Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Headings

Since none of the 'Praise' reviewers have a scientific background, much less climate science background, the heading should reflect this. In addition, the 'Critic' reviewers all appear to have sufficient climate credentials, so this heading should reflect it as well. To do otherwise would give implicit unfair weight to the opinions of non-scientists. If the headings were to be reverted to their original form, then the removal of non-climate-scientists would be appropriate. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed your "Non-scientific praise" as good-faith but POV, appears pejorative. Also praise by scientist(s) are pending.

Probably the "Scientific Criticism" should become "Criticism by scientists"; this section still needs work to become NPOV and less snarky/unencyclopedic.

Actually, I wonder if something like "Positive views of the book" and "Negative reviews..." might be more neutral titles -- as criticism sensu stricto isn't necessarily negative. Eh, might be hair-splitting. Others? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We currently have rather undue weight in the praise section, which doesn't reflect the weight (distribution) of praise vs. critique. And expert reviews does weight more than non-expert review. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Praise by journalists means nothing from a scientific perspective, unless you have a specific POV otherwise. Since this purports to be a scientific book, why even bother with what journalists have to say? If you feel they are required, then the non-scientific heading is appropriate, as it fully captures the classification of the content. And how could "non-scientific" be pejorative, if the content is considered worthy? Let's at least be consistent. Reinstating unless there is a reasoned discussion that bodes otherwise. --Skyemoor (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The book is, scientifically, garbage. The article is currently far too kind to it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet the WP policies say our personal opinions should not affect how the article is written. Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand you. Where do personal opinions come into this? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"The article is currently far too kind to it." appeared to be a statement of personal opinion. Collect (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that you write that into the article. Our personal opinions shouldn't be used to add text to the article. ButiIf you're suggesting that our own personal opinions don't affect how we approach the article and how we think it might be edited, then I think you are being naive William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am naive then. Collect (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, while the above was WMC's opinion, it is shared by the vast majority of experts who have reviewed the book. The praise and response section has way to much weight compared to this reception. The whole praise/critique/response section should be collapsed into one section about critical response. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific merit (or the lack of it) is only part of the story re Plimer's book. It (and him) appear to be having a significant political impact in Australia. This aspect may be underweighted here, and is presently absent at his wikibio. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The book is about to be rendered irrelevant in Australia as the influence of the independents is removed on the ETS issue. If the conservative opposition vote for the ETS (and now it looks like they have no alternative [2], Plimer's book and its effect on denialists like Fielding is moot. ► RATEL ◄ 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

As promised a week ago, I've rewritten this article to address some of the concerns that have been raised on this talk page. I'll summarise the changes that I've made:

Sources. I've expanded the number and ranges of sources, using the Factiva newspaper database. Unfortunately I've not been able to track down web links for all of them, so some help there would be appreciated.
Structure. As a general rule, segregated "criticism" and "praise" sections are deprecated; see Wikipedia:Criticism. It's usually preferable to provide a coherent narrative - not just a list of bullet points - which in this case I've chosen to subdivide by area of activity (science, media, politics etc).
Content issues. I've added a "Background" section to explain how the book came about and I've removed the "Response to negative views" section which I felt was unnecessarily long and risked being seen as an out-of-context cherry-picked list of quotes. Plimer's reaction is now summarised at the top of the "Scientific reactions" section as a counter-balance to George Monbiot's own bit of metacommentary. I have largely left alone the "Synopsis" section; I'll return to it shortly to see what can be picked out from the reviews.

I won't pretend that this rewrite will fix everything, and I'm sure there will be other problems with the article. However, it will hopefully be seen as an improvement. I'd be interested to know what people think. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Very bold of you! Pretty impressive rewrite. Thanks. More readable now, and more encyclopedic, and even more informative. Makes some of the above arguments moot. Good job.

► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job! The rewrite is a clear improvement. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Joining the Choir here: Great job. Good balance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a vast improvement, well done. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisO. Nice job, big improvement. As you indicate, the article still has weak spots, but it's lots better. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, its much better. Some quibbles, probably below William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisions and additions needed

1. Lead in "Scientific reactions" section: I question whether Monbiot is a good choice for the lead.

He's not a scientist.
He's a strongly partisan pro-warmer, notable for stating that "flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse." (source: George Monbiot#Solutions to control the climate)

I strongly recommend replacing Monbiot with a (critical) scientist.

2. I question whether "The response of scientists and academics to the book was overwhelmingly negative." We have a number of positive reactions on the talk page from scientists and academics that haven't been used in the article, mostly because of RS concerns. Generally negative is a more neutral and accurate description, I believe.

3. Political affiliations of reviewers/commentators: Among Plimer's supporters, our article has such comments as "predominately conservative publications", "right-wing columnist", and "a staunch supporter of the mining industry". If there are such descriptions of Plimer's critics, I missed them, although many are left-wing and/or warmer partisans. I don't think any such labels are appropriate here; readers can readily find such info if they want it. Smacks of POV. AL we don't have any "deniers".... <G> I pulled a couple already. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On point (1), Monbiot is not claimed to be a scientist but the placement of his comment at the top of that section is smart because he accurately and succinctly summarises the scientific response to this book. He provides a pithy executive summary before the details that follow.

On point (2), we have ample evidence that the scientific response was virtually universally negative. In your quest for so-called NPOV (actually you are less interested in NPOV than giving your side equal weight), you risk mischaracterising reality.

On point (3), per WP:SPADE we describe things as they are. If you challenge a descriptor, put something like ^{[disputed – discuss]} next to the term rather than removing it, and the other editors will find a source. ► RATEL ◄ 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there really a consensus here for this? If so, for NPOV we must tag all known political views to all the players, which will make for a cluttered article. I don't think this is a good idea. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Since Monbiot is not a scientist, he likely does not belong there. A summary should suffice before the details of the direct quotes and references.

2. Agree with Ratel.

3. Scientific journals normally don't have such qualifiers. If you believe any of those that are referenced do, then present your case and we'll discuss. The qualifiers associated with the other publications you reference appear to be valid, however.

--Skyemoor (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot's is not a scientific response, but a descriptive summary of the scientific responses - a bit of metacommentary, if you like. However, I agree with Ratel's decision to move it to the top of the "Reception and criticism" section. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot is a left-wing extremist on a number of issues, famous for arguing that the "US is a fascist state", and regarded as an extremist on the global warming issue so his inclusion here is not helping. Generally, the article is much fairer now (placement of sections & tone) but is still very biased. The most obvious indication of this is the labelling of Plimer's defending journalists as "right-wing" without any mention of the fact that many of his critics are "left-wing". It's really WP:OR to state your opinion of a journalist's left/right orientation as fact, so I think these should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one journalist is described in the article as "right-wing" and that's sourced. There's no sourcing as far as I'm aware for the assertion that the various scientists who have criticised Plimer's (mis)use of facts are "left-wing". The concept that scientific facts are "left-wing" or "right-wing" is inherently ridiculous, anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "facts" being left or right wing, only Monbiot being extremely left-wing. The idea of the fact itself is probably a right-wing thing if you get down to it; a lot of leftist thinkers in other fields have attacked that idea savagely. But I digress. :) I just don't think the idea of left vs right is helping anyone here. Inclusion of descriptions of people as left or right suggests that the editor is from one of these two sides, in this case, the left side. As it happens, I've voted left on nearly every issue throughout my life so far. I still vote left even though I am skeptical of global warming theories. So I really find that left/right categorisation as most unhelpful. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'd argue against political (etc.) labeling as unencyclopedic & unhelpful; however if Ratel insists on these (he promptly reverted my removal of 2), and others agree, I suppose I will embark on the rather distasteful task of documenting the political (mostly left-wing) and, what shall we call it, the Al Gore scale of social engineering? tendencies -- for the unlabeled folk.

So far, we have (by my count) 2 editors in favor of the political labels, 2 against, another comment sort-of for. So--

Straw poll, political labeling

Shall we include such (properly sourced) labels for supporters and critics of Plimer's book, such as left-wing, right-wing, environmental extremist, pro-mining(??), and such in this article?

Editors who favor political labels (with short comments, if you like):

Include This has become an extremely political issue, and per wikipedia's tell it like it is policies, the labels should stay, if sourced. ► RATEL ◄ 05:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPADE isn't policy -- it's an essay, which "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints." Pete Tillman (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who oppose political labels (with short comments, if you like):

User:Tillman, poll originator

List of errors?

The article now has rather a long section of moderately repetitive criticism, but nothing about the actual errors in the book - just a long list of people saying there are errors William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that inserting a selection of errors may be a good idea. Plenty are available: [3] [4] etc. ► RATEL ◄ 09:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP requires that only those errors noted in a reliable secondary source be reported, and we must avoid seeking out errors as that violates WP policy as well. Ossa on Pelion does not avail. Collect (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian article points out some explicit errors, though I am not entirely sure such a list is a good idea for this article. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A very similar situation came up at An Inconvenient Truth, in fact it seems almost identical. The compromise that made it into the article included a link to the list, but not the inclusion of the specific details. I'm not a regular here and don't know if the same solution would fit this article, but it might be worth considering. Good luck! Doc Tropics 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Doc Tropics. I've handled it in a similar way here, simply stating that Monbiot lists some of the errors. Readers can go to source. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable approach. We also have the external link to Ian G. Enting's dissection of the book's scientific claims, so I think we're covered on this score. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV problems, "Reception and criticism" section

1.Lead: The section lede now mentions the polarized reactions to the book, then goes on to quote only one side, George Monbiot, an extreme partisan. This is clearly not neutral, and is unacceptable. So far, I believe about half of the editors who have expressed an opinion have suggested dropping Monbiot. There is no consensus for retaining his inflammatory comments. Again, I suggest replacing Monbiot with a critical scientist (as the article previously had).

2. "Scientific reactions" opens with "The response of scientists and academics to the book was overwhelmingly negative." This assertion is uncited, and has drawn POV objections (so far) from three editors. The assertion appears to be WP:original research and/or WP:synthesis. If no reliable cite can be supplied, the statement must be removed.

3. Political affiliations are supplied for some players and publications, and not for others. Obvious POV problem, discussed above.

As a side note, this editor attempted to tag these problems yesterday. Editor Ratel reverted the POV tag four minutes later. This appears to be WP:disruptive editing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Answers:

Not every section of the page has to be neutral. You're pulling that new "rule" out of an orifice, Tillman. The article in toto has to present both sides, but not give fringe theories equal weight to mainstream theories. And make no mistake, denialism is a fringe theory, held by a tiny handful of academics (and a substantial rump of aments in the general community). So Monbiot is appropriate there, within the rules, and as we've already seen, supported by consensus. Without consensus in your favor, your constant tagging of this article with POV is not valid.

Ratel: WP:No Personal Attacks. Do you want me to start a formal grievance procedure? If you can't be WP:civil, go away. Your behavior here is contrary to basic WP project principles. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to cite "overwhelmingly". If you can find any academic in a RS that supports Plimer's book, we'll tone it down. Until then it must stay as a truthful reflection of the actual data.

"Overwhelmingly" is pure WP:OR and WP:SYN, unless you can produce a reliable third-party cite. If it's not verifiable, it's not allowable'. The rules are clear. This isn't even borderline. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing POV about describing a person's political leanings when they are important to the topic of the article, if the adjectives can be reliably sourced. This has become an extremely political issue. Unfortunately for many rightwingers, the Right has mostly associated itself with an anti-science, pro-industry, pro-laissez-faire denialism. That's the reality, plain as the nose on my face. ► RATEL ◄ 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot is quoted not because he's "an extreme partisan" but because he provides a pithy summary of the response of scientists to the book, which nicely counterbalances Plimer's rejection of the criticism. (Note that it is not a commentary on the book - it's a commentary on the reviews. That doesn't require scientific expertise.) If you can provide an alternative source to serve the same purpose, please bring it to this talk page.

Plimer's rejection of the criticism currently appears before the critics, a confusing structural problem. Monbiot is part of the problem (imo). --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There clearly is a political issue here; you only have to read Christopher Pearson's description of the book as a "campaign document". There is good reason for identifying the political affiliations of the media outlets commenting on the book, given the political polarisation that exists on this issue - you can pretty reliably correlate positive reviews with right-wing publications and negative ones with the left (hence the opposing positions of The Australian and The Guardian). Trying to ascertain the political positions of scientists, though, would be a pointless exercise - scientific facts aren't dependent on political outlooks. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're correct that the book is (in part) political, and it (and Plimaer) have had a substantial political impact -- as I've pointed out earlier, this aspect isn't well-discussed (imo) in the article at present, and is under-weighted. I'd try to fix this myself, but it's almost pointless, as Ratel would immediately revert (sigh). --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Science may be apolitical, but scientists certainly aren't. A number of Plimer's critics are "political scientists", and I suppose I'll start documenting this, and challenging uncited poli-tags. Again, thanks for your rewrite, but I'm disappointed that you can't see the problems with using Monbiot, and with the uncited use of such personal (OR) interpretations as "overwhelmingly negative." Cordially, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2. "The response of scientists and academics to the book was overwhelmingly negative." I agree with this statement and believe it to reflect reality, so I don't see any issue with this.

3. I don't see any POV issues with the current labeling. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It reflects reality better since a lot of WP policies have been brought out to exclude the voices of scientists sympathetic to Plimer's book, e.g. Dr. Stockwell, Professor Carter. After much struggling, we've got Kininmonth in. Without doubt there are others, although most probably agree that Plimer has gone too far with the vitriol & made too many mistakes.

ChrisO, it is naive to say that scientists themselves do not have any political views or agendas. Whilst it's one thing to say that the scientific facts are outside of politics (which is true enough, providing you're really talking about scientific facts, and not unproven hypotheses, such as GCM derived estimates of climate sensitivity or the radiative properties of aerosols, which are in fact large unknowns but often dressed up as facts); however, it's a totally different thing to say that the scientists themselves have no political views or agendas. The climatologist Stephen H. Schneider has famously stated that scientists should lie, if necessary, if it will force more people to act on climate change. Clearly, whilst that's what cynical politicians often do, it's not what scientists should normally do. Meanwhile, some of the scientists cited in this article (e.g. Barry Brook) are indeed politically active. There is no such thing as a truly objective observer (except of course for here in the make believe land of neutral Wikipedia editing); everyone has a bias. The identification of commentators as right-wing is seriously impacting the otherwise good quality of this rewrite. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

POV, weight and fringe theories

There is a constant drumbeat from two editors on this page to the effect that the AGW denialist side is not getting NPOV treatment and equal time. But before that question can be considered, we need to ask if denialism deserves equal weight in the article per wikipedia's rules. I contend that right now, in 2009, denialism is a fringe theory and should receive the same weight in the article as scientists give it.

How much weight do climatologists give to denial?

In the latest poll, the 2009 Doran and Kendall Zimmerman poll, 10,257 Earth scientists were polled. It showed that 97.4% of climatologists —who are active in climate research— believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than to say that denial of AGW is a fringe theory.

Ratel, whenever I read on the label of some product that it's "97% fat free!" I need to check myself and recall, that actually means the lovely product is 3% fat! If 3% or 2.6% of working climate scientists do not believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperature, then we are most certainly not dealing with a fringe theory. I'll help you out here, 2.6% of 10,257 = 267. That's 267 professional climate scientists in this sample alone who do not believe human impact to global temperatures is significant. Nevermind that the same study found something like 30% of professional meteorologists also didn't believe it (and actually they are the more qualified). And then there are the climate scientists who aren't working. And then the thousands upon thousands of scientists from other fields who also don't believe in it. Now I invite you, Ratel, to find another so-called "fringe" theory that can claim so many professional adherents. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That 97.4 answer Yes, is not the same as 2.6 answering No. That is a misuse of the poll. There were 3 answers possible: Yes, Maybe, No. (and in fact the graphics in the poll show us that it was at least 50:50 on the last two). Your statement that meteorologist's should be more qualified is non-sense (sorry), meteorology is about the next couple of days, out to two weeks at the max, with little to no climate science involved (at any point), climate and weather are two very different beasts.

The basic factor which you ignore is: When only a tiny minority of scientists (<2%) within a field have a specific opinion, then that opinion is (as Ratel says) fringe. I think you are (once again) confusing fringe with ascientific/pseudo-science, which is not correct. WP goes by what is currently the Scientific opinion on climate change, with a nod towards whatever fringe theories that may be prominent enough, while at the same time noting that it is a fringe view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC) and note please that the <2% is below what is considered the normal error in polls... ie. if you ask people in a poll whether a cow says moo - there will always be some who say no. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have read the study and found the truth to be more mundane... In fact only 77 of those 10,257 were qualified specialists, contrary to what we find repeated here & in the scientific opinion page, and of those, 2 of 77 answered no, the human influence is not significant. Of the scientists actually polled, (an internet poll... very scientific...), 70% did not bother to respond. In other words, it appears to be another nonsense study. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What a nonsense, Alex. The poor respond rate is normal and in no way suspicious for studies like this. As long as the participants are not cherry-picked, thats fine. Neither does the fact, that the study was conducted online rather than on paper reflect any bias. This is not to be confused by things such an online polls on The Sun website... If you have reliable evidence that the outcome of the study might have been influenced by whether the study was conducted on paper, by telephone, by a specific website URL, attendees were given or telepathy, please bring them forward. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The clue of how much weight to give this little discussion is Ratels's "the AGW denialist side." Besides being a slur, this is nonsense. Plimer may not be the best messenger, but skepticism about AGW alarmism is certainly not "Fringe", and AGW alarmism (in many cases) is more politics than science. Give it up, Ratel. Wrong message, wrong place. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice strawman - "alarmism" isn't at debate here (and is completely undefined). But Plimer's claims about AGW is certainly a fringe view, no matter how you slice and dice it. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

How should we treat a fringe theory?

Wikipedia's rules are plain: Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.

This should be the basis of all further discussion on the article's content. It invalidates those calling for great neutrality and more coverage. ► RATEL ◄ 06:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear, starting this kind of fundamental discussion here, will not help to come to a consensus any time soon. What matters is that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree to the GW consensus. As for the response from scientists, many seem to have the same urge to rebut Heaven&Earth as let's say the latest findings of the F.E.S.. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor Ratel, you have repeatedly slapped frivolous warnings and threats on my talk page for what you have perceived as personal attacks (these were suggestions that your editing is not neutral). Can I suggest that it is in fact far more offensive to be referring to other editors here as "denialists" and could I kindly suggest that you desist? I am also amazed to read that editor Pete has been pulling rules from his "orifice." Which orifice, Ratel? Can you please stop this, or at least stop pretending such outrage when I have heatedly called what I perceive to be biased editing? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please take your political campaign elsewhere. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm? What ever happened to WP:AGF and WP:NPA? Have these gone out of fashion - or been demoted as policies? (feel free to redact and remove this comment as well) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right -- snark deleted. Apologies. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

remove ASMC?

The reception section is w-a-y too long for this article. I suggest to remove the following sentence: Susannah Eliott, the chief executive of the Australian Science Media Centre, encouraged colleagues to read the book and comment on it, but took the view that "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments". In my opinion it doesn't add anything substantial to the article. Any objections? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Encouraged to read"? Seems exceedingly tenuous as to relevance, indeed. WP is not a place for random facts. Collect (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant bit is the last part - "there isn't anything new in there, they are all old arguments." Perhaps we could lose the "encouraged to read" bit and retain that last part? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO's suggestion on this item. ► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Chris, that the last part is the most relevant in this quote. Still, given the enourmous amount of the references ans opinous about his book in this article, I find this sentence one of the most dispensible. However, i will not insist on it if there is significant disagreement to my proposal to delete this bit altogether. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should David Stockwell's review of this book be used in this article?

Should excerpts from this review be used in this article? The review in question is published in Dr. Stockwell's weblog, and hence falls under the rules for Self-published sources. Previously involved editors here disagree on whether Stockwell meets this test: is Stockwell "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications?" --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by previously involved editor Tillman

David Stockwell's qualifications in brief:

Ph.D. in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University.
Professional practice of statistical modeling and computational ecology, and their applications to natural science, including climate.
Author of Niche Modeling: Predictions from Statistical Distributions [5], a well-received book in his field.
Author or coauthor of many peer-reviewed scientific publications (he lists 25 here), at least 5 of which are climate science-related.

Dr. Stockwell qualifies as "an established expert on the topic of the article" (WP:SPS). This article is about a popular science book on the topic of the global warming debate. As a working scientist, currently active in climate-science research, Stockwell is eminently qualified to review this book.

Dr. Stockwell has published at least five peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate-science topics; hence he meets the qualification that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Additionally, Dr. Stockwell is an established expert in statistics and ~~computer models~~ computational modeling, both of which are heavily used in climate science.

In summary, Dr. Stockwell is amply qualified to speak with authority on Plimer's book, especially on topics related to statistics and computer modeling. Thanks for your interest, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Computer modeling" is too broad a term to have any useful meaning. He has experience with statistical modeling but climate models don't use statistical methods. There's no indication that Stockwell has any training or experience at all in numerical integration of coupled partial differential equations. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"climate models don't use statistical methods": the mind boggles. Please see this Google Scholar search for a rather large number of scientific publications on just that topic. Statistical Analysis in Climate Research [6] by Hans von Storch would be a good place to start. It's actually quite readable -- von Storch has a fine, dry sense of humor. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I own the book; it's quite useful. But "climate research" does not equate to "climate model," and Hans would be quite surprised to learn that his book was about GCM solution methods rather than data analysis. I can point you to a number of resources describing the formulation of climate models and would be grateful if you could show me where they solve the governing equations statistically rather than numerically (you can start here or here). If you don't believe the papers then I would be glad to email you the source code to those two models. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

S.B.H. Boris, agreed that "computer modeling" is too broad. I'd argue that "climate science" is also too broad to have any useful meaning. Not to digress, what is your view: can Stockwell's review be included per WP:SPS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since WP:SPS specifies "in the relevant field," the answer is no. The "relevant field" is not the ecological impacts of climate change but the science of climate change per se. It might be different if someone can find a publication by Stockwell on, say, radiative transfer or energy balance diagnostics. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Stockwell has no training in climate science per se, although he has been used to crunch the numbers for a few papers that deal with the effects of climate science. The book is explicitly about climatology and the atmospheric sciences, and to pass SPS the person has to be an expert in those fields. Stockwell simply isn't. ► RATEL ◄ 04:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fellows -- let's back up for a moment, and look at WP:SPS again. We may use self-published work "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The "topic of the article" Heaven and Earth (book), is a popular science book, intended for a general audience. Are you guys seriously maintaining that an author needs skill in numerical integration of coupled partial differential equations to write a book review?

Let's keep an eye on the ball here. Stockwell is amply qualified to review this book, and clearly meets the requirements of WP:SPS. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that Stockwell is "amply qualified"? Is it your contention that anyone with a degree in any discipline within the broadly-construed area of natural sciences is qualified to write a review on any other discipline in the natural sciences? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My contention is that Stockwell meets the requirements of WP:SPS, and thus we can use his review of Plimer's book. Again, that's the question posed in this RfC. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since he isn't an expert on climate change - but on statistical modelling with biodiversity as a specialty - i don't see how you can. An expert per SPS has to be qualified specifically. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read Stockwell's article? It is the subject matter in Stockwell's article that matters here. Meanwhile it is a fact that Stockwell has published a number of papers on climate change directly. He also has more papers on climate change in review at this very moment (e.g. a forthcoming paper shows that there is a statistical discontinuity in the temperature record at around 1998 presenting evidence that global warming really has "stopped" around this time). His primary interest is climate change. There is no such thing as a true "climate scientist". One can be an "atmospheric scientist" but not be an expert in oceans, a crucial piece of the puzzle. James Hansen for instance is actually an astrophysicist. Lindzen is an atmospheric dynamicist. Gavin Schmidt is a GCM modeller. Modellers of Stockwell's background figure prominently in the climate change debate in the predictions of impacts on species distributions. His website is devoted to the topic of ecological niche modelling (obviously). The subject of Stockwell's own review is problems that both he & Plimer have encountered as professional scientists. It is ridiculous to say that he does not qualified to say this. People may not agree with him, that's fine. But you can't say that he's not qualified to say it. We can all agree that Plimer has come in heavy on the in-your-face vitriol, and Stockwell actually mentions this too. Stockwell's review provides an interesting counterpoint, there is nothing in it that he's not qualified to say, and it would improve the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Takes deep breath, reads Stockwell blog entry again) Yes, I for one have read the Stockwell piece, twice now. My impression is that it is a fluffy, sketchy review chiefly notable for its unsubstantiated claims of sloppy science in the area of AGW. Given that Plimer's book is replete with sloppiness and errors, it's just too ironic for me to take seriously. Stockwell seems to have dashed if off in a few minutes with minimal thought or preparation. Note: the numbers are so far against the inclusion of Stockwell's blog and nobody is changing his/her opinion, so I think we'd best wait for other outside input on this rather than continue to argue between ourselves. ► RATEL ◄ 02:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i've read it. But No - what is in Stockwell's blog entry is irrelevant if Stockwell cannot meet WP:SPS exceptions, and from what i've seen so far: He can't. He is a statistical modeller, who has specialized in biodiversity modelling. Neither statistical modelling (climate models aren't) or biodiversity are at issue here. All his PR climate related publications are on biodiversity/population spread - not on climate, thus he is not an expert under the exception clause, sorry. (we can't just "bend" it, because you like what is in his blog). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (nb: Lindzen would be an expert per the SPS exceptions, as would the others you mention - all of these are experts within specialized fields of climate science - Stockwell isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(reset margin) I see two (possibly three) of his pubs that appear to meet your specifications:

Stockwell, D.R.B. 2006. Reconstruction of past climate using series with red noise. Australian Institute of Geoscientists News, 83: pp14. PDF

DRB Stockwell, A Cox, AL Melott, BC Thomas. Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts. Arxiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650, 2009 , submitted to International Journal of Forecasting.

BF Farrell, DS Abbot, DRB Stockwell, A Cox 2009. Dust-Induced Destabilization of Glacial Climates, Arxiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0442 (Listed as coauthor here, but not on PDF, ??) Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats 2 self published papers, and one commentary. None of which are peer-reviewed, sorry. (Journal of Forecasting (which hasn't accepted or published the paper, is a journal on statistical forecasting btw)). So No. He has no peer-reviewed papers to back a claim of SPS expert exception. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Only by your (imo, excessively rigid) interpretation of "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS). I believe most editors would accept the Australian Institute of Geoscientists News as a "reliable 3P pub", and I would draw attention to such publications as:

"Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios"

A. Townsend Peterson, Miguel A. Ortega-Huerta, Jeremy Bartley, Victor Sánchez-Cordero, Jorge Soberón, Robert H. Buddemeier3 & David R. B. Stockwell: Nature 416, 626-629 (11 April 2002) | doi:10.1038/416626a -- a widely-cited paper.

"Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity" [7]

Botkin, D. B. Saxe, H. Araujo, M. B. Betts, R. Bradshaw, R. H. W. Cedhagen, T. Chesson, P. Dawson, T. P. Etterson, J. R. Faith... and DRB Stockwell. BioScience March 2007, Vol. 57, No. 3, Pages 227–236 , also well-received.

I fail to see how self-published papers and a commentary are comparable to peer-reviewed science journals. --Skyemoor (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Unlike AIG Journal, AIG News is not peer reviewed but a quarterly newsletter. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what we're debating here is if Stockwell has "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (WP:SPS). Peer review is not required, and, besides the two I just mentioned, the author has plenty of other peer-reviewed papers. And he's a noted statistician, a discipline that many climate-science papers could use more of. And he is currently active in climate science. If you're new to this debate, you may want to read the following paragraph. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For latecomers, Dr. Stockwell has recently posted an interesting page: "My position is that the extreme claims of anthropogenic global warming are based on dodgy statistics. All of my publications discrediting extreme claims have been vindicated." The page. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources requirements

According to WP:SPS, we may use self-published work "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

There seems to be disagreement on exactly what "an established expert on the topic of the article" means. To me, it seems obvious that the topic of the article Heaven and Earth (book) is just that, the book itself, a work of popular science intended for a general audience. Is their any disagreement with this interpretation?

In this context, an "established expert" would seem (to me) to be any broadly-educated person who could read the book and comment on its contents (and their worth) with authority. The expert reviewer would have a good background in the natural sciences, and experience in some aspects of climate science might also be required.

Other editors seem to be arguing that, for the purpose of reviewing this book, the self-published reviewer needs to be an "established expert" in all of the topics covered in the book. For Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science, this would seem to require an expert in the skeptics view of global warming, from a geologist's perspective, and includes both science and politics. I'm not sure that any of the reviewers we currently quote could meet this requirement. I'm certainly aware that the others are quoted from WP:reliable sources, but, if we set the SPS bar too high, we will exclude other viewpoints, which conflicts with WP:NPOV. So there needs to be some sensible middle ground, to achieve both Verifiability and Neutral Point of View -- see WP:5. Both of these are fundamental principles of the Wikipedia project. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop the wikilawyering against the nay votes please. The article's topic is a book on a specific area of science: global warming (IOW climatology). Wikipedia frowns upon using material from self-published sources, and that's why the bar is set high. In this case, the bar is higher than this biological statistician can jump. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering: "a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions." This appears to be Ratel pushing against WP:assume good faith (again) to me. Please stay on-topic, and WP:No personal attacks#Recurring attacks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by previously involved editor Ratel

Where can we see Stockwell's qualifications reliably listed please? ► RATEL ◄ 03:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For his publications, please see this Google Scholar search. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's quoted as working at the San Diego Supercomputer Center, but he's not on their staff register. Do you have a link that directly and reliably shows his qualifications please? I need to see that he has some training beyond biology and stats. ► RATEL ◄ 03:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything besides his CV/pub page, and various lists of publications. My guess is, he's left SDSC, and is revising his CV/pub page (which is why I had to use the Google cache version).

But, as I mentioned above, this is overkill: Stockwell is clearly qualified to review Plimer's book, which is the topic for WP:SPS, and has peer-reviewed publications in climate science. He easily meets the SPS requirements, and we don't need more than that. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the book isn't about statistical modelling of biodiversity - he fails the SPS exceptions. Note that the exception is for experts talking about their subject of expertise in which they have published - he isn't, and he hasn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pete, come on, you're using a Google cache(!) page from Stockewell's own website(!) to "reliably" confirm his qualifications? This is absolutely not good enough. Unless we can see his quals. listed by a third party on an extant page, it is a hopeless cause for you. Give it up. ► RATEL ◄ 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fellows, may I remind you again that we're talking about qualifications to write a book review? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we aren't. The topic of the book is what counts here. ► RATEL ◄ 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

- Please see "Self-published sources requirements", above. Your arguments are debatable. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Stockwell's blog post be used? For what? It isn't a book review, it isn't a scientific review - it's a classic responsive blog post. ~~Gallagher~~ Plimer says x. Stockwell says I can relate. So qualifications aside, I just don't see how it's useful as a source here. Guettarda (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stockwell gives the best one-sentence summary I've seen of what (he thinks) motivated Plimer to write the book: "This is an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology and opportunism that climate alarmism embodies." -- and goes on to describe his own reaction to such stuff: "Being a statistical modeler, my realignment began with horror at the methods used in the alarmist papers to support AGW. They were so obviously flawed, the results should never be taken seriously by anyone with any quantitative science training." These are aspects that aren't yet in the article, and should be, in my view. Thanks for your comment, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, Stockwell is a fellow who challenged the CSIRO and basically got it wrong. His efforts to show how "shoddy" the science is seem to be pretty shoddy in turn. Rejected, by consensus. Next! ► RATEL ◄ 03:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're using an anonymous blog, with a proprietor who uses a pseudonym and resists all attempts to discover his real identitiy, to try to discredit a working scientist? Shame! Pete Tillman (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I said. It's a "classic response blog post". It isn't a review of the book. As for the sentence you quoted - how is that useful to us? We already know Plimer is a geologist. "Old-school geologist" isn't a meaningful term. And we shouldn't rely on Stockwell as a source for Plimer's motivation to write the book. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot as climate hypocrite

I added this bit at the end of Monbiot's anti-Plimer diatribe in Heaven_and_Earth_(book)#Media_reactions:

Monbiot himself has been accused of hypocrisy in his views on climate change. ^[1] ^[2]

Monbiot hypocrisy references

1) See George Monbiot#Solutions to control the climate
2) George Monbiot at Sourcewatch

ChrisO reverted, commenting "obvious POV-pushing - accusations against Monbiot are irrelevant here"

This does seem relevant to me: Monbiot is vehement, even moralistic, in his criticism of Plimer: "climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction", "People like Plimer... will cling onto anything, however improbable, that allows them to maintain their view of the world." etc, etc. We (apparently) have decided to tag politics -- why not morals, since Monbiot is making an issue of Plimer's?

Other opinions on this? (I'll bet I can predict Ratel's.... <G>) Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant and clearly POV-pushing with the apparent intention of discrediting Monbiot as a source. Criticism of Monbiot might be relevant to the article on Monbiot. They're not relevant to an article citing Monbiot's critique of something else. I suggest you have a look at WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, which requires that such coverage be "represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability". Since the subject is Plimer's book, criticism of Monbiot is completely off-topic in this context. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What ChrisO said. In addition, please find a proper RS when labelling Monbiot in the article. The one you gave was hogwash. ► RATEL ◄ 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tillman's tags

Cleanup tag

Cleanup tags are for "Cleanup issues that this project covers may include wikification, spelling, grammar, tone, and sourcing." Please explain how this tag applies to the text. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"The article now has rather a long section of moderately repetitive criticism..." --WMC, above

"The reception section is w-a-y too long for this article.... Splette, above.

"Plimer's rejection of the criticism currently appears before the critics, a confusing structural problem..." Tillman, above.

If you think a different tag is better, please change it. Issues remain. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

None of these issues is earth-shattering, and none fall under the wp "cleanup" rubric. ► RATEL ◄ 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Most still remain. I'll get to them, eventually -- frankly, I'm pretty sick fighting over this article. A reminder of why I seldom do this. Sucked in again... oh, well. Sadly, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tag, Monbiot

You don't like Monbiot used on the page, but consensus is against you. Where is this going? ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is your tag -- you deleted mine. If we keep Monbiot, he needs to be balanced; hence the section lede is presently unbalanced. No consensus for Monbiot here (that I see), in any case. See above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for Monbiot can be seen in the lack of support to remove him. Balanced? We don't need to balance criticism of a fringe theory. Read up on it. Anyway, looks like none of these tags are necessary after all. Will remove soon.... ► RATEL ◄ 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is of course support to remove Monbiot... I'm really trying to be neutral, i.e. not pretending not to have a bias of my own, but trying to see both sides... and I see Monbiot's inclusion here as hurting both sides equally. To find a controversial extremist figure giving his view in the lede causes one to shrug and think, "well, of course Monbiot would say that." The view of a moderate, centrist writer will make people listen in this context. Meanwhile, to supporters of Plimer it is just offensive to find Monbiot's view elevated here. He's not an expert, so why are we using him? Myself, I don't care. I find some of what Monbiot says interesting. But certainly, I support removal. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've (re)labeled Monbiot as a left-wing journo, with a cite from the Christian Science Monitor -- which (despite the name) is (or was then) a respected international newspaper, and a WP:RS. Mentioning that M. is a columnist for the "center-left" Guardian doesn't tell the reader much. Are you disputing that M. is left-wing? Your repeated reverts of valid edits appear to be WP:disruptive editing. Once again, please desist.

I've also restored the NPOV tag for the section lead, for reasons already given. The dispute isn't resolved. Thanks -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The page has changed substantially since you last sent up a POV balloon. Please succinctly say here what problems remain, in your view. ► RATEL ◄ 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag. While not perfect, the article is substantially improved in balance. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's improved, sure. The biggest problem is the subtext underlying these actually so-called "reliably sourced" designations on journalists spilling into the text in "reliably sourced" footnotes "he's a leftist!" and "oh yeah, well he's a rightist!" Putting a footnote against right-wing and left-wing makes the article frankly sound very silly; it is made very obvious to the reader that our editors have fought tooth & tail for inclusion of their respective POVs. The idea of proving that someone is a "leftist" or "right-winger" by having it "reliably sourced" is just silly, and reveals far more to the reader about the silliness of some Wikipedia rules than it does about either the journalists in question or Plimer's book.

Also I believe that Garth Palridge's book "The Climate Caper" is already published, see here. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, & full support. Hope this sticks. We'll see.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Free Horse Manure Available From BLM"--headline, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), April 9

Overuse of Monbiot?

Resigning to the fact that Monbiot has somehow got to figure so prominently in the article, I see he's not only at the lead of the criticism, we have a very long quote of his closing it. This article is starting to read a bit as though the criticism section is about Monbiot, or by Monbiot, and not the book.

In a similar vein, Monbiot criticised as "one of the gravest misjudgments in journalism this year" the decision by The Spectator to promote Heaven and Earth as a cover story. He commented that he was "amazed that The Spectator is prepared to run a story like this on its cover when a quick check would have shown that it's utter nonsense." Monbiot suggested that the story shows "that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction. The quality of the evidence has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter how comprehensively the sources have been discredited, or how ridiculous the claims are. People like Plimer... will cling onto anything, however improbable, that allows them to maintain their view of the world."

Shouldn't we at least agree we only need one quote from Monbiot in the article? Alex Harvey 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. He has a way of putting one side of the argument in a nutshell that I find useful. ► RATEL ◄ 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We are using Monbiot for two different purposes. First, he provides a pithy summary of the scientific reaction to the book. Second, he provides his own personal opinion of the press coverage of the book - a rather different, though related, issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would think that these could be combined, and trimmed. Why should Monbiot be given such prominence?

Additionally, Monbiot can't be used independently in the lede to the "Reception and criticism" section without raising POV issues (again). If he's to be here, he needs to be balanced. Two editors have previously objected to this use. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You continue to erroneously call for "balance" in the article. You need to re-read the stance wikipedia takes to fringe theories. The denial of AGW is a fringe theory in the scientific community, and Plimer is on the loony edge of that fringe, claiming that the whole thing is a conspiracy to defraud government of funds. There is no call for balance in any part of this article. The article should rightfully show that Plimer and his book are swimming against the tide and that the book and its author have very few supporters. So please stop the silly yelps of POV. ► RATEL ◄ 03:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Jimmy Wales has written on Monbiot in the Fred Singer thread. I think we should care, at the very least, for Jimmy Wales's opinion on things (don't come back and tell me there's no such policy please... I'm just saying...). And I don't think he likes an overuse of negative material in these pages... Maybe we should ask him. Meanwhile, the issue here is balance by placement. When you open a section with one person's opinion, and then you close the section with the same person's opinion, there is no other way of interpreting this other than that the editor is very sympathetic to the featured opinion and weighting the text heavily to the same. Ratel has more or less admitted this just now ("(Monbiot) has a way of putting one side of the argument in a nutshell that I find useful.") Thus, I think WP:NPOV has been violated here. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with this article whatsoever (and please don't copy-paste large chunks of Talk from unrelated pages onto this page when a link would suffice, as my edit of your words above shows). Yes, please do go to Jimbo and ask his opinion. I'd love to hear it. As far as NPOV goes, the only way to handle a fringe theory in a npov way is to handle it by giving balance to the anti-fringe theory side, or else wp is simply validating the fringe theory, which is what you seem to want to do. ► RATEL ◄ 04:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please stop repeating your opinion that global warming skepticism is akin to fringe belief. Your POV is not shared by all editors and is therefore offensive to those who do not agree with you. Meanwhile, the statement you made above doesn't really make any sense. You seem to be saying "the NPOV way to handle fringe theories is to present POV that the theory is fringe." Thanks, your link idea was a good one. I don't think I'll waste Jimbo's time on this particular dispute; I am just trying to get people to see that we're using a lot of negative material here and I do not see that it is necessary. As I have said, Monbiot is not a scientist; his opinion therefore counts much less than, say, Lambeck's does. Why weight the article to Monbiot rather than Lambeck then? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you and Tillman really want to see if consensus is for or against you on this? Why not leave the article alone now, huh? It reads well. You keep trying to massage and tweak the text to get your pov across better, but it won't work, because just as Plimer's book is scoffed at in the world of science, so too here you will always find the majority against you. ► RATEL ◄ 05:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of room for improvement here. You're not helping with your repeated rants. Please be civil. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Alex, global warming scepticism is a fringe belief (see: Scientific opinion on climate change). I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Yes, there are a few very prominent sceptics, who have become well known in the public. But that still doesn't make it less fringe. And Plimers argument is on the fringe of the fringe here. We have to strive for NPOV, but NPOV does not mean equal time, it means a presentation according to the weight in the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, please stop repeating your opinion that global warming skepticism is akin to fringe belief. Your POV is not shared by all editors and is therefore offensive to those who do not agree with you. Read some philosophy. Here: Epistemology. If that doesn't interest you, get back to me with an example of any other "fringe" theory that has as many professional adherents, not only professional but also specialists in the relevant field, e.g. Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Pielke, Paltridge, etc. Let's see if you can even find five professional astronomers who support the astronomical theories of Velikowsky. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets take the one at the top of them all: Evolution. Sorry - but there really aren't that many who disagree, all you see is a few very loud (and often quoted) individuals. No scientific society at all has an opposing stance, in fact all major national and international scientific societies have stated their specific agreement. This is (unfortunately) not my POV, but the scientific one (hey! I'd rather it weren't that way - but it is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, you're starting to develop a really bad case of wp:HEAR. You've been told this many times on this page and it seems unable to register with you. ► RATEL ◄ 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, can you name some evolution skeptics who are not also creationists? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Yes (or actually you've mentioned one yourself): Spencer.[8] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)~~ striken. i must have misread this as climate sceptics --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Whether they are creationists or not makes no difference as to the science (frankly i don't know, and don't care, they can believe what they want). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't care what they believe either; but this is a complete disanalogy; of course there are creationists and some of them presumably scientists who reject the theory of evolution. The reason for this, of course, is conflict between religion and science, and I'm not sure if this technically qualifies as a "fringe theory" either (it may by WP rules). In any case, this is no analogy to the many well known specialist scientists who reject the certainty of the IPCC for no reason other than scientific doubts about the case. Find me well known astronomers supporting Velikowsky; that's a real fringe theory. Or professional historians supporting Gavin Menzies' '1421' theory of Chinese history. What we have in the case of global warming skepticism is pre-paradigm science; a newly-born science (climatology) has failed so far to obtain full consensus of climatologists and meterologists. This is quite a different scenario as we have with fringe theories, where a pre-existing consensus has been challenged by a new idea that failed to gain followers. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Only a naive fool would believe that, Alex, and surely you are not one of those? Most of the scientists murmuring dissent are retirees or near-retirees milking one last moment in the limelight or on the take from Industry. Wakey, wakey, mate. ► RATEL ◄ 08:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I am no naive fool. Tell me the name of the last retiring or near-retiring astronomer who publicly declared himself in favour of Velikowsky's astronomy? Or the last retiring physicist who came out and claimed he'd been silenced his whole career and actually he'd believed Einstein's relativity was bunk all along? Or you may choose any other fringe theory you like. Just show me another one, that is not really a religion as creationism is, that has as many professional adherents. I will assume that if you don't know of one (and I certainly don't know of one) then there isn't one. And that's why global warming skepticism is not a fringe theory. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to move this off-topic discussion of skepticism & fringe beginning "Erm?" to my talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Current media sources

Vancouver Sun ► RATEL ◄ 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really a book review, I'm afraid, but a commentary on the wider issues. What we most need for this article are reliably published reviews where the author has actually sat down, read the book and commented on its claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Full agreement, and I don't know if we have any of these yet. Has anyone active here actually read the book? My local (rural) public library isn't very likely to order it, I'm afraid. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this doesn't seem suitable here. I haven't read the book, just the reviews about it. And I got more important stuff to read first. -- Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it has to be a full book review to be usable. I think this para is interesting, for instance:

Certainly, there are contrarian "scientists." These (like Plimer) tend to be experts in other fields (like geology) and (like Plimer) they are frequently associated with energy industry advocacy groups (like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project) that exist not to further the work of science but to confuse the public conversation.

I think that sort of sentiment about this book and people like Plimer are widespread and notable. ► RATEL ◄ 01:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as more of a general comment on Plimer specifically than his book; as such, it's probably more relevant to his biographical article than here. And by the way (in reply to Tillman), it's clear that the reviewers we cite have read the book, as they cite specific flaws in it (and quote from it at various points). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that the reviewers you mention have read the parts that pertain to their specialties -- which is reasonable enough (that's what I do when starting a technical book, especially if I'm reviewing it) -- but tends to turn (especially when quotes are pulled out-of-context)) into cherry-picking for bloopers. I suspect that we have a lot of this at present, and it may persist until I (or Alex, or some other sympathetic editor) actually have the book in hand. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[OT] Not a source for the article, but may help some of the editors here. [9] ► RATEL ◄ 05:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot attacks

Plimer wimps out of debate after challenging Monbiot ► RATEL ◄ 11:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update on NPOV problems

This article has persistent POV & bias problems in the criticism section, so I'm reflagging it (sorry Ratel), and outlining the worst problems here.

Biased intro to section

This lede currently says the book "produced a highly polarised response from reviewers, with some columnists praising the book and many scientists criticising it" -- and goes on to quote only Monbiot, a highly partisan, hypercritical, and controversial activist-alarmist. I strongly object to using this quote at all -- it's insulting, not very informative, and biased in the extreme -- but we have Monbiot fans here, so the quote absolutely needs a balancing counter-quote for NPOV, if it's to be retained. This is so glaringly obvious that I'm boggled that anyone would argue against it, but two editors persist in removing such balancing quotes, arguing (speciously, in my view) that WP:FRINGE policy supports this bias. WP:BLP certainly doesn't, and most certainly applies to quoting attack-dog columns such as Monbiot. I suppose we'll have to go to a RfC or BLP review to cure this. I'm leaving early tomorrow on a business trip, and won't have web access, but will start this next week on my return, sigh (unless someone beats me to it).

I agree with the reference to WP:FRINGE. We have to call it like it is, not simply how we wish it were. I also think that Monbiot's quote should go in the media reaction section and a quote from a reviewing scientist would be more apropos for the overview. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FRINGE specifically directs us not to balance and give equal weight. And Monbiot is one of the most well-known commentators on the environment and global warming in the world, so his words are most apposite. He has published a book in this area and is an academic of the first order. [10] Your serial libelling of this man on this page, which I have had to delete (twice) is a huge BLP concern that I really should raise at AN/I or BLP/N. ► RATEL ◄ 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop with the Fringe business. Whatever your personal opinion of AGW skepticism, this is the topic of the book at hand, and the author deserves fair treatment under Wikipedia BLP rules, which must take precedence. As for Monbiot -- oh, please. Take me to WP court for wikilinking to his own page? That would make an interesting test case... On a positive note: thanks for adding the WSJ quote. That is progress. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FRINGE applies to any theory (such as the one this book promulgates: that the whole world's science community is using the "scam" of AGW in a conspiracy to defraud government of research funds) that enjoys marginal support in the scientific community. So FRINGE definitely applies to this book. Monbiot: You used a pejorative nickname to describe Monbiot, and later you impugned him again (I won't make the mistake of repeating the libel). You need to understand that you cannot, repeat cannot, use the Talk pages of wikipedia to denigrate living people. It is actionable and strictly prohibited. BLP: So it's ironic that you are raising BLP inappropriately here, because we commit no BLP transgressions in the article at all, while you commit them on the Talk page on a regular basis! ► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picking criticism and reviews

The most blatant of these is the quote of Colin Woodroffe's review, which, as currently quoted, turns a mixed review into the appearance of a totally-negative review. I've tried to fix this twice, and been reverted. May take a RfC to fix this too. More subtly, my feeling is that a lot of the scientific criticism we quote have been cherry-picked for bloopers, with the result of making the author appear to be a fool and a buffoon. Potential for BLP problems here as well. Finally, our article should probably mention those critics who have a vested interest (such as research funding) in dangerous AGW, and/or are politically active in support of such legislation as Australia's proposed cap-and-trade law. The reader needs to know if critics are political opponents of Plimer, to judge the weight to give their criticisms. David Karoly is noteworthy in this respect.

If this were a solid, factual book, there wouldn't be so many 'bloopers'. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a mixed review. His conclusions are wholly negative. ► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading his review. Please re-read it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, and he ends with "Plimer’s book has many errors in it", after offering a few vaguely positive sentences about all the footnotes, etc. Any book that is full of errors, Tillman, is toilet paper. ► RATEL ◄ 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, discussion on how this issue relates to Wikipedia policy is more productive than discourse guided by personal prejudices and feelings. In my opinion, I think Woodroffe's review is mostly negative. It seems the only compliments Woodroffe offers relate to issues like referencing and book length, but not to any of the claims laid down by Plimer in this book. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's reply to critics

This has been drastically shortened, reads weirdly, and has been shorn of his scientific replies. I'll try to fix this before my trip, if time permits.

And this is a POV concern in what way?► RATEL ◄ 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it leads to onesidedness. Response to criticism is just as acceptable as criticism itself. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot's criticism of The Spectator

This is incongruous, and needs to be eliminated or drastically shortened. The longer quote might possibly be appropriate at The Spectator page, or at Monbiot's. WAY overweight here at present. What's next, a quote criticizing Monbiot for criticizing the magazine? This can be supplied... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's there because the conservative press has gushed over this error-riddled screed, while mainstream scientists have panned it. Therefore the journalists that point this out need space on the page. No UNDUE concerns that I can see at all. ► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we have another quite valid point raised by Pete... even if we suppose Monbiot really is as important in the world of Plimer as this article makes him out to be, why do we care about Monbiot's view of the editors at the Spectator...? I am afraid I find myself unable to follow Ratel's reasoning. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot's comments have more relevance to the article on The Spectator than this one. This article should stick with criticisms of the book alone. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As we seem to have reached consensus re Monbiot vs. Spectator, I shortened this bit to one line, and also shortened the Manne quote that precedes it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Have we? How do you figure? (ie. endless discussions where eventually people stop bothering to answer, isn't consensus) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, it would be more helpful if you presented an argument for why Monbiot's opinion on a newspaper should be included in this article, rather than denying that 3 vs 1 editors is a consensus. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection needed for page

Can someone get the page semi-protected for a few weeks please? The IP vandalism and reverts are getting bad. ► RATEL ◄ 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about not getting to this earlier. I've been trying to strike at Scibaby with a few short-term rangeblocks, but he keeps jumping too quickly to other IPs. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reaction section

Having journalists in the intro to the reaction section is a very poor showing of encyclopedic content. Keep it to scientists who are active in the field, or summarize. Let's make this as factually based as possible, and give little weight to pundits. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see your alternative proposal here. ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a weak start -- this is a compromise lede, driven by the local debate. A new try by a previously-uninvolved editor would be welcome, and an opener by a scientist would be good, I think. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Plimer-Monbiot Debate

The debate begins. This will have to go into this page or the Plimer page. ► RATEL ◄ 12:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more important to mention in Ian Plimer, but I suppose it would also deserve at least a sentence or two in this article, if the debate generates enough notability. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)