→FellGleaming: Thepm is right |
→FellGleaming: I'll strike, no time to justify |
||
Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
:I think it's poor form to post this here. You should either take it up with the editor on their talk page or go to ANI (or wherever). Not here. [[User:Thepm|Thepm]] ([[User talk:Thepm|talk]]) 07:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
:I think it's poor form to post this here. You should either take it up with the editor on their talk page or go to ANI (or wherever). Not here. [[User:Thepm|Thepm]] ([[User talk:Thepm|talk]]) 07:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Looking at your edit history, I can see why you would see my whistleblowing as poor form. In fact, FG is under probation for exactly this sort of bahaviour. [[User:Ratel|<span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄</span>]] 07:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
::<s>Looking at your edit history, I can see why you would see my whistleblowing as poor form.</s> In fact, FG is under probation for exactly this sort of bahaviour. [[User:Ratel|<span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄</span>]] 07:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Thepm is right. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 07:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
:::Thepm is right. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 07:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:29, 25 April 2010
Template:Community article probation
Biography: Science and Academia C‑class | ||||||||||
|
Australia C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Plimerite & Aust'n Humanist of 1995
I think it is worth noting Plimer's work as a skeptic fighting the creationists earlier, and also noting that :
- He has the mineral Plimerite - ZnFe4(PO4)3(OH)3 orthorhombic - named after him.
- Plimer was named ‘Australian Humanist of the Year’ in 1995.
- was president of the Australian Geoscience Council
- Plimer is the Patron of Lifeline (Broken Hill) & Patron of the Broken Hill Geocentre.
- Plimer is a regular communicator / populariser of science esp. geology and skepticism to the public via radio, print & TV.
Source : Page 4 ("About the Author") "Heaven & Earth", Connor Court, 2009. StevoR 124.182.226.16 (talk)
Blogs as Sources
Material being used to impugn Plimer from these two blogs:
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer
- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joss-garman-climate-change-deniers-cost-the-earth-1835058.html
And appears to violate BLP policy. The USGS is not a blog, agreed, however, it's claim, by itself, appears to have no bearing whatsoever on Plimer personally. I have, however, left it in the article. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you aware that blogs under the aegis of major newspapers are regarded differently? The blog in question is written by the Guardian's Environment Editor, James Randerson, and describes an actual interview Randerson conducted with Plimer. This is completely RS. ► RATEL ◄ 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Garman piece is not written by a professional journalist. It's opinion, written by the founder of an environmental group, clearly hostile to the article's subject. It is not treated differently, and it clearly cannot be used in this context. Fell Gleaming(talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further, the statement that volcanic CO2 is one of Plimer's "central hypothesis" is one I couldn't find in the Randerson piece. Did you find that elsewhere, or is it WP:OR ? Fell Gleaming(talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- From the article in The Independent: "an Australian academic whose central thesis involves the assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." Plus, the volcano claim is in many interviews and forms a prominent part of his book. I suggest you read this link to see why this has to go back into the article. [1] ► RATEL ◄ 05:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did the USGS source specifically respond to Plimer? If not, then it can't be used becaue it violates synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the USGS could be seen as a SYN vio. We don't need it. Para can be rephrased .... oh, do I have the time today? ► RATEL ◄ 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did the USGS source specifically respond to Plimer? If not, then it can't be used becaue it violates synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- From the article in The Independent: "an Australian academic whose central thesis involves the assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." Plus, the volcano claim is in many interviews and forms a prominent part of his book. I suggest you read this link to see why this has to go back into the article. [1] ► RATEL ◄ 05:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not really better. Especially since it gives a huge possible variation for the Eyja event, the Eyja event has a huge anount of SO2, and the twin volcano, if it erupts, will give off an order of magnitude more gas. Still too much SYN at best for a BLP, though not as much for other articles. Collect (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- It does contain a section that is directly related to Plimers claim:
- Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:
- It does contain a section that is directly related to Plimers claim:
- The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.
- And contains a direct answer from UGSC to Plimers claim:
- Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:
- I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.
- These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja - and since they are directly connecting Plimers claim and USGS - there is certainly no synthesis. We can discuss the reliability of the reference for this kind of information - but a synthesis it is not. (the "central" part seems to be synthesis though) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Nothing to do with Eyja"?
- The central part is from the Garman piece in The Independent. ► RATEL ◄ 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption
- The entire article is premised on Eyja. And on an assumption that oits peak output of CO@ is 300K tons/day -- based on the twin which presumably emited 3 million tons/day when it last erupted (roughly a factor of 10 according to a number of sources). So, yes, the entry is SYN and, at best, is the opinion of the author and not "fact" per se. Moreover, this is a BLP and subject to rather more stringent requirements than other articles, as you have stated before <g>. [3] Icelandic volcanoes are noted for SO2 emissions more than CO2 emissions, and one case a bit over two centuries ago is the "gold standard" for volcanoes. Collect (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss out a comma in the sentence of mine that you quote - and the subsequent sentence which changes the meaning of that first sentence? The subject of Eyja is used as a pretext to addressing Plimer's (and other sceptics) claim about Volcanoes and CO2 - it is not an article about Eyja. The question of synthesis - and the question of whether the reference is reliable for this kind of information - are two different aspects. I'm addressing the one on synthesis (which it isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I missed no commas at all. I quoted your post exactly. The article, moreover, is quite specifically about Eyja - as the heading indicates fairly clearly. Unless, of course, one thinks that the headings of news articles have nothing to do with the articles as a rule <g>. And when you mention "commas" be sure that you used them. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, you didn't quote me exactly - you cherry-picked some words from my comment - here is the whole sentence, with the important (and missing in your quote) part bolded: "These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja". (and then i quote two paragraphs - which do not have anything to do with Eyja...)
- No, the article is not "quite specifically about Eyja" - and the subheading from it tells you so, rather well: "Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption" - Or in other words: The Eyja eruption makes this a good occasion to address sceptic nonsense. And that is what the article is about.
- And of course titles cannot be used (as a rule) as reliable sources - one shouldn't at all use them in text in any article. Headlines are typically written after editorial review - and purely for sensationalist purposes, and are thus often misleading as to the content of an article.
- Finally i used commas to make you look rather more specifically than just a glance (hmmm - where is that ....) ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I missed no commas at all. I quoted your post exactly. The article, moreover, is quite specifically about Eyja - as the heading indicates fairly clearly. Unless, of course, one thinks that the headings of news articles have nothing to do with the articles as a rule <g>. And when you mention "commas" be sure that you used them. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Did you miss out a comma in the sentence of mine that you quote - and the subsequent sentence which changes the meaning of that first sentence? The subject of Eyja is used as a pretext to addressing Plimer's (and other sceptics) claim about Volcanoes and CO2 - it is not an article about Eyja. The question of synthesis - and the question of whether the reference is reliable for this kind of information - are two different aspects. I'm addressing the one on synthesis (which it isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Nothing to do with Eyja"?
Plimerite
Has this received any coverage in any RS? Google news archives show zero hits. I've taken it out of the lede. ► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Mineralogical Magazine; February 2009; v. 73; no. 1; p. 131-148; DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2009.073.1.131 and Mindat - Plimerite
- Agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Unreliable source?" tags not appropriate
Cadae has tagged 2 sources as "unreliable". If you read the paragraph, you'll see that the source preceding the 2 that are tagged is the transcript of the actual debate, and from reading that it is clear that the rest of the paragraph is accurate — based on that transcript. The Guardian sources were included as confirmation of what happened, in case one or another source goes dead. But to call the sources "unreliable" when they are completely reliable for the text in the article is absurd. If we'd inserted "...and Plimer was made to look like an utter fool" and cited the Guardian columns, then you may have a point, but not as it stands. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- They are unreliable, you are using monbiot`s blog to assert something monbiot said in an argument between both parties. The second is also unreliable as it is just a copy and paste of monbiots earlier column. Not very reliable at all, in fact as monbiot is essentially a blog should he even be used in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- The transcript is certainly a reliable source, and so is the debate itself. And that is enough to verify the text in the sentence. Whether Monbiot is a reliable source, here, is a grey zone.... The column/blog wouldn't be reliable for personal information - but they may be for the information cited here (which isn't BLP material), since it is relating to claims in the book and the subsequent debate. Since Monbiot was a participant in that debate, he is certainly a reliable source to some information on that debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further reading here seems to show that the Monbiot references are used as extra sources to the information, and for that the references are certainly reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Monbiot was not merely a participant in that debate, he was Ian Plimer's opponent in the debate. To cite the blog of that opponent stretches credulity - wikipedia should be seen to be using reliable sources - the blog from an opponent is clearly biased. A reader would have no idea whether or not Monbiot has cherry-picked parts of the debate or not. A cite from an unbiased source would be fine. Cadae (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Cadae -- this seems clearcut. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- That would be the case if the actual transcript were not available, but it is, so there is no "cherry-picking", as even we, as editors, can see. As Plimer's interlocutor in the debate, Monbiot's views are very pertinent and using his column at the Guardian as a source is perfectly acceptable, especially since we are not using the source to justify the inclusion of anything controversial or contentious. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Monbiot was not merely a participant in that debate, he was Ian Plimer's opponent in the debate. To cite the blog of that opponent stretches credulity - wikipedia should be seen to be using reliable sources - the blog from an opponent is clearly biased. A reader would have no idea whether or not Monbiot has cherry-picked parts of the debate or not. A cite from an unbiased source would be fine. Cadae (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Rv: why
I reverted [4]. It looks OK to me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it, what makes you think that such an opinionated editorial from a greenpeace activist is a balanced citation to add opinion from? Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm particularly surprised, as there is already an open discussion on this issue above, and William has personally removed many edits citing the "blogs as sources" objection. Fell Gleaming(talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Um, Off2riorob, even BLP does not require - or even allow - us to turn articles into hagiographies. There's absolutely nothing in policy that says we can only cite neutral sources. In fact, that's a clear contradiction of policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot cite blog entries of random advocates as fact. You're welcome to use Garman's opinion, but you must attribute it to him. You cannot express his claims as gospel fact, especially when he is admittedly hostile to the article's subject. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Blog entry? Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, it's Garman reporting Schmidt's opinion. It's not Garman reporting his own opinion. It would be incorrect to report Schmidt's opinion as Garman's. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I do not have a problem with the reliability but something supported only by this source is screaming lack of notability to me. There is already a better supported refutation given. Anyone prepared to swear we haven't included it to dis the subject and because we like it rather than on a balanced basis? --BozMo talk 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the material because the rationale for removal was itself fallacious. From the perspective of balance, Plimer's hypothesis seems very fringe, and added material adds balance. Because Plimer's not a terribly notable character himself, it's probably a challenge to find a way to stating this that doesn't create UNDUE problems. But the whole section is badly presented (probably because it has been sliced and diced in a variety of fights). Rewritten with enough context for the average reader to understand, and the problem probably disappears. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The EPA statement that Plimer's claim had no factual basis is, after all, an argument from authority, just like Schmidt's. What this section needs to do is to briefly explain, and link to, the real role of volcanism. Then arguments from authority are irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the material because the rationale for removal was itself fallacious. From the perspective of balance, Plimer's hypothesis seems very fringe, and added material adds balance. Because Plimer's not a terribly notable character himself, it's probably a challenge to find a way to stating this that doesn't create UNDUE problems. But the whole section is badly presented (probably because it has been sliced and diced in a variety of fights). Rewritten with enough context for the average reader to understand, and the problem probably disappears. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I do not have a problem with the reliability but something supported only by this source is screaming lack of notability to me. There is already a better supported refutation given. Anyone prepared to swear we haven't included it to dis the subject and because we like it rather than on a balanced basis? --BozMo talk 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot cite blog entries of random advocates as fact. You're welcome to use Garman's opinion, but you must attribute it to him. You cannot express his claims as gospel fact, especially when he is admittedly hostile to the article's subject. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not our job to explain why Plimer is wrong and link to sections/articles that show he is wrong. That's becoming SYN/OR-ish. The EPA, Schmidt, Monbiot and the USGS seem to have done all the work for us, and they should all be mentioned in the article. Plimer's views are just way out there, faaaar from any scientific consensus (see wp:FRINGE). There's no hiding it. That is the balanced view the article needs to take, the protestations of our fellow denialist editors notwithstanding. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want a direct refutation of the Plimer claims, try [5] or [6]. Also this is what the US Geological Survey says: “Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes”. [7] All this documented at realclimate and desmogblog and Media Matters (a RS, BTW) ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. The entire reason newspapers separate op-ed pieces from straight reporting is that such pieces are allowed to contain opinions. Things which are not well-established fact. Reputable print sources are scrupulous in maintaining this separation, for that very reason. Further, the problem of using Source A for a claim about Plimer, and Source B for a claim about volcanoes, then combining them into Claim C about Plimer and volcanoes, is classic WP:Synthesis.
- Er ... we have numerous sources saying Plimer is wrong on this issue, no SYN or OR reqd. Schmidt, for example, is an area expert and his "opinions" (actually, his re-statement of scientific FACTS) are completely usable. ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- And here is another direct refutation from a true area expert's own website (this man, Prof Barry Brook, works in the same building at the same university as Plimer). [8] Scan page for "volcano". ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- '"no SYN or OR reqd...here is another source"' -- Wonderful. You see, when we challenge and throw out unreliable sources for facts that are correct, we ultimately wind up with much better ones, which improves the article as a whole. There's no need to rely on shaky opinion pieces for things like this. Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- And here is another direct refutation from a true area expert's own website (this man, Prof Barry Brook, works in the same building at the same university as Plimer). [8] Scan page for "volcano". ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Volcanoes & CO2 section
I've copyedited this a bit to conform to the sources provided. However, the section doesn't really make sense to this (occasional) vulcanologist. It would be far better to cite the relevant USGS (or whatever) study. I'll have a look as time (and health) permits. The problem is, volcanic emissions come in BIG bursts, and there haven't been any really large eruptions since Keeling started tracking CO2. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Guardian columnist(s): it's not that simple. First, there's disagreement re the "average" volcano CO2 emit rate: for instance, Volcano World notes that volcanoes contribute 3% (vs the Guardian's quoted 0.75%) annually. Further, the anthropogenic contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 content is under 20%, per the same article, both items referenced to Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates. Preindustrial: 2.2X10^15 kg CO2. 1990 or so: 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Arguably, most of the pre-industrial CO2 was of volcanic origin.
I don't see the USGS reference you mentioned in our article. It's quite possible all the figures quoted in the article were muddled by the reporters. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 objects to USGS on grounds of WP:SYN. Tillman prefers USGS as the ultimate source for the science. Can the two of you work it out? The text as it presently stands is extremely awkward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- My problem is that the entire section seems to be being given far too much weight. We have one journalist who claims this is one of Plimer's "central tenets", yet it seems to occupy a small part of his book, and is only ever brought up by people who want to embarrass him. Fell Gleaming(talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a large part of his book and his thinking (I've read the book). It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then why do the article sources not show that? All I see is someone bringing it up to badger Plimer with; I don't see him advancing it himself. Hipocrite's edit here actually looks quite good. The who debate is growing far out of bounds for the size of the article. Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a large part of his book and his thinking (I've read the book). It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I have fixed the USGS ref. The page is http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php, the quote is "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes." Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Tendentious editing
This section on the page is being whittled away on specious grounds by tendentious editing. The section is not UNDUE, the thesis is central to Plimer's thinking (whether you think it is or not is immaterial, since others have said it is in RSes), it's been mentioned in many, many RS articles on Plimer, and it's been strongly refuted by the EPA and by climate scientists. That is not going to be expunged from the article. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have one op-ed piece claiming its "central" to Plimer's thinking-- and that one by a journalist hostile to him. I don't see any others at present. As of now, it appears to be an issue dredged up and given undue weight simply to diss Plimer. Fell Gleaming(talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can provide many sources that discuss the issue, proving that it is not given undue weight. I suggest you go through the sources I provide at the Google News link above. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- A source that "discusses the issue" is not a source that demonstrates its "central" to Plimer's thinking. Fell Gleaming(talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say that the volcano stuff is "central" to Plimer's thinking, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- A source that "discusses the issue" is not a source that demonstrates its "central" to Plimer's thinking. Fell Gleaming(talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can provide many sources that discuss the issue, proving that it is not given undue weight. I suggest you go through the sources I provide at the Google News link above. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the sources, and they appear to be legit to me. They specificially address Plimer, so no SYN is occurring as far as I can tell. I changed the wording a little so that it wouldn't look like the article is taking a side. If someone wants to, they could try to add a little more on Plimer's reasoning behind his volcano hypothesis in that section. I have Plimer's book, so if I ever find the time I might do so. Or, Ratel could do it since he also has the book. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I pared this down a little before I saw your comment here. I trimmed out the last sentence because people have complained about WP:WEIGHT; since the preceding text gives a good overview of the matter, the last sentence didn't seem necessary. But anyone who feels strongly about it can put it back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I think it's important to spell out "U.S. Geological Survey" instead of using the acronym "USGS" as an aid to nonspecialist readers, so if anyone reverts I ask that you keep that.
- I don't think losing the Schmidt and Brook sentence was a good idea. Now Cla68 has made it look like this whole silly volcano dispute is a plot by The Guardian's lefty journalists to unhorse their denialist poster boy. Here's the sentence I think should stay:
- I pared this down a little before I saw your comment here. I trimmed out the last sentence because people have complained about WP:WEIGHT; since the preceding text gives a good overview of the matter, the last sentence didn't seem necessary. But anyone who feels strongly about it can put it back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I think it's important to spell out "U.S. Geological Survey" instead of using the acronym "USGS" as an aid to nonspecialist readers, so if anyone reverts I ask that you keep that.
- Climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Barry Brook both stated that Plimer's statements in this respect are fallacious.[1][2][3]
- Unless there are cogent reasons expressed as to why this shouldn't go back in, I'll reinsert it. To Tillman, we cannot put all the arguments about global warming on the book page, because this issue is bigger than the book and spans many years and many interviews and many articles written by Plimer. ► RATEL ◄ 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:Weight question and comment re USGS ref
I haven't been following this article closely -- I was surprised to see the volcano bit given its own subsection.
Ratel, you claim that the volcano argument is "a large part of his book and his thinking... It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews."
If this is so,
- A) why isn't this in the book section (and article)? Volcano CO2 isn't even mentioned in our article on Plimer's book.
- B) why not quote and cite the book & these RS's -- over there?
The USGS article (now cited, thanks) itself has dodgy arithmetic. Working the arithmetic on the numbers they provide, I came up with volcanic contribs between 0.54% - 0.85%/yr. The USGS article says the volcanic contribution is less than 1/130, or 0.77%. Odd. Anyway, here in the real world, big volcanic eruptions cool the climate (temporarily) -- even if (as did Pinatubo, ims) they temporarily exceed the anthro CO2 emit rate.
This volcano bit should be added (briefly) to the book article, as yet another Plimer "blooper", I think. With maybe a line in the book summary here in Plimer's wikibio -- certainly not overweighted as its own subsection. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- This edit does violate SYN because the USGS source is not specifically in response to Plimer's position. I'm going to revert that edit and give Hipocrite a warning on his user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked Ratel before to back up his claim that this is a "central" part of Plimer's thinking. So far he's failed to do so. Plenty of Plimer's critics have written about it...but that's a different kettle of fish entirely. Fell Gleaming(talk) 06:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- There are plenty of refs. Apart from the central placement of the claim in the book, and the statement in The Independent that this is a central theme, we have from Media Matters (a RS according to the RS noticeboard): :But in the article, one of Plimer's central claims about CO2 emissions is false. Telegraph: Plimer says "[w]e cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes." The November 11 Telegraph article says that Plimer "argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles" and that "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting." " That's pretty clear evidence. ► RATEL ◄ 07:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming
Will someone please report this editor? He is constantly trying to damage the article, summarily removing large swathes of text for no good reason, for example removing the Barry Brook website source as "shaky" (Brook is an expert on the topic of climate change). I can't keep reverting him without running foul of restrictions. ► RATEL ◄ 06:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's poor form to post this here. You should either take it up with the editor on their talk page or go to ANI (or wherever). Not here. Thepm (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- ^ "RealClimate: Plimer's homework assignment". www.realclimate.org. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
- ^ "Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth « BraveNewClimate". bravenewclimate.com. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
- ^ "Joss Garman: Climate change deniers cost the earth - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent". www.independent.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-12-06.