Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 6

Volcanoes & CO2 section

I've copyedited this a bit to conform to the sources provided. However, the section doesn't really make sense to this (occasional) vulcanologist. It would be far better to cite the relevant USGS (or whatever) study. I'll have a look as time (and health) permits. The problem is, volcanic emissions come in BIG bursts, and there haven't been any really large eruptions since Keeling started tracking CO2. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re: Guardian columnist(s): it's not that simple. First, there's disagreement re the "average" volcano CO2 emit rate: for instance, Volcano World notes that volcanoes contribute 3% (vs the Guardian's quoted 0.75%) annually. Further, the anthropogenic contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 content is under 20%, per the same article, both items referenced to Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates. Preindustrial: 2.2X10^15 kg CO2. 1990 or so: 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Arguably, most of the pre-industrial CO2 was of volcanic origin.

I don't see the USGS reference you mentioned in our article. It's quite possible all the figures quoted in the article were muddled by the reporters. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 objects to USGS on grounds of WP:SYN. Tillman prefers USGS as the ultimate source for the science. Can the two of you work it out? The text as it presently stands is extremely awkward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that the entire section seems to be being given far too much weight. We have one journalist who claims this is one of Plimer's "central tenets", yet it seems to occupy a small part of his book, and is only ever brought up by people who want to embarrass him. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a large part of his book and his thinking (I've read the book). It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why do the article sources not show that? All I see is someone bringing it up to badger Plimer with; I don't see him advancing it himself. Hipocrite's edit here actually looks quite good. The who debate is growing far out of bounds for the size of the article. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You want sources? Take your pick [1] ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

" is only ever brought up by people who want to embarrass him" -- this is utter nonsense. See, e.g., http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/05/iccc-conference-tuesday-18th.html which is a Plimer-friendly report of Plimer's remarks about volcanoes and CO2 at the Plimer-friendly ICCC conference. Everyone familiar with Plimer, friend or foe, knows that this is indeed "central tenet" of his. Your assertion is from a POV quite hostile to Plimer -- that his central tenet is an embarrassment; editors should not make such judgments. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the USGS ref. The page is http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php, the quote is "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes." Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

This section on the page is being whittled away on specious grounds by tendentious editing. The section is not UNDUE, the thesis is central to Plimer's thinking (whether you think it is or not is immaterial, since others have said it is in RSes), it's been mentioned in many, many RS articles on Plimer, and it's been strongly refuted by the EPA and by climate scientists. That is not going to be expunged from the article. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have one op-ed piece claiming its "central" to Plimer's thinking-- and that one by a journalist hostile to him. I don't see any others at present. As of now, it appears to be an issue dredged up and given undue weight simply to diss Plimer. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I can provide many sources that discuss the issue, proving that it is not given undue weight. I suggest you go through the sources I provide at the Google News link above. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A source that "discusses the issue" is not a source that demonstrates its "central" to Plimer's thinking. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the volcano stuff is "central" to Plimer's thinking, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I checked the sources, and they appear to be legit to me. They specificially address Plimer, so no SYN is occurring as far as I can tell. I changed the wording a little so that it wouldn't look like the article is taking a side. If someone wants to, they could try to add a little more on Plimer's reasoning behind his volcano hypothesis in that section. I have Plimer's book, so if I ever find the time I might do so. Or, Ratel could do it since he also has the book. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I pared this down a little before I saw your comment here. I trimmed out the last sentence because people have complained about WP:WEIGHT; since the preceding text gives a good overview of the matter, the last sentence didn't seem necessary. But anyone who feels strongly about it can put it back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I think it's important to spell out "U.S. Geological Survey" instead of using the acronym "USGS" as an aid to nonspecialist readers, so if anyone reverts I ask that you keep that.

I don't think losing the Schmidt and Brook sentence was a good idea. Now Cla68 has made it look like this whole silly volcano dispute is a plot by The Guardian's lefty journalists to unhorse their denialist poster boy. Here's the sentence I think should stay:

Climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Barry Brook both stated that Plimer's statements in this respect are fallacious.

Unless there are cogent reasons expressed as to why this shouldn't go back in, I'll reinsert it. To Tillman, we cannot put all the arguments about global warming on the book page, because this issue is bigger than the book and spans many years and many interviews and many articles written by Plimer. ► RATEL ◄ 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Weight question and comment re USGS ref

I haven't been following this article closely -- I was surprised to see the volcano bit given its own subsection. Ratel, you claim that the volcano argument is "a large part of his book and his thinking... It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews." If this is so,

A) why isn't this in the book section (and article)? Volcano CO2 isn't even mentioned in our article on Plimer's book.

B) why not quote and cite the book & these RS's -- over there?

The USGS article (now cited, thanks) itself has dodgy arithmetic. Working the arithmetic on the numbers they provide, I came up with volcanic contribs between 0.54% - 0.85%/yr. The USGS article says the volcanic contribution is less than 1/130, or 0.77%. Odd. Anyway, here in the real world, big volcanic eruptions cool the climate (temporarily) -- even if (as did Pinatubo, ims) they temporarily exceed the anthro CO2 emit rate. This volcano bit should be added (briefly) to the book article, as yet another Plimer "blooper", I think. With maybe a line in the book summary here in Plimer's wikibio -- certainly not overweighted as its own subsection. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit does violate SYN because the USGS source is not specifically in response to Plimer's position. I'm going to revert that edit and give Hipocrite a warning on his user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Ratel before to back up his claim that this is a "central" part of Plimer's thinking. So far he's failed to do so. Plenty of Plimer's critics have written about it...but that's a different kettle of fish entirely. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 06:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of refs. Apart from the central placement of the claim in the book, and the statement in The Independent that this is a central theme, we have from Media Matters (a RS according to the RS noticeboard): :But in the article, one of Plimer's central claims about CO2 emissions is false. Telegraph: Plimer says "[w]e cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes." The November 11 Telegraph article says that Plimer "argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles" and that "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting." " That's pretty clear evidence. ► RATEL ◄ 07:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect Tillman's opinion that this should be mentioned in the book article instead of here, but the fact that this has spilled over into public arenas outside the book, as in the televised debate with Monbiot, means that it could be considered for inclusion here. Also, after removing the blog references, which I just did, the rest of the sources for that section are good sources. We give BLPs a lot of leeway, but several reliable sources have taken Plimer to task on this issue. In this situation, Plimer is expected to be able to defend himself against criticism of any of his controversial positions on climate science. We phrase the controversy in neutral terms, source it reliably, and let the reader decide for themselves what to believe. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see this is back, and has grown to be the largest single section of Plimer's wiki-biography. Please refer to WP:Coatrack and WP:Weight. Are editors seriously arguing that this is the most weighty event in Plimer's life and career? Pete Tillman (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit that returned this coatrack section. The edits that removed the coatrack, by me, were raised as evidence that I was being disruptive at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Hipocrite. I've since ceased removing coatracks from biograpies of all stripes, except in cases where those coatracks were blatently unreliably sourced, though I support a return of this article to the version that does not use this individual as a coatrack to discuss global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:COAT is an essay by some fussbudget editors, not a policy. It gets referred to a lot, in a wikilawyering way, by editors hoping to sanitise BLPs of info they'd rather not have broadcast, such as the fact that a major sceptic has, as his central tenet, a theory that is clearly completely wrong. I don't know if you'll succeed in doing this here, Tillman, perhaps with the misguided help of Hipocrite, but I'll do the best I can to oppose a whitewash. ► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Volcano section as is. The reason I agree with it is that it is phrased neutrally, not taking a side, gives Plimer's side and those that disagree with him, and doesn't go into too much detail. The Volcano and CO2 thing is one of Plimer's most controversial ideas and has receive media attention in several, significant sources. so it's not coatracky or undue to have a section on it. The EPA even commented on it in one of their papers. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another RS from today. [2] I'm inserting it here for future reference if reqd. And another ► RATEL ◄ 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• That opinion column confirms that Plimer believes that volcanoes produce large amounts of CO2. I believe the section and references in the article already cover it adequately. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Section: Volcanoes & CO2

I'm opening a new section here on this because the previous section was overly long and covered a few different issues. We currently have the statement;

"However, Plimer's view contradicts the generally held scientific view on volcanic emissions of CO2, which holds that "volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial."

This was changed to avoid the perception of he said/he said. My problem is that, to me at least, this seems an even softer approach. The "generally held scientific view" implies that there is another view that is legitimate if somewhat different to the "generally held" view. I'm thinking of something along the lines of;

"However, Plimer's view has been shown to be incorrect as "volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial."

My only problem with that is that we should have a fairly strong reference. An article that references the academic literature. The current reference (the EPA response to public comments) references an "Hawaiian Volcano Observatory" article which appears to be unreferenced and "Gerlach 1991" which doesn't appear to be available to me through my library database. Would anyone care to comment on both my proposed change above and on the quality of the reference? Thepm (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement is POV. We don't know if this is the "generally held scientific view" or not. We only know that the EPA and the USGS hold this view, according to the sources presented. The old version of that section was NPOV. If no one objects, I'll be reverting it back soon. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I object; please wait a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68—
Neither the E.P.A. nor the U.S.G.S. are bastions of fringe theories (Although it's my understanding that many environmentalists consider the E.P.A. as being diffident to the industries that it regulates — although that may be different now under the Obama Administration.) — and yet your "[w]e only know that the EPA and USGS hold this view ...." implies (falsely, I might add) that they are bastions of fringe theories. To put it mildly, I find this "We don't know if this is the 'generally held scientific view' or not." argument to be a bit exasperating. Is this really the correct forum for arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that we change this now. I am suggesting that iff Plimer is simply wrong in his contention, then we should be more clear about that. It certainly appears from my reading of the EPA and the USGS that Plimer is at odds with the "generally held scientific view", but that seems to imply that his view is legitimate but minority. That he is wrong would appear to be supported by Gerlach 1991 (which, frustratingly, I can't get a copy of). If it's the case that Plimer is just plain wrong, then I think we should be more direct in the article (while bearing BLP considerations in mind of course). On the other hand, if it's the case that his view is legitimate but minority, we should probably be more clear about that too.

And before anybody assures me that he most certainly is wrong, I don't want to discuss that, I want to demonstrate it. cheers Thepm (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The USGS has a distinguished reputation as a national scientific organisation; pretty much by definition, what it says is going to reflect the mainstream scientific viewpoint. As you say, Nbahn, it is hardly going to be a bastion of fringe theories. Regarding Plimer being wrong: I haven't seen a single other source supporting his views - have you? As far as I've been able to determine he is literally the only person making this claim. It seems to be a "minority of one" viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The EPA statement that Plimer's view "has no factual basis" is the best summary. I'm surprised that this was removed from the article. We don't need to state that Plimer is wrong, any more than we need to say Idi Amin was a bad man. (Note before anyone leaps to ANI, I'm not comparing Plimer to Idi Amin.) The principle is "show, don't tell." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the problem with contrasting Plimer and the EPA that we're simply presenting it as "he said / they said" - i.e. false equality between the scientific viewpoint and Plimer's unsourced opinion? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If Plimer's claim is clearly wrong, why is this section in the article at all? It seems like it's a non-notable claim which appears to be just wrong, but has generated little reliably sourced rebuttal, so why include any reference to it? ATren (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec - directed at ChrisO's comment) Yes, I think it is. To say that Plimer's view "has no factual basis" we would have to attribute it to the EPA and the circle is complete :) On the other hand if we simply say that Plimer has been shown to be incorrect with an adequate reference, I think that would be ok (does anybody disagree?). Surely the question of whether humans emit more CO₂ than volcanoes is a straight-forward yes/no question? The problem I am having is with the "adequate reference" bit. At present I would be dissatisfied with the EPA as a reference on the grounds that I'm not satisfied that it's inadequately referenced itself. Does anybody here have access to the Gerlach paper? Thepm (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with fringe statements (Plimer's view doesn't even qualify as a fringe "theory") is that it's tough to find direct refutations of them, because few scientists have heard of them and those who have don't usually waste their time trying to refute nonsense. You'd be hard pressed to find NASA or the NAS making a direct statement that "the moon is not made of Vermont sage cheese." So I think the USGS and EPA statements are the best we can do. Statements by government bodies such as these are preferable to remarks by individual scientists.

Government agencies are notoriously timid and usually employ circumspect language, so for the EPA to proclaim that Plimer's view "has no factual basis" really is quite remarkable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The below was originally written in response to ChrisO about "he said/they said," but there was an edit conflict.
This recalls to my mind something that Molly Ivins wrote in the late '80s[3]:
"We are retreating to a fine old American press cop-out we like to call objectivity. Russell Baker once described it: 'In the classic example, a refugee from Nazi Germany who appears on television saying monstrous things are happening in his homeland must be followed by a Nazi spokesman saying Adolf Hitler is the greatest boon to humanity since pasteurized milk. Real objectivity would require not only hard work by news people to determine which report was accurate, but also a willingness to put up with the abuse certain to follow publication of an objectively formed judgement. To escape the hardwork or the abuse, if one man says Hitler is an ogre, we instantly give you another to say Hitler is a prince. A man says the rockets won't work? We give you another who says they will [...].
[...]
"The American press has always had a tendency to assume that the truth must lie exactly halfway between any two opposing points of view [...]. This tendency has been aggravated in recent years by a noticeable trend to substitute people who speak from a right-wing ideological perspective for those who know something about a given subject [...]. [...] They have nothing to offer in the way of facts or insight; they are presented as a way of keeping the networks from being charged with bias by people who are replete with bias and resistant to fact. The justification for putting them on the air is that 'they represent a point of view.'

"The odd thing about these [...] discussions designed to 'get all sides of the issue' is that they do not feature a spectrum of people with different views on reality: Rather, they frequently give us a face-off between those who see reality and those who have missed it entirely. In the name of objectivity, we are getting fantasyland."

Fantasyland. I cannot help but be concerned that there is a hidden agenda in certain quarters to subvert the truth by any means possible. I am also concerned about the implications for civil discourse if an editor identifies and documents the knowing and willful deceits of a public figure and is censured for doing so. If Plimer has no clothes, then we should say so (Cla68 notwithstanding). If notable public figures cast aspersions on Plimer's integrity, then we should have a civil and reasoned debate as to the merits of including such a fact in the article. If it can be proven that Plimer is a liar, then we should say so; and we should be able to have such discussions without fear of censure. I sense a very real reluctance of speaking out the truth here on these talk pages for fear of censure; and I find this infringement on free speech to be sickening as well as intolerable.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB, I'm not expecting to find a source that explicitly says that Plimer is wrong. I'm looking for a source that confirms that "volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial." While NASA may not explicitly state that the moon is not made of Vermont Sage Cheese (by the way, I recall reverting something like that on the Cheese article some time ago!) they will say that the moon is made of <insert whatever it is that the moon is made of>. I expect that it will be the Gerlach paper, which, in turn, will leave us satisfied that the EPA reference is accurate.

Once we have that, I think we should be more direct in our statement in the "Volcanoes and CO₂" section. Thepm (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

[4] estimates volcanoes at ~72 Mtons/yr. (Added) I also found this old paper about human CO2 emissions.[5] Estimated at ~5Gtons in the early 80s. -Atmoz (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The paper you want is DM Kerrick, 2001, "Present & Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing from the Solid Earth", Reviews of Physics 39. Full text online, though I'm not sure how you can use it without OR -- but it has the numbers & is pretty recent. Note that all these estimates are pretty rough, but everyone agrees that volcanic CO2 emissions are around 1% of current anthropogenic. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The current wording isn't too bad. I like the old wording better because it showed that no sythesis was occurring the in the article. The text made it clear who the sources were who disputed Plimer's theory and were specifically responding to Plimer's claims. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Would anyone object if I actually edited the article? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SBHB, but I think the latest edit makes the article noticeably worse. Now it's becoming a blow by blow description of an interview :( What do we need in order to say "Plimer has been demonstrated to be incorrect as volcanoes only emit blah blah blah..."? Thepm (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can say "Plimer is incorrect," just as I disagree with WMC that we should say Plimer is "wrong." (Those of us in the Gang of i have to pretend to disagree on occasion in order to throw others off the scent.) People don't like being told what to think, and besides it arguably violates WP:NPOV. We just say that Plimer thinks X, everyone competent on the matter at hand thinks not-X, and let the reader draw her own conclusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The latest version is ok, but it since it mentions that televised debate it probably should give Plimer's response after being told that the USGS did include undersea volcanoes in its findings. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• This section is (once again) growing past its reasonable WP:Weight. Can we go back to the short version? We do have a RS saying Plimer is wrong -- enough, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I hacked it down a bit. It is now shorted, and the contrary is not attributed to anyone in particular, which is how it should be William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your version, WMC, is succinct and readable. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur (and I don't often agree with Ratel re Plimer ;-] --thanx, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone who has a copy of the book add a quote to the cite to support this statement:

"... submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models." It's referenced to pp. 207-225 of Heaven & Earth. I'm slightly concerned about "huge" and ""drastically" -- better to quote Plimer directly, I think -- at least in the footnote, as I just did for the "long argued" bit. TIA, Pete Tillman 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I added the fact that Plimer stated CO2 from volcanoes has caused global warming in the past. I thought it important to put that in there, because he appears to have shifted ground on that to state that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (see quote box in article). Let readers decide. I also removed the bit about "large" volcanoes and added a new cite, written by Plimer himself, stating that "Some 85 per cent of volcanoes are unseen and unmeasured yet these heat the oceans and add monstrous amounts of CO2 to the oceans. Why have these been ignored?" ► RATEL ◄ 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If they're "unseen and unmeasured" one has to wonder how he computes the 85% figure. But I guess we're not supposed to mention things like that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

More Left Wing POV in Crappipedia

The article is citing US EPA media releases against Plimer. These types of articles are not peer reviewed and often demonstrate a political bias. The EPA is well known as a housing project for the unemployable scientist. Plimers statements have automatically been lambasted here, yet Garnaut's writeup in Crappipediais all glowing. It fully argues that an economist is the ultimate judge between good and bad science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.239.170 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

reference - is it suitable

Re the Plimer article - reference 31, which is http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/why-monbiot-ran

Isn't this so far from being written form a NPOV that it would be best avoided as a reference in a Wikipedia article ?

210.9.136.29 (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (book)

I am concerned that the most recent additions to the "Heaven and Earth" section make it in danger of becoming a coatrack for criticism of the book. I think in Plimer's BLP we only need mention that;

• He wrote the book.
• The book states that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide and underweigh other issues such as solar variation.
• The book was commercially successful (best-seller?).
• The book received some positive reviews in the (conservative?) press.
• The book has been heavily criticised by the scientific community.

Beyond that, I think detailed criticism of the book should go in the article on the book rather than in Plimer's BLP. --Thepm (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a bit much for the summary. Dave, have you put this stuff over at the book page? You do seem to have done the homework re sourcing the criticism. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, in light of the comments from Tillman and Boris (above), I plan to amend the mention of H&E within Plimer's bio, pretty much in line with what I've outlined here. I'll take a look at the article on the book and try to transplant anything from here that isn't already there. I'd be grateful if you'd take a look at the edits when I'm done in case I miss anything.

There's no rush, so I'm going to hold off for a day or two in case you want to comment further. Cheers --Thepm (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Denialist, and Plimer's book

Regarding the edit made by Orangemarlin, I think it unwise to label Plimer as a "denialist" in his BLP. The guidelines for BLP suggest that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." I would not describe using the adjective "denialism" as conservative or disinterested. I am happy to discuss and if consensus is that your edit should remain then I'll go along with consensus, but as this is a BLP, I urge you to self-revert in the interim. Thepm (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've flagged the issue at the BLP Noticeboard. Thepm (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So your first thought is whining about it to some board. Screw it, edit whatever you want, you aren't interested in consensus and just want to whitewash climate denialism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your quick self revert. I appreciate that. I'm happy to discuss the language we use in the article, but I think it's better to reach consensus before making potentially controversial changes to any BLP, but perhaps especially one in the area of climate change. My problem with using "denier" rather than "skeptic" is that it seems to imply a level of dishonesty or at least disingenuousness (is that a word?). The article makes it plain that Plimer's view is at odds with the consensus. Thepm (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thepm, thanks for your comment on my talk page. I've used the word "attacking" in the lead as reasonably well representing the description in [6] this source (now added to the Climate change scepticism section as citation 20) which says that Plimer "denounces mainstream scientists as behaving like a 'mafia organisation' who try to squash dissent. '[Climate change science] has all the hallmarks of a fundamentalist religion,' he said, 'You demonise your opponents and you engage in anything to get the message done'." . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I guess that's "attacking"! --Thepm (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, while it's a fair representation, I'm not sure that "attacking" is encyclopaedic language. I'd prefer that it be "challenging" or "opposing" in an encyclopaedia. By way of analogy, an article that mentions interest rates should say that the rate fell or rose, not that it plumments or soars.--Thepm (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not use his own words? Let the reader decide whether denouncing climate scientists as a "mafia organization" is an attack. Show, don't tell. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Show, don't tell". I like that! :¬) Percival Scion (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SBHB. I guess I'd agree with you in the body of the article, but I think in the lede it's better to say "he opposes the consensus" (or words to that affect) rather than including two or three quotes to illustrate it. I'm not going to die in a ditch over this because I actually think the lede's pretty good. I just think it would b better if it said "opposing" instead of attacking.

What about "vigorously" or "staunchly" opposing? Because it really is an out-and-out attack, truth be told. Percival Scion (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're here, I wonder if you'd mind sharing your view on the section on his book? There's discussion below. cheers --Thepm (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying he opposes the consensus is fine and directly attributable. It's a pretty mild statement so it doesn't need much more than ordinary verifiability. Saying someone "attacks" others is a stronger statement and has to be handled a bit more deftly. As for the section in H&E I think it goes into too much detail -- just the first three sentences of that paragraph are enough for a biographical article. The other stuff can go into the article on the book itself (it may already be there; I haven't checked). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have gone along with these suggested modifications, with some concern that the article gives undue credibility to thoroughly debunked misinformation. While the article on the book could be improved by these sources, it's got a horrific structure separating arguments from critiques in a way that undermines NPOV requirements – see WP:STRUCTURE. A complete rewrite will be needed, and if we accept the current structure it would be slotted away under "Media reactions", isolated from the synopsis of the claims it addresses, phrased as "James Randerson, environment and science news editor of The Guardian, said this and that". Not good. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Thanks, Dave, for the prompt response.

Ugh. I remember trying that once when we still had that now-banned Oz twit involved. Ratel. At least he's gone, but still a chore. I saw that book in the library AWB, but had no real interest, then or now, in cracking it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that Plimer's book did draw some scientific praise. Merited or not, should be mentioned for balance. I'll root in the talk archives, maybe, when I'm feeling masochistic.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for making the change quickly. I've got a couple of points on this, but I'm reluctant to just make the changes. If you're happy for me to make the change rather than banging on here, please let me know.

First, the book's main purpose appears to be to challenge/oppose/attack the scientific consensus on climate change. The subtitle of the book is "Global Warming - The Missing Science". I think the summary should say that, preferably with a link to the consensus opinion.

Second, the book was a best seller (at least the publisher claims it was, so I guess we can assume it sold well). In any BLP, the fact that a book written by that person was commercially successful would be worthy of a mention.

Third, the book received very positive reviews in the popular press.

Fourth there are way too many citations.

Can I suggest something like this for the entire section

Heaven and Earth (book)

Main article: "Heaven and Earth", Plimer's book on climate change

In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book disputing the scientific opinion on climate change. The book was a bestseller in Australia and is in its seventh printing, according to the publisher.

The book received both positive and negative reviews in the popular press. Scientists from many disciplines have criticised the book as unscientific and containing numerous errors.

I really think that this is all we need on this page so long as there is a link to the main article. I haven't picked out specific cites (although I am happy to do so) but I think we need one cite for the "opposes consensus" claim (ie probably the book itself). One cite for the 'bestseller' claim and one or two each for the 'popular opinion' and 'scientific opinion'. cheers --Thepm (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

For "bestseller", the only evidence is from the publisher's site, where they say the book sold over 30,000 copies and reached number one on the Nielsen Bookscan [Australia], May 2, 2009". I inserted [Australia] because there are separate Nielsen Bookscans, afaik, for Australia, US, UK, etc.I think the term "bestseller" is not an objective term, so the claimed sales figures should be stated without triumphal adjectives, perhaps? The number of printings is immaterial, because it depends entirely on the publishers estimates of sales. If each print run had been for 1000 copies, it would have had 30 printings, for instance. Percival Scion (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PS, you're right. "Bestseller" is a bit of a vague term. I just copied across the text from the lead of the article on the book. The point is that it sold (relatively) well in Australia, so maybe we say that; "The book sold well in Australia and is in its seventh printing, according to the publisher."

I guess we could just say it sold 30,000 copies, but it seems a bit clumsy to me.

All - I've amended my comment above to make clear what I think should be in the section and what are my additional comments. cheers --Thepm (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, 30,000 copies is at least objective. In some markets, that would mean the book was a fizzer. Percival Scion (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

30,000 seems low to me too for a book that's meant to be a "bestseller", but I have no idea. How many books constitute a best-seller? By the way, where'd you find the number? All I can find are various press articles saying "best seller" and the Connor Court site saying #1 in Neilsen Bookscan (Independent), which I assume means it was the best selling independent book that week. --Thepm (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[7] Percival Scion (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

<southparkmode>You see, I learned something today. "Bestseller" is a term that has no meaning.</southparkmode> As far I can tell, according to that article, Plimer's book sold at east 30,000 copies in Australia and at least 20,000 copies elsewhere. If that makes it a best seller, well there you go. It does seem that the book was commercially successful.

So, what I suggest we put for the entire section on the book within the BLP is;

Heaven and Earth (book)

Main article: "Heaven and Earth", Plimer's book on climate change

In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book disputing the scientific opinion on climate change. The book was commercially successful in Australia and is in its seventh printing, according to the publisher.

The book received both positive and negative reviews in the popular press. Scientists from many disciplines have criticised the book as unscientific and containing numerous errors.

We can get to the citations later, but is the above text acceptable? --Thepm (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's too even-handed. It's full of unambiguously incorrect data. Percival Scion (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think "Scientists from many disciplines have criticised the book as unscientific and containing numerous errors." pretty much covers that doesn't it? Detailed criticism of the book is what I'd like to avoid in the BLP. The specifics can be included in the article on the book. Don't forget that a redirect to the article on the book will appear immediately above this text. --Thepm (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with your proposed changes here, and agree that the details belong on the book page. Which, as Dave points out, is a bit of a mess. Thanks for your efforts to clean up this BLP -- and thanks to Dave for collegiality and cooperation. What a pleasant change from the "Bad Old Days"! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Pete, but I am a little paranoid about editing these pages. I'd prefer to wait another 24 hours or so and see whether Dave, SBHB or PS have any more comments. I'm hoping to clean this article up one paragraph at a time and want to maintain the goodwill that's been shown here to date. Step two will be the book :) --Thepm (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I for one think the current version is more informative. Not everyone wants to go off and read the long article on the book, and so the current subsection is a good precis. The version you propose is cut back to the barest of bare essentials; one could even say it's been dumbed down or sanitized. But let's see what others feel. Percival Scion (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, at least in part. The specificity of the current draft (i.e., "misusing sources... misusing data" with cites to support) seems better to me than "unscientific," which is vague. If conciseification is desired I'd toss out the bit on the debate with Monbiot. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I waited :) I'm going to delete the bit on the debate with Monbiot. If anybody feels I've jumped the gun, please let me know.

This leaves the following text;

"In 2009, Plimer released Heaven and Earth, a book in which he says that climate models focus too strongly on the effects of carbon dioxide, and do not give the weight he thinks is appropriate to other factors such as solar variation. Scientists from many disciplines have reviewed the book, and have accused Plimer of misrepresenting sources, misusing data, and engaging in conspiracy theories. They describe the book as unscientific, and containing numerous errors from which Plimer draws false conclusions."

The last two sentences say that Plimer/the book;

1. misrepresents sources
2. misuses data
3. engages in conspiracy theories
4. is unscientific
5. contains numerous errors
6. draws false conclusions

SBHB's comment on specificity is a good one. So, let's include points 1-3, but aren't points 4-6 then a bit of overkill?

A separate point, and one that I think is important, is that the book has been commercially successful and has had positive reviews in the popular press. A disinterested observer coming to this page has probably done so because they have seen or heard Plimer in the MSM. Chances are that this appearance included some praise for his book. I think it's important to acknowledge that he *has* had positive reviews in the popular press, while still making it clear that it's really only received heavy criticism from the scientific community. --Thepm (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So now we have a biography that excludes one of Plimer's major contretemps with another public figure (G. Monbiot). Fine, so we are apparently writing a biography that is selective in order to make it short, which is apparent a desirable goal. To address your specific questions, thepm, 1) 4-6 are not overkill IMO because they are subtly different to 1-3, and all are cited. And 2) we have no independent verification of commercial success other than what the publisher claims, do we? I would include "The book had mixed reviews in the general media." or something like that. "Mixed" means positive and negative, and everyone knows that. Actual sales figures and printings (meaningless term) can be relegated to the book's article. Percival Scion (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not having been clear in my previous comment. I meant that the discussion of the Monbiot debate should be deleted from the section about the book. If someone wants to insert it in a more general discussion on controversies, public appearances or whatever, that would be fine. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Percival Scion. I can see that you're not happy with the edits. I felt there was consensus to remove the info regarding the debate based on the comments above. Can you suggest improvement or do you simply think it should be reverted? My view is that this article is about Plimer. The book "Heaven and Earth" should be a very small part of his bio.

As for commercial success, there seems to be support for that idea. The publisher, as you mentioned, and of course many of Plimer's supporters indicate that it was a commercial success;

• Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist who last year published an instant bestseller, Heaven and Earth

In addition, there are refs from those critical of Plimer that support the proposition;

• Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth has been high up in the bestseller list for three or four weeks now.

Then there are those that appear to be otherwise neutral on the book's content;

• Heaven and Earth ... is an international bestseller.

Also, please be careful with sarcasm on the talk page. It can easily be misconstrued and on the climate change pages in particular, that can lead to all sorts of problems. Assume good faith of all participants. We are all trying to make the article better. cheers --Thepm (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I support dropping the Monbiot-Plimer bit, which is peripheral and almost trivia at this point. Historically, it's here because a former editor inserted a long blow-by-blow of the proposed 'debate', which was shortened and then stayed mostly by inertia, I think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the debate with Monbiot was extensively covered in the media in Australia, so it is not insignificant and certainly makes up a notable event in Plimer's life. Period. As for "bestseller", that's a meaningless promotional word that needs to be qualified as to the source, if used. It certainly shouldn't be stated in wikipedia's voice, as if it's a fact. The sources claiming it are the publisher (no surprises there), and the conservative Australian press (again, not surprising). The ABC quote looks like lazy journalism, reading from supplied text. Why not attempt to find out actual sales figures from Nielsen, or some other source? I've read the book and it's well-nigh unreadable, so I'd be very surprised if it's truly popular. Unfortunately, the book industry treats sales information as proprietary, so any claims of "bestseller" is usually sourced to the publisher. The fact that the book was on the Australian Bookdata bestseller list for a short while, according to the publisher, is no huge feat .. but please note that some commentators are raising profound doubts about the claimed Bookdata statistics see here (this is a RS bec. the author is an expert in his field). Percival Scion (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is getting too long, so I'm going to open two new talk sections.

1. Monbiot in the context of Plimer's BLP
2. Heaven and Earth (Book) section in Plimer's BLP.

--Thepm (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)