptics so often state regarding CO2 that correlation does not imply causation, and whilst there may be some degree of correlation in recent history with solar activity, the research into how this affects the climate is still being done, as it is for CO2. When looking into such research I would also refrain from putting too much emphasis on the work of Soon, since his research has in part been funded by the American Petroleum Institute. RobertWDP 12:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Although I believe that it's ridiculous to make claims about unknown, undiscovered natural processes, you apparently do not. You wrote:

• ... it seems highly unlikely that we will discover any major global scale mechanism that can explain the significant temperature increases over the last 100 years.

Since we do not agree that "to make any claims about unknown ones would be quite ridiculous" further debate would be useless.

It's impossible to learn without an open mind. Thank you for your time, and please come back if you ever change your mind. --Ed Poor ^Talk 07:14, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

My statement about 'unknown processes' was simply in reference to some people who discount anthropogenic global warming by stating that just natural processes can explain recent trends. We know that this isn't true for known processes and so to argue this is to discount a currently valid theory on the grounds of an assumption. My other statement about the likelihood of yet to be discovered processes being involved is down to simple logic. It is obvious that in most cases the most significant processes in terms of the magnitude of their effect will be discovered before the less important ones, simply because their effects are more noticeable. Logic dictates therefore that it is unlikely that there is any hugely important undiscovered mechanism that can fully explain the relatively huge amount of warming. (all this talk of knowns and unknowns makes me think I'm sounding rather too like a famous Rumsfeld speech)

The conclusions that I have reached have been precisely because of an open mind, I have looked at the evidence, I have spoken to numerous experts, and concluded that recent global warming cannot be fully explained by natural processes alone. My disagreeing with you is not an indication that I am closed minded, nor does the disagreement imply anything about you in that regard. I have always found that debating such matters with someone who completely agrees with you to be a rather boring affair, if we completely agreed, what would there be left to discuss? RobertWDP 18:50, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

...for the unblock! You too may have a reward. Probably not your kind of song, but I'll post it anyway! ETrundel 15:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

If it's got a back beat, I can use it. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Ed. Regarding renaming/moving of hieroglyphics to hieroglyphs. After your reply on my talk page I replied with some of my thoughts on this, but have heard nothing back. Tried to drop you a mail too. Can you please let me know your thoughts on this one. Cheers. --Krysg 08:14, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for the delay; best way to reach me if I'm ignoring you is my user talk page.

I have replied at Talk:Hieroglyphs. Nice article, by the way! :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:06, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I am User:Ed Poor at Wikipedia, Citizendium, and A Storehouse of Knowledge. Thanks for asking. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:49, 28 March 2009 (EDT)