User talk:Atlastawake

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name on Talk and Vote pages (not articles) with ~~~~. Niteowlneils 04:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you associated with any newspaper or other publishing entity? According to your statement on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, you created a number of pages only to test the responsiveness of Wikipedia. [1]. I can accept this for valid research, but please don't do it just to satisfy your curiosity. Are we getting a report now how many pages were created, how long they stayed untouched, and when the faulty information was removed? -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the update, and I am glad we caught all your mistakes. Wikipedia is getting rather big, so I am usre there are quite some errors on less-visited pages. Also thanks for the link to your article -- Chris 73 Talk 10:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:There is dispute about the scientific consensus on global warming... - Actually, no, there isn't. See: [2] --Viriditas | Talk 23:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is. There's a percivied consensus but some scientists in revelvant fields have called into question the theory of global warming. --Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-McKendry, Ian G. ("Applied Climatology, "Progress in Physical Geography 17, no. 4 (2003))

McKendry has not called into question the "theory of global warming". Have you even read the paper? He is suggesting that surface temperature measurements are not entirely accurate. --Viriditas | Talk 01:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. By saying they are not entirely accurate throws doubt at the theory. --Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you are confusing science with politics. Science is all about getting better measurements. --Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True, science is about getting better measurements, that's true. But first someone needs to point out better measurements are needed (in other words, the best expirement isn't good enough). That's what McKendry did.--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try and track down the paper when I have time and read it. But, if you have a link, feel free to share it.--Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Lindzen, Richard S. ("Do Deep Ocean Temperature Records Verify Models?" Geophysical Research Letters 29, no. 10 (2002)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lindzen was apparently a good scientist who helped strengthen the theory of global warming by asking good questions. However, his critics contend that he was paid by Western Fuels Association and OPEC to undermine and delay regulatory action. --Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And other scientists are paid by environmentalist groups. How can you say that the oil industry is inherently illegitimate but environmentalists (and government agencies for that matter) are inherently trustworthy? Both sides have a lot to gain by lying.--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said that. Which scientists are you referring to when you are saying they are paid by environmentalist groups, and what do they have to gain by "lying"? Obviously, Kyoto is going to cost the U.S. energy industry (to say the least), so I think it's clear who has the most to lose. Viriditas | Talk 11:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What they gain by lying or encouraging bias (Note: I doubt many of them are aware of deception and any scientist worth his degree will tell you that bias in any study is hard to avoid, esp with something as politicized as global warming) is money (grant money), attention and acceptance. People don't care about something unless there's a (percieved) reason to. As for funding, that's a problem because while environmentalists demand the conventional industry to be transparent with their books, they aren't kept to the same standards. We know very little as to where their funds come from and where they go to. We do know that these groups give money to politicians and the govt funds many studies. It's analougous to the chemical industry giving money to a politician who then leads the charge for a government study that concludes asbestos is good for you. Government is prone to immense corruption and no organization is immuned to using it for its own ends. This site should help answer some of your other questions: http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Jougnin, I., and S. Tulaczyk. "Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antartica." Science 295 (2002)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Winsor, P. "Artic Sea Ice Thickness Remained Constant During the 1990s." Geophysical Research Letters 28, no. 6 (March 2001)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Singer, S. Fred. Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate (Singer's a retired professor of environmental science.)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Singer is well-known for receiving money from ExxonMobil and working with Philip Morris. Self-published statements are not science, and he hasn't appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for decades. --Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Lomborg, Bjorn. The Skeptical Environmentalist. (Lomborg is a Danish Statistician and Greenpeace Activist.)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lomborg has no formal training in environmental science and is a former environmental activist. --Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right...he's a former activist and that was a mistake on my part (though it only helps my case in that he used to believe in the claim and has since changed his mind). As for his training, he's a statistician and considering the environmental scientists are trying to predict the future, I can't think of a better background.

-Victor, David G. "Climate of Doubt: The imminent collaspe of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming may be a blessing in disguise. The treaty's arcitecture is fataly flawed." The Sciences (Spring 2001)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victor has no formal training in environmental science, and is a political scientist whose current, core academic research program is funded by British Petroleum.

I really hate character attacks. If you want to be fair, then his BP association isn't material. Same with his formal training (or lack there of in this subject). If you want to attack the conclusions, talk to me about his science.

[3] --Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-Fagan, Brian. The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850. (Fagan's an archeologist.)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is no dispute about the scientific consensus on global warming. I have no idea what you mean by a "percivied consensus". Is that something you invented? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have all concluded that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. Moreover, a study of the scientific literature found that 75% of the papers published between 1993 and 2003 supported the position of human-induced climate change while 25% of the papers took no position at all. [4] --Viriditas | Talk 01:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A percieved consensus is exactly what it sounds like. To the public, it looks like every single scientist is in agreement when in reality they are not. I also point to the 17,000 scientists who say the evidence for GW isn't strong enough. (http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html)--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just finished explaining to you that the consensus is real, not "perceived". And the claim that "17,000 scientists" signed the SEPP petition was debunked more than seven years ago. I don't mean any disrespect, but you appear to be seven years behind the times. The petition in question was a fraudulent publicity stunt funded by the oil industry. However, even Shell oil distanced themselves from this fraud, as they support Kyoto. The National Academy of Sciences thoroughly condemned Seitz's attempt to cash in on their name, and the scientific community does not give any weight to this petition since it is not based on science. See also: Leipzig Declaration. [5][6] --Viriditas | Talk 03:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I don't mean any disrepect but please don't tell me you're naive enough to think that the conventional industry is automatically more insidious than the environmental industry. Each side has a lot to gain by lying. Just because the oil industry put out a study/sponsored a penition doesn't mean it's part of a conspiracy.--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What "environmental industry" and what "conspiracy"? --Viriditas | Talk 10:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy is a poor choice of words...I'm not one of those that think of it as a conspiracy. I think of it more like the unfortunate consequence of collective action by rational actors. It's helpful to think of many environmental organizations and certain reactionary/technocratic media/political agents as part of the environmental industry (a part of what Thomas DiLorenzo calls the Anti-Industry Industry). The bottom line is while these organization are smaller than conventional industries (like the oil industry), they still have a great deal to gain by lying. Saying studies funded by one group is good and other bad is a nasty and naive double standard. Here's the site again for more information: http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html--Atlastawake 23:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Atlastawake. Be aware that enlightening people who have been trained to accept what they have already been told, can be difficult. I think Plato mentioned something about this difficulty with his parable of the cave. And sometimes a paradigm shift can be too painful to contemplate. "How could it possibly be that so much of what I believe is a lie?" It's so much easier to belittle the annoying revealers than to examine the evidence they reveal.

It's like sociologists studying the new religious movements. If they don't join the anti-cult movement in denouncing the "cults", then they must be "cult apologists". The possibility that objective research doesn't support the "mind control" theory which justifies deprogramming is just too painful to face, for some people. (At least in the cult articles, we contributors are on good terms. I don't know why it's not like that in the climate articles.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. It's nice to know theres some sanity on wiki. Sometimes I wonder. Keep it up.--Atlastawake 01:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because none of the editors are actually members of the cults on those pages?  ;) But on a more serious note, if you reach a point where you accept climate change as unquestionable (not just true, but unquestionable), then everyone who raises a question must be a hopelessly biased oil industry apologist. I was always trained to sprinkle a few scoops of socratic wisdom on my morning science. (This mindset comes from a different apologist.) I think the climate articles would be in great shape if we had people who think climate change is true, and people who think climate change is unproven or insufficiently proven, editing together. Then we would get good neutrality from the cooperative description that would emerge. But instead we seem to have a group of people who thing climate change is unquestionable. How they make this transition from thinking something is true to thinking it is unquestionable escapes me. — Cortonin | Talk 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is that there is a deep rooted fear that if climate change is questioned, then nothing will be done and danger will result. And so people are equating questioning with inaction, and inaction with danger, and by transitivity, they equate questioning as a dangerous threat. For anyone who has it, this would become a feedback loop which rapidly transitions from a slight belief in plausible evidence to unquestionable certainty being the only safe bet. — Cortonin | Talk 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think all the overreaction and doomsaying damages the credibility of environmentalism, which in turn muddles the focus on responsible resource management. In the U.S., we have constant debates over things like emission standards, SUV incentives or taxes, and the seemingly not very effective Kyoto protocol, and amidst the noise the fusion reactor research lays stagnant due to unresolved political problems. We could be building two or three different research reactors, investigating multiple paths in parallel, but instead we're too distracted by the other issues. In the long run, this current focus seems to be hurting the environment more than focusing on responsible resource management would. — Cortonin | Talk 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. And have you seen the latest issue of The Economist? It talks a great deal about the environmental movement and how much it is detatched from reality and practical solutions. I'm just glad the word's getting out.--Atlastawake 04:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics?. Thanks. --Pamri • Talk 07:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I am adding you as a participant. The template below lists out the open tasks.

Portal:Business/Tasks

---

You can also help in sorting the list of business & economics topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics/Version 1.0 assesment as per the criterion listed there. Thanks again. --Pamri • Talk 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ireland page is about the island, not the countries on it. There is already a vast article on the Economy of the Republic of Ireland. --Kiand 18:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the news story on Rattenberg and came here to see if we had an article. We do, thanks to you, if only (I presume) influenced by the same news story. But it's a great building block. :) Good job. --Golbez 18:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing some of the terms in the Hydroponics pages. I didn't even think about some of the terms being POV. =) --Mboverload 22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good and bad betas has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to notify you that a stub template that you created ({{lobbying-stub}}) is up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page was deleted as a result of this discussion, and can's be recreated with the same content. Because of this I've nominated it for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hut 8.5 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you disagree with the decision to delete, you should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than just recreate the article unilaterally. Please note that that page will be concerned mostly with violations of process in the deletion discussion, and not necessarily rehashing the debate on the merits of the page. -- nae'blis 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a new page like Bruce Yandel is likely to run into problems these days at AfD. He seems a worthy subject for an article, but these is unfortunately, prejudice against people from the academic world. What seems to help is

• listing important awards
• listing important memberships and offices held
• listing books published as formal references style: Author, title, Publisher, year ISBN if possible.
• listing some major published papers, say how many.

and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or a newspaper stories. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog.

and, for people involved in public service, there should be some academic articles about their work, or for economists sometime WSJ or the Economist Nest wishes with them all--we need them, as you well know. DGG 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your user page back to its correct spot. If you wish to change your user name, you must use the user-name change process instead of just moving your user page to a different, non-existent name. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we can't merge accounts. There is a workaround: You need to log in as User:David Youngberg and request a rename to some arbitary one. This will delete the username User:David Youngberg. You then place a request on WP:CHU as Atlastawake to rename you to David Youngberg. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used to post on climate articles. Why did you stop? --Blue Tie 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to move your comment that you put here to the article talk page. Someone else objected to it being there because that page was (I guess) an archive. --Blue Tie 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is why I like to stay away from these debates. Every time I think I know how they are conducted, I always end up seeming to do something wrong. -David Youngberg 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to work on an article you started, Bruce Yandle, so I thought I'd say hi. Bonitammmm (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Indoor garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. UltraMagnus (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Indoor garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. UltraMagnus (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atlastawake! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 258 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mark Bils - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. ThemFromSpace 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The It Factor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The It Factor. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newtonian time in economics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonian time in economics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of EconTalk episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rand, Chris Anderson, King Leopold and Richard Epstein

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of EconTalk episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Clean Air Act, Minority Report, Kevin Kelly and Robert Lucas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. A couple of months ago you started a modification of List of EconTalk episodes. I like the idea of a more accessible and informative list, but wonder where are we going. That is, does the article listing (at present) simply give a less-than-helpful rendition when compared to what LEL already provides on their website? I'm thinking a sortable table would be better in that we could provide wikilinks to the guest page articles plus articles about their books & ideas. What do you think? (The other problem we have is with the present summaries presented. The LEL material is copyrighted, so I don't think it's wise to cut & paste their descriptions.) As you no doubt are entranced by the Fiscal Abyss discussion on TV these days, I'll understand if you don't respond right away. But I'll put your talkpage on my watchlist and await. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the LEL material should change. I believe I was thinking it was a good start and I would change it later. As you can tell by me finally responding, I haven't had a chance. When this semester's over I'll have more time but the best I can do at the moment is keep an eye out. Rewriting all the descriptions is an epic amount of work so your concern about what it's adding is well asked. It's largely the integration issue as you mentioned: wikilinks to guest pages, books, ideas, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by a sortable table. Sortable by what? Date and guest? Sortable by topic or category gets sticky because there's a lot of doubling and tripling up.-David Youngberg (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the Professorship! I'll have to get back to you on my Econtalk thoughts. Some other pots are on the front burners. – S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Driessen (lobbyist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Driessen (lobbyist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Myth of the Rational Voter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Rational Voter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]