Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

opposes consensus, is skeptical, and leading climate change denial blog

Regarding this edit, I'm fine with the goal, but I have two concerns. Using this particular quote from Watts hints at their being "two sides to the debate", which I think gives the impression of a false balance. Just outright saying it is a climate skeptic website, or climate change denial website, or is opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change, all sidestep that issue. I think we may be able to find a better quote, or a better paraphrase. My second concern is that we're basically saying the same thing 3 times: The blog is opposed to the scientific consensus, presents climate change skepticism material, and is the leading climate change denial blog. I haven't touched the lead yet, because I want to flesh out the body first and then work on summarizing, but I think we can find a good way to combine these ideas into one reasonable summary. Anyway, I left it alone for now, I just shortened a bit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The big issue for me is that this is the article about the man, and Watts Up With That? is the article about the website. Really, this article should be pretty much stripped of most of the website related stuff.

That said,Re Jess First concern, usually when people refer to "two sides of the debate" the discussion is between opposing views of climate science. The issue here is opposing views on how to characterize a man (Watts). The fact of the matter is that there are two sides to the issue of how to characterize that man. Some RSs say "skeptic" and some RSs say "denier" and still other RSs (and me personally but that's besides the point) say say these words have ceased to have useful distinct meanings. Key though is that we're not presenting two views of climate science here. Rather, we're presenting two views of a man, or at least, that man's website. Thus, BLP policy is in play. The only NPOV way to approach that is to use Watts' self-description (skeptic) while noting alternate opinions from credible RSs (denier). If each and every RS explicitly equated the terms this would be a nonissue but that's not what's happening in the real world. (What's actually happening is that most RSs do not indicate whether the authors distinguish between the words, and of the remainder, most of those that do a credible job distinguishing the words say "denier".)

Re Jess' Other concern... you seem to argue that

skepticism = consensus_opposition = denial in all cases

The RSs have not congealed around that point of view, so based on the RSs, despite face we have said these three things we have not committed an atrocious redundancy. Quite the opposite. Watts claims to be the leading blog voice, and the best way to characterize his site is one of the main issues of significance in coverage about his site. If we don't report that in NPOV style, we're missing the story.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I find that anaylsis both thoughtful and helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts and his blog are inexorably linked. I say this as someone who has read probably 100 sources on Watts within just this past week, including every last one cited in this article. In almost every source, Watts is mentioned alongside his blog, and vice-versa. Almost every notable thing Watts has ever done (besides newscasting) is tied to his blog, including the surface stations project, which began there. It's likely merging the articles would be useful (though I still have reservations about it I'd need to think over). Anyway...

The exact quote we're using is "the climate debate from the climate skeptic side", which implies two sides about the climate change debate, not two sides about Watts. That's my concern. I don't want to contextualize "his side" as a fringe position; instead, I want to just sidestep the "two sides" wording altogether.

It doesn't matter if "skepticism = consensus_opposition = denial" in all cases, it just matters in this case. Watts is each of those things, according to our sources. The article history is important. First we had nothing at all. Then we had "denial". Then we compromised on the skepticism vs denial thing and added "opposition and denial". Now we added skepticism too, so we have "opposition, skepticism and denial". I think we should trim back to the heart of the issue. The three labels may mean other things for other people, but for Watts, they mean roughly the same thing: he opposes the scientific consensus (and in the sense of "denial", he also does it in the face of overwhelming evidence).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Climate skeptic" is a really unattractive phrase. What exactly is the object of the skepticism?? Not the "climate"; instead, the science about the climate. I don't think we are helping our readers understand anything by relaying this phrase as misused by Watts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jess, excellent clarification! Now that I see the nuance, I agree the quote I first selected injected a false sense of two sides of the debate. Happily, we already had a ref with a better self-description by Watts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no parity between the "two sides", and that is what is not being made clear.

"Climate skeptic" is an obfuscating term, because it imparts dual meaning, depending on the readers background knowledge. It would appear that Watts knows that. You'll note that he is careful not to explicitly state that he denies the consensus in his rebuttal. This is partially why his self-serving statements can't be presented in a context that would render them unduly self-serving.

It is a fact that there is a scientific consensus on AGW, and to reject that is climate denial. Scientific skepticism involves questioning a specific aspect of the supporting science in a rational manner, which leads to further investigation--as with the BEST study--which Watts rejects, the same with the solar effects, etc.

I think it is OK to include mention of Watts rebuttal, but it has to be contextualized in a manner so as not to obfuscate the differentiation and mislead the reader.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

U, see my reason for excluding the May 25 Watts post under the section "meatpuppetry" above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be careful about our use of the word "skeptic", as it can have several meanings and therefore be easily confused. The last paragraph of WP:RNPOV covers this sort of idea, and I think it's probably applicable here as well. We don't want to imply Watts engages in scientific skepticism, because none of our sources say he does. We also don't want to imply Watts is a philisophical skeptic who is open to new ideas and evidence, since only Watts describes himself that way. We can say how he self-describes, of course, but if our independent sources don't back up his self description, we should contextualize it as such. I think our sources do back up that he is a "climate change skeptic" (as well as promoting climate change denial), so indicating that is okay. We just need to be judicious about its use, knowing that the label could be misunderstood.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

He does engage in scientific skepticism, and it is really tiring to continually see statements that he does not. Regardless, if you and others believe that the terms are equal, then why have so many been fighting tooth and nail to make sure that he is called a "denier"? Arzel (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not the case, though it may have been in the past. Refer to the Ars Technica piece cited on this page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

His blog certainly hosts content by scientists that are skeptical. Judith Curry, former chair of Georgia Tech climate science, is often presented. Leif Svaalgard a respected Solar Physicist from Stanford maintains Watts' solar page data. Lindzen and Pielke are well respected scientists and present often. Christy and Spencer maintain the Satellite temperature record and are hosted. Certainly these credentialed scientists that have expressed skeptical views and published their own theories and data in peer reviewed journals would not be labeled "deniers" so "denialist blog" clearly misrepresents them when it is expressing their viewpoint or hosting their data. Those are just the active scientists that engage his blog. Watts' site has a number of reference pages that are simply data from various sources including ENSO, solar cycles, sea ice, etc. Mann's objection is political as is his book (and rightly so as it attempts to respond to political criticism). "denier" is too loose a label and too much of a pejorative to be thrown around without massive corroboration. That doesn't seem to be the case. The reaction to NOAA's recalibration as well as various other reactions to pause explaining theories such as stratospheric water vapor, trade winds and ENSO have shifted in the last five years or so. All scientists are more sceptical and less willing to accept versions that are novel. An AGU "conversation" with 6 climate scientists (3 from IPCC and 3 skeptical) in order to review the AGU statement about Climate change drew a pretty hard line that a few more years of the same temperature trend would call into question the basic model of the climate and/or its presumptions. They were clearly at their limit and these were scientists responsible for modeling and were section leaders for IPCC. They are moving towards those like Curry and Lindzen even if today they disagree. Curry and Lindzen are exactly the kinds of scientists hosted by Watts and engage him regularly and he seems to consult them often. That's "skeptical" not "denialist". That was not the case 15 years ago when even Al Gore's presentation was accepted without a second glance. --DHeyward (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You assert that the scientists who are publishing on WUWT "would not be labeled 'deniers'". Do you have any good sources which show that doing so is somehow problematic? All of these scientists, in fact, have been severely criticized by many climate scientists for their positions which align with the Wikipedia article on climate change denial. You further claim that Mann's objection is "political". Do you have good sources which show that this is so? The best sources I see identify Mann as a preeminent climate scientist fully capable of distinguishing between claims which are in line with the scientific consensus on climate change and those claims which dispute or deny this consensus. You claim that "all scientists are more sceptical...." Do you have a source for this claim? The sources I've seen seem to indicate the opposite -- that most scientists are not more inclined towards the positions of Watts and company. Do you have a source which distinguishes between "sceptical" and "denialist" as you do in your penultimate sentence? In particular, do you have sources which clearly identify the positions of Curry and Lindzen as explicitly not being "denialist"? jps (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is a classic example of Confirmation Bias. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Re this edit: what to do about the fact that the edit has been performed on behalf of Watts, per his request: "So, since this is a numbers game, and because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, I ask WUWT readers to help out in this matter. Here’s some instructions on how to do so, including the official Wikipedia instructions. You can make edits after you create an account." Regardless of the merits of the edit, we'll have to consider WP:COI and WP:MEATPUPPET here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm that editor. I've been active here for about as long as Watt's been publishing his blog. I'm not his meat puppet  ;-]

I'd previously posted an explanation of this edit here, upthread. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What are we to do about any editors who might have come because editor William Connolley blogged about this article dispute? What are we to do about any editors who might have come because editor jps appealed for help in this dispute? Nothing, of course, unless such editors confess that they're here due to Connolley or jps. Why get worried selectively and only make plans to bite newcomers who might come due to non-editor Watts? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley did not appeal for somebody to make specific edits. He simply noted the dispute and used the opportunity to educate his readers on how Wikipedia works. Anthony Watts, on the other hand, is clearly encouraging people who side with him to edit the article on his behalf. — TPX 11:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Look past the request to the source. He provided a statement on his AGW position. Does anything else matter? --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As a note, it's important we recognize the goalpost shifting that happens so frequently in politics, pseudoscience, and other PR-heavy topics. It is common in these areas for a subject to say "I'm not really this thing. My views are much more nuanced." Of course, there will be times that is true, but there will also be times it is not, and we must be careful to discern what independent sources say when deciding on our coverage.

In this case, Watts said he's not a climate change denier because he doesn't deny that the climate is changing. This is clearly goalpost shifting: while he superficially acknowledges the changing climate, he disputes how much it's changing, whether it will continue changing, the cause of the change, our ability to slow the change, and nearly every other bit of the science on climate change one could disagree on. Climate change denial encompasses more views than "denying the climate is changing at all," so even with Watts' clarified view sitting in front of us, he clearly falls into the "promotes climate change denial" group, whether he likes the characterization or not. Call it "climate change denial", or "climate change skepticism", or whatever else you'd like, but he's in it, and independent sources back that up.

Yes, we can express Watts' opinion, but we need to make sure we don't overturn quality independent sources using what is said in Watts' blog. As is all too common in any topic which gets criticized by the mainstream community, the subject of criticism disputes all the criticism; that is to be expected, and we must do our best to filter their views through NPOV so the mainstream, independent opinion shines through.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I daresay that AR5 moved the goalposts much further than anything Watts has said. Ar5 moved closer to Watts than Watts did to AR4. Who's right? I have no idea but damned if I disparage either one over ideology. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss the sub-decdal SRM model accuracy and the change to 2050 and 2100 temps? Fairly significant in terms of numbers. Watts view seems to have not moved. Neither deny CO2 adds to warming. I con't know anyone that considers AR5 to be stronger than AR4 in terms of worst case AGW.--DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong dichotomy? Sure, in a large document you can always cherry-pick some values, especially if motivated. But I see no major difference between AR4 and AR5 with respect to the severity of climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity is essentially the same. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure but the main thing driving the uncertainty in climate sensitivity is how clouds will respond. The signature isn't yet strong enough to observe how clouds respond and how much positive feedback there is, whence there is little change in the estimate (or confidence) as our understanding hasn't improved that much. Kind of hard to get excited about unchanging estimates to climate sensistivity when the largest driver of it remains elusive. --DHeyward (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We know that Watts may be used as a source of information about Watts, and we know that the mainstream says Watts and his blog are skeptic, but the topic of this thread was supposedly meatpuppetry. Can we gather from the above digressions that the topic is dead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please -- all involved editors here have been involved for a while; meat puppetry is irrelevant and should not have been raised here. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to ask whether an established editor is editing at the request of an article subject. We can also evaluate the edit in question on its own merits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not inappropriate, but we do not need to explore every avenue related to behavior to discuss what is ultimately a content dispute. (It's just another rabbit hole of endless whining, in my opinion. We have enough of those already.) JBL (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit posts what I would tend to consider an "unduly self-serving statement" from the subject's blog, which is not policy-compliant editing per WP:SPS.

In the explanation he linked to he tries to denigrate and dismiss Mann's book, and also claims there is no consensus for including Mann's statement in the lead, while a number of editors have unambiguously declared that there is consensus.

Those are editing issues that verge on exceeding the scope of a good-faith content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit, While I concur that refutations of assertions or allegations made by others about oneself are necessarily, innately "self-serving"; but cannot concur that they are "unduly" so, as might be intended under WP:SPS or WP:BLPSPS. "Unduly self-serving" would cover puffery & self-promotion. There is additionally the requirement in the final sentence of the second example at WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks for the thought provoking comment. On the one hand, yes, I wouldn't find it objectionable to include Watts statement of rebuttal in some form. On the other hand, one thing to bear in mind is that this is not a one-off scandal or something with Watts, it relates to his everyday work for which he is notable, and apparently he is notable for nothing else. Another related aspect is that Watts claims, in the recent retort against Wikipedians on his blog, that he does not deny climate change, which is weasely, because he does deny the scientific consensus on climate change, which seems to trigger another policy on Wikipedia in the form of WP:PSCI, as Dave souza (talk · contribs) first pointed out here.

And regarding the specific edit, the RS statement was deleted and replaced with Watts self-serving statement. In that context, it seems to become unduly self-serving. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit, Likewise thanks for your thoughts. If there are verifiable, noteworthy opinions on the subject, then I am sure we should include them "fairly, proportionately, and without bias"; neutrally worded & attributed; as required by WP:NPOV. W.r.t WP:PSCI, I am not quite sure how it factors into this Article. If this were the Article on "climate change", I would wholeheartedly agree it is relevant; but this is a BLP for "Anthony Watts (blogger)". As above, I don't concur that a simple "I am not a climate change denier" refutation is unduly self-serving, within the meaning of WP:SPS & WP:BLPSPS. W.r.t the edit itself, if we mean this one, I don't see the removal of a WP:RS; or that the previous version contained the refutation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's true that one of the examples at WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests including the subject's denial of an allegations, but in this case Watts' denial is packaged with Watts' off-wiki meatpuppetry. I'm not inclined to link to his his meatpuppetry for purposes of providing a denial, when we already have a perfectly good denial in the form of his claim to be a skeptic, i.e., the PBS Newshour interview. The following are both a denial of the allegation

Example Allegation	Denial (stated in positive)	Denial (state in negative)
"NAEG is dead"	My name is NAEG, and I live.	My name is NAEG, and I am not dead.
"Watts/WUWT is a climate denier."	My name is Watts, and I am a climate skeptic.	My name is Watts, and I am not a climate denier.

Since we can use his affirmative statement "I am a pragmatic skeptic" to deny the allegation he is a climate denier, we should not reward Watts' offwiki meatpuppetry with linking in the article.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, Many thanks for your thoughtful response. I share your disdain for WP:COI & WP:ADVOCACY editing, but cannot concur that suggestions of meatpuppetry should be used to determine what appears in the Article; as though it were a content policy.

I also note that as WP:NPOV is policy, not guideline, the example referred to would be better seen to require, not suggest that refutations be included. One potential question is if the "climate change denier" allegations are of the order of "a politician alleged to have had an affair". I suggest that they are sufficiently similar for the requirement to apply.

I have (now) read the alleged "meatpuppetry" (the only piece of the subject's writing which I have read), and while I agree that it might be reasonably construed to encourage WP:COI editing, I do not see that it precludes inclusion of the refutation contained within the same source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If the May 25th post by Watts is used at all, it should be given full context, including Watts overtly trying to influence our consensus here by sending readers to our pages and that this resulted in the need for some page protection at the WUWT article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' views

It is possible to quote Watts without worrying about the baseless "meatpuppetry" accusations of Nomoskedasticity and NewsAndEventsGuy -- restore an earlier sentence ("Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming.") that cites Watts as saying " I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues". This long-standing reliably-sourced sentence was destroyed by Mann jess without consensus on May 22 and May 24. I partially reverted so that the opinion is back in the article, along with other self-description ("green in many ways" etc.). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't remove any of Watts views, especially not in that edit. Every one of those sentences is still in the section, so you've just duplicated the content so it is repeated. I'm going to revert for now to the version has been in the article for several weeks. Hopefully we can discuss any additions or wording changes, but duplicating the content is probably not helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the article after your edit, with matching views highlighted:

Explanation of diff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. He believes carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change. Watts is "green in many ways", mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil." Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change. Watts claims in his blog that variations in solar irradiance, the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate, contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide...Watts says he advocates for alternative energy sources and for the United States to "disengaged from Middle East Oil."

As you can see, your edit duplicated existing content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement made above by Mann jess is false. The links that I provided show that Mann jess destroyed the sentence ""Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." on May 22 and destroyed the citation which accompanied the sentence (saying "I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues ...") on May 24, just as I said. The sentence is no longer in the article, and neither is "green in many ways", just as I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tackling one issue at a time: do we have a secondary source for the "green in many ways" description? My recollection is that it comes from Watts' self description during an interview. I'm not even sure what "green in many ways" means, which is why I expanded it to cover his actual views, such as support for alternative energy. What is gained by the more vague "green in many ways" over the explicit description of his views?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did some edits on that lingo in April, and the source, I believe was the transcript of the PBS Newshour interview. struck my own mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the source -- according to the citation -- is a book by Fred Pearce. The original statement in the article was: In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways",[39] mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil.[40]" but user:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc changed to "In spite of his stance, Watts says that he is ..." here and then user:DHeyward changed to "Watts is ..." here. Let's say: if no other editor cares about keeping "green in many ways", okay. Now: re the real issue, the sentence ""Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming.": this and its citations including the Watts quote should stay in the article, unless and until there is consensus to remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I should have looked first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a tendentious POV-push to argue that we need to keep describing Watts' stance as "skeptical" when it is outlined that it is not necessarily "skeptical" in the sense of scientific skepticism. I would appreciate simply avoiding that word unless it can be properly contextualized. jps (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, so we're done with the "green" comment. Onto the next one. How is "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" different than "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", with a following description of his rejection of CO₂ and humans as a primary driving factor?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it is also necessary not to present Watts self-serving claim (of "skepticism") as having parity with Mann's (and others') characterization as a "denialist", for the same reason.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The criteria used for "scientific consensus on climate change", especially in the well known "97%" papers was so vague and broad that Watt's statements clearly fall into them. Watt's acknowledges post-industrial warming. That was enough for the research paper to be in the "scientific consensus." The statements about IPCC agreement were a lot of puffery that in the end were not the criteria used to define "consensus" as they oversimplified IPCC conclusions so that virtually everyone would agree. It was a broad acceptance of data that the planet warmed and humans contributed. This includes nearly all the sceptics such as Curry and Lindzen that also believe the climate warmed and that humans contributed. They don't agree on the relative contribution but that wasn't the criteria for being part of the consensus. Thus, a "skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" and the "scientific consensus on climate change" are different definitions (at least in the 97% paper). If we aren't using the "97%" paper criteria, then we have no measure of consensus and we need to revise all the references to it as consensus. For reference [1], the implicit endorsement of "AGW" (category 3) "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause" - Anthony Watts says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming. Category 3 abstracts are part of what Cook, et al consider an "endorsement of AGW." Curry is also in that category and says "All things being equal, an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature." IPCC, however, states it as a null hypothesis of of 50% of warming at the 95% confidence level. They are VERY different. --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the scientific consensus on climate change. We can refer to that rather than speculations about which papers may or may not have been included in some coding study. jps (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia made that up as a list criteria and it cannot be used to create a label --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The article in question contains no list criteria. If you think there is something wrong with the article, you can go boldly change it. Use good sources! jps (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't qualify for List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and the criteria for belonging to it is solely created by wikipedia based on the other article. There are no sources for any such list. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That complaint has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. jps (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts made his name by not acknowledging post-industrial warming; 2009 – "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." Watts 2010, with Joe D’Aleo – "The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant 'global warming' at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of 'global warming'." . . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With new bias calculations, NOAA just restated it in a significant way. If the previous error in the sample missed the population as much as NOAA said, what was the error? --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, with long planned dataset improvements NOAA just came more into line with other datasets, and at the same time showed how fragile the supposed "hiatus" or slowdown was. Reaffirming and to be read together with other studies. What error are you talking about? . . dave souza, talk 06:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's statistics. A temperature data set is a sample of the true population. If it's sensitive to small changes, it's an indication of the range of differences between the sample and the population which is an indication of error. It's no different than, say, election polling. If small changes in the corrections for bias in polling technique reflect large changes in poll results, the error is very large. It's very sensitive to bias in that case. If the result is invariant to the changes, the error is small. Statistical sampling like temperature measurements, are trying to reflect the true population of a uniform, unbiased temperature population. It should be very difficult to manipulate them in a small way that has any effect unless you also conclude it's very sensitive to bias. This is what happens when a sample set is too small or too skewed but you can't escape the sensitivity. Variance goes up once the sensitivity is discovered even if the goal was to reduce reduce variance in the mean and range of the measurement. And why do you think a dataset that now shows a slight increase in mean temperature against other datasets and against the hiatus discussed in AR5 is any more valid than stratospheric water vapor and deep ocean heating that has also been proposed? Are those explanations now bogus? --DHeyward (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This line of discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To return to the topic "Watts' views" ... if the original sentence was really the same as what Mann jess added, then Mann jess's reason for destroying the original has gone away, and the reason for restoring the original remains: it cites Watts's view, along with other sources confirming that that's Watts's view ("skeptical"). I see that jps asserts it's pov-pushing to keep it, but it's easy to refute an unfounded assertion: one just says "no". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' views on climate change are fringe, and we are compelled by policy to reflect their weight properly within the broader context of the scientific consensus. While the two sentences serve the same role (Watts' views are in opposition to the mainstream), the current sentence does so by reflecting on the mainstream opinion within climatology, while the sentence you are reverting to does not. The sentence you are removing is extremely important to keep us in compliance with our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are several errors here. One: it's not a fringe view that Watts is a skeptic if it's a view held by the majority of reliable sources. Two: WP:FRINGE is merely an inapplicable guideline so nobody is "compelled" to do anything on account of it. Three: WP:WEIGHT in fact says that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" -- what you're trying to do is remove those published reliable sources, thus violating the policy that you cite. Four: this is not about mainstream opinion in climatology it's about mainstream opinion of Watts's views. Five: the sentence that you want to add is based on sources (Mann the climatologist and Mooney the English BA and Cook the Physics BSc etc.) that don't directly support what you're saying anyway. I'm glad though that we're finally seeing an admission that the original sentence was destroyed and a new one was added -- perhaps we're making (slow) progress. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You've misread. WP:FRINGE applies to Watts views, not the labels. We are spending significant time covering his ideas in the next several sentences, and they must be contextualized within the mainstream academic view. The relevant field is, indeed, climatology. Your suggestion that we ignore WP:FRINGE is at odds with widely held community standards. Please stop edit warring.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an academic article, and his views are not fringe. His core issues, (Increase in temps are not going to be as much as claimed-current rate is backing this up, CO2 does not have as much of an impact as claimed-current increase in temps back this up, models are not accurate-current models back this up) are not fringe. It continues to amaze me that disagreeing with the future predictions can be called fringe, especially when the current world temps (the bogus NOAA study withstanding) show that the world temps have not, over the past 15 years, matched the predictions. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What's "the bogus NOAA study"? Really looks like you're getting in-universe with Watts' fringe views: by definition he disagrees with the science, even when someone he previously supported does it, and his views are that mainstream science mendaciously alters results for nefarious purposes. That second aspect should be covered in the article. Also, what predictions? . . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "academic article" is, but the idea we shouldn't represent the mainstream scientific consensus because this article isn't "academic", or whatever, is not a position rooted in policy. Watts views are absolutely fringe within the relevant field of climatology, and our sources absolutely back that up in spades   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arzel (and anyone else), if your defenses of the position "Watts's views are not fringe" keep coming out as "mainstream climatology is wrong/bogus", you're doing it wrong. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbcomm?

With edit comments about Arbcomm, it might be worth reminding people about the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others for those who missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, also see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#A_Quest_For_Knowledge, now wending its way towards closure. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

John Grant, Denying Science -- problematic use?

I note new use of this book for material critical of Watts. The author "is a prolific science fiction and fantasy writer," per the Google Book link provided, who also writes pop-sci books. It appears that using this book may well be a WP:Weight problem. Why is he a credible source? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You entirely left out the first sentence, identifying him as the critically acclaimed author of several books on science, as well as the first half of the second sentence, too. The sentence you quoted begins... "In addition to his popular science writing, Grant is a prolific science fiction and fantasy writer."   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, "Critically acclaimed" is just the publisher's blurb. See John Grant (author). Again, why is he a credible source? --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing, including your quote, is just the publisher's blurb. Yes, our start-class article on him is lacking a lot of details. Perhaps that should be corrected. His interest in science fiction doesn't preclude him from writing books on science, which he has done on several occasions, nor does it invalidate his books as sources. No, he is not an expert like Mann, Dunlap or Weart, but the statements his work is being used to support are uncontroversial, and his work is ideal to cover them, since it provides a good amount of detail.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

His book is a polemic, published by his sci-fi publisher's non-fiction imprint. It is reliable only for Grant's opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• I propose removing Grant as a source. He's not an expert, and no evidence has (yet) been presented that his opinion of Watts is notable, per WP: Weight. We don't need to include every minor critic. But we do need (per NPOV) consideration of ALL POVs covered in RS's. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't require experts, we just prefer them when they are available. You keep using this word, notable, but it does not apply to sourcing at all. Is the content it supports significant to the topic? Yes, undoubtedly. Does Grant verify the content? Yes. Is the content weighted appropriately (which is a question of its coverage in other sources, compared to this one)? Yes - other sources cover it precisely the same way. And that's the end of our questions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS allows for "Scholarly" sources but John Grant doesn't fit there (unless somebody can show he's a scholar), then allows for "News organizations" but John Grant doesn't fit there (unless someone can show he's reporting for a mainstream news organization), so all that's left is whether Grant's opinion of Watts is notable -- but in that case there would be news articles blaring "famous science fiction author denounces Watts". It's understandable that Mann jess (who added the Grant source to the Watts Up With That article on May 22) is willing to accept poor sources for "denialist" since there are few or none that aren't poor. Indeed the Grant insertion is just one of many recent contentious edits by Mann jess which have no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to meet RS, with little room for doubt. And what are the objections? To "denialist"? Right.

Well then, it seems that those objecting to this source should take it up at WP:RS/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that Grant is not a RS is... novel, to say the least. RSN is certainly the place to go to have that discussion. It's worth noting that Grant is not being used, nor has it ever been used, to support labeling climate change denial. It is mostly being used to verify dates.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it seems that those trying to add this source have the obligation to take it up at RS/N. And it's unfortunately not "novel" -- I think I've seen everything under the sun by now -- to read that when the article's notes quote Grant saying " "Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers", that's just to verify dates, that isn't mentioning climate change denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant uses the word "deniers". We are not using Grant to verify that label, or any other. In that specific instance, we are citing Grant to verify Monckton's relationship to WUWT, and their propogation of climategate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as a book published by a mainstream publisher, the presumption is that its reasonably reliable. If you want to challenge it, you take it to RS/N. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Added query to RSN: Is the book Denying Science by John Grant (author) a RS? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change Denialism vs. CC Denier

A couple of editors, here and at Talk:Watts Up With That, seem to be arguing that it's OK to call Watts's blog the "worlds leading climate change denial blog" (or some such), as if this avoids the BLP issue of calling Watts himself a climate change denier. Sorry, folks, this one fails the Giggle test: Watts founded WUWT, and he controls what material appears there. So, if WUWT is indeed the leading climate change denial blog, then Watts himself is a leading climate change denier . Thus the Mann quote (and the CC denialist assertion) fall under the WP:BLP rules. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That is logical nonsense. Watts of course has the power to stop CC denial at his blog, but he chooses not to exercise that power. That may be because he actively supports the position, it may be because he sympathises with it, but does not want to advocate it actively himself, or it could even be that he detests it, but thinks its useful to offer a forum to launder the dirt in public. Or he just is in the old Voltaire spirit. I personally suspect that support of climate change denial is part of his agenda, but that is based on other things than Mann's (and other's) opinion on his blog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete, since your argument is that WUWT has no existence independent of Watts, should we merge WUWT into Watts's biography? I've long thought it might be a good idea to do that, and it sounds like you agree. If you're willing to put forth the merge request I'll support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SBHB, I just might do that. There are independent aspects, as Man jess points out at the current discussion. But at least it would get all of this stuff in one place, and having it all clearly subject to BLP rules might help with the current, um, stuff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@SBHB and @Pete, I would have proposed a total merge, but I expected others would balk so wrote the RFC for a split/merge portions instead. I'm also in favor of a full merge, leaving a redirect at WUWT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Graph

Housekeeping note added by NAEG --- the graph & caption under discussion is this one reverted by Arzel (change my link for me if there's a better one please) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The graph added by Jess is highly inappropriate. This is a BLP not a place to promote your own personal research. I have removed the graph as a violation of NPOV, BLP, and Original Research (in presentation here). Arzel (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The graphs (plural) are inappropriate and unhelpful in this biography article. At the very least undue... tending towards coatrack. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Personal research"? The graphs weren't made by me, the data wasn't compiled by me, and the sources weren't written by me. What part of it is personal research? I carefully picked images that very directly addressed the content being discussed in each section. How is that "unhelpful"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Arzel is obviously doing the usual wiki thing of "I don't like it, therefore I will write down a random collection of policy acronyms and hope something sticks," in a particularly silly and inept way. And I enjoy on a personal level the tweaking of Watts by the inclusion of graphs. But, I think I agree with Capitalismojo's comments -- these are pretty clearly undue in this biographical article. --JBL (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@JBL We don't have to include images, but they can be helpful in conveying ideas we're already discussing. For instance, when we write about the relative impact of solar irradiance and CO₂, a graph like the one to the right can be helpful. Conveying that information in text is difficult, and an added image can really do a lot. Similarly, our section devoted to discussing the Berkeley Earth study could probably benefit from an image showing their results. I picked one which combines their results with NOAA and others, since we discuss them as well. I'm open to suggestions on what images could be a better choice, but I don't honestly see how it could be considered undue weight to provide an image to visually display our existing coverage of the very same data. We're already discussing the data... the graphs just show it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In every article about an alchemist, it is not necessary to include figures of scientific data by spectrography and particle physics. It is enough just to say in the text that alchemy is discredited and out-of-step with scientific consensus. --JBL (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly true. But if the article said "Alchemists claim that scientific studies show X, but this specific scientific paper released data in 2013 showing !X", and we had a graph visually representing the data from that specific paper, wouldn't it be useful to include one of those graphs? We have a whole section devoted to the BEST study, and we have several graphs in commons showing their results. I get where you're coming from... this graph wouldn't be appropriate or necessary; we just need to say "the scientific consensus is X", not graph it. But I don't see how that applies to this particular case where we're discussing specific data and have a graph for that data.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The only unambiguous problem with the graph & caption was the word "overwhelmingly", which appears to be WP:Editorializing. Otherwise, the graphs are not fatally defective. However, on a subjective level, I don't think they belong in a biographical article. Yes, WP:FRINGE requires us to contrast Watts' non-mainstream views to the mainstream view. In my view, text is all we need. Any illustrations should be more directly related to Watts himself. That said, if we start using illustrations showing Watts' views, then this image would become important again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the input. I don't know that I agree, but it looks like I'm alone in that view. I'll put some more thought into it and see if we get more input. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputing labels in "climate change opinion"

I added a sentence to the "Climate change opinion" section some time ago, but reviewing the section now, it doesn't really have a place there. Unfortunately, when I removed it, I was reverted. The sentence in question says that Watts disputes the "climate change denial" label. However, there is no discussion in that section about climate change denial. Additionally, it's sourced to Watts' blog, which gives us no indication of the significance of the view. The edit summary of the revert failed to address my rationale for removing it, so I guess we'll have to discuss it in depth here. Why does this content belong in that section?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The material is directly on point. It is the subject's dispute of the accusation of "denying" climate change. It is his opinion on climate change, he is reliable for his opinion. What should be in the "Climate change opinion" section of a biography article but the subject's opinion? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts has lots of opinions. I could source all kinds of irrelevant opinions, but to present them in the article, they should be shown to be relevant to the topic and significant. I get that Watts disputes the label, and that might be appropriate to discuss when we discuss the label. It doesn't make any sense to discuss this dispute when we're not discussing the label. I also tried to find discussion of this in reliable secondary sources, but didn't turn up much, which indicates to me that the opinion might not be particularly significant to independent sources. I'm not opposed to including the content (I'm the one that wrote it and moved it, after all...), but I'd like to see those problems addressed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant? His opinion on climate change would, I think, be revelant in his biography in the section labelled "climate change opinion"...unless I am missing something. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is "I am not a climate change denier" an opinion about climate change? I rather would have called it a view about terminology. (That is, after all, what the arguments here are about: there's no question that Watts's views are at odds with the mainstream view of climatologists, the question that has been the source of so much angst is what words to use to describe this fact.) --JBL (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that "I am not a climate change denier" is a relevant opinion in a section on the subject's opinion on climate change in his biography. How is it not? This is a biography article about a specific individual. This is not a science article about the science. It is clearly relevant to include the published opinion of the subject regarding himself in the area that he is apparently most known for. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't considered JBL's point, but he's right. "Climate change denial isn't the right label" is about terminology, not opinions. We could certainly discuss any underlying opinions that aren't consistent with the label, but I don't know of sourcing which discusses them. What are they? Let's figure out how to add them, instead of just asserting they exist according to Watts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The source currently used is the 2012 PBS interview, in which Watts presents his view that temperature data is biased by those who "want to change policy. They want to apply taxes", calls himself "a pragmatic skeptic" about global warming and accuses "some of the scientists who are the leaders in the issue" of having become "tools on the issue". He says "we have some global warming, it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years", but introduces doubt if this is to an extent due to thermometer siting. That position was time-dependent: in 2009 he asserted that "errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature", insinuating that there was no real rise. Hence we need to show the timing of any of his remarks, and need secondary sources showing the majority scientific view of his opinions: climate change denial is a significant and well sourced description. Clarification is needed in our text of how Watts promotes this denial. . dave souza, talk 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards

In the biography articles about novelists we list the awards won for their writing. In the bios of publishers we list the awards they garnered. In the biography articles about journalists we list awards they have won for their writing. In the biography articles about bloggers I suggest we not remove the awards won from the biographies. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of difficulty squaring this with your comment in the RfC. Watts did not personally win these awards, his blog did. The paragraph in question (and the following one) do not mention Watts by name at all. If this paragraph can't be removed here, what information about the blog can be? --JBL (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm confused. You !voted above that we should migrate content from the WUWT section out of this article. I moved all the content out that didn't discuss Anthony Watts explicitly by name, which appears to be what you !voted for. As I discussed above, I'm relatively divided on whether the awards belong here, but emerging consensus above is not so divided... almost everyone seems to think they should go.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear. This is the biography of a writer/publisher. I suggest that we treat the biography as all other such articles, that would include listing awards. Should the articles be combined the awards would still be listed. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea that the publisher/editor of a work does not win the award, the work does is odd. Pulitzers are awarded to the institution that publishes it and are also (invariably) listed at the writer's biography pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The bloggies etc. are of course self-awarded due to enthusiastic use of internet voting by website readers: not a good comparison with the Pulitzers, and puffery which shouldn't be given undue weight in a bio. . . dave souza, talk 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dave, and if it is included, then it should be contextualized as Dave mentions. For that matter, sending the troops of readers to this page is similar and might be incorporated, as might various peer reviewed research papers on the central spot WUWT plays in the climate skeptic/denial blogosphere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-awarded? That's not what the refs say. Even the Guardian doesn't go that far, and they go pretty far. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I took it as a rhetorical turn of phrase, and think we mention the bloggies award, but to keep from giving it undue weight we also contextualize the bloggies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Existence of a global warming controversy

When page protection expired earlier today, I made an edit and only then realized it was moments after PP expired. Pure coincidence. I probably would not have touched anything for a few days if I had paid attention.

Anyway....

Some article text caught my eye and I struck some out as follows...

Watts established Watts Up With That? (WUWT) in 2006. The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, and presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming.

I struck that text for two reasons. First, assuming there is a global warming controversy the text redundant with the phrase I left in, "presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change" etc etc Second, if you actually go to global warming controversy you learn that it is a phenomena that exists in popular media and psyche.... there's really no genuine controversy that its warming, or that it's us causing it. Thus, the struck out phrase POVishly presumes and declares in wikivoice that there is controversy about global warming It's POV.

In addition, it's flat out wrong. Watts' blog does NOT report on the phenomena of this public media/audience perception of controversy contextualized against the scientific backdrop. Rather the RSs say the blog is promoting that perception.

Capitalismo restored the struck text with the edit summary saying in relevant part {tq|"this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better."

QUESTION Do you agree with Capitalismo's reasoning, when contrasted with the RS that supports this sentence? Capitalismo - "this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better" The actual RS - "Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."

Seems to me Watts is fomenting the global warming controversy over points considered settled by the American Academy of Science We should not assert Watts presents meaningful info about the phenomena of this perceived controversy in wikivoice because that's POV and SOAP and PROMO inconsistent with the RS. And besides, its redundant and therefore extraneous and repetitive and says the same thing over and ..... ha? ha?? Nevermind.

Capitalismo, please self revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You convinced me as to redundancy. I will self revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BRD lives! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! Someone else has edited in the meantime. I could not self revert. Check the changes to see if it works for you. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Vague non supported attribution doesn't cure redundancy, so I took care of it per your comments above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This outcome is preferable in my view :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reflist for this thread

References

Labeling the mainstream view as "critics"

Lately, there has been an effort to describe mainstream sources, such as our most academic sources, as simply "critics" of Watts. For example, this edit. While it is of course true that these sources are critical of Watts and his blog, they are only critical insofar as the mainstream academic view is critical, and we should not reduce the mainstream view to just some personal dispute. "Watts believes X, but critics of Watts say Y" is a poor summary; we should say "Watts believes X. Y" or "...the scientific consensus is Y". I saw this approach used on Mann earlier ("Mann just has a vendetta"), and then Dunlap ("Dunlap is just another of Watts' critics"), and now Farmer/Cook too. If we need to attribute, then attribute, but if a view represents the mainstream, then it's not "just a critic".   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good points and that's an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

• Watts is primarily known for his blog WUWT. Notice "(blogger)" is in the title of the article. The opening sentence is supposed to cover what the subject is known for. He isn't quite as known for being a meteorologist, or for Surface Stations. Placing emphasis on those two in the first sentence is unbalanced.
• We could include Watts' self-identification as "skeptic", however this would need to be placed into context since scholarly sources have commented that Watts is not practicing scientific skepticism. Diving into those details does not seem appropriate for the lead, so it seems cleaner and easier to leave it out.
• Since the lead should summarize the article, I added a sentence about the Heartland Institute.

Manul ~ talk 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't yet gotten to the lead, but that looks like an improvement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts is known as skeptic and the blog is known as skeptic according to the majority of reliable sources. You put in -- without attribution -- a smear that Watts runs a climate change denial blog. You also added a "ties to the Heartland Institute" sentence, but there's no evidence that Heartland forms a significant part of Watts's life or his blog's funding, so putting that in the lead is just more smear. So I removed your change per WP:BLP, and (unsurprisingly) Mann jess reverted me after 11 minutes. Mann jess has succeeded in getting A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned from this article for opposing a similar addition, so I won't be surprised if there's reluctance to oppose this, but one must try. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WUWT is known as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change denial" blog. There is significant overlap between the two, and in many cases they are used interchangeably by our sources. The lead documents how WUWT is identified, just like it already did before Manul's change. The lead is intended to be a summary of the body, so (as a general rule) I would expect that each major section would get some coverage. Adding a brief mention of Heartland seems ok, considering that. In the future, we may want to include the BEST project and some of Watts' views as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Watts's self-ID as a skeptic, we need to cite RS's which also ID him as a skeptic. We formerly had refs citing this, which were inexplicably removed in the changes of the last few weeks. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a case for introducing some sources used earlier, such as:
Michels, Spencer (September 17, 2012). "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message". PBS. ... one of the nation's most read climate skeptics ... as I learned more and more about the issue, I discovered that maybe it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Some of it is hype, but there's also some data that has not been explored and there's been some investigations that need to be done that haven't been done. And so now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.
SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?
ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.
SPENCER MICHELS: What are you saying? That they're biased essentially or motivated by something else? What?
ANTHONY WATTS: Tthere's a term that was used to describe this. It's called noble cause corruption.
Lott, Maxim (January 10, 2013). "Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data". Fox News. Climate change skeptics such as blogger and meteorologist Anthony Watts are unconvinced.
"Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported ... changes with the moment," Watts told FoxNews.com.
"In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data." . . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I wanted to include more material on Watts' positions, so that's a step in the right direction.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Aparent BLP violation for "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change."

I recently edited this to read:

Watts is critical of the scientific consensus on climate change. -- which is (imo) a more accurate and dispassionate summary of his views.

Another editor promptly reverted. However, none of the cited refs use this language, which appears to be the preference (and creation) of an activist editor.

You can't just make stuff up for a WP:BLP. Please find support for this language, or (better) cool the rhteoric. We must get the article right. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the refs cited for that sentence say that Watts is part of a climate denialist machine, or that the blog publishes climate disinformation on a daily basis. Would that wording be preferable to the current version? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Our sources could be improved; Mooney is the most direct of the three. However, none of the three say he is "critical", which would obviously imply Watts is dispassionately criticizing the science, instead of the intent in contrasting his views with the mainstream. The current wording is unquestionably reflective of the sum total of sources we have on Watts, so I don't see a problem; at most, we should replace Mann and Farmer with a cite that is more precise. Tillman, do you know of one?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As shown by sources discussed in #Cleaning up the lead, Watts said people who say there's lots of global warming "want to change policy. They want to apply taxes" and show "noble cause corruption", and of NOAA temperature adjustments which had been shown through at least three papers to be an improvement; "Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here ... In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data." Not what you'd call dispassionately critical. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talking about what the article's sources say, when sources that say otherwise have been removed without general agreement, isn't talking about the problem. We are eventually going to have to fix the article so it reflects the prevalent wording in reliable sources about Watts's opinions, and that's another way of saying that the recent wave of bad edits will have to be reversed entirely. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What sources were removed from the article that back up Tillman's change?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about the statement that Watts is known as a skeptic, and can add that Watts may think the scientific consensus is nonexistent or irrelevant. He can hardly be rejecting a consensus if those are the circumstances, and I don't know of a place where he clearly says he "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". That doesn't mean I think he's likely to have said "I hereby criticize the scientific consensus", and I will push for restoration of the earlier phrasing "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.", but meanwhile "is critical" is at least less contentious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In academic literature, "climate change skeptic" means one who rejects the scientific consensus, in whole or in part. Watts' view that "the scientific consensus is nonexistent" is also contrary to the scientific consensus, funny enough (see here), and his belief that the scientific consensus is "irrelevant" would indicate he rejects it, would it not? So, sources saying those kinds of things do not contradict our coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• The NPOV policy directs us to seek "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available". Inserting a list of popular news sites (foxnews.com, etc.) that were found by googling "skeptic" is pretty much the opposite of that. This source counting strategy is against policy and consensus, and has been long since dismissed. Also see the Verifiability policy, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

Re "rejects", I think "opposes" conveys the same thing and sounds more encyclopedic. Manul ~ talk 18:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Watts promotes denial of scientific consensus, and tries to undermine the public understanding of it. The word "opposes" is misleadingly understated. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• [outdent] Re: academic literature, research in general for this article:

The basic problem is, in lit research, you find what you're looking for. If you are looking for material to prove Watts (or whoever) is a "Denier" (or whatever), that's what you find. I'm not the first to point out this problem: see Confirmation bias, which is rife in climate science (in my professional opinion).

As Gulutzan says, there's a lot of biassed research to be tossed (or really, melded with the stuff that the activists have tossed), to make this article reasonably NPOV again. But people like me & P.G. get tired, have to go to the grocery, have lives to live. So we let it ride, and hope for things to cool down, and come back later. OK? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tillman, please stop using the talk page as a forum. I've pointed to WP:NOTFORUM several times now. It's important. @Dave/Manul, I think rejects and opposes are really about the same. Dave is of course correct about them being understated (but I think that applies to both); our later coverage should make his real position clear. That first sentence only serves to contextualize our subsequent material as views which are fringe. Either does that job. "Opposes" is more active, but I like "rejects" better.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is forum-ing. All seem like reasonable observations and suggestions, that could (in my dreams?) improve matters a bit here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. You could justify arguing that the earth is flat on the ground that you find it reasonable. You're pushing a point of view on the ground that you find it reasonable. Anyone can do that. It doesn't make it right. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)