KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) partial revert. Do not remove comments from the context that they are in reply to. |
KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) m →No statistically significant warming since 1995: insert arbitrary section break |
||
Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
:::::I agree, but I've not really written a huge amount here. I am just trying to express my view that Lindzen is notable for ''both'' his science ''and'' for his contrarianism, and to challenge the assertion that certain of his purported views are being presented here out of context. Anyway, I think I'll try to look more at the article than here. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|P<small>LUMBAGO</small>]] 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
:::::I agree, but I've not really written a huge amount here. I am just trying to express my view that Lindzen is notable for ''both'' his science ''and'' for his contrarianism, and to challenge the assertion that certain of his purported views are being presented here out of context. Anyway, I think I'll try to look more at the article than here. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|P<small>LUMBAGO</small>]] 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
=== arbitrary section break === |
|||
''given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight.'' is wrong. As others have said, L's contrarianism is why he is publicly known. This is a fairly clear example of it, so is good to include. There are no BLP issues left: it is clearly something he wants to say and wants people to hear. P has suggested that ''I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. '' and this would be one excellent example. |
''given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight.'' is wrong. As others have said, L's contrarianism is why he is publicly known. This is a fairly clear example of it, so is good to include. There are no BLP issues left: it is clearly something he wants to say and wants people to hear. P has suggested that ''I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. '' and this would be one excellent example. |
Revision as of 08:27, 5 March 2010
Template:Community article probation
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
625:1472 argument continued, comparing with Einstein
Okay, but you haven't even tried to address any of the fundamental objections made above. Sure, we can tweak the article this way or that way, and that will certainly keep the status quo happy, but adding some publications is never going to actually restore any balance here. We have touched on a philosophical question, I suppose, what does "balance" even mean anyway? One answer might be, "If you don't already know, you shouldn't be writing an historical article about a living person, end of story." Certainly, WP:NPOV is not very useful on what "balance" actually means.
Let me illustrate the, frankly pretty obvious, problem with balance here in yet a new way.
Those who are using this page and forum to discredit Prof. Lindzen have argued that anything appearing in reliable sources (e.g. contrarianism, alleged views on health risks from smoking, the Exxon myth) is fair game for inclusion. So an obvious question arises, if anyone truly believes that "weight" must be interpreted in terms of "volume of coverage in mainstream media": how would you write Albert Einstein's article then?
Now, because Einstein is not controversial, and there's no Wikipedia climate change gang out to get him, his biography is pretty good, and they've got the balance about right: we see 9037 words for his work and career against a section of 1050 words devoted to his mistakes. As I said earlier, I think that's about the right balance for Lindzen's career & work against a "mistakes" section, or a "discredit his stance on GW" section.
Now let us think about Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics. Einstein stubbornly rejected the quantum theory till the end of his life, just as Lindzen apparently stubbornly rejects the anthropogenic global warming "theory". Okay, so I see a small section there on the EPR paradox, and one line in the mistakes section.
Now what about mainstream media coverage of Einstein? Well, I'll bet there were a few stories on Prof. Einstein run by the Nazis during the second world war! But, unsurprisingly, I don't find any of these covered here. Why is that? According to the WP climate change department, we should skew our coverage to whatever happens to appear in the mainstream media, and we can't do anything about it; obviously that is a bogus argument, and there is plenty that we can, and should, and outside of greenwashing climate change skeptics, that's exactly what we always do do in biographies, here in Wikipedia.
So again, I return to the fundamental lack of balance: 625 words for Lindzen's career against 1472 words to discrediting his stance on GW is wrong. It is wrong on a number of levels, e.g. ethically; professionally, but at the end of the day, it is wrong on that in your face, obvious way. Indeed, if you watch the above conversation carefully, even Kim D. Petersen admitted at one point that it was wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- An interesting comparison. The 1472 includes a clear statement of Lindzen's views, followed by (normally shorter) statements from supporters of the mainstream poistion. By contrast, not only does Albert Einstein contain a large section explicitly devoted to "Einstein's mistakes", but the exposition section on his work and career is studded with criticism, for example, "he Entwurf ("draft") theory was the result of these investigations. As its name suggests, it was a sketch of a theory, with the equations of motion supplemented by additional gauge fixing conditions. Simultaneously less elegant and more difficult than general relativity, Einstein abandoned the theory after realizing that the hole argument was mistaken." "The use of non-covariant objects like pseudotensors was heavily criticized in 1917 by Erwin Schrödinger and others." "Mainstream physics, in turn, largely ignored Einstein’s approaches to unification" and quite a few more.
- Bearing in mind that the vast majority of climate scientists think that Lindzen is wrong on the most important questions relating to climate change while the opposite, obviously, is true of Einstein, I'd say Lindzen gets treated very favorably here. But we could reasonably summarize the facts, and get the ratios right on your account if we replaced the whole 1472 words with 25 words, something like "Lindzen has expressed views critical of the scientific consensus on climate change. The majority of climate scientists regard Lindzen's criticism as baseless and misconceived."JQ (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- John, I would be very happy that replacing the 1472 with the 25 words you suggest would be a positive step in the right direction, and is more or less exactly what I proposed myself several weeks ago. That said, I'm not sure that you've fully understood that the 1472 words includes the contrarianism section you recently added, as well as the "speaker fees" section. Could you clarify this? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, a section titled "Expert witness fees and expenses" is undue weight and COATRACK. The material (shortened) can be included in "Media Appearances".Momento (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, that won't help. The material is simply irrelevant, and can be deleted. That's the whole point. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alex, to use another analogy, wouldn't this be rather like a version of Ronald Reagan which gave a detailed filmography, discussion of his acting career and so on, then ended with "After leaving Hollywood, Reagan played a controversial role in California and US politics". Lindzen is certainly a respected climatologist and expansion of this part of the article would be good, but his primary fame is as a critic of the scientific consensus on climate change, one of a handful with genuine climate science qualifications. Unsurprisingly, his adherence to such a minority viewpoint has led to criticism, including scrutiny of his motives, and this also can't be ignored. FWIW, I think the witness fee stuff has undue weight in the current version. JQ (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems it needs to be refuted yet again, as it has been repeated yet again - there are not 1472 words in this article criticizing Lindzen - the number include statements of Lindzen's own beliefs and praise of his effect on the climate debate. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- JQ, I'll have to just ignore the Reagan comparison. Responding to your second point, what someone happens to be "famous" for to the uneducated masses is not what encyclopaedias are written for. Lindzen is notable per WP:PROF so we follow the guidelines there. Then, WP:NOT#NEWS states clearly that most events that are newsworthy are not encyclopaedia-worthy.
- Brian, I have responded several times to the very weak argument that because some of these 1472 words happen to expose Lindzen's view, the section as a whole is therefore not devoted to discrediting his views on global warming. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems it needs to be refuted yet again, as it has been repeated yet again - there are not 1472 words in this article criticizing Lindzen - the number include statements of Lindzen's own beliefs and praise of his effect on the climate debate. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, a section titled "Expert witness fees and expenses" is undue weight and COATRACK. The material (shortened) can be included in "Media Appearances".Momento (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- John, I would be very happy that replacing the 1472 with the 25 words you suggest would be a positive step in the right direction, and is more or less exactly what I proposed myself several weeks ago. That said, I'm not sure that you've fully understood that the 1472 words includes the contrarianism section you recently added, as well as the "speaker fees" section. Could you clarify this? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOT#NEWS: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
So the idea that "scrutiny of Lindzen's motives ... can't be ignored" is precisely wrong; there is, on the contrary, no policy in Wikipedia that says we can investigate a living person's motives. Gelbspan's investigation of Lindzen's motives in the 1990s failed the test of time. He wanted us to believe that Lindzen was in the pay of fossil fuel, but he got it wrong. The fact that he was wrong should mean that it now has zero weight. No one believes Lindzen has any connection with fossil fuel, here in 2010, or even that he had any in 1995, so the guideline is crystal clear: this stuff stays out. Yet here we are... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alex were in the article does it say he is in the pay of fossil fuel companys? i can`t see that anywere. --mark nutley (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere does it say that he is, presently, in the pay of fossil fuel. What the article says (after Momento's recent change) is, Gelbspan claimed Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[34] was underwritten by OPEC."[35][31] According to Juliet Eilperin the fact that Lindzen was paid expenses, "doesn't mean he's on anybody's payroll. He charges for his speeches, but so do prominent scientists who disagree with him about climate change."[25] According to Alex Beam of the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that he charged expenses and expert witness fees in the 1990s but had not done so since.[36] The point is, the Gelbspan piece is flawed, and it is therefore unreliable, and it should not be used. I suppose, worse than this true, but irrelevant story, of accepting some speaking fees, is the probably-false story that his paper was underwritten by OPEC. That is, I believe, nonsense. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alex, how do you know that the "Gelbspan piece is flawed, and it is therefore unreliable"? As we've discussed many times, the information that Lindzen has been payed by "fossil-types" is repeated in so many places, that it has significant weight. Personally (as i've also said many times) i think that this is rather irrelevant (and trivial amounts), but unfortunately the weight is against us redacting it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere does it say that he is, presently, in the pay of fossil fuel. What the article says (after Momento's recent change) is, Gelbspan claimed Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[34] was underwritten by OPEC."[35][31] According to Juliet Eilperin the fact that Lindzen was paid expenses, "doesn't mean he's on anybody's payroll. He charges for his speeches, but so do prominent scientists who disagree with him about climate change."[25] According to Alex Beam of the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that he charged expenses and expert witness fees in the 1990s but had not done so since.[36] The point is, the Gelbspan piece is flawed, and it is therefore unreliable, and it should not be used. I suppose, worse than this true, but irrelevant story, of accepting some speaking fees, is the probably-false story that his paper was underwritten by OPEC. That is, I believe, nonsense. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well [31] can`t be used, it is an op-ed which gets its info from dieoff.orgwhich got it`s info from exxon secrets.org. Who the hell used that as a reliable source? I`ll check the others later tonight --mark nutley (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the PBS Frontline page, then it most certainly isn't an Op-Ed. As for where they got the information, that is rather irrelevant, since it is the PBS editorial oversight that is the definition on whether it is a reliable source on the information or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Profiles of five prominent global warming skepticsby Oriana Zill de Granados, it is certainly an op-ed and if they get their info from exxonsecrets.org and dieoff.org the nthey are not an acceptable source. How you can argue otherwise is beyond me --mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- How on earth are you defining Op-ed then? de Granados is an investigative journalist. If the PBS's editorial oversight has OK'd the information, then it is rather irrelevant where it stems from (even accepting your assertion), information is not 'bad' because it once touched a non-RS site. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Profiles of five prominent global warming skepticsby Oriana Zill de Granados, it is certainly an op-ed and if they get their info from exxonsecrets.org and dieoff.org the nthey are not an acceptable source. How you can argue otherwise is beyond me --mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bull, Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org your telling me that is reliable? --mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, so you are saying that "weight" is "volume of news coverage"; is that correct? As for why I said the Gelbspan piece is flawed, please read it again. AFAIK, Gelbspan is the only source claiming that Lindzen had a paper underwritten by OPEC. I do not believe this story is true. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just a moment, 35 links to the same source were de grandos got his material from which is 31, and that is a copy and paste from ross gelbspan harpers magazine That die off site again this looks like a blatant copyright violation to me, what do you think guys? --mark nutley (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Alex, No, Gelbspan is not the only source for this, you once made the claim once that all references could be traced back to Gelbspan, but that is WP:OR. As for weight, yes, but not only "news coverage" - coverage in general, and as you well know this has been referenced in both PR papers and in books. What you believe or not, has no relevance, unless you can build a case for it with reliable sources.
- Mark, i think you should attempt to take that "Bull" to WP:RS/N, since it would be a great surprise to me if you are correct. Editorial oversight in the reference given is the basis for WP:RS. Information does not get "tainted" by having been quoted from, or duplicated at, a non-WP:RS site. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I may have to, however the link to harpers magazine is not a link to harpers magazine, (ref 31) it is to a copy and paste job on the dieoff site linked above, is this not a copyright violation? --mark nutley (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, if weight means "volume of news coverage", then explain to me what WP:NOT#NEWS means. Explain to me how we are to interpret the guideline that most news worthy events are not encyclopaedia worthy if you take "volume of news coverage" as your definition of weight. Forget about whether news happens to appear in a book or a PR paper, because that's irrelevant, and doesn't change the fact that it was news. Go a step further, and explain why I shouldn't include Nazi propaganda in Einstein's article, if I apply your interpretation of our coverage. I'm sure there were a few good book references to Einstein by some diligent German authors during the war. I remind you, you have just admitted that Gelbspan story itself, in your opinion, doesn't intrinsically carry any weight, but that your hands are supposedly tied, you claim, by Wikipedia's strict guidelines. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- So why the silence here? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lets see.... Because you failed to read and understand what i wrote? ... or could it be... because you failed to understand that my personal views is not the same as WP:WEIGHT? Let me repeat: WP:WEIGHT is proportial weight of coverage in reliable sources (i'm not speaking about newspapers at all). NOTNEWS means that we shouldn't include an item just because it is a headline in current news, we go for the long-term view, and with this in mind, you may want to notice that the coverage here is over a long period of time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have not only read what you wrote, I have fully understood what you said, and demonstrated the same understanding in my response. I asked you, yes or no, does weight mean "volume of news coverage" or doesn't it? You said, and I quote, "Y-E-S". You then qualified your answer by extending it to all "reliable sources," but the fact that you said, "Y-E-S", suggests that you mean to consider news coverage to be somehow the most important of reliable sources. You then go on to completely get WP:NOT#NEWS wrong. That is not what NOTNEWS says at all. Please read it again, as I have quoted the guideline verbatim for you above. It mentions breaking news, which you say it is completely about, only in passing. NOTNEWS is about NEWS IN GENERAL. Wikipedia is not meant to be skewed towards news coverage, period. That's what the guideline says. Will you agree to this? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, Alex. I do not consider news the "most important of reliable sources", that is why i used a "comma" instead of a "period". News is one type of reliable source, and one which isn't terribly reliable on science. Peer-reviewed journals are another type of reliable source. Books are a third type of reliable source. All have their strong and weak sides. Is it clear now?
- Not news is not about news in general, but about short news-bursts. It is about not including the latest news-cycle, but waiting for the news to settle, so that we can determine the how enduring and notable a particular event or information is. That is not the case here. It isn't just a short news-burst, but something that has been turned and turned several times, in various different reliable sources, be it newspapers, social science papers, books and tv. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The policy doesn't say anything at all about short news bursts. That is entirely your personal interpretation. Can you agree that there is nothing in the policy that mentions short news bursts? Can you also agree to the proposition that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. You do understand what is meant by "most" right? Most means most. So, you have here an entire section (Expert witness fees) based exclusively on a 15 year old news report. The story itself is dead, and you admitted that it is probably, in itself, irrelevant. You agree, therefore, by implication, that this section is inevitably going to mislead any newcomer to the life of Richard Lindzen. Now, of these sources you claim to be reliable, the first one is Oriana Zill de Granados, PBS. You have puffed this up above as "investigative journalism", but ignored Mark Nutley's valid point that it is entirely devoid of any original content. It steals in its entirety from earlier sources, namely, ExxonSecrets, which is really Greenpeace, and Ross Gelbspan. Clearly, what you are calling "investigative journalism" is in fact rehashed news. Your second source is Ross Gelbspan, which I have argued is flawed journalism, and given good reasons. I.e. Gelbspan is not willing to share his sources, he doesn't give his sources in the article, but merely asserts this (=bad scholarship) such that there is no reason, as a good scholar, to believe this part of the story (that OPEC underwrote a paper). You can play dumb if you like, but anyone who reads the paper in question can see that it is Lindzen's original views. It is obvious. Thus, the OPEC wrote it story is completely implausible. It all likelihood, Gelbspan got this wrong. So, anyway, true or false, we so far have one single news story holding up an entire section. This pays spite to our guideline NOTNEWS. The remainder of the sources given in the section only provide counterpoint but not content and thus cannot in any way be used to justify the existence of the section in the first place. So I ask you, how do you stretch all this to conclude that this has been, I quote, "something that has been turned and turned several times, in various different reliable sources, be it newspapers, social science papers, books and tv." Show me evidence of this please. The story is agreed by all, now, to have no relevance. You have agreed yourself that is has no relevance. Here, in 2010, we have old news that no one takes seriously any more. Please explain this, because it doesn't square with your professed for including it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've said it before and i will say it again: The whole "based exclusively on a 15 year old news report" is WP:OR. It is your guess, which may or may not be correct. The story is not "dead", since it is repeated again and again. I'm sorry, but i'm not "puffing" anything up. It is a WP:RS and it is written by an investigative reporter, thus carries weight (especially combined with other sources). You can argue as much as you want that Gelbspan is "flawed journalism", that won't make it so. Please differentiate between your personal opinion (which is not based on WP:RS), and what we can find in reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS is about "enduring notability of persons and events", this item is enduring (btw. the enduring part is the one about short-news bursts). It is not about "a single story", its about whether a story has enduring properties... ie. gets repeated, has long "life-time". (lots of notable events are "single stories" - think abit about that). And finally: No i have not agreed that it has no relevance, i'll repeat it again: What i personally think, has no bearing on what is and isn't relevant. Weight is weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, in order to respond to all the incorrect and self contradictory statements above I'd have to write several paragraphs. Let's keep it simple: you say the Gelbspan allegations carry weight based on volume of reliable sources. You say, "it gets repeated"; it has a "long 'life-time'." Let's ignore the back-pedalling on whether or not you yourself believe the story has intrinsic weight. The main point I made is the same point you ignored: The entire section, presently, is propped up by two sources, one of which is, actually, just a copy & paste job of the first one, and that's what you're calling investigative journalism. Fine, let's call it that. Since the section has so much weight -- by your own, incorrect definition of what weight is -- it is incumbent on you, now, as the editor vying for inclusion of this contentious material, to show us this weighty slab of reliable sources that gives the story its weight. Can you please do that before we continue, because I don't know what they are. I am aware of only these two that are in the article. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- only "Gelbspan" == WP:OR. Only one source == WP:OR. Cut'n'paste == WP:OR. You are repeating your personal opinion, you have no idea if any of these sources have verified the information themselves - None. You are simply assuming things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [and just another correction: I have never said that i don't believe the information. Read my comments again. Stop assuming.] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Answer the question. Please. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mu (negative). Question malformed, based on incorrect assumptions, too many fingers on keyboard error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, please either produce sources as evidence for weight or admit that you only know of the two that are presently in the article. Or, agree to leave this article alone if you feel you are above having to produce evidence for the contentious material you have restored to this BLP. Thank you. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe i have, in one of the many many threads you've started on this so far. (and strangely enough i know that you know that this information is repeated in many reliable sources) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is "I believe I have" supposed to mean? I have gone through the archives, and you haven't. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe i have, in one of the many many threads you've started on this so far. (and strangely enough i know that you know that this information is repeated in many reliable sources) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, please either produce sources as evidence for weight or admit that you only know of the two that are presently in the article. Or, agree to leave this article alone if you feel you are above having to produce evidence for the contentious material you have restored to this BLP. Thank you. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Mu (negative). Question malformed, based on incorrect assumptions, too many fingers on keyboard error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Answer the question. Please. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- only "Gelbspan" == WP:OR. Only one source == WP:OR. Cut'n'paste == WP:OR. You are repeating your personal opinion, you have no idea if any of these sources have verified the information themselves - None. You are simply assuming things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [and just another correction: I have never said that i don't believe the information. Read my comments again. Stop assuming.] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, in order to respond to all the incorrect and self contradictory statements above I'd have to write several paragraphs. Let's keep it simple: you say the Gelbspan allegations carry weight based on volume of reliable sources. You say, "it gets repeated"; it has a "long 'life-time'." Let's ignore the back-pedalling on whether or not you yourself believe the story has intrinsic weight. The main point I made is the same point you ignored: The entire section, presently, is propped up by two sources, one of which is, actually, just a copy & paste job of the first one, and that's what you're calling investigative journalism. Fine, let's call it that. Since the section has so much weight -- by your own, incorrect definition of what weight is -- it is incumbent on you, now, as the editor vying for inclusion of this contentious material, to show us this weighty slab of reliable sources that gives the story its weight. Can you please do that before we continue, because I don't know what they are. I am aware of only these two that are in the article. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've said it before and i will say it again: The whole "based exclusively on a 15 year old news report" is WP:OR. It is your guess, which may or may not be correct. The story is not "dead", since it is repeated again and again. I'm sorry, but i'm not "puffing" anything up. It is a WP:RS and it is written by an investigative reporter, thus carries weight (especially combined with other sources). You can argue as much as you want that Gelbspan is "flawed journalism", that won't make it so. Please differentiate between your personal opinion (which is not based on WP:RS), and what we can find in reliable sources. WP:NOTNEWS is about "enduring notability of persons and events", this item is enduring (btw. the enduring part is the one about short-news bursts). It is not about "a single story", its about whether a story has enduring properties... ie. gets repeated, has long "life-time". (lots of notable events are "single stories" - think abit about that). And finally: No i have not agreed that it has no relevance, i'll repeat it again: What i personally think, has no bearing on what is and isn't relevant. Weight is weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The policy doesn't say anything at all about short news bursts. That is entirely your personal interpretation. Can you agree that there is nothing in the policy that mentions short news bursts? Can you also agree to the proposition that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. You do understand what is meant by "most" right? Most means most. So, you have here an entire section (Expert witness fees) based exclusively on a 15 year old news report. The story itself is dead, and you admitted that it is probably, in itself, irrelevant. You agree, therefore, by implication, that this section is inevitably going to mislead any newcomer to the life of Richard Lindzen. Now, of these sources you claim to be reliable, the first one is Oriana Zill de Granados, PBS. You have puffed this up above as "investigative journalism", but ignored Mark Nutley's valid point that it is entirely devoid of any original content. It steals in its entirety from earlier sources, namely, ExxonSecrets, which is really Greenpeace, and Ross Gelbspan. Clearly, what you are calling "investigative journalism" is in fact rehashed news. Your second source is Ross Gelbspan, which I have argued is flawed journalism, and given good reasons. I.e. Gelbspan is not willing to share his sources, he doesn't give his sources in the article, but merely asserts this (=bad scholarship) such that there is no reason, as a good scholar, to believe this part of the story (that OPEC underwrote a paper). You can play dumb if you like, but anyone who reads the paper in question can see that it is Lindzen's original views. It is obvious. Thus, the OPEC wrote it story is completely implausible. It all likelihood, Gelbspan got this wrong. So, anyway, true or false, we so far have one single news story holding up an entire section. This pays spite to our guideline NOTNEWS. The remainder of the sources given in the section only provide counterpoint but not content and thus cannot in any way be used to justify the existence of the section in the first place. So I ask you, how do you stretch all this to conclude that this has been, I quote, "something that has been turned and turned several times, in various different reliable sources, be it newspapers, social science papers, books and tv." Show me evidence of this please. The story is agreed by all, now, to have no relevance. You have agreed yourself that is has no relevance. Here, in 2010, we have old news that no one takes seriously any more. Please explain this, because it doesn't square with your professed for including it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have not only read what you wrote, I have fully understood what you said, and demonstrated the same understanding in my response. I asked you, yes or no, does weight mean "volume of news coverage" or doesn't it? You said, and I quote, "Y-E-S". You then qualified your answer by extending it to all "reliable sources," but the fact that you said, "Y-E-S", suggests that you mean to consider news coverage to be somehow the most important of reliable sources. You then go on to completely get WP:NOT#NEWS wrong. That is not what NOTNEWS says at all. Please read it again, as I have quoted the guideline verbatim for you above. It mentions breaking news, which you say it is completely about, only in passing. NOTNEWS is about NEWS IN GENERAL. Wikipedia is not meant to be skewed towards news coverage, period. That's what the guideline says. Will you agree to this? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lets see.... Because you failed to read and understand what i wrote? ... or could it be... because you failed to understand that my personal views is not the same as WP:WEIGHT? Let me repeat: WP:WEIGHT is proportial weight of coverage in reliable sources (i'm not speaking about newspapers at all). NOTNEWS means that we shouldn't include an item just because it is a headline in current news, we go for the long-term view, and with this in mind, you may want to notice that the coverage here is over a long period of time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This thread continues below... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Gelbspan, de Granados & Lindzen
I have just spent the evening actually reading every single edit Kim D. Petersen has made to the talk pages here to see if I could find evidence to substantiate his above claims that he's produced additional sources before, or why he would assert that he knows that I know they're there, and that I'm not acting in good faith.
This has taken me around three hours.
Now, after making this exhaustive, time consuming search, I can confidently assert that, no, Kim D. Petersen has never, ever produced another source for the oil industry connections other than Gelbspan & de Granados sources that already appear in the article. Instead, what I have found are numerous claims by Kim that there is a huge weight to this story in the literature, but no one has ever called him on this and demanded that he show us the evidence.
So I have now gone even further and started seriously trying to find them myself, and, basically, I can't. There are indeed many websites & blogs like ExxonSecrets, DeSmogBlog, Sourcewatch, and RealClimate, who carry the story -- and they all link it back to Gelbspan (1995, Harper's Magazine) as I have said -- but there are no other mainstream news hits out there.
Kim, I put it to you that this whole thing is in your imagination. Will you please agree that this mountain of sources actually nothing more than lots of internet pages? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Update, this may be wrong if you do a news search throughout all archives on Google. I believe, yes, there may have been some news activity around the mid 1990s on this one, and the odd book reference to it. Still, I haven't been able to find a reliable source so far, but a bit of searching will probably produce a few more sources for it. What I did find was this, though: Gelbspan ABC interview. In that interview, Gelbspan explains why there are no sources -- this whole story, I now find, is allegedly based on Lindzen's word of mouth. Gelbspan is reporting what Lindzen allegedly told him... Very interesting given Lindzen's subsequent description of Gelbspan's piece as "slanderous". It likely also explains why Gelbspan didn't respond to my emails about his sources... Alex Harvey (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gelbspan, "Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth." My emphasis, very interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section, here. I am not playing this game any longer. The section has no weight, unless we consider a few, less than 10, news references, mostly being 15 years old, as our definition of weight. The section has no weight, according to KDP's 'strict' understanding of what weight is. Per WP:BLP, and WP:NOT#NEWS it stays out until KDP can explain using sources and evidence why this should be in the article, and why it has been in the article for so long in the first place, against the objections of so many editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Email to Mr. Gelbspan reproduced
I have emailed Mr. Gelbspan again, and he has not responded again. I have decided to reproduce the email here, because I believe Mr. Gelbspan should have responded. If he will not respond to me, perhaps he will respond to someone else.
Email, Alex Harvey to Ross Gelbspan, 4th Feb 2010
|
---|
from Alex Harvey <xxx> to <xxx> date 4 February 2010 23:07 subject Ross Gelbspan's sources for Lindzen in Harper's Magazine, 1995 Dear Sir/Madam, I write this email for Ross Gelbspan. I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia involved in a long running dispute over the biography of Dr. Richard Lindzen. It has been famously written by Mr. Gelbspan, in Harper's Magazine (1995), "Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC." This appears to be a reference to a 1992 paper Lindzen had published in Regulation, available at Dr. Lindzen's university homepage, here. In an ABC interview (Lateline, 2005) Mr. Gelbspan later stated,
I am trying to get to the truth of this story, as Lindzen himself later has described the 1995 Harper's article as "slanderous." As far as I can tell, further, it is widely accepted that Lindzen is, if nothing else, an honest scientist. I should add, I have read Lindzen's 1992 paper that was allegedly underwritten by OPEC and compared it with other papers written by Lindzen and the story seems implausible. The paper is in Lindzen's original style from beginning to end. Further, Lindzen is famous for giving his speeches off the cuff. He is, as everyone knows, a very good speaker, and a very good debater -- regardless of his views on climate change. I have emailed before and had no answer, but I ask again: can Mr. Gelbspan please clarify this remark? We are living in a time when the public just wants to see people being fair and ethical, and a clarification of what this all meant in Harper's 1995 I am sure would be well received. Kind regards, Alex Harvey Sydney, Australia [mobile phone deleted] |
Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
consensus?
We have had silence for a number of weeks here and the contentious material hasn't been readded. Unfortunately, we have no record of a "consensus" here to remove it. This is likely to be a problem, as someone will, sooner or later, just readd it. Can we get more voices supporting this removal of contentious material, as failing WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:BLP? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support this removal mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have a problem with removal of the Gelbspan material, but the iris hypothesis does need a mention in the lead, as does the fact that Lindzen does not work primarily on climate change - existing wording is not ideal, but better than nothing. JQ (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Gelbspan removal. I have removed the subjective "published little" from the career section and rewritten. I have removed the source for this, a blog post about an Australian shock jock of which Lindzen was a passing mention. This article is starting to look encyclopedial.Momento (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I saw the talk thread after making edits about whether L has written on climate change. JQ, appreciate your support for removal of the Gelbspan. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Gelbspan removal. I have removed the subjective "published little" from the career section and rewritten. I have removed the source for this, a blog post about an Australian shock jock of which Lindzen was a passing mention. This article is starting to look encyclopedial.Momento (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
consensus for permanent removal of "conflict of interest" allegations after Gelbspan (1995; Harper's Magazine)
In the talk page above, as well as in a number of independent discussions in the archives, it has been argued that allegations against Dr. Lindzen -- first published in a 1995 article by the environmentalist and journalist, Ross Gelbspan -- are seen now in 2010 to fail our weight guideline such that they should not be included in the biography of a distinguished living scientist. Readers should consider policies, WP:NPOV subsection WP:WEIGHT; WP:NOT#NEWS; and most importantly WP:BLP, noting that many, many editors have objected in the past in good faith to inclusion of the section.
Please also review the above discussions.
Other editors have argued that the material has weight in reliable sources, and must be included. It has been asserted that there is a great volume of coverage of this material in reliable sources, but no evidence has been brought forth. My own searches suggest that aside from Mr. Gelbspan's own repeated coverage of the allegations (e.g. in a subsequent book; and on ABC Lateline), and a PBS documentary by de Granados, there is in fact very little coverage of the material in strictly reliable sources. Further, this material is not connected with Dr. Lindzen's notability.
The material was removed a few weeks ago here and inclusionists have since gone silent. My concern is that without a community consensus logged, preferably including uninvolved admins, it will be readded in the months ahead, and argued that there was no consensus for its removal.
Alex Harvey (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Responses from previously involved editors
- Agree with it`s removal. mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree with removal. It meets wiki standards. The problem is with the wiki standards themselves. Editors should be able to use editorial discretion, in my opinion, and that's what's being done here, probably appropriately, but not according to wiki. Weight isn't determined by our opinion on an issue's weight but by the weight it carries in an RS. I won't put it back in, but I won't go along with an incorrect statement of consensus. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with removal. The only Wiki standard it meets is "undue weight". I'm sure hundreds of article mention Lindzen so why do we delve back to the 90's for this bit of gossip.Momento (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- JQ agreed with the removal above. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Responses from previously uninvolved editors
- Please provide links to versions with and without the disputed content to help with the request for comment. MiRroar (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I have added the diff where I removed the material above now. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the diff. This is a contentious political issue and it is difficult to say include or do not include. The incidents happened and there are reliable sources, but the part you removed had too much weight. An editor who wants to use these sources should cut the size down alot, it is a minor incident for the BLP. MiRroar (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with removal. One quote from the removed piece says all that is necessary, '...allegations that Lindzen described as a "slander" and "libelous". Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tiger Woods could say the affair allegations are slander and libelous but they are notable, they are in reliable sources. MiRroar (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a particularly good analogy, because the Tiger Woods allegations are not allegations; they're facts. On the other hand, the Gelbspan allegations are indeed just allegations. If you want to believe Mr. Gelbspan's story, then you have to believe that Lindzen made up a defamatory story about himself, and that Gelbspan has faithfully published it, and that Lindzen then had a change of heart and decided to deny it & call it slander when he saw it in print. This is utterly absurd. I don't think any respectable people believe this story is true anymore. For instance, Spencer Weart (the left wing science historian) seems to have withdrawn reference to the Gelbspan allegations in his book, The Discovery of Global Warming, after Lindzen called it slander, and we'd have to assume that he's done so not from fear of litigation from Dr. Lindzen but from simply coming to doubt the truth of it. This mantra that "<shrug> we just report what's in the reliable sources" needs to change. We don't do that, and we never have, and we never will. What really happens is (1) we begin with an opinion that a particular source is reliable and then (2) having assumed our opinion to be correct, we cite the source and assert its reliability. The Gelbspan source is almost certainly presenting false, slanderous information about a living person. Ergo, it is not a reliable source, and it must stay out. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't include this. It looks like the 'allegations' are "Lindzen got paid for doing a legal job. Oh, and he didn't use his own personal money for travel expenses to testify before Congress". I don't think that saying professionals get paid for working is WP:DUE; I also don't think that it's libel (and neither, apparently, does Lindzen's counsel, because I see no evidence of a lawsuit). If this unimportant 'allegation' were to be included, I'd summarize it in a single sentence: "Lindzen has been criticized for working as a professional consultant for some energy companies." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are the facts that he was paid $10,000 for doing legal jobs, and then there are the unsubstantiated, unproven allegations that come from undocumented conversations between Mr. Gelbspan & Dr. Lindzen. This would include the allegation that Lindzen's 1992 paper was "underwritten" by OPEC, which if true, would indicate presumably some kind of unethical behaviour by Lindzen. The fact that there has been no lawsuit does not prove anything. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- We must err on the side of caution in the case of a BLP. If Lindzen himself believes that the claims are libelous then they cannot be included unless they are proven without doubt to be completely true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Mr. Hogbin, and I think that ought to be the standard for the way unproven allegations are handled throughout Wikipedia. --Goodranch (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Point proved
I think it's clear that the Gelbspan material is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The next big improvement would be to reduce media appearances to about 10% of its length. Currently it looks as if he's a science reporter doing the rounds, not a respected scientist.Momento (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No statistically significant warming since 1995
This claim has been contentious lately, to put it mildly. It appears Lindzen is the original source, but I'm not sure if this blog entry, claiming to be posted with his permission, is a WP:RS. Amy thoughts on this? JQ (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well i doubt watts would post it without his permission and i believe wp:rs policy has a section saying scientists are reliable even with self published stuff, but i`m not 100% sure on this, best wait for another poster mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- The text quoted is statistically illiterate. I think BLP would prevent us reporting L as saying that, unless we have very good evidence for it. WUWT isn't good enough evidence for this kind of stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- BLP policy specifically excludes blogs etc. as suitable sources. Let's leave the sensational and start reducing "media appearances".Momento (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever it is, I don't see a note sent to a blog to have any WP:WEIGHT in the biography of a reasonably successful scientist. Alex, do you have an opinion on this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- BLP policy specifically excludes blogs etc. as suitable sources. Let's leave the sensational and start reducing "media appearances".Momento (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- The text quoted is statistically illiterate. I think BLP would prevent us reporting L as saying that, unless we have very good evidence for it. WUWT isn't good enough evidence for this kind of stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Lindzen has repeatedly asserted that global warming stopped in 1998, using the phrase "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between" in at least two Newsweek pieces, most recently here. This assertion is reliably sourced, and definitely notable, in my view.JQ (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've now found a reliable source for (a restatement of) the "no statistically significant warming since 1995' claim. An article by Lindzen published by Quadrant (magazine)in 2009 states "there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. " [1]. That seems to meet all the requirements. JQ (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well those are wp:rs so i think you can stick this in mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)I guess I'd have to agree that a very short email reproduced at Watts' blog has no relevance to this article. It would inevitably fail weight, regardless of how it might be used, and could not be considered a reliable source. If it did turn out be relevant to something, and I don't think it will, it might be the global warming controversy article, or the temperature record article, or the Climategate article, or something like that. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- A Quadrant Magazine quote is likewise not relevant, given the already obscene dragging out of the media appearances section. Agree with Momento, we need to get back to discussing cutting media appearances to about 1/10th its present length, in order to present a neutral, balanced biography here. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read the Quadrant magazine article? It's a full-length article, by Lindzen, with references. Lindzen is stating his own views, on an issue of major importance. This is clearly a reliable source for Lindzen's views. JQ (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- The question is not whether Lindzen actually holds this view, or whether you can find a reliable source for it, but whether it has any weight. Lindzen has published 230 papers, and not one of them is about the statistical analysis of temperature trends. Presumably he has seen the temperature trends analysed, or he has analysed it himself, and he sees that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. But we are talking about a single passing reference to this fact in an op-ed, and a brief email sent to Anthony Watts. You are confusing the importance of an issue in the context of the present controversy about temperature trends, and the importance of the issue in the context of Lindzen's intellectual history. Please see WP:COATRACK. This is not the place to be arguing about climate change. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with AH. Let's leave the Climate Change debate and who said what and concentrate on making this article encyclopedic and that means reducing the "Media Appearances" section.Momento (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting silly. No one outside climatology would care two hoots about Lindzen if he weren't a prominent critic of AGW consensus. To suggest that the article should omit his major claim to fame has no basis in policy. The claim about no significant warming since 1995 is a major issue of public controversy, and Lindzen appears to have originated it -he has certainly published the claim in Quadrant, which is a quasi-scholarly journal.
- JQ, I am not sure why this is so hard to understand, but once again, Lindzen's claim to notability is that he has made significant contributions to scientific knowledge, whereas his stance on global warming has nothing much to do with it. So having more than half of the article devoted to his stance on global warming would be kind of like having half of Einstein's article devoted to his views on nuclear disarmament. If we found that over at Einstein's article, we would say that the article had been hijacked as a WP:COATRACK about nuclear disarmament. This is what has happened here, and now it needs to be undone. Meanwhile, as for this "major issue of public controversy," you seem to be referring in fact to the BBC Phil Jones interview here, Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. It is completely original research for you to be assuming this observation originates with Lindzen. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with JQ here. Lindzen would be sufficiently notable for an article due to his scientific work, no doubt. But his existing notability does not come primarily from that, but from his very public dissent on global warming. Looking over e.g. Google hits, it looks like 18 out of the first 20 are concerned with global warming (the other two are his home page and our article). With Google News hits, it looks like 20/20 deal with his contrariness on climate change. This is a major part of his fame, and needs to be reflected adequately in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- JQ, I am not sure why this is so hard to understand, but once again, Lindzen's claim to notability is that he has made significant contributions to scientific knowledge, whereas his stance on global warming has nothing much to do with it. So having more than half of the article devoted to his stance on global warming would be kind of like having half of Einstein's article devoted to his views on nuclear disarmament. If we found that over at Einstein's article, we would say that the article had been hijacked as a WP:COATRACK about nuclear disarmament. This is what has happened here, and now it needs to be undone. Meanwhile, as for this "major issue of public controversy," you seem to be referring in fact to the BBC Phil Jones interview here, Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. It is completely original research for you to be assuming this observation originates with Lindzen. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is getting silly. No one outside climatology would care two hoots about Lindzen if he weren't a prominent critic of AGW consensus. To suggest that the article should omit his major claim to fame has no basis in policy. The claim about no significant warming since 1995 is a major issue of public controversy, and Lindzen appears to have originated it -he has certainly published the claim in Quadrant, which is a quasi-scholarly journal.
- Have you read the Quadrant magazine article? It's a full-length article, by Lindzen, with references. Lindzen is stating his own views, on an issue of major importance. This is clearly a reliable source for Lindzen's views. JQ (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
← I would suggest that Lindzen has two claims on notability. One is his scientific record which is pretty significant, but he'd be completely unknown to the wider public (and would likely not appear here; cf. the hundreds of otherwise similarly distinguished scientists) were it not for his other claim: his climate change contrarianism. The article should clearly address both, with the balance between them a key aspect to keeping this article NPOV. I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. Both for brevity and to avoid an expanding morass of material based on every contrary thing he says (cf. WP:COATRACK). Regardless of whether Lindzen is the ultimate source for the "no statistically significant global warming" statement (which would be significant for his scientific notability; and this should be established one way or the other), if it is something he is pushing hard then it clearly is notable for his contrarian notability as one of these points of disagreement with mainstream scientists. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that, largely. I think that L would be notable even without his contrarianism, even though most people wouldn't have heard of him (it would be for the atmos tides stuff, though that is a long time ago). I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. An excellent point. I entirely agree William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Plumbago, I am mostly in agreement with you, and where I disagree, I think you've just been misinformed by the present discussion. No: "no statistical warming since 1995", is definitely not something Lindzen has pushed hard. JQ has taken the remark completely out of context in the Quadrant article, where the real context is Lindzen comparing the performance of the IPCC models with actual observations. To Stephan, you are confusing notability with fame and topicality. To William, Lindzen's contributions to science go well beyond his early work on atmospheric tides. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alex, the relevant quotes from the Quadrant article appear to be "This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years" and "Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged" (my emphasis). While Lindzen is discussing the performance of climate models, these statements appear to be talking about the real, rather than simulated, climate. Unfortunately, he does not attribute the content of either statement to any publication (unlike other points in the article). As such, I'm not at all sure that the remark is being taken out of context. That said, judging from this piece and some others that I've briefly perused, Quadrant does not seem the most reliable of sources for reporting on scientific matters. While I'd much prefer that Lindzen's contrarian views were sourced to his scientific papers on the subject, his frequent appearances in more popular media are notable because he often makes more extreme statements there. And since climate change is debated much (much) more in popular/political settings than scientific ones, this makes such pronouncements an important part of his notability. Your mileage clearly does vary. --PLUMBAGO 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Plumbago, given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight. What possible justification could we have for including this here on the basis of a passing sentence made in the context of a different discussion, rather than in Phil Jones' biography, where the context is clearly the temperature trends? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alex, the relevant quotes from the Quadrant article appear to be "This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years" and "Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged" (my emphasis). While Lindzen is discussing the performance of climate models, these statements appear to be talking about the real, rather than simulated, climate. Unfortunately, he does not attribute the content of either statement to any publication (unlike other points in the article). As such, I'm not at all sure that the remark is being taken out of context. That said, judging from this piece and some others that I've briefly perused, Quadrant does not seem the most reliable of sources for reporting on scientific matters. While I'd much prefer that Lindzen's contrarian views were sourced to his scientific papers on the subject, his frequent appearances in more popular media are notable because he often makes more extreme statements there. And since climate change is debated much (much) more in popular/political settings than scientific ones, this makes such pronouncements an important part of his notability. Your mileage clearly does vary. --PLUMBAGO 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- My point about the one sentence was not that it should be included, but that it did not appear to be taken out of context, contrary to your statement to this effect. As I've said before, I would much prefer that Lindzen's scientific articles be used to source his contrarian views, but I do not believe he is anywhere near as strident in formal publications than informal ones. As I've also said before, since he is at least as notable for his engagement with climate politics as he is for his science, I believe that less formal (or even polemical; cf. Quadrant) sources can be useful if they elucidate his contrarian views more clearly. If he makes his most outspoken and most widely disseminated statements there, then that's where the article should pick them up. But I don't have the view that we must include this particular source. --PLUMBAGO 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, as far as effective utilisation of my time and Wikipedia's server space is concerned, have you actually concluded now that Lindzen has "pushed this hard", which was the very good criterion you gave initially, and if not, why did you continue with the discussion? The point was settled already; there is no way policy could allow this into the biography. If it happens to be your opinion that Lindzen has made "extreme" statements in the media, your opinion doesn't belong here in this talk page, and it certainly doesn't belong in the article. Obviously, there is nothing extreme about stating an uncontroversial fact -- a fact that Phil Jones, and all other honest scientists, agree with. This conversation has so far cost us 20 kilobytes of server space, and 2,000 words of volunteer editor time. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, but I've not really written a huge amount here. I am just trying to express my view that Lindzen is notable for both his science and for his contrarianism, and to challenge the assertion that certain of his purported views are being presented here out of context. Anyway, I think I'll try to look more at the article than here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
arbitrary section break
given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight. is wrong. As others have said, L's contrarianism is why he is publicly known. This is a fairly clear example of it, so is good to include. There are no BLP issues left: it is clearly something he wants to say and wants people to hear. P has suggested that I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. and this would be one excellent example.
However, from the Quadrant piece, I'd say this is a fairly clear statement of his contrarianism: Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming.
All of those statements conflict with "the established wisdom" and we could suefully delineate how he disagrees.
William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- William, you said above that you didn't agree with including this. Now you are saying you want it included after all. Again, after we had an agreement not to include it. You know very well that this is fails the weight guideline. It is not clear why you want to continue what is heading to be another pointless Wikipedia battle. Please contribute to these discussions in good faith, and stop being disruptive. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate it if we could cease usage of the politically-motived designation, 'Contrarian', here in the talk pages. Just as its present inclusion in the biography is POV, and needs to be removed per BLP policy, so is it a BLP violation to be repeating ad nauseum this POV here in the talk pages, as if by saying it 1000 times it'll become some kind of objective truth. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alex: Nonsense - see collapse box below --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate it if we could cease usage of the politically-motived designation, 'Contrarian', here in the talk pages. Just as its present inclusion in the biography is POV, and needs to be removed per BLP policy, so is it a BLP violation to be repeating ad nauseum this POV here in the talk pages, as if by saying it 1000 times it'll become some kind of objective truth. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Calling Lindzen contrarian is *not* a BLP violation
|
---|
Here are just a few Reliable sources that call Lindzen contrarian.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC) |
- Kim, calling Lindzen names, in this case 'Contrarian', is a BLP violation. Your list of refs is highly misleading. Please go through it and remove from the list all of those sources that merely refer to one of Lindzen's views as a 'contrarian' view (i.e. where the contentious adjective is applied to a viewpoint), those that are op-eds and not reliable sources, and leave any highly reliable sources that remain such that it is objectively established as a fact that Lindzen himself is a 'contrarian'. Please don't make me do this, as I am busy. Thanks in advance for choosing to participate here constructively. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- These are all highly reliable sources, and the only Op-ed in it ... is .... by Lindzen himself. And no, calling Lindzen a contrarian, the way that WMC just did, and to which you objected, is exactly what these references are about, and is not a BLP violation - since it is very much verifiable. Lindzen is widely regarded as a contrarian on this particular subject, whether you like it or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see, as always, you're going to stobbornly refuse to admit anything. Very well, let's start with your quote from the scientific paper by Yang & Tung: A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that.... Tell me, Kim, are you or are you not able to see that the word 'contrarian' is not referring Lindzen himself, but to Lindzen's viewpoint -- his theory? Or is the problem that you simply can't understand what all of these words actually mean? Thanks. I'll look forward to your response so we can go through the others. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Alex, but will you please refactor per. probation guides[2]? Try without PA's and without separating my comments from what i am actually replying to. You can refactor this comment away when you've done so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see, as always, you're going to stobbornly refuse to admit anything. Very well, let's start with your quote from the scientific paper by Yang & Tung: A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that.... Tell me, Kim, are you or are you not able to see that the word 'contrarian' is not referring Lindzen himself, but to Lindzen's viewpoint -- his theory? Or is the problem that you simply can't understand what all of these words actually mean? Thanks. I'll look forward to your response so we can go through the others. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- These are all highly reliable sources, and the only Op-ed in it ... is .... by Lindzen himself. And no, calling Lindzen a contrarian, the way that WMC just did, and to which you objected, is exactly what these references are about, and is not a BLP violation - since it is very much verifiable. Lindzen is widely regarded as a contrarian on this particular subject, whether you like it or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Kim, calling Lindzen names, in this case 'Contrarian', is a BLP violation. Your list of refs is highly misleading. Please go through it and remove from the list all of those sources that merely refer to one of Lindzen's views as a 'contrarian' view (i.e. where the contentious adjective is applied to a viewpoint), those that are op-eds and not reliable sources, and leave any highly reliable sources that remain such that it is objectively established as a fact that Lindzen himself is a 'contrarian'. Please don't make me do this, as I am busy. Thanks in advance for choosing to participate here constructively. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
suggestion
An editor has pointed out that Lindzen's biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science. I suggest this may give us a lot of good material that will help us to structure neutrally this Wikipedia biography. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not get distracted. That "Media Appearances" takes up half the article is clearly absurd. Imagine an article on Bob Dylan, Bob Hope or Bob Kennedy where half the article is taken up with "Media Appearances"?! Please!Momento (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Momento, the trouble is that Wikipedia is full of absurdity and it requires both cunning and patience to get it even into the same room with sanity. I fully expect to be having these same sorts of absurd discussions about this article come New Year's Day 2011. I have accepted that, and I do hope you'll stick it out here with me! In the mean time, it is my prediction that the American Men and Women of Science biography will turn out to be a genuinely neutral treatment of Lindzen's life. Let's do this scientifically, and I will propose an hypothesis: I expect that the AMWS biography will have only a small section on Lindzen's contributions to the climate change controversy. I am sure it will cover the Iris hypothesis briefly. It may or may not mention his earlier, discarded hypothesis about the water vapour feedback. And I'll bet that it won't mention the Lindzen/Choi hypothesis at all, as that is both a work in progress and being discussed at the same time in the literature. I'll bet that it won't at any point contrast Lindzen's views with any so-called "consensus" view, but it will simply allow his views to stand as they are. I predict, further, that there will be possibly a sentence or two, but quite possibly nothing, about Lindzen's media appearances. Finally, I predict that the proportion of the biography in any way treating Lindzen's climate change skepticism will take up no more than 10% of the word count. Now I am very motivated to go to the library tomorrow to find out. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- My library doesn't have this, and I may have to travel a bit to find a copy. Does anyone else have access to this work? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Momento, the trouble is that Wikipedia is full of absurdity and it requires both cunning and patience to get it even into the same room with sanity. I fully expect to be having these same sorts of absurd discussions about this article come New Year's Day 2011. I have accepted that, and I do hope you'll stick it out here with me! In the mean time, it is my prediction that the American Men and Women of Science biography will turn out to be a genuinely neutral treatment of Lindzen's life. Let's do this scientifically, and I will propose an hypothesis: I expect that the AMWS biography will have only a small section on Lindzen's contributions to the climate change controversy. I am sure it will cover the Iris hypothesis briefly. It may or may not mention his earlier, discarded hypothesis about the water vapour feedback. And I'll bet that it won't mention the Lindzen/Choi hypothesis at all, as that is both a work in progress and being discussed at the same time in the literature. I'll bet that it won't at any point contrast Lindzen's views with any so-called "consensus" view, but it will simply allow his views to stand as they are. I predict, further, that there will be possibly a sentence or two, but quite possibly nothing, about Lindzen's media appearances. Finally, I predict that the proportion of the biography in any way treating Lindzen's climate change skepticism will take up no more than 10% of the word count. Now I am very motivated to go to the library tomorrow to find out. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Scientific work
Hi. Can anyone familiar with the fields that Lindzen has worked in identify major example papers on the topics that he's working in? There are lots to choose from on the subjects that the article lists as his expertise, but I'm reluctant to identify the ones that are most significant (largely because atmospheric science isn't my bag). Furthermore, as has been remarked above by other editors, the article would benefit from expansion on his regular scientific output. A sentence or two on what his tidal work is all about, for instance. It also sounds like there's some pretty interesting stuff in there too (e.g. other planetary atmospheres). --PLUMBAGO 16:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not too familiar with it either. Browsing google scholar, I'd go for:
- Atmospheric tides S Chapman, RS Lindzen, VM Canuto, S Chapman - 1970 (maybe his Ph D work?; hold on: Thermally driven diurnal tide in the atmosphere RS Lindzen - Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 1967 is earlier. Even earlier: Thermally driven diurnal tide in the atmosphere RS Lindzen - Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 1967 )
- insert This should be: Chapman, S. and R.S. Lindzen (1970). Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Press. pp. 200. Google Books Preview here. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- A Theory of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation RS Lindzen, JR Holton 1968
- Loads of dynamics stuff, like Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator RS Lindzen, AV Hou - Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 1988
- More recently, and controversially, Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? RS Lindzen, MD Chou, AY Hou - Bulletin of the American Meteorological …, 2001 (and other papers doubting the std ideas of water vapour feedback).
- Those account for most of the areas his bio [3] lists, except for He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact for which I can't find a good example. (1965) The radiative-photochemical response of the mesosphere to fluctuations in radiation. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 469-478 maybe but that is mesospheric and little cited William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Plumbago, please have a look at the draft I have written for the early work. It's not all accurate and can't be just added wholesale, but it'll give you a good start. I gave up due to the sheer difficulty of the work on atmospheric dynamics. (There is a link to it on my user page.)
- insert Here is the link to my draft: [4]. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- William, there is far more work in there on climate change than you are admitting here. There was the cloud parameterisation work with E.K. Schneider that I believe is still used in the ECHAM series of GCM models and probably others that derive from Tiedtke; there was his work on the ice age cycle; his now refuted Lindzen/Sun hypothesis on the water vapour feedback; his work on the effects of volcanoes with Giannitsis; his 1982 paper on the sensitivity of model choice to doubling of CO2; other 1970s work on the stability of climate; the Lindzen/Choi 2009 hypothesis; and of course and very obviously his work with the IPCC TAR and the NAS Climate Change panel. And this is what I can tell you just from memory. On ozone photochemistry, I believe his most important contribution was the widely cited paper by Lindzen & Blake. I think it's true that he was the first to try this sort of modelling, which I guess is justification for calling it "pioneering" work. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it led to any ground breaking discoveries, so probably it may be presented misleadingly in the article at the moment. Atmospheric tides had nothing to do with his Ph.D thesis; that was the ozone-photochemical modelling.) Alex Harvey (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Plumbago, please have a look at the draft I have written for the early work. It's not all accurate and can't be just added wholesale, but it'll give you a good start. I gave up due to the sheer difficulty of the work on atmospheric dynamics. (There is a link to it on my user page.)
POV edits
JQ, you have yet again modified the text to have it state your opinion that, "[Lindzen's] main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001..." This is your opinion, it may be William Connolley's opinion too, but it is POV; it is not WP:V and is WP:OR. I don't happen to agree that Iris was his "main" contribution to the academic literature on climate change. Why not IPCC TAR or the NAS Climate Change panel? Others will doubtlessly have yet other opinions that are different from both mine and yours. This article is not an article about climate change, but an article about Lindzen's intellectual history. It is not going to remain as a blog where editors can argue about climate change with each other. Will you please revert this back to the previous wording and build consensus here for contentious edits first? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)