Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:45, 8 June 2009

Talk:Global warming

I have removed the article you posted the Talk:Global warming, since it appeared to be from a published source under copyright, and thus can not be reproduced on Misplaced Pages without appropriate license. I would ask that you not repost it. The relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Copyrights. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. Please note that impersonation of other editors is (i) Easily detected, and (ii) a quick way to get blocked. TeaDrinker (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All bullshit - you guys just don't like the subject matter !

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Global warming for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I did othing wrong - I'm trying to make a point on why this article shoulf be reflected as theory, not fact. Much of the content is simply no longer true - period. I'm sorry this does not fit with your agenda !

How about reading some rules first before making a point? If you stick to the rules and make constructive suggestions about how to improve the article, your posts will not get deleted. You may also consider creating an account. Splette :) 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please use the talk page properly for constructive discussion of the topic. Your posts are not being deleted for their point view, but for the fact that you are treating the talk page like a forum. Make some proposals for changing the article. If you continue to break the rules while crying "censorship", it just doesn't cut it, and you will eventually be banned for disruption and vandalism. If you make solid suggestions for improving the article, your stuff will stick around. Awickert (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship run amuck on WP !

Please do not remove this content a 7th time !

The WP group has been busy making sure this info is not available for consumption. It’s really pretty wild how this staff protects the bias of the base article. All I’ve ask for is a balanced debate revising this article to reflect it as theory – not fact. And my post has been hammered to the point of the editors removing the history path (archives) and obvious editing comments which relate to the one-sided nature of their censorship.

As we have debated here many times, there are lots of theories about global warming. This article reflects one underwritten by WP editors. A vocal minority (who think of themselves as Bolsheviks or self-appointed majority) think a small trace gas is responsible for the warming we saw in the last 27 years of the 21st Century vs. hundreds of thousands of years of opposing historic data. Worst, they propose that this small trace gas has increased largely due to Man (i.e., human race).

Here's a question for everyone. How much of the atmosphere is CO2?

a) .38

b) .038

c) .0038

d) .00038

e) .000038

The answer is d.

Here are a few facts about AGW:

1. There has been no increase in temperature on earth over the last ~ 10 years even though CO2 has increased by 3.5%.

2. Historic ice core records show that CO2 follows temperature increases it does not precede them. If CO2 is the cause of global warming this is the first case in history where effect precedes cause < http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm >.

3. Solar and ocean watchers both tend to suggest we are in for a decade or three of cooling trends. Even AGW proponents are admitting this. They just promise when AGW exerts itself again, it will do so "even worse" than it otherwise would.

4. Plant growth has been helped by the increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Do the folks who want to tinker with the climate (“man-made climate engineering”) really want to starve more people by decreasing CO2? < http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N16/B1.php >.

5. Craig Loehle has analysed data from only the profiling floats for ocean heat content from 2003 to 2008. In a paper recently published in the journal Energy and Environment he has concluded that there has been ocean cooling over this period < http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/ >.

6. More and more scientists are dissenting from the "consensus" that AGW is a fact. Recently 700 scientists have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists < http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 >.

7. You keep hearing AGW is even worse than we originally thought. This isn't from actual data, but from new computer simulations that says it will be worse. So what are you going to do ? Believe the computers or reality - check out both in a graph < http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/15/climate-models-vs-climate-reality-diverging-or-just-a-dip/ >.

8. My final indictment against AGW is that the people who are trying to get us to change our lives (like the twelve apostles < editors > here who continual hide behind WP rules rather than debate the bias in this article) keep talking about how their models show all the ice melting and sea’s rising, but this is simply and factually not true < http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/ > < http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/antarctic-sea-ice-up-over-43-since-1980.html > < http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/ >.

< Mk > 68.56.175.27 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Global warming for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This poster has put up some valid points of discussion. Your administrative puffery is not an appropriate response.Dikstr (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs to be an open and informative source of information and discussion of current science

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Regarding censorship, see Observation #1 on this page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Global warming. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You're way over the 3 revert limit. If you don't stop, you're going to end up blocked. Atmoz (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

First, this is not a shared IP address. Second, I did not engage in an edit war - WP editors engaged in an edit war by removing my post numerous times on their own merit and for obviously personal dislike of the information presented – that was obvious by their archive comments.

It is not vandalism to simply want your post read and consumed.

You may have removed the comments in the archives, but it was clear to my review late last night and early today that it was a vindictive removal / move on the part of staffers because they did not like the posting info - that was very apparent…

You can play this game of editing run afoul, but it was clear on what agenda was at work. It’s very sad to what extent you proceed down this path of idealogy.

< Mk > 68.56.128.36 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:NOTFORUM vandalism. Please read my comments above and repost with useful contributions. It's unfortunate that you do not comprehend that this is about WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP, and not about any ideology, and continue to ignore comments meant to help you contribute. If you continue to add the same information, it will be clear that you have nothing but contempt for the system, and I will ask that your IP and 68.56.128.36 are banned. Awickert (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

After your persistent re-insertion of the above material, also via IP 97.175.190.225, I am requesting you blocked. While this is perhaps what you wanted so you could say how awful we are, it is really because you have persisted in misusing the talk page, and not for your point of view. Awickert (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Typical. Rather than engage in honest discussion of the issues you use administrative fiat to protect your biased AGW POV. Dikstr (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I got bored of your tripe on Talk:Global warming so I've blocked you for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your continued bias is criminal in nature. You remove content that threatens your article bias and ideology at will. WP has five or six of you trolls that defend AGW at all cost and its a sign ofweakness in your argument.