Rkcannon
Welcome to Wikipedia
editWelcome!
Hello, Rkcannon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Where have you read about the ice core data? I would like to look at this. The problem isn't there is not listening by many of the climate scientists, it is there is always an "explanation" when the data doesn't fit the model... El Nino, La Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, aerosols, etc. etc.....warming or cooling, they have it covered. And then they will say they already explained this long ago, and we already knew that is was going to cool before it was going to warm, etc. etc. For this article, it seems like it would be best to add a peer reviewed article indicating the data, and then see what happens. It will likely be deleted, but at least you did your bit for science. 06:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Subsumee (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editSomeone pointed out Don J. Easterbrook, a Geology professor at W Wash Univ. He has several good articles on how CO2 is not causing warming. http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pubs.htm
And there is the NZ Climate Science Coalition and several others I'm sure. http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
There is just too much clutter in Wikipedia on Global Warming etc. It's poorly written and obviously very biased towards AGW. It is classic GROUPTHINK combined with a foolish thought that they are going to save the earth (and keep their cushy research jobs too!)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Global warming controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Important message
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
About article talk pages
editPlease note that article talk pages are not a general discussion WP:FORUMs and that articles should reflect reliable sources and cite those (WP:RS, WP:CITE), not the personal opinions of editors. Apart from online blogs and forums, a place that may be more open to the discussion of specific details unrelated to the article itself may be WP:RD/S, the science reference desk. —PaleoNeonate – 16:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)