Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne

Having read JG's edits to Global Warming I have to agree that his edits have a strong POV smell. Phrases like "it is important to remember that climate models are simply speculation" or "Though what role a popularity poll plays in the science of global warming is unclear" are outright pushy and suggestive with zero factual value. They were reverted out for good. --Trapolator 04:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unskilled and petulant

I am not sure that I agree that JG's problem is POV pushing, yes he is pushing a POV, one I happen to agree with (skepticism about the seriousness and proposed solutions to the global warming "crisis"), but he is so unskilled in scientific argumentation from the literature and so simplistic in his understanding of the concepts that they become misunderstandings, that even someone who agrees with his "ultimate" POV, such as myself, cannot support him, and find his persistence in his contributions embarrassing and repetitively disruptive. Unfortunately, his support for our shared POV does not seem to be based on sound understanding. He does seem to have an intuitive grasp that "consensus" is not the way to determine truth in science, and made some valid points there. In his repetition he does become petulant and ad hominem in his comments, although he is less directly "naming calling" in his ad hominem attacks than in the past.

I cannot speak to his contributions on non-scientific pages, perhaps there he is better skilled at supporting his position. If so, it may be that a ban on editing science pages or climate topic pages would be a more limited solution to this problem.--Silverback 16:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commentary moved from request

Apologies if I have used the incorrect format. I copied the PSYCH case ([1] when I put mine on) and assumed that was the correct form. I'm still a bit confused - it says in the rules be brief and put detail on the sub page. However, I have added 3 examples to the brief case here (William M. Connolley 10:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

BTW (for those waiting for a response from JG) he got another 3RR 24h ban last night, so won't be responding today (William M. Connolley 10:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

He is back from his ban, has had a brief surge of edits, but doesn't seem to be taking the arbitration seriously: [2] [3]

Would it be possible to issue some kind of temporary injunction against JG? He is now causing trouble by moving Temperature record of the past 1000 years to Reconstruction of temperature record for past 1000 years - a move for which no consensus exists - and changing piles of links on other pages to the new name. Please - its such a waste of time to fix his damage. Is there no requirement for him to answer this RFA before doing extensive edting? (William M. Connolley 21:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

Stirling is now joining JonGwynn

I just posted an explanation on the global warming talk page, that explains the basic scientific misunderstanding that first JonGwynna and now Stirling Newberry are trying to add to the Global Warming page. I copy it here for the arbitrators references. I too am skeptical of the fear mongering on Global warming, but the position is not served by clouding and twisting the science. Also the page has now been protected by 172 after a revert to the erroneous version by a one edit user (sock puppet?) The protection was not needed, since both sides of the POV were repulsing the erroneous version easily. --Silverback 13:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Water vapor is not a forcing

Stirling seems to have the same misunderstanding of the science that JonGwynne had. yes H2O is the most important greenhouse gas, but it is not a "forcing". It is a dependent variable whose levels and effects must be predicted by the models, just as clouds, temperature and precipitation must be. So although H2O is the most important greenhouse gas, CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas for the "global warming" issue, because of its persistance and mixing in the atmosphere and predicting its future levels must take predictions of human activity into account outside the models and applied to the models as a forcing. Yes, some human activity such as irrigation and changing of ground cover vegetation results in human forcing via water vapor, but these effects are short lived and thus local, and small compared to the indirect modulation of water vapor as a dependent variable responding to the incremental temperature effects of CO2 and other persistent, globally mixing greenhouse gasses. Stirling and JonGwynne not only confuse the issue by trying to imply that H2O is more important on this page, but the apparently also confuse themselves.--Silverback 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is so far from the material that I added as to rise to the level of being defamatory. The topic of the page is "Global Warming" the effects of global warming on water vapor, and therefore on climatic transport mechanisms are from standard climatic models. Stirling Newberry 19:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since Silverback choses to lie about the material I will cite it here:

Water vapor's contribution to global warming is somewhat different from the carbon cycle gases. Rather than reflecting radition back in, it retains heat near the surface layer. This results in a surface band of heat retention in areas of high surface water vapor. Water vapor is hypothesized to be part of a "feedback" mechanisms of global warming, where increases in global surface temperature increase the concentration of water vapor, which increases heat retention, and therefore surface temperature. Water vapor's heat retaining properties are also a factor in the predictions of increased extreme weather.

Note that this does not say that Water vapro is a forcing gas, instead it is "different from the carbon cycle". Nor does the section state that water vapor increases are human generated. The hypothesis that water vapor is part of the feedback cycle has been part of the debate on Global warming since the mid 1990's, for example here and is cited by the National Academy of Science.

Stirling Newberry 20:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Water vapor's contribution to global warming is somewhat different from the carbon cycle gases. Rather than reflecting radition back in, it retains heat near the surface layer is wrong. It implies some fundamental difference which doesn't exist. CO2 and H20 are just GHG's. The difference is that the concentration of one (CO2) is being actively changed; the concentration of the other (H2O) reacts.

Stirling You conveniently didn't quote the immediately preceding text:

The most common global warming theories attribute temperature increases to increases in the greenhouse effect caused primarily by anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse cases, including carbon dioxide and methane, and perhaps water vapor, nitrous oxide and ozone as well.

This text suggests water vapor as an anthropogenic forcing, and comes in the wake of JonGwynne's similar attempts. Also your edits were extensive and repetitive of information on the greenhouse gas specific articles and distracted from global warming specific issues, which don't require a repetition of basic greenhouse science.--Silverback 09:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)