I've tried to put here information, critiques, suggestions and babbling that don't belong anywhere but on my talk page. I need to clean it up, but mostly it's just stream of consciousness. Hopefully, if you are looking at this, you'll see I'm not a total idiot, but rather an unfocused one.
Note also I don't usually spell check or grammar check, but just write as I think about things.... Duh! :)
Fixed!
If you compare the mean temperature anomalies from the GHCN-ERSST data set from 1880-2005 and chart them on a scale as if you lived in a place where it was 30 degrees F in the Winter and 100 degrees F in the Summer, this is what global warming looks like to you:
High point .6 degrees C (4.3%) over average
Low point .73 degrees C (5.2%) under average
Trend rose .7 degrees C (5%) from 1880 to 2005
I messed up and this is only the January figures, not the entire year. You get the idea I hope.
Given the fact that any month or year is about the same as any other, especially in light of the recent adjustment for 6 years of US data, no I probably won't get to it some day, nor do I need to, I don't think. But you can chart it here for yourself:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGts?dat=BLEND&SYST=TS&TS=6
Or you can just get the entire 1880 to 2006 Jan-Dec chart here:
As you'll see, the global anomaly trend is .04 degrees centigrade (from absolute anomalies of -.4 C to +.5 C) over the period in question.
Make sure you know where the numbers are actually from, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, run by Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.) the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.
This is the source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html
That page covers the merged land-sea record, and has links to the GHCN for land and ERSST for sea.
WGII of the IPCC Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
This summary was accepted but not approved in detail at the Sixth Session of IPCC Working Group II (Geneva, Switzerland • 13-16 February 2001). “Acceptance” of IPCC reports at a session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.
First paragraph of section 1.2
If there’s a lack of disagreement (which later becomes “consensus”) by a (later defined) scientific community that humans influence climate change; that shows climate science is not highly uncertain.
Scientific consensus is shown by the reports of a intergovernmental entity know as the IPCC. Quotes some of WG II (Impact and Adaptation) technical summary 1.2 ‘What is potentially at stake?’ (edited) as being evidence of an unequivocal statement by the IPCC that there is consensus of scientific opinion that humans influence climate change.
An NAS report agrees. The report asks if the IPCC is correct in its summary about professional scientific thinking and the report answers yes.
The AMS, AGU and Science magazine’s AAAS have issued statements there is compelling evidence humans influence climate change.
These reports and statements are gone over a lot, so they probably reflect the views of the members (which would be the scientific community) of these organizations. But the organizations might quash dissenters. So to test that idea, we go look at some abstracts in the ISI database searched for with “climate change” and find 928.
75% either agreed or didn’t disagree that there was a lack of disagreement by the scientific community that humans influence climate change. 25% had no view on it, and none disagreed.
None of the papers argued climate change was natural.
We prove that published scientists agree with the statements of their groups. Some people incorrectly think that climate scientists don’t agree with each other.
The consensus might be wrong, we can’t blame anyone for not acting. But we understand humans change the climate so we should do something about it or we’ll look bad to our descendants.
We don’t understand all the details, and we should keep researching the dynamics of climate. What to do about climate change is not answered. But scientists don’t disagree humans change the climate. Climate scientists keep telling us that and we should listen.
- Realclimate blog about the consensus
- TCS Daily article on the essay and blog
- The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report
- Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
- 2000 Year Temperature Comparison
- Holocene Temperature Variations
- Get off the fence over global warming
- Graphic
Comments on the essay:
The first suggests that because these corporations have a possible motive to disagree, their contributions are not to be believed, in their entirety, simply because they have an interest.
The second suggests that searching for "climate change" (as originally published) or "global climate change" (as later corrected) is the same as looking for support of "anthropogenic climate change". Then that is linked to the conclusion that there is no 'substantive disagreement' (which is what?) by the 'scientific community' (which is whom?) to 'anthropogenic climate change' (which correlates how?).
That might be replaced by by the activities of plants and animals or by the influence of forests and oceans and volcanoes and so on, as is true about any system in this machine. This all ignores the fact that even some of the members of the IPCC do not totally agree with all the conclusions in total, as well as also making the claim that 'scientific opinion in general' is proven by what we've now found out by: Reviewing abstracts of published articles in the ISI database according to the section of science from the keywords global climate change. In addition, the assessment by the IPCC spoken of is not in the main body of the report, it is in the technical summary of Working Group II. Global climate change meaning what, exactly? The global climate is changing? Ah, yes. It indeed is.
Agreement does not constitute fact, no matter how prestigious (or not) those that are agreeing are. But to that statement; there is probably nobody who would not agree that the evidence for human "modification of" (impact on) on the climate is there. Any variable impacts the whole in some way. What exactly is the modification? This is very vague.
How exactly does reviewing those particular abstracts (or any abstracts) test if the reports and statements downplay anything? While it is probably true that "birds of a feather flock together" these three sentences are not "3 great things that go great together." At least you would think she'd get what she searched for correctly the three times in the essay they are used to apply to the search.
Please spell out someplace exactly what “the consensus position” is so we can know what we're looking for disagreement with. As well as what you looked at exactly. Provide us with a list of the abstracts, how you graded them, and how you excluded them. Further, it would be nice if we could know how searching for either “global climate change” or “climate change” or whatever you really searched for (since we know you removed certain abstracts) are the same as a large majority agreement (or really, the lack of disagreement) on “anthropogenic climate change”. That's not what you searched for. Also, why the search was not further refined by only looking at those created by climatologists, that would be nice to know too.
Nice of you to admit it. What does none of these papers arguing that point have anything to do with it, and why are these papers proof nobody reliable is arguing that point, even if it did have something to do with it?
How does 'scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature (more correctly put, the abstracts you searched through in the ISI under science and global climate change)' become 'agreement with the IPCC, the NAS and their professional societies' become 'confusion disagreement or discord among climate scientists'?
Again, we have "scientific consensus". Where are we now again? And we are taught by science history to be humble, so if we don't do anything it's okay. But oh, my, let's not let our grandchildren down. Do we understand the reality of climate change, oh, excuse me, anthropogenic climate change, I mean, global climate change. Hey! Let's do something about it!
Another impassioned plea.
We don't understand all the details. We should do more research to learn climate dynamics better. We don't know what to do about climate change.
Climate scientists have kept trying to tell us it's clear there's a scientific consensus that there is anthropogenic climate change and it's time we listen!!!!!!
Reading the blogs and associated topics again, and then rereading the Deltoid blog on the abstracts again, wrote the following.
The original study was not duplicated. This is a given from the evidence.
Dr. Peiser searched a wider subject range of abstracts, and seems more to be an exercise in researching policy rather than science. Which probably has lead to most of the discussion. He does not admit the study in the essay wasn't really duplicated after all, nor that the abstracts are rather iffy to prove anything regardless. Most of his comments in the blog hurt him rather than help him.
The 34 abstracts are probably too old on the average to matter anyway, and they in large are pretty non-specific either way. More interesting (but maybe too old on average to matter anyway, either) would be how many of the others not here are specific that human activity causes our observed temperature increase. Or in other words, if lack of clear dissent provides evidence of clear endorcement. Or asking if either the essay or Peiser's comments on it are scientific at all in the first place.
A lot of time is spent on debating Peiser's honesty or motives, not if a certain collection of abstracts was a representative sample or not, nor what would (does) constitute a representative sample under what criteria.
Dr. Oreskes in her essay originally 1) reported incorrect search terms, 2) did not provide which part of the database she searched, and 3) did not give the criteria by which she judged an abstract not to be included. By and large, Peiser is attacked for using the wrong terms at first, or later for not knowing these points and/or not asking about them, when attempting to recreate.
At times questions of what a representative sample is, if the consensus (or not) proves (or doesn't) anything and similar subjects are mentioned, but not delved into in a major way, if at all.
New points made or new questions asked are usually ignored, where the details already discussed are gone back into instead.
A lot of the blog discussion seems to revolve around logical fallacy, constantly using various forms of argument by consensus, argument from authority, appeal to consequences, false dilemma, begging the question, non causa pro causa, faulty analogy, guilt by association and other red herrings, fallacy of propositional logic, fake precision, ad hominem...
The point of all this is one thing; if we're going to have a discussion about something, we shouldn't be mixing what we're talking about. We've mixed in discussions of viewpoints, discussions of character, discussions of consensus, discussions of science, discussions of logic, discusssions of publications, discussions of studies, discussions of methodology, discussions on statistics, discussions on climate, discussions on politics, discussions on policy, discussions on economics, and more. Then we act like we're talking about the same thing, and we are not.
To bring up again an idea that TallDave brought up that was rather mixing too many (or not enough) things into 3 AND statements. There's actually a lot of things that need to be thought about:
So, taking one mix of these questions and such:
One could probably put together the same question for Methane levels, or another set of questions for the burning of methane resulting in twice as much water as carbon dioxide, or some other set of questions for the interactions of elements w, x, y and z interacting with each other, ad nausem, ad infinitum.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology
Not that the school or the title or the branch of science means anything or not. Or that anyone would ever just draw conclusions or biases without reading it first, just because it's on the Cato website.
But if anyone would like to look at a Lindzen dealy, Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus and rip it up or compare it to the other essay, feel free.
I have added a "{{ prod}}" template to the article Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Two posts in one day about the same thing? Then a 5 day delete? For that? Thanks everyone for giving me enough time to comment.... :) And then the page was closed so I couldn't. :( So. Although I do see the thoughts of the worth of it were almost universally against it. Oh well.
Here's the article:
Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae This is the Vulgate phrase that Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:12 (Iohannes VIII:XII) after His actions stop the stoning of the "woman taken in adultery" (John 8:3)
Literal translations of the phrase include "i am light world who follow me not walk in darkness but keep light mode of life" or "i exist daylight mankind who accompany myself by no means travels on ignorance however manages daylight career"
English bible versions translate it thusly:
I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. ( King James)
I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life. ( New Living Translation)
The phonetic Greek is ego eimi phos kosmos akoloutheo emoi peripateo ou me peripateo en skotia alla echo phos zoe
The full text of the Stutgart Vulgate verse is iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae. The Clemintine Vulgate verse is the same but uses the word "lumen" instead of "lucem". The official Roman Catholic Church version is Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens: " Ego sum lux mundi; qui sequitur me, non ambulabit in tenebris, sed habebit lucem vitae." which is in Ecclesiastical Latin and includes modern punctuation.
See also (from Wikisource)
External links
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Solar greenhouse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar greenhouse. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dmcq ( talk) 01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things. First of all, the word homophobia is not composed of "homo-" and "phobia", and does not mean "fear of the same". That is a classic etymological error, as it assumes that the meaning of the whole can be deduced from the sum of its parts. The term "homophobia" is composed of "homo(sexual)" and "phobia", and means "aversion to homosexuals/homosexuality". This is already explained in the etymology section of the article, and in the sources you listed.
Second of all, "phobos" originally meant "running away from something, [ [1]] and meant specifically a particular type of "fear", a reaction that is usually visceral, automatic, reflexive, irrational and makes one want to run away from or avoid something, akin to repulsion or dislike. The English word "fear" has a much broader meaning than "phobos", and that's why a lot of people misunderstand the term. Greek had other words to cover the other meanings of the word "fear", like "deimos", which meant "dread, sheer terror", a different kind of fear than "phobos".
Third of all, etymology is too tangential for the lede of the article.
Fourth of all, the meaning of "homophobia" given in our article is practically universally agreed upon. Those that object to it do so primarily for political reasons that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word. The third source you listed, [ [2]], is a good example, when it states "It is hard to imagine people being scared of homosexuals", which is pure blither.
Some English "phobias" have nothing to do with fear, nor anything to do with the clinical anxiety-related phobias at all, such as "photophobia" in cockroaches or "photophobia" in humans. The old name for rabies was "hyrophophobia", which also had nothing to do with fear. "Hydrophobia" is also used in chemistry to describe substances that have a metaphorical "aversion" to water. Again, the idea of "fear" is not in play here. So a lot of the etymological fallacies about "homophobia" are based on the erroneous proposition that "phobos" = "fear", which is a semantic error, and that all "phobias" are clinical in nature, which is a categorical error. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Oh my.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to put here information, critiques, suggestions and babbling that don't belong anywhere but on my talk page. I need to clean it up, but mostly it's just stream of consciousness. Hopefully, if you are looking at this, you'll see I'm not a total idiot, but rather an unfocused one.
Note also I don't usually spell check or grammar check, but just write as I think about things.... Duh! :)
Fixed!
If you compare the mean temperature anomalies from the GHCN-ERSST data set from 1880-2005 and chart them on a scale as if you lived in a place where it was 30 degrees F in the Winter and 100 degrees F in the Summer, this is what global warming looks like to you:
High point .6 degrees C (4.3%) over average
Low point .73 degrees C (5.2%) under average
Trend rose .7 degrees C (5%) from 1880 to 2005
I messed up and this is only the January figures, not the entire year. You get the idea I hope.
Given the fact that any month or year is about the same as any other, especially in light of the recent adjustment for 6 years of US data, no I probably won't get to it some day, nor do I need to, I don't think. But you can chart it here for yourself:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGts?dat=BLEND&SYST=TS&TS=6
Or you can just get the entire 1880 to 2006 Jan-Dec chart here:
As you'll see, the global anomaly trend is .04 degrees centigrade (from absolute anomalies of -.4 C to +.5 C) over the period in question.
Make sure you know where the numbers are actually from, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, run by Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.) the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.
This is the source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html
That page covers the merged land-sea record, and has links to the GHCN for land and ERSST for sea.
WGII of the IPCC Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
This summary was accepted but not approved in detail at the Sixth Session of IPCC Working Group II (Geneva, Switzerland • 13-16 February 2001). “Acceptance” of IPCC reports at a session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.
First paragraph of section 1.2
If there’s a lack of disagreement (which later becomes “consensus”) by a (later defined) scientific community that humans influence climate change; that shows climate science is not highly uncertain.
Scientific consensus is shown by the reports of a intergovernmental entity know as the IPCC. Quotes some of WG II (Impact and Adaptation) technical summary 1.2 ‘What is potentially at stake?’ (edited) as being evidence of an unequivocal statement by the IPCC that there is consensus of scientific opinion that humans influence climate change.
An NAS report agrees. The report asks if the IPCC is correct in its summary about professional scientific thinking and the report answers yes.
The AMS, AGU and Science magazine’s AAAS have issued statements there is compelling evidence humans influence climate change.
These reports and statements are gone over a lot, so they probably reflect the views of the members (which would be the scientific community) of these organizations. But the organizations might quash dissenters. So to test that idea, we go look at some abstracts in the ISI database searched for with “climate change” and find 928.
75% either agreed or didn’t disagree that there was a lack of disagreement by the scientific community that humans influence climate change. 25% had no view on it, and none disagreed.
None of the papers argued climate change was natural.
We prove that published scientists agree with the statements of their groups. Some people incorrectly think that climate scientists don’t agree with each other.
The consensus might be wrong, we can’t blame anyone for not acting. But we understand humans change the climate so we should do something about it or we’ll look bad to our descendants.
We don’t understand all the details, and we should keep researching the dynamics of climate. What to do about climate change is not answered. But scientists don’t disagree humans change the climate. Climate scientists keep telling us that and we should listen.
- Realclimate blog about the consensus
- TCS Daily article on the essay and blog
- The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report
- Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
- 2000 Year Temperature Comparison
- Holocene Temperature Variations
- Get off the fence over global warming
- Graphic
Comments on the essay:
The first suggests that because these corporations have a possible motive to disagree, their contributions are not to be believed, in their entirety, simply because they have an interest.
The second suggests that searching for "climate change" (as originally published) or "global climate change" (as later corrected) is the same as looking for support of "anthropogenic climate change". Then that is linked to the conclusion that there is no 'substantive disagreement' (which is what?) by the 'scientific community' (which is whom?) to 'anthropogenic climate change' (which correlates how?).
That might be replaced by by the activities of plants and animals or by the influence of forests and oceans and volcanoes and so on, as is true about any system in this machine. This all ignores the fact that even some of the members of the IPCC do not totally agree with all the conclusions in total, as well as also making the claim that 'scientific opinion in general' is proven by what we've now found out by: Reviewing abstracts of published articles in the ISI database according to the section of science from the keywords global climate change. In addition, the assessment by the IPCC spoken of is not in the main body of the report, it is in the technical summary of Working Group II. Global climate change meaning what, exactly? The global climate is changing? Ah, yes. It indeed is.
Agreement does not constitute fact, no matter how prestigious (or not) those that are agreeing are. But to that statement; there is probably nobody who would not agree that the evidence for human "modification of" (impact on) on the climate is there. Any variable impacts the whole in some way. What exactly is the modification? This is very vague.
How exactly does reviewing those particular abstracts (or any abstracts) test if the reports and statements downplay anything? While it is probably true that "birds of a feather flock together" these three sentences are not "3 great things that go great together." At least you would think she'd get what she searched for correctly the three times in the essay they are used to apply to the search.
Please spell out someplace exactly what “the consensus position” is so we can know what we're looking for disagreement with. As well as what you looked at exactly. Provide us with a list of the abstracts, how you graded them, and how you excluded them. Further, it would be nice if we could know how searching for either “global climate change” or “climate change” or whatever you really searched for (since we know you removed certain abstracts) are the same as a large majority agreement (or really, the lack of disagreement) on “anthropogenic climate change”. That's not what you searched for. Also, why the search was not further refined by only looking at those created by climatologists, that would be nice to know too.
Nice of you to admit it. What does none of these papers arguing that point have anything to do with it, and why are these papers proof nobody reliable is arguing that point, even if it did have something to do with it?
How does 'scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature (more correctly put, the abstracts you searched through in the ISI under science and global climate change)' become 'agreement with the IPCC, the NAS and their professional societies' become 'confusion disagreement or discord among climate scientists'?
Again, we have "scientific consensus". Where are we now again? And we are taught by science history to be humble, so if we don't do anything it's okay. But oh, my, let's not let our grandchildren down. Do we understand the reality of climate change, oh, excuse me, anthropogenic climate change, I mean, global climate change. Hey! Let's do something about it!
Another impassioned plea.
We don't understand all the details. We should do more research to learn climate dynamics better. We don't know what to do about climate change.
Climate scientists have kept trying to tell us it's clear there's a scientific consensus that there is anthropogenic climate change and it's time we listen!!!!!!
Reading the blogs and associated topics again, and then rereading the Deltoid blog on the abstracts again, wrote the following.
The original study was not duplicated. This is a given from the evidence.
Dr. Peiser searched a wider subject range of abstracts, and seems more to be an exercise in researching policy rather than science. Which probably has lead to most of the discussion. He does not admit the study in the essay wasn't really duplicated after all, nor that the abstracts are rather iffy to prove anything regardless. Most of his comments in the blog hurt him rather than help him.
The 34 abstracts are probably too old on the average to matter anyway, and they in large are pretty non-specific either way. More interesting (but maybe too old on average to matter anyway, either) would be how many of the others not here are specific that human activity causes our observed temperature increase. Or in other words, if lack of clear dissent provides evidence of clear endorcement. Or asking if either the essay or Peiser's comments on it are scientific at all in the first place.
A lot of time is spent on debating Peiser's honesty or motives, not if a certain collection of abstracts was a representative sample or not, nor what would (does) constitute a representative sample under what criteria.
Dr. Oreskes in her essay originally 1) reported incorrect search terms, 2) did not provide which part of the database she searched, and 3) did not give the criteria by which she judged an abstract not to be included. By and large, Peiser is attacked for using the wrong terms at first, or later for not knowing these points and/or not asking about them, when attempting to recreate.
At times questions of what a representative sample is, if the consensus (or not) proves (or doesn't) anything and similar subjects are mentioned, but not delved into in a major way, if at all.
New points made or new questions asked are usually ignored, where the details already discussed are gone back into instead.
A lot of the blog discussion seems to revolve around logical fallacy, constantly using various forms of argument by consensus, argument from authority, appeal to consequences, false dilemma, begging the question, non causa pro causa, faulty analogy, guilt by association and other red herrings, fallacy of propositional logic, fake precision, ad hominem...
The point of all this is one thing; if we're going to have a discussion about something, we shouldn't be mixing what we're talking about. We've mixed in discussions of viewpoints, discussions of character, discussions of consensus, discussions of science, discussions of logic, discusssions of publications, discussions of studies, discussions of methodology, discussions on statistics, discussions on climate, discussions on politics, discussions on policy, discussions on economics, and more. Then we act like we're talking about the same thing, and we are not.
To bring up again an idea that TallDave brought up that was rather mixing too many (or not enough) things into 3 AND statements. There's actually a lot of things that need to be thought about:
So, taking one mix of these questions and such:
One could probably put together the same question for Methane levels, or another set of questions for the burning of methane resulting in twice as much water as carbon dioxide, or some other set of questions for the interactions of elements w, x, y and z interacting with each other, ad nausem, ad infinitum.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology
Not that the school or the title or the branch of science means anything or not. Or that anyone would ever just draw conclusions or biases without reading it first, just because it's on the Cato website.
But if anyone would like to look at a Lindzen dealy, Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus and rip it up or compare it to the other essay, feel free.
I have added a "{{ prod}}" template to the article Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Two posts in one day about the same thing? Then a 5 day delete? For that? Thanks everyone for giving me enough time to comment.... :) And then the page was closed so I couldn't. :( So. Although I do see the thoughts of the worth of it were almost universally against it. Oh well.
Here's the article:
Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae This is the Vulgate phrase that Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:12 (Iohannes VIII:XII) after His actions stop the stoning of the "woman taken in adultery" (John 8:3)
Literal translations of the phrase include "i am light world who follow me not walk in darkness but keep light mode of life" or "i exist daylight mankind who accompany myself by no means travels on ignorance however manages daylight career"
English bible versions translate it thusly:
I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. ( King James)
I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life. ( New Living Translation)
The phonetic Greek is ego eimi phos kosmos akoloutheo emoi peripateo ou me peripateo en skotia alla echo phos zoe
The full text of the Stutgart Vulgate verse is iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae. The Clemintine Vulgate verse is the same but uses the word "lumen" instead of "lucem". The official Roman Catholic Church version is Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens: " Ego sum lux mundi; qui sequitur me, non ambulabit in tenebris, sed habebit lucem vitae." which is in Ecclesiastical Latin and includes modern punctuation.
See also (from Wikisource)
External links
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Solar greenhouse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar greenhouse. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dmcq ( talk) 01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
A couple of things. First of all, the word homophobia is not composed of "homo-" and "phobia", and does not mean "fear of the same". That is a classic etymological error, as it assumes that the meaning of the whole can be deduced from the sum of its parts. The term "homophobia" is composed of "homo(sexual)" and "phobia", and means "aversion to homosexuals/homosexuality". This is already explained in the etymology section of the article, and in the sources you listed.
Second of all, "phobos" originally meant "running away from something, [ [1]] and meant specifically a particular type of "fear", a reaction that is usually visceral, automatic, reflexive, irrational and makes one want to run away from or avoid something, akin to repulsion or dislike. The English word "fear" has a much broader meaning than "phobos", and that's why a lot of people misunderstand the term. Greek had other words to cover the other meanings of the word "fear", like "deimos", which meant "dread, sheer terror", a different kind of fear than "phobos".
Third of all, etymology is too tangential for the lede of the article.
Fourth of all, the meaning of "homophobia" given in our article is practically universally agreed upon. Those that object to it do so primarily for political reasons that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word. The third source you listed, [ [2]], is a good example, when it states "It is hard to imagine people being scared of homosexuals", which is pure blither.
Some English "phobias" have nothing to do with fear, nor anything to do with the clinical anxiety-related phobias at all, such as "photophobia" in cockroaches or "photophobia" in humans. The old name for rabies was "hyrophophobia", which also had nothing to do with fear. "Hydrophobia" is also used in chemistry to describe substances that have a metaphorical "aversion" to water. Again, the idea of "fear" is not in play here. So a lot of the etymological fallacies about "homophobia" are based on the erroneous proposition that "phobos" = "fear", which is a semantic error, and that all "phobias" are clinical in nature, which is a categorical error. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Oh my.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)