Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 4

To reiterate

I think the lead should describe this person for what he's most notable for. Can other editors help workshop content to that effect with me? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It already does mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't explain what his position or that of his blog is:

Anthony Watts is an American broadcast meteorologist (AMS seal holder, retired),[1] editor of the blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT),[2] owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project that documents the siting of weather stations across the United States.

I think we should be clear that he has a particular ideological bent. He doesn't seem to be shy about it letting it be known, why should we be shy about it? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It says quite clearly in the section about his blog that is has a focus on climate change from a sceptical perspective. What more do you want? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like the WP:LEAD to summarize the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Using my reliable sources search engine, I got the following number of hits for these search terms:

"Anthony Watts" meteorologist 59
"Anthony Watts" skeptic OR sceptic 54
"Anthony Watts" weatherman 48
"Anthony Watts" denier 46
"Anthony Watts" denialist 42
"Anthony Watts" denier OR denialist 40
"Anthony Watts" blogger 38 A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire section for his scepticism, any more would be overkill mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, we should summarize the article in the lead. If there's an entire section, couldn't we have at least one sentence in the lead? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist: Sure, I think a mention of this in the lead is warranted, but the most commonly used term by reliable sources appears to be "skeptic", not "denier". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing which sources AQFK thinks are the most reliable for this task. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A skeptic is not a denier. We are not calling Watts a denier. The sources you've cited so far do not call him a denier, and you're not going to label him as a denier without a reliable source. Minor4th 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable, independent third-party source which distinguishes between skeptics and deniers? I understand AQKF's point, but not yours. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying that Anthony Watts is a climate change skeptic in the lede. One of his main activities lately has been touring around giving speeches on why he thinks the theory of human-caused climate change has serious issues. It should use the word "skeptic" or "sceptic", though, not "denier". Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla68. Do you think the current sources in the article are sufficient for this, or do you have some suggestions for ones you think we should use? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources that call him a skeptic are sufficient to source labeling him as a skeptic. What is so difficult to understand? Sources that call him a skeptic, however, such as the ones you have cited, are not sufficient to label him a denier. I don't think anyone has ever argued that the lede shouldnt mention that he is a climate skeptic. Minor4th 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Which sources do we want to use? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already told you. He is called a sceptic in the article already [1] once is enough mark nutley (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Research re: Surfacestations.org

Is all of this really necessary or desirable in a biography about Watts? This appears to be coatrack regarding some editors' views of science. I think a biography about Watts should included content about his Surfacestations.org but all of this detail about studies that are inconclusive and call for further research -- that seems to be beyond the scope of Watts' biography. I have not removed the content, although I did describe more accurately the conclusion of the latest research. I don't know who added that material, but it's bordering BLP violation to say that the study resulted in conclusions "in stark contrast" to Watts' proposals. It's not accurate for one thing, and to include the phrase "in stark contrast to Watts" is just advocacy for a POV. Minor4th 02:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your correct, i figure a good clean out is needed mark nutley (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Information about SurfaceStations is entirely relevant and appropriate. This work has attracted a great deal of attention. Watts has made appearances on radio and television to converse about the project, his volunteer organization, and the results have appeared in print. His work is influential. Wikispan (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Information about surfacestations is indeed relevant, but is On July 6, 2009 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[14] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[15][16] The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently accepted for publication a study, citing Watts' Surfacestations.org, which concludes that "summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting." [17][18] any of this relevant to Watts bio? It belongs in an article about surfacestations not here and it is just coatracking really mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a tangentially related subject. This research has precise logical relevance to the work of Anthony Watts. As we describe his work, for which he is well-known, and quote from the Heartland Institute report, NPOV requires that we describe the findings of scientists who studied the same data and reached a different conclusion. We can't pretend the year is still 2007 and new research does not exist. Wikispan (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me provide an example that you might understand: Noam Chomsky. He has made a significant contribution to the study of language but not all of his work has stood the test of time (something he readily admits). Other research, such as Generative grammar, is still being hotly debated. NPOV requires that we summarise differing viewpoints and any criticism that may exist. So long as we don't end up with an article like this, we will be okay. Wikispan (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikispan the scientists who did the study on Wattts work used an incomplete dataset, they did not even have the courtesy to let him know what they were doing, and the text currently has more on the flawed report than Watts rebuttal, hardly NPOV is it? I think we need to create an article for surfacestations so we can avoid these issues. Any objections? If not i`ll create one today mark nutley (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, SurfaceStations is undoubtedly a notable and influential project. One point: If you wish to dispute the sample size, or if you think it is unfair different groups of scientists examined Watts' data without first informing him about it, you will need a reliable source. Wikispan (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Surfacestations Done, care to help knock it into shape? mark nutley (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick! One additional point. This article should briefly mention new research that drew on Watts' data. A short sentence or two will suffice. Wikispan (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, feel free to add a some stuff in mark nutley (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't see any consensus for the split out into Surfacestations which seems to have been rather precipitate William M. Connolley (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a consensus needed to create an article? No merge the Surface stations project is notable enough for it`s own article mark nutley (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it could go either way. I'm going to reserve judgement for now. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a notable project. But is the split necessary? In hindsight my answer would be "No". I assumed (wrongly) that Mark was going to expand the article to a significant degree. He is no longer in a position to do that, in any case. Wikispan (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a search in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand but I kind doubt there are any more sources than are currently used in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I merged the article here. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

weblog awards

Firs part of thread is transported from User talk:Marknutley. Apologies, I really should have posted here to begin with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, why did you revert cited information here? Also, I assume your reference to me as a "sock" was simple carelessness rather than a serious accusation... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No i believe it was a sock, my rational was in the edit summary. It was wrong and not NPOV mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley was probably referring to the edit that immediately preceded yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes i was, sorry boris if you thought i was calling you a sock mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How can it be "wrong" if it's cited to a reliable source? There are many other sources available for the same information, including a Master's Thesis from a major American university. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It`s wrong because the weblogs awards polls more votes than any other online poll. It is wrong becuase it is not bloody conservative (why must you people always label stuff conservative) it was wrong because it was not written in a NPOV and it was a sock which did it mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are multiple reliable sources that refer to the blog as "conservative." I'm curious as to why you object to that. Do you think "conservative" is a pejorative term? I certainly don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You`ve moved it to the wrong article boris [2] It was Watts article this happened on mark nutley (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Multi-tasking isn't all it's cracked up to be. Are we there yet? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is in response to the revert discussion at MarkNutley's talk page. First, I'm not a sock (and yes, I know what one is). I tried to clarify the statement because I originally thought the page was referring to The Weblog Awards (Bloggies). The Bloggies are much more well known than The Weblog Awards (Wizbang) and I was attempting to clarify the distinction since other people would likewise make the same mistake. The Wired source cited specifically calls the Wizbang awards "the right-wing response to the Bloggies" and is cited bye the Wizbang awards page itself as evidence of notability. While the entirety of my statement might not be appropriate there should be some distinction made so that the page doesn't simply say "the Weblog Awards". Sailsbystars (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you guys enjoy BLP violations then? Neither ref provided mentions Watts of his blog. You are engaging in wp:synth and wp:or on a BLP, would you care to stop now? mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is my new version acceptable? Also, I don't appreciate your immediate accusations of bad faith, rather than constructively discussing the content.Sailsbystars (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sailsbystars: Unfortunately, you've stepped into a battleground. Assumptions of bad faith are par for the course around here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No the new version is not an improvement over the old. And i believe you are a sock of Ratel, he had a habit of labling everyone conservative as well. mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, WP:SPI is thataway.→ You're perfectly within your rights to open an investigation, but idle speculation is deeply unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done Boris mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some bold merges

I merged two articles here. See what you think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt you put this article back to were it was before you messed all three up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.54 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think less article merging is needed, and more linking between articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

I was thinking that the WUWT section on surface stations may be unduly weighted and misplaced. What do you all think?

I tagged this section that way. I hope that's okay. If not, feel free to revert.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for now per GS/CC enforcement. Please discuss your concerns and obtain a consensus before adding tags to CC articles. What is it you think is given undue weight, and how would you propose to remedy it?Minor4th 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the meta-discussion is unduly weighted with respect to WUWT. In particular, I think that the two comments left in that section are probably better suited for inclusion at surfacestations, if anywhere. But the comments themselves seem a bit throwaway and devoid of content. I'm not really sure what the intention was of having them in the first place. Thus the tag to draw people's attention to it to see if they could explain it. I'm not exactly sure why we are including the opinions of people who aren't professionals with respect to the topic of surfacestations comment on the science relating to that subject. Shouldn't we let scientists do that? Or is there another rationale for including those opinions that I'm not seeing? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Watts and the Surface Stations project conducted an audit of most of the stations in the US, and brought to light a significant quality control problem that "scientists" hadn't found up till then. These quality control problems don't take phd-level education to understand. This was a significant activity. I oppose the tagging.Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"broadcast meteorologist", with a link that redirects to Meteorology#Meteorologists

This seems to be wrong. Here is how the link target defines "meteorologist":

"Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology. [...] Meteorologists are best-known for forecasting the weather. Many radio and television weather forecasters are professional meteorologists, while others are merely reporters with no formal meteorological training."

Other than the fact that he calls himself a "TV meteorologist" and others often use the same or similar terms of the form "X meteorologist" in relation to him, we have no indication that this definition applies. See here, for example, for a job description of a "TV meteorologist":

"There are many ways to become a television meteorologist. First, and probably most common, is by going to a college or university where you can obtain a meteorology or atmospheric science degree. [...] Second, some students major in journalism in college then become weathercasters later. A student may be interested in journalism and news reporting and be called to 'fill in' for a meteorologist. Some may reconsider their career and then may take meteorology courses to be a weathercaster. Thirdly, a few people have been trained as meteorologists in the military. The military offers study similar to that received in accredited colleges for meteorology. Lastly, sometimes it is possible to be a weathercaster coming from a totally unrelated field of study. The news director may find someone that relates well with people and hire them." [3]

Others have wondered about this. He is not shy when talking about himself on the "About" page of his blog [4], but he does not mention any academic background. Reproducible research by SourceWatch [5] has shown that while he does hold the discontinued AMS Seal of Approval, which did not require an academic degree [6], he does not have either of the two current AMS certifications which do require such a degree. [7] A blogger claims that he asked Watts' secretary directly but was denied the information. [8]

Given the contentious climate change environment, it would be highly unusual for Watts not to mention his relevant degrees if he held any. We can have no certainty, but the weight of available evidence is such that we must be extremely careful about any and all formulations that imply that he does hold such a degree.

I am going to remove the misleading link, but I don't think that's enough. I propose switching the language from "broadcast meteorologist" to "weather presenter". Obviously, if another formulation is even more neutral and agnostic about his education that would be preferable. Hans Adler 10:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I also did some digging and asked my friend who is a broadcast meteorologist what this is all about. Apparently "broadcast meteorologist" IS a protected term. I just happen to live in large cities my whole life where they only hire television personalities with the Broadcast Meteorology degrees to report the weather. If they didn't have such a degree, they would be called "weather reporter". Fascinating stuff. I've come around to your side, Hans, but I think the term we should use is "weather reporter" since that's what's normally used in the US and that's where he's from. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that calls him that? Fred Pearce calls him a "radio meteorologist". We have to go with the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. This source calls him a meteorologist too. Now I don't know what to do. It reminds me of dietician vs. nutritionist. I think we need a content specialist to help. I'll ask my friend for sources as to the proper use of these terms. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems we really need more information about these terms. Some questions:

• How exactly is "broadcast meteorologist" protected? On a federal or state level? Is an academic degree in a relevant subject required, or does equivalent experience also count, like for the AMS Seal of Approval?
• Are the terms "television meteorologist" and/or "radio meteorologist" similarly protected? They may well not be.

If it comes out that the term "television meteorologist" is reserved for people with a meteorology degree, then I would have no problem with that simply based on Watts publicly calling himself that. On the other hand, if "broadcast meteorologist" is preserved in this way and "television meteorologist" is not, then that would be another reason to be very sceptical. Hans Adler 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: ScienceApologist, could your friend have been confusing "broadcast meteorologist" with Certified Broadcast Meteorologist? Hans Adler 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to report that very thing, Hans. She corrected herself just now and you are correct. Here's a good article on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some very interesting information here as well. Not sure how reliable that is (where does it come from???), but it could provide valuable pointers. Hans Adler 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We should using the terms used by reliable sources, not our own original research or what our friends think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am getting tired of hearing this silly argument. There seems to be an epidemic going around. Rephrasing is not, and has never been, original research. This is a project to write a free encyclopedia, not a project to produce a massive copyright violation by gluing together half-understood pieces from various sources. Hans Adler 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU, HANS! I've been trying to get that across to people for a long, long time. This area, for some reason, has driven people into brain-dead-itude with regards to such elementary concepts as "synonyms" and "paraphrasing". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think if you spent a bit more time in uncontentious areas you would soon learn that exactly the same brain-dead-itude infests even the most harmless and uncontroversial pages. Mathematics is relatively free from this nonsense, but only because we have a big and very homogeneous WikiProject, consisting of people trained in rational thinking and in realising when they are wrong. Hans Adler 17:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SA, my only experience of talking to you is in the "sceptic vs denier" discussion above. Synonyms are well understood. And, non-neutral POV-pushing synonyms are also understood. Please take a moment to appreciate that it is important to be neutral in your choice of synonyms. Slowjoe17 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources that refer to Watts as a meteorologist, and he's been introduced on radio and TV as such as well. (Beck Interview, Mar 3 2008 for just one such example). The touchstone on Wikipedia is verifiability, not our own conception of truth. Further, Watts has spoken about his surface stations project as an outgrowth of a meteorology project he undertook in college on Stevenson Screens. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Watts himself really doesn't help to clear up the confusion. From his book [9]: "Anthony Watts is a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. He got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and at KHSL-TV in Chico, California. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies broadcast graphics systems to hundreds of cable television, television, and radio stations nationwide. ItWorks supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S." Pretty long, but no word about his education, and it sounds as if he even avoided to use the term "broadcast meteorologist".

Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. If we can verify that he is a meteorologist then we say so, because it's obviously relevant. If we find there is too much doubt because the term is often abused, then we make sure to use language that leaves the question open. But we can't simply take ambiguous language from one context and move it to a different context (an encyclopedia, which readers expect to use language scrupulously), and pretend that this doesn't change connotations. Hans Adler 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be on a fishing expedition here. Source after source calls him a meteorologist. You keep advancing without evidence the notion that the term itself is "confusing". False logic. Whether or not his degree is in meteorology doesn't even matter. Do you have any idea how many people identified as climatologists on Wikipedia don't have a degree in climatology? Are you going to say Gavin Schmidt can't be called a climatologist, because his degree is in mathematics? This whole line of reasoning is absurd. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "Source after source"? You have shown us 0 (zero) of these sources. First of all, we must be absolutely careful about our terms here:

• A weather reporter is someone who talks about the weather on radio or TV and typically has a working knowledge of meteorology which they use to prepare the reports and turn them into appealing language. The typical career starts with (S) studying meteorology (with a degree possibly in a related science) and then learning journalism more or less on the job, or (J) studying journalism and then learning meteorology more or less on the job.
• A broadcast meteorologist (or radio/television meteorologist) is a weather reporter. Etymologically and in actual use this term carries the connotation of a weather reporter of type (S), but it is often still applied to those of type (J). (After all, who knows into which category a particular reporter falls? Normally it's not important.)
• A meteorologist is a scientist concerned with weather studies. In a broadcasting context and by people who are ignorant about the distinction, the term is also used as a convenient short form for broadcast meteorologist.

You claim that there are "many sources that refer to Watts as a meteorologist". This may be, but all sources I have ever seen refer to him as a "broadcast meteorologist", "radio meteorologist" or "television meteorologist". If you have better sources and want them used, you must provide more information than just a vague claim that they exist. Hans Adler 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Next point. I "keep advancing without evidence the notion that the term itself is 'confusing'"? Certainly not. There is nothing confusing about the term "meteorologist". It means different things to different people and in different situations, that's all. I am sure I never claimed that it's a confusing term. Consider the following examples:

1. So much for the news. Now let's hear what our meteorologist has to say.
2. I'm a meteorologist.
3. Meteorologists at Stanford University say that recent discoveries will make weather reports much more reliable in the future.

1 is clearly about a weather reporter who may or may not have started their career as a scientist. It's not clear what 2 is. 3 is obviously talking about scientists. When someone plays an expert on climate science in the general media and publicly contradicts climate researchers, then they are setting up a context in which "meteorologist" will be understood as "scientist who researches the weather". This expectation of the word's meaning is increased if the term appears in an encyclopedia, since encyclopedias tend to use language scrupulously and the use of "meteorologist" for weather reporter is etymologically problematic. This expectation of the word's meaning is even increased further if the word is presented as "broadcast meteorologist". All taken together, if an encyclopedia claims in this way that a person is a broadcast meteorologist, then it amounts to the claim that the person is a weather reporter of type (S). We do not make such claims without reliable sources clearly supporting it, especially not if the person is a living person.

Now if this person happens to be a weather reporter, they will often be referred to as a "broadcast meteorologist" or even just as a "meteorologist", because not all reliable sources care about the differences. Therefore sources calling him a variation of "broadcast meteorologist" don't help, and sources plainly calling him a "meteorologist" only help if there is some indication that the source is using language in the same careful way that we must use it. The best source would be one giving details about his scientific background.

The question whether he has a scientific background or not is highly relevant because humans have tendency to run off in one direction and not notice when they are wrong. This also happens to scientists, but in a formal scientific education we are wrong all the time and learn what it's like and that one doesn't lose face for admitting it. When someone forcefully maintains a minority position against a large number of experts, this is highly relevant.

Finally, what I said is confusing is the sourcing situation w.r.t. Watts' (lack of?) scientific education. I was assuming without proof that you are right, and contrasting that with the fact that on many occasions Watts has talked about his qualifications without making any scientific background explicit, and that a blogger claims that Watts has denied him information about his degree. If I simply assume that you were wrong, at least until you put the sources on the table, then the situation immediately ceases to be confusing. It's amazing that you attacked me for the word with which I indicated trust in what you said. You have punished me for this trust, and now it's gone. Hans Adler 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP has added a reliable source (Daily Telegraph) calling him an "American meteorologist and climate sceptic". [10] I find that single source barely enough to characterise him as a "broadcast meteorologist". But given the contrary evidence, the fact that most sources don't call him that, and that he doesn't call himself that, the change to "meteorologist" does not seem appropriate to me, so I am reverting that. Hans Adler 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) PS: It's also not a good idea to remove the key information that he regularly appeared in broadcast media from the first sentence. Hans Adler 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, can you list the reliable-source contrary evidence please? I don't understand the problem. Slowjoe17 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you even reading my posts before you reply to them? I gave a source in my initial entry (Beck Interview: [11]). Your own source above calls him a meteorologist. Watt's own site calls him a meteorologist. Here's a print news story calling him a meteorologist: [12]. Townhall.com calls him a meteorologist: [13]. Front Page Magazine calls him a meteorologist: [14]. Here are even more sources: [15] [16]

As for the notion that a "broadcast meteorologist" is somehow a beast wholly unrelated to a meteorologist, that's simply puerile. They're simply a specific type of meteorologist; a distinction that the entire world grasps instantly from basic rules of grammar, even if they didn't already know what one was. A broadcast meteorologist is a meteorologist who works in the broadcast industry. How can such a simple, basic term possibly ever be "confusing" to anyone? It's like implying a broadcast journalist is somehow not a journalist. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed "Beck Interview, Mar 3 2008" because initially I didn't understand this (did he give an interview in a beck? to someone called Beck? is there a newspaper or programme of that name?), and later I didn't re-read your earlier post. I take back the number zero above. (It's outdated now anyway.) The source is good. The IP has also added a pointer to an issue of Scientific American. I can't verify that but I am prepared to trust that this is correct, and presumably it's an excellent source for the purpose. No further questions about that.

The notion that one needs to distinguish between weather reporters and scientists qualified to speak about global warming is obviously not puerile at all, I would rather reserve that characterisation for the idea that just because someone is good at presenting the weather based on the prepared data they get, they are also good at predicting the climate.

In my second post above I have quoted from a piece that describes how to become a "television meteorologist". It's the second path that is relevant here. (I am glad that I am not the only one who misses something in someone else's post...)

Your last sentence is a bit surprising, so short after you have accused me of "faulty logic" with no evidence. A more adequate comparison would have been "It's like implying a weather reporter is somehow not a journalist." But even that is not an entirely fair comparison because the term meteorologist carries a much stronger connotation of a relevant academic degree and years of formal training than the term journalist. Hans Adler 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you're still confusing a meteorologist with a research meteorologist. Most people with a degree in meteorology don't do research -- almost all of them, in fact, unless they get an advanced degree. Let's say it again. A meteorologist is a meteorologist is a meteorologist. A broadcast meteorologist is a specialized type, just as is a research meteorologist.

We have a multitude of reliable sources calling Watts a meteorologist. We have zero to validate your theory that a broadcast meteorologist is not also a meteorologist. I think the case is closed at this point. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not me who is confusing "meteorologists" with "research meteorologists". The word's connotations depend on context, and here the context is an encyclopedia. The fact that it is linked, as "meteorologist", makes this worse because the link is a redirect to meteorology, which defines a meteorologist as follows:

Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology.

Maybe it's that article that should be fixed. But the claim that Anthony Watts is a "scientist who studies meteorology" is barely covered by what the sources actually say. I am not saying it's not covered, but it requires interpretation. Hans Adler 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While adding another source, the IP has removed the word "broadcast" again. As a result, there is no hint in the lead that Watts had (has?) regular appearances on radio and tv. I don't think that's appropriate. Moreover, the lead is now giving the impression that Watts is a meteorologist of the kind that publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The easiest way to fix both problems if of course by reinstating the word "broadcast". I did this [17], but self-reverted after realising that this article is under 1RR and that under strict rules this would count as my second revert. Hans Adler 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again. The vast majority of all meteorologists have only four-year degrees and thus do not publish peer-reviewed research...except possibly when assisting on a Ph.D. directed project. We've asked you many times to support your theory that the world regularly confuses a meteorologist with "someone who regularly publishes peer reviewed research" and you haven't done so. Even worse is the fact that I'm pretty sure I remember Anthony telling me that he *has* published at least one paper during his undergraduate work. I can't find an online reference, but here's one that fairly clearly points out his college work was in meteorology: [18] Fell Gleaming^talk 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. We all have to work with incomplete information. (That holds even for BLP subjects themselves.) Perhaps you can appreciate that if you know him personally your information is obviously more complete than mine. I understand your impatience better now. Hans Adler 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

break

Be careful with the Beck link above (Beck Interview: [9]) (glennbeck dot com/content/articles/article/196/6727/). When I tried to close the page, my cpu usage spiked and the page refused to close. When I then unplugged the internet connection, the cpu usage went to 100% for perhaps 30 seconds or so. Once things settled down, 47 new (mostly empty) browser windows had been opened. I had to reboot the system to clean it out. Q Science (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I had no such problem (Firefox under Windows XP), but I am using various security measures. Hans Adler 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with Chrome here either. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unmerge?

An IP is attempting to remove the contributions from User:ScienceApologist in regards to the merge [19]. I think that there needs to be a discussion of whether to throw out the baby with the bathwater, since as far as I know, no one has objected to the actual content of those edits. Furthermore, as evidenced by the exploding length of the Arbcomm and ANI discussions, some consensus should be reached on merge vs un-merge before such a drastic edit is undertaken. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no agreeing to mergeing so it should go back to the origanal state right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.45.189.230 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The redirects certainly should have been reverted (and were). However, per my comment above, there is no evidence that the additions to this article were bad ones. Also, the IP reverter did not merely undo User:ScienceApologist's edits, they restored to an even earlier version that included misleading language. Hence why there needs to be a discussion before reverting. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo...

-- courtesy of AW himself, from (I presume) his recent Australian tour. Thanks, Anthony! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/scientific-americans-interview-with-dr-richard-muller/

Add Richard A. Muller's "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American and response Scientific American’s interview with Dr. Richard Muller; posted on May 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts. 99.43.138.160 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the article are reference to skeptics Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit) (and Watts Up With That?), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will there be Internet access once this issue isn't current? 99.119.130.14 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

GOP’s only scientists at ‘Scopes’ climate hearing are Richard Muller and John Christy. Go figure! from Thinkprogress.org by Joe Romm on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm (see John Christy) ... and Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument from Good (magazine). Richard Muller's STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This style from Richard A. Muller: *Statement to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the United States House of Representatives, see United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology March 31, 2011. 99.190.80.91 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

SOA World Reference

I plan to delete this reference (Search for Energy Efficient Servers Leads Ex-Weatherman to Build-a-Blade by Pat Meier-Johnson) and any information supported by it, unless someone can defend it. It is a low quality source at best, but I believe we should be very skeptical of its reliability. First, while we have the reference listed as appearing in SOA World Magazine, it also appears in Green Technology Journal, Cloud Computing Journal, Java Developer's Journal, Sys-con Media, Innovations Software Technology, and Open Source Magazine, among other places. These are all "publications" of Ulitzer, an organ of Sys-con, which is a sketchy media company that appears to aggregate and republish stories, and has no apparent editorial input, quality criteria, or journalistic standards.

Even more damning, however, is the fact that the SOA World Magazine "article" we cite also appears here where it is listed as a Sys-con press release by Lauri Walker. The practice of creating articles for promotion of clients is encouraged by Sys-con. (See the FAQ: I'm a PR Agent or Social Media Professional, How Shall I Use Ulitzer?).

Every reference to work by Pat Meier-Johnson I could find involved her promoting a client company. (E.g. her other entry on Ulitzer/Sys-con is a seemingly factual blog titled "Study Reveals Behavior Patterns of China's Thriving Mobile User Market" The newsy post references Guohe Ad, a Chinese company. If you look up Guohe Ad, you can find a BusinessWire "News" story that lists Meier-Johnson as the PR contact for the company. The neutral-appearing news story is in fact promotion.)

She is not a journalist, and while it is possible that she just happened to write a purely factual and objective story about Watts and his use of technology, it seems to me that this reference is promotional and should be deleted as unreliable.Michaplot (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of an article is not a valid reason for removal, this is quite common with columnists. There is no reliable sources to support your arguments about sys-con media. Whether two websites are affiliated or not does not allow you to use the policies of one and apply them to the other. You have provided no reliable sources stating that she is not a journalist. You have already tried to argue unreliable information off the poorly sourced Ulitzer Wikipedia page (which I cleaned up) - which has exactly ONE news source associated with it and is not even the subject of this discussion. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You added this article as a citation for Watts education, so the burden is on you to document that it is a reliable source. This is BLP issue. The bar is high for reliability in BLP articles (read WP:BLP). I do not think this article reaches that bar, for the reasons I have stated. I see you have cleverly ignored some issues I raised with this source (such as it appearing as a press release and the author's record of promotional publications and the publisher encouraging use of its publications for promotion). You could provide evidence that Pat Meier-Johnson is a journalist or a columnist, that she has a record of publishing anything in any other reliable source. You could provide evidence that Ulitzer or Sys.com (take your pick) are legitimate news outlets. Or you could allow the contentious reference to be removed.Michaplot (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no sources to support your arguments, therefore there is nothing to ignore. The source I provided is not from Ulitzer but SYS-CON Media which is indexed by Google News. The website is not a traditional media outlet but setup as a Magazine "Web-Portal" so it is common for stories to be cross posted to multiple magazine web portals. I have no reason to support removal of a valid source especially after you have admitted to making conclusions regarding Watts based on unsourced allegations and personal bias. I find this highly disturbing for a Wikipedia editor. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I will ignore the personal attack and simply point out that being indexed in Google News means nothing about the reliability of a source. The issue is whether the source is reliable and I argue it isn't. Unless I have missed it, you have not provided any evidence that the source is reliable. It is clearly promotional and comes up in Google News as a press release which is not a reliable source. I am removing it, unless someone can support its use.Michaplot (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack but a direct observation based on statements you made. Your arguments have been based on unsourced allegations and personal opinions. They are not based on sourced information. All news sources (not individual articles, those are automatically crawled) are reviewed before being added to Google News and must adhere to their quality guidelines. Thus to be indexed in Google News mean the source has met a certain level of reliability as a news source. Google news does not allow marketing content. The source does not say it is a press release. You can remove it but I will add it back in. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be the case that Google attempts that "to be index in Google News mean[s] the source has met a certain level of reliability", but that's not the way to bet. I've seen AP press releases in Google News. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I will seek a third opinion and a request for comments before I take it to dispute resolution. In good faith, however, I will summarize my case against this source:

• The source (Sys-con Media/Ulitzer) allows (nearly) anyone to write a story and publish it to a variety of different publications, even ones they create. There is little or no editorial oversight and no apparent journalistic standards. This makes the piece essentially self-published.
• The piece is highly promotional. In Google News the piece is listed as a publication of "SYS-CON Media (press release)".
• The author is not a journalist or columnist. (She has few if any publications that are not promotional.) She is a PR person.
• The "Build-a-Blade" mentioned in the title of the article is a business venture of Anthony Watts. There is a link to the sales site for this business in the article.
• Ulitzer/Sys-con Media encourages PR people to use its publications for promoting their clients--not something a reliable news source would do.
• WP:Identifying reliable sources says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties...." This piece seems to fit the bill.
• WP:Identifying reliable sources also says, "[L]argely not acceptable [are]...website[s] whose content is largely user-generated..." This piece seems to fit the bill.
• If the article is accurate, where did the author get the information about Watts' education? We cannot find it in any source. She cites no sources.

If anyone really thinks this is a reliable source then why do they not use other information from the article. For example the article says Watts was an electrical engineer, that he invented the first NTSC broadcast encoder for the IBM PC for use in television weather broadcasts, and that Watts' Build-a-Blade product will change the blade market, just as clones ended the strangle hold of IBM on PCs?Michaplot (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is not Ulitzer, misrepresenting the source with a different domain is not a valid argument. Sys-con explicitly states that their site is not for marketing, "This is not a marketing piece. Specific products cannot be the focus of the article." http://www.sys-con.com/general/aboutus.htm How do you think journalists get information that does not exist online? They do independent research which would include interviewing the person they are writing about. Not using other information out of an article is not a valid argument against a source. --JournalScholar (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can help you with your confusion. Go to SOA World Magazine, which you can find at http://soa.sys-con.com/. Then click on Authors on the red menu bar. You will be directed to...Ulitzer! Now go back SOA World Magazine an and click Home on the red menu bar. You will be taken to the Home Page for Sys-con Media. Let's say you wanted to write an article for Sys-con Media. No problem--click on Write An Article in the red menu bar. You will immediately be taken to...Ulitzer! Now go back to the Sys-con Media Home Page and go the bottom of the page. You will find a link for Author Guidelines. Click on that and you will find yourself looking at a page titled: "AUTHOR GUIDELINES for SYS-CON.com & Ulitzer.com". Also, if you happen to be on the Ulitzer.com site and you have any trouble, at the bottom of the Members page, you are told: "Anytime you need help please contact Ulitzer editors by email at editorial (at) sys-con.com."

I am assuming you actually knew this, as you correctly cite the guideline about marketing ("This is not a marketing piece"). No one, especially me, ever claimed the source in question was marketing. I said it was promotion, which is encouraged by Ulitzer/Sys-con Media.

As for the sources used by the source in question, they are not revealed. There are no direct quotations or paraphrases attributed to Watts, yet the author seems to have a lot of detailed information about Watts' thoughts and actions. I find that fishy, especially as in the Ulitzer/Sys-con Media Author Guidelines, directly after the Not a Marketing Piece entry you quote, prospective authors are told: "Be open; tell them your resources". I hope this clears up your confusion.Michaplot (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean the page that says, "All submissions or queries can be directed 24x7 to SYS-CON Editorial team" and "This is not a marketing piece, Specific products cannot be the focus of the article."? Lack of quotations is not a valid argument as there is no rule that journalist must include quotes from those they are writing articles on. --JournalScholar (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn describes SYS-CON Media as a "Content-driven Internet publisher devoted to connecting IT professionals with opportunity 24x7x365."^[20] (i.e. marketing and promotion). Reliable sources noticeboard will most likely confirm not reliable. — ThePowerofX 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't thought to check LinkedIn. I am not interested in getting into an edit war, but I strongly believe this is not a reliable source. If we cannot reach consensus here, or other editors are unwilling to go with removing the source, I can put it on a notice board and then move on to dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn is a social networking website, thus it is not a reliable source and cannot be used to define SYS-CON media. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

TOB effect

I've trimmed out premature claims from the para on Watts' latest: for example, note that Pielke says he's not an author, and "The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter." . . dave souza, talk 06:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Watts is a climatologist?

JournalScholar, you just changed the article to say that Watts is a climatologist. Do you have a source for this claim? If not, we should remove that reference.Michaplot (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really, where exactly did I do this? --JournalScholar (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You changed "Working with a number of well-known climatologists...Watts..." to "Working with other climatologists...Watts...). This implies Watts is a climatologist. No worries though. Some else has corrected this error.Michaplot (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Surface Stations Project

We should briefly note the results of Richard Muller, who commenced his own research project, in large part, due to the concerns raised by Watts. — ThePowerofX 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. We should note particularly the issue discussed (with sources) in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature of how Watts said “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong", then when the results weren't what he wanted "contended that the study’s methodology was flawed".. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Some pertinent quotations:

When the Best project was announced last year, the prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was consulted on the methodology. He stated at the time: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."

EnvironmentClimate changeClimate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds, The Guardian

At least one of those skeptics, Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But neither Mr. Watts nor other longtime critics of climate science seemed satisfied with the report. Mr. Watts contended that the study’s methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies.

Climate Skeptics Stay Unswayed, The New York Times

Muller elaborates "First, there were issues around station quality - Watts showed that some of the stations had poor quality. We studied that in great detail. Fortunately, we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately."

There's plenty of room for scepticism, The Guardian

— ThePowerofX 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean we should include quotes from Muller too? I should have no problem finding these for you. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The quotes above are notable because they establish Richard Muller's interest and involvement. According to Muller, Anthony Watts had shown that some surface stations were not ideally situated, and therefore he thought it important to re-examine the issue in considerable detail, consulting with Watts and other sceptics along the way. Watts was impressed with the experts Muller had pulled together and was happy to accept the results. I grouped these quotes together because they have precise relevance to the matter at hand, helping to explain Muller's involvement and conclusion. What quote(s) from Muller do you have in mind, and how do they improve the article? — ThePowerofX 00:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mullers work should be discussed on his page. The quotes are notable on Muller's page since they are discussing Muller's work not Watts. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Muller is a notable physicist. His efforts are described elsewhere in detail. I do not propose we describe his work here at considerable length, only Muller's involvement as it pertains to Anthony Watts. The NCDC and BEST studies were embarked upon as a direct consequence of the uncertainty raised by Watts and his Surface Stations project. On what basis should we ignore them? — ThePowerofX 11:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Him being a notable physicist is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that his BEST project has nothing to do with Watts. His involvement has nothing to do with Watts. Watts comments on many scientists on his website and their work that does not make it relevant to his BLP. Muller and Best should be discusses on Muller's BLP. BEST was not started because of Watts. Watt's BLP is not a place for anyone that references Watts work. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep making assertions of fact without providing adequate sourcing. Let me reiterate: Richard Muller has stated repeatedly that his research was inspired by skeptics.

Ros Donald: What was it about previous temperature data work that moved you to start the BEST project?

Richard Muller: Three years ago I felt major issues were raised about previous studies. I was not convinced they came to scientifically solid conclusions. They had used only a fraction of the data. We did a study in which we used essentially all of the data. There were issues about station quality - Anthony Watts had shown that many of the stations had poor quality.^[21]

We have established that Muller consulted directly with Anthony Watts and that Watts provided data to the BEST team ("As a reflection of my increased confidence, I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data."^[22]). The BEST website explicitly mentions Anthony Watts on its FAQ (http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/). Thus the project is relevant and conclusion germane to the topic of Surface Stations. — ThePowerofX 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So? You do not include someone else's work on the page of the person who "inspired them". Should every one who used one of Einstein's papers be mentioned on his Wikipedia page? The carbonbrief is not a reliable source. The BEST website mention is rudimentary and simply states they used some of Watt's data, BEST otherwise has nothing to do with the Surface Station project and Watt's was not a BEST team member. Using your logic any future study that uses Surface Station data or cites a paper authored by Watts should be referenced on Watt's BLP. That makes no sense. --JournalScholar (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The ideas and work of other scientists are mentioned on Albert Einstein's article (in considerably more detail on the main articles linked in each section). Many of Einstein's ideas are no longer in contention and it would be difficult to include every notable disagreement regarding someone of Einstein's stature. We do not face the same problem here. Anthony Watts' only scientific contribution is to contest the reliability of the US surface temperature network. His work has generated a great deal of press attention. Wikipedia requires us to describe his work and any notable dispute surrounding it. The Carbon Brief interview with Prof. Richard Muller is sufficient for his own words (his answer is reprinted by The Guardian). The key to resolving this misunderstanding is notability. If Watts' analysis is correct, then practically every climate scientist in the world is working with erroneous data. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was established to resolve this very dispute, using data supplied to them by Anthony Watts. I ask you again, on what conceivable basis is their involvement not notable? — ThePowerofX 17:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Which work is mentioned that Einstein did not collaborate on? The Carbon Brief is a unreliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. The surface stations project is directly related to weather station citing classifications which was not an objective of the BEST project, http://berkeleyearth.org/objectives/. Thus it is clearly false that BEST was established to resolve Watt's concerns. The alleged "notability" amounts to a rudimentary and improper use of some of Watt's data and some commentary by Watts. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

JS, your argument is clearly false in that one of the primary objectives of the BEST project is stated on the page you link is to "to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record". Their FAQ on "There have been many criticisms of station quality" states "One of the elements that we have analyzed is temperature records from only the very best sites (as classified by Anthony Watts and his team) contrasted with the poorer sites." . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am now repeating myself, still, Muller's answer to The Carbon Brief was published elsewhere. "First, there were issues around station quality - Watts showed that some of the stations had poor quality." (There's plenty of room for scepticism The Guardian) It's clear that user JournalScholar is not taking the necessary time to read responses to his objections. — ThePowerofX 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that general information about Muller is not appropriate, but both the BEST, which Watts was involved in, and Watts new study were released the same week. Watts comments on BEST both before and after were in the news. Note that the sources for this section include reliable sources that explicitly make the connection between Watts, and his new study, and the BEST. This was very notable Watts news, and I believe is relevant and appropriate for this article.Michaplot (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Watts is not a part of the BEST team and it has nothing to do with the Surface Station project. The only connection is his alleged "consulting" and comments on the BEST project. --JournalScholar (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, one of tne of the primary objectives of the BEST project is to "to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record". Their FAQ on "There have been many criticisms of station quality" states "One of the elements that we have analyzed is temperature records from only the very best sites (as classified by Anthony Watts and his team) contrasted with the poorer sites." The project was set up to answer his criticisms, amongst others, in cooperation with him. . . dave souza, talk 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be desirable for someone with knowledge of the studies to trim back this section, keeping essential detail and deleting anything necessary. — ThePowerofX 23:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's Get Consensus On the Education Question

On the question of Watts education (does he have a college degree, and what did he study in college) we have, so far, a gaping lack of solid references. None of the published bios of Watts contains any mention of his education, nor do any mentions of him in published sources, save the one N&R story, and the allusion there is somewhat vague and likely derives from Watt himself. Given this curious fact, I can see three courses of action:

• remain silent on the issue until we get a solid reference (i.e. remove any mention of college from the article);
• leave the article essentially as is (i.e. state that Watts attended Purdue University, period);
• append to the claim of his Purdue University attendance the fact that it is unclear whether he attained a degree or what he studied.

I would argue that Watts' credentials and education are highly relevant to his reason for being on WP. He has been called a scientist, and speaks with authority on complex matters of science. If he lacks a college degree, that information is important--and not necessarily damning or negative (people might interpret this as evidence of genius). So I think the issue is not whether noting the conspicuous lack of evidence of a degree is unfairly derogatory, but whether it is relevant and appropriate to include this fact.

We know journalscholars opinion on this matter. I would like to hear some other people's opinions on how we should proceed. Michaplot (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What we have is a reliable source stating that he attended Purdue. It cannot be included that it is unclear whether he obtained a degree because that would violate WP:NOR. Your arguments are irrelevant to the information currently on the page about his educational background that is both verifiable and from a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Any one of the three is fine. However, it looks like Journalscholar continued to make edits anyway, adding ever more desperately questionable sources to substantiate Watts's education: as of now, the section continues "he was trained as a broadcast meteorologist...", which is also misleading as it implies that his training was complete.Belsavis (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that it is fine to, "append to the claim of his Purdue University attendance the fact that it is unclear whether he attained a degree or what he studied." would violate WP:NOR and is not allowed on Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to remove verifiable information from a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am adding two more reliable sources which are shedding more light on this matter. The second one is primary source, an e-mail from Purdue University Registrar office. http://warming101.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-anthony-watts-have-college-degree.html http://sourcewatch.org/images/4/4d/Anthony_Watts.pdf Belsavis (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm watching this page, but, as a former Purdue student who did not get a degree there, I thought I would add some information. We really don't seem to have a third-party secondary source that he attended Purdue, and it was not at all uncommon (when I was there; 1970–72) for high school or community college students to attend classes at Purdue, for either university or other school credit. Normally, Watts' statement that he attended Purdue (although, actually, there isn't such a statement; a student working at a lab does not mean a Purdue student) would be sufficient, but the matter seems to be controversial and relevant. I would remove the entire paragraph per WP:BLP concerns. Using the letter apparently from the registrar and published at sourcewatch would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY, in the absence of a reliable secondary source, used in the article, which used or commented on that primary source.

As I've been accused of being a climate change denier, and hence agreeing with Watts, I would hope that this comment would be taken seriously. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No we have a reliable news source stating that he attended Purdue (was a student working in a lab), we also have a second source saying he was trained at Purdue. I find it ironic that multiple commentators are attempting to use Sourcewatch to claim he did not obtain a degree but did attend while also trying spin his testimony to being a student there as if he did not attend. Your "tesimony" cannot be verified and is thus unreliable. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to read your sources. All the sources connecting him to Purdue are quoting him, except for the alleged letter from the registrar. And being a student at a lab at Purdue does not mean he is a Purdue student. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The one source is quoting him, the second is stating he was trained at Purdue. He explicitly referred to himself as a student working in a lab at Purdue. Thus the page correctly states that he attended Purdue it does not say in what capacity. The argument again is not whether he attended Purdue or not but whether he obtained a degree from Purdue, no one has currently presented a reliable source that can be verified one way or the other. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs and Sourcewatch (wikis) are not reliable sources and cannot be used on Wikipedia. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs perhaps, but Sourcewatch is actually a quite credible source and has been cited regularly in wikipedia and academia. If its good enough for an academic cite, its good enough for wikipedia. Don't just go declaring stuff at random uncredible and then attempting to word that as wikipedia policy. Thats acting in bad faith. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just support one of your recent edits with a blog source?Michaplot (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs by professional journalists are acceptable sources. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He'd never do that ;) [23] [24] — ThePowerofX 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

:) I am thinking he might not have realized it was a blog, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I think a thorough review of the sources for this page is in order. There are actually several blogs and other lower quality sources, and Watts' one peer reviewed paper is not really mentioned or described in the text of the article, though it has several high quality sources associated with it. I may create a new section in the Talk pages for discussing which sources to keep and which to get rid of.Michaplot (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Watt's paper does not need to be mentioned in the article text to be listed as a selected publication. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin--thanks for your "vote" and comments. I am glad that someone else agrees with me--that if we are to apply rigorous standards to this page, we cannot interpret the one reliable source (News & Review article) as supporting Watts' attendance at Purdue. This is certainly a tricky case in that here we have a person who has very assertively inserted themselves into an acute political debate, has done so from the position of an expert (i.e. scientist), and has published on the topic. He has taken very vocal and public stances on various issues that potentially affect the fate of the world, has contributed some interesting information to the field, and has remained steadfastly tendentious in his analyses (global warming being one, but there are others not mentioned on the page). People want to know what his credentials are. I believe claims should be judged by their inherent quality alone (and anyone could in principle become an expert in even a highly technical and complex field with no degree whatsoever--history is full of autodidacts), but it is also true that we do judge claims by whether their originators are speaking ex cathedra. Why should I listen to a "blogger"? If they have a Ph.D. from MIT in a relevant field, I am more inclined to take them seriously. So--I suppose in this case we have to balance the patent importance of reporting on the credentials of this person and BLP concerns. I am really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I do think it would be fair and not derogatory to report that no sources exist related to Watts education and so it cannot be determined whether he obtained a degree, which is a fair (NPOV) assessment of the state of the evidence. But on the other hand, I agree this may be crossing a line vis-a-vis BLP concerns. I respect your opinion on this matter, so thanks for the contribution to this discussion. I hope other people chime in!Michaplot (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly accepted to interpret a statement by Watts stating that he was a student at Purdue to having attended Purdue. Please provide a source were Watts claimed to have been a scientist. I find it very disturbing that you are editing based on unsourced allegations and personal opinions. Stating that no source exists for anything would violate WP:NOR and is not allowed on Wikipedia. --JournalScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Watts's statement appears to be that he worked at a lab at Purdue as a student. It's likely he intended to say he was a Purdue student, but he didn't actually say that. He could have been a community college student, or even a "student of life". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that he was a community college student or anything other than he attended Purdue which is all the page states. --JournalScholar (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no indication in the statement so far quoted that he was a Purdue student. If he wanted to say that, he could have said it. He was a student, at Purdue. We don't know he was a Purdue student. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement, "when he was a student working in a lab at Purdue University" can be directly interpreted to that he "attended Purdue". Multiple editors here already agree he attended because they are attempting to edit in information stating he did not graduate from unreliable sources. Just like if he wanted to say what you are alleging he could have said that as well. There is not a single source (including blogs) stating that he was anything but a Purdue student. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I started this section with an overview of the situation--there is no reliable source that definitely addresses Watts' education. No one objected to that (except you) and I have not seen general agreement among editors that he attended Purdue as a Purdue student. You can interpret the N&R article in a variety of ways, and as Arthur Rubin and I have both pointed out, another possible interpretation is that Watts was not enrolled at Purdue. As you point out, unless we have a reliable source, we can't even say he was a student at Purdue, no matter that I personally believe he probably was.Michaplot (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that can be directly interpretted that Watts attended Purdue but not in what capacity (full or part time student). We have multiple editors who by their actions agree with this as they attempted to edit sources stating he did not graduate. Your belief that he was a Purdue student is simply further agreement that he did attend and the interpretation is correct. Not being able to locate a reliable source for the information your wish to obtain is not a valid argument for removal of other verifiable information. --JournalScholar (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Watts drives Wiki Editors Bananas

How is it that this guy and a handful of others, though characterized as buffoons, has turned the Global Warming issue on its head? That is Despite all effort, especially in wiki to the contrary. That subject alone deserves analysis. That is, why are the wiki editors so wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1. This is not a forum for general discussion. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

2. On which account do you think wiki editors are wrong?

3. Watts hasn't turned the Global warming issue on its head. He did contribute to the public confusion, and has a devout and loud following in the uneducated and Dunning-Krugerites. People refuse to believe bad news, especially if they're responsible. The press is often just as uneducated on the issue of GW and science in general, and the fact that Koch brothers have thrown millions of dollars their way is partly responsible.Belsavis (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ...That was an over the top response to a simple suggestion. I suppose I could write the text of a brief paragraph outlining the 1000s of edits and the whirlwind of activity concerting Mr Watts. Look what you just wrote in response to me? Dude!

Anthony Watts was a FEATURED guest of PBS's News Hour on "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message" by Spencer Michels at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/why-the-global-warming-crowd-oversells-its-message.html

The national response in numerous media outlets (PBS's subscriber feedback site itself) was so hyperbolic that the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, had to intervene as shown here in his longest analysis ever:

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/

Watts has most certainly upset the wiki editors. He has upset PBS and the entire news a blog world. That is his claim to fame. He is under the skin of everyone who has tried to mount a rebuttal, including you. Just read how over-the-top you are. Geese.

So I think there should be a paragraph added to the article that speaks to Watt's reality as a provocateur. He is simply the best I have ever seen. Keep the anti-Watts blather out of this discussion of his merits as a wiki editor bedeviler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.29 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about that. Buffoons have often had widespread public following and have easily wreaked havoc, one Adolf Hitler being the most well-known example.Belsavis (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Watts' science bog is the most popular science blog on the entire internet, That fact alone affords him unique notoriety especially since the blog is often directed, negatively, at wiki editors.

If Adolf Hitler is the most well-known example of a buffoon, why has nobody included it in his biography nor in the buffoon's page? So peculiar occupation in a historic figure would be worthy a mention. 80.174.254.227 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You know you lost your argument when you start comparing a person to Hitler. ergo, Watts is driving you crazy too.