Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:56, 14 September 2010

Template:Community article probation

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Principle of least astonishment

The man's famously a global warming denialist. I inserted a single statement to that effect with three reliable sources identifying him as such. I'm surprised that this wasn't elucidated in the article more clearly.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because he is not, he is a skeptic, everyone knows climate changes and Watts does not deny that mark nutley (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But the sources say he is a denialist in the sense of global warming denialism. Are you saying that the term only applies to those who deny global warming writ large? Or can it apply to AGW denialists as well? Also, why did you remove reliable sources? Is that de rigeur on these pages? I can understand re-writing the sentence, but removing three impeccible sources that discuss the author seems a might, um, contentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One of your doi`s does not work. And we have plenty of sources saying he is a sceptic, should we fill the lede up with then just to prove you wrong? mark nutley (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Or... or... we could fill them up with both! Why not? One can be both a denialist and a sceptic, right? Are we really of the habit of removing any source where a doi malfunctions? Do you have policy or guidlines to cite for that kind of behavior being justified? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A policy for removing uncited contentious content? Gee let me think on it for a while, o ya, BLP. Why are you POV pushing? Try and retain a NPOV, he is a sceptic the term denier is pejorative and this is a BLP, we are meant to play it safe with them you know, not fast and loose mark nutley (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a term is pejorative doesn't mean it needs to be excised completely. Many believe the term "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, but when we have reliable sources that describe something as a conspiracy theory or reliable sources that state someone is a conspiracy theorist, we are empowered to write about that in Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From a BLP standpoint, I think this is very dodgy ground. Unless you can find him being quoted "denying", what you are adding a source which makes a perjorative allegation. Can you see the problem? Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By reading his blog I would gather he has roughly the following opinions: CO2 is increasing, the increase in CO2 is partially (measurably) caused by man, increased CO2 retains heat, the increase in temperature (Global warming) due to this is small. In addition he is in my opinion very green. He for instance advocates for energy efficiency and solar power etc.91.153.115.15 (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since that's only your opinion, we can't really use it as a guide. Instead, we should be going by the reliable sources, not our own evaluations. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, only that we can't use your personal evaluation to decide content. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

His opinion is correct, as is yours, lets use what the sources use mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance that Google search has to our discussion. Can you clarify? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see what "Anthony Watts sceptic" means? 1,080 hits for that means noting to you? Perhaps it means the majority of sources refer to him as a sceptic? mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it shows no such thing. The vast majority of those hits are to mirrors of a single commentator's unique sentence: "Anthony Watts, sceptic and scourge of climate change science, has used copyright laws to censor an opponent." See . If we use the American spelling we get a googlewack which is 1/5 the hits for Antony Watts denialist. Anyway, this is all really silly, and I'm a bit surprised that you think a google search has any bearing on reliable sourcing considering your earlier insistence about wp:rs. WP:GOOGLE. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How sad, i am not saying this is a reliable source, i am saying a quick google shows him as a sceptic, try "anthony watts denier" for a comparison. It is obvious he is known as a sceptic is the point mark nutley (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How happy. I'm saying that a quick google shows him to be five times more denialist than skeptic. It's obvious he is known as a denialist at this point. Okay, now that we've got that out of our systems, try giving me some reliable sources. Peer reviewed journal articles, such as the ones I offered, would be a great start! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Link please. As my search for it shows 3 hits only mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The link is two rounds up! ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But as you ask skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts Climate change skeptic Anthony Watts mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, been looking at your peer reviewed sources, this is not a peer reviewed source, it is a joke this is a self published source and actually says The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US‐based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts the third one i can`t check as it is behind a paywall, but given your misrepresentation of these two sources i really can`t AGF with the third. You sir should be ashamed mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence & Wishart are well-respected publishers within their fields. They've been accused by conservatives as being biased, but that doesn't make them any less respected than any number of other social science journals which have had similar issues. The Alex Lockwood was a paper presented at five different conferences. This is not the same as journal publication, but it is a form of peer review. It's not simply self-published. The third paper is published by this group: . You can read about their editorial policy and see what you think. In short, your casual dismissal of these sources is not very damning and your continued reliance on personal attacks is peculiar.

I appreciate your first link. It is a good SciAm article that illustrates what you are saying. The second one is a little less than equal to the other sources we're discussing. Doy you have any other sources I can go for? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I know who published the third source, i meant i can`t take your word for it that it describes Anthony Watts as a denier. This is due to your misrepresenting of sources. The media and climate change This is not peer reviewed as you say and does not describe Watts as a denier, it says his site is. The second source by Alex Lockwood is self published, is not peer reviewed (talking at a conference is not peer review) and does not say he is a denier, it describes him as a sceptic. I see no need to provide you with further refs to prove the obvious, he is known as a sceptic mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note: In some fields, conference publications are indeed peer-reviewed. In computer science, they are the primary venue for publishing peer-reviewed science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also true in the social sciences which is, indeed, the context of this particular paper. We should, however, not link to the Alex Lockwood's personal site but rather the conference website since authors sometimes modify their papers after they present them (and thus, the modifications are not subject to peer review). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Fair enough. You can request the paper yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I'd send you the paper myself, but it seems you don't trust me and I'd like it to be as independent as possible for you to confirm one way or the other. I think it is fair that maybe these sources are dealing more with Watts' site rather than his opinions personally. Maybe we should use them for Watts Up With That? instead. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can send me the other paper to check then that would be great. However the same criteria will apply to the blog article, there are far more sources calling it a sceptic site than a denier site. But if you wish to present these sources with a suggested content addition on the article talk page id be happy to look it over. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone sent it to you before I could get around to it. Sorry it took me a day to get back to it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes i just read the text and i have a question for you. How did you get Denier from those three sources? Not a one of them call Watts a denier. The one actual peer reviewed on says On the popular skeptic site 'Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts Do you always misrepresent sources? I ask as all three which you presented and reverted back into this BLP did not call him a denier. Playing fast and lose with sources in a BLP is problematic, i hope it does not happen again or i`ll take it further than this rebuke mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Denier" or "Denialist"? Are they different or the same? All three use the term "denialist". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. This does not describe Watts as a denier. This does not describe Watts as a denier. Nor did the one peer reviewed source you presented. Not one of those sources support the content you inserted into a BLP. Continue on this course and there will be trouble mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I flatly disagree with you. I think all three do a great job of showing that Andrew Watts is in the denialist crowd. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Energy & Environment article cited does not state that Watts is a denier nor a denialist. A search of the article cited using "deni" as the search term shows two hits. The first hit states: "The story came a day after the climate change secretary Ed Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans." The second states, in regards to Les Hatton, "He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.”" There is absolutely no reference to Watts as either a denier nor a denialist in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it seems to plainly lump Anthony Watts in the denialist camp. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely I disagree. For me to make that jump would require that I engage in massive WP:SYN and it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what I can show in the sources. It is not in the cited source. This is a BLP. To insert potentially negative information into a BLP requires multiple reliable sources that verify the information. None of the articles call him a denier or a denialist. As a matter of fact, it does not technically identify Watts as a sceptic, only identifying his blog in that manner. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So you decided to misrepresent a source and engage in wp:or in a blp. mark nutley (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not how I see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So exactly where does it describe him as a denier? GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtney basically canonizes him as such, as far as I can tell. Do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that one non-peer reviewed journal describes him as such, what about the other two? There have to be multiple reliable sources to insert negative information into a BLP - believe me I know, having dealt with that in another article. You do not have the multiple sources required. The other two articles supported the article text as it was already written.

And no, I do not agree. Courtney mentions Watts in passing, and it is possible that the denier label only applied to Climate Audit and not Watts, if you parse the sentence. It does not use precise language. I have no trouble accepting that you acted in good faith as re Courtney, but there is no support in the other two sources for labeling Watts as a "denier." GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bizarrely close reading, but what do I know? I do think, though, that some measure of description of the guy should go here. I mean, he's famous for not accepting most of the "party line", as it were, in the realm of climate science. That this is not in the lead is, as the section header suggests, astonishing. Shouldn't something be there? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not Accepting A" is not the same as "Accepting Not A". It's basic logic. "Not accepting" is the definition of sceptic. "Accepting Not A" is denial. Clearly, you aren't accepting the BLP issues. Do you understand the consequences of painting him with this border-line libellous smear? (And yes, that's the way the self-professed sceptics will see it.) Your edit if accepted is likely to be edit-warred on wiki, is certainly not concensus approved, and will get negative coverage off-wiki. Watts corresponds with "respectable scientists" like the NSIDC and solar experts. Your comment will also affect them. Slowjoe17 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really follow exactly what you are saying, because I've never seen this distinction made as such. Do you have a reliable soruce for "Accepting Not A" is denial and "Not Accepting A" is skepticism? I'd like to read one. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Slowjoe, but there is a difference between a skeptic/sceptic (see definition here) and a denier (see definition here). You basically changed the text from sceptic to denier and provided 3 references that you claimed stated that (and that all 3 were peer-reviewed). The sources do not state that Watts is a denier, and they are not all peer-reviewed. You are attempting to insert negative information into a BLP without having multiple sources to support your change and you misrepresented what the sources did say. It is not proper. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's basic logic. Very often we are taught logic with the situation where only "A" and "Not A" are possible. In this case, it's quite hard to see a difference between denial and scepticism. But if you look at more complicated logical situations, like criminal court cases where proposition A represents "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Then "not A" is the verdict "not guilty" which does not mean "proven innocent". It means "not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". This cover both "innocent" and "guilty but case not proven". I hope that you are with me so far.

If we convert this to Man Made Global Warming, a toy description has that proposition A is "science has proven that man has caused the earth to warm". The proposition "Not A" is "science has not proven that man has caused the earth to warm". Again, this "Not A" covers several positions:

1. The earth is not warming. (This is denialism)
2. The is warming, but Man has not caused the earth to warm (This is also denialism)
3. Man may have caused the earth to warm, but the science has not proven this to the observer's satisfaction

Scepticism covers all positions, whereas denialism covers only the first two.Slowjoe17 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your basic logic is verifiable in this regard. Sources would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out Law of excluded middle. Check out Agnostic. Unfortunately, I can't find an RS which says "SA is mistaken, and here's why."Slowjoe17 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change any text, but I did add text. I would rather not rely on wikitionary, as I'm not sure it's really up to the task I'm asking for. While I take issue with much of the rest of your post, it also doesn't deal with the issue at hand: namely that the lead doesn't explain why Watts is most notable. I'd like a sentence in the lead to describe this. I think the three sources I provided show that he is particularly opposed to climate science and disbelieves much of the standard IPCC assessment points. I imagine linking to global warming denialism which is a redirect to another article with terminology perhaps more to your liking is fine. Piping or using alternative wordings is okay by me, as long as we can come to some agreement. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue at hand is your misrepresenting three sources to change the lede from sceptic to denier, a pejorative. And also claiming they were all peer reviewed when that was not the case, the issue here is that you have yet to explain yourself mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK is clear that we should discuss ways to improve the article, which is what I'm continuing to do here. I've answered all the concerns you list here already. If you think otherwise, please look for a more appropriate forum in which to discuss it, it really shouldn't be done on this article talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR you have not given a response as to why you misrepresented three sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP either do so or refrain from editing this article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I misrepresented none of the sources, I do not consider denialism if applied to a verified denialist to be a pejorative. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will continue to do so. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer this, were in any of those sources were the words Watts the denier or a variation thereof? I can tell you there are none, which means you did in fact misrepresent sources and your failure to acknowledge this leads me to suspect you need to be reported for it to ensure this does not happen again with a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are adequate for this. Whether that's the consensus text to go in here is another matter. I did not "misrepresent" sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two sources linked to above. Both of them clearly label Watts a "denialist" as described in the article currently located at Climate change denial. There is no need for WP:SYNthesis to reach this conclusion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you are as wrong as SA, neither call Watts a denialist, and misrepresentation of sources is a serious issue, please don`t do it again. I will also point out that neither of those sources are good enough for a BLP given one is self published. mark nutley (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the proper representation of sources as misrepresentations is a serious issue, please don't do it again. Neither are good since one is self-published is a pretty funny argument, but maybe just a careless oversight in logic? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don`t try your luck with these junk sources again. Neither are good as well you know one being selfpublished and the other just a rant published by a junk source. If you continue to push these crap sources on a blp i`ll have to take this issue further mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Take the issue further, please. I'll keep pushing if you'd like. I recommend going to the next step in dispute resolution which is WP:TO. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, your continued insistence that these sources call watts a denier when they clearly do not and your insistence that they are reliable when they are not means my next step is to file an RFE for your continuing disruptive behaviour. How many editors have now told you that these sources do not say what you say they do? Take the hint and stop deliberately misrepresenting sources mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:DR. It's pretty clear that Anthony Watts is a denialist and he's been taken to task for his ignorance of climatology and the scientific method in general by a number of sources that we have listed here. I will be clear as to what I think the sources say: The sources are are adequate as indicators that Anthony Watts uses his blog to promote the claims of global warming denialism. From this statement I manifestly will not back down. Whether we want to include such a statement in the article, or whether we prefer a different wording, is another matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not care what you think the sources say, nor what indicators you seem to be getting from them. We use what the sources say and none of those you presented say he is a denialist and that is that, this is your last chance, stop misrepresenting sources or i shall file an RFE mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources I listed clearly indicate that Anthony Watts holds the same characteristics as global warming denialists. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

SA, please clarify why you a) misrepresented three sources as peer-reviewed when they were not; and b) why you misrepresented the term skeptic/sceptic in the sources as denier/denialist. If you don't want to address this further, than I won't push it, but if you continue argue that it is appropriate without addressing the issue, or if you try and insert negative WP:BLP information into this article in violation of policy, I will seek sanctions. GregJackP Boomer! 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

a) I didn't, the sources are peer-reviewed. b) I didn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your choice. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuel for Thought

The following are all I get with a Ctrl + F for "Watts" from Fuel for Thought:

• On the popular skeptic site “Watts Up With That,” Anthony Watts called the climate.gov site a “waste of more taxpayer money” and charged that it is nothing more than a “fast track press release service.” He wrote that putting Karl in charge was an issue, because he had fabricated photos of “floods that didn’t happen” in an earlier NOAA report.”
• Dr. Indur M. Goklany, who has worked with the IPCC as an author, U.S. delegate, and reviewer, former analyst with the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the author of a book and numerous scholarly papers on climate change, posted annotations to Jones’s BBC interview at WattsUpWithThat, as follows:
• The reports from Joseph D’Aleo and E. Michael Smith on John Coleman’s TV special were of great use in addressing the NOAA and NASA datasets. The January 29, 2010 study by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Surface Temperature records: Policy Driven Deception?, was invaluable in arguing that, contrary to its claims, EPA has no scientifically verifiable dataset on which to base its Endangerment Finding. What type of scientific organizations would change part of its historic dataset 16 times in two and one half years as NASA did?

I am confused as to how that supports the claim that Watts is a denialist. Could you please explain, ScienceApologist? If I am mistaken and you didn't actually state that or mean to state that, could you please clarify as to what you meant to say? NW (Talk) 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike others in this debate, I don't see global warming denialism and global warming skepticism as being different things. Neither does Misplaced Pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I just checked and the skepticism article was redirected, by WMC, based on a consensus of 3 or 4 people in a 24 hour period. Not nearly enough time for consensus to form. I've reverted, based on the last comment in the discussion, and will start working on the article. The two are different. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 02:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. If it is the same thing, why did you need to change it back to denialist from skeptic? GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the name of the Misplaced Pages article, wasn't it? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to figure out how I can AGF here, but your response seems really disingenuous -- you obviously do not think of the terms as interchangeable since you made a point of reverting this edit from "skeptic" to "denialist" and emphatically stated the sources distinguish Watts as a "denialist" -- which they don't, they refer to him as a "skeptic" as Wenchell corrected and you reverted. Minor4th 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the name of the article it linked to. I don't think there is anything different between the two. I reverted because I thought the person who changed the wording erroneously believed there was a distinction when there wasn't one and our article goes by the title "denialism". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research re: Surfacestations.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

weblog awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some bold merges

I merged two articles here. See what you think?

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

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

Tagging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unmerge?

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

There was no agreeing to mergeing so it should go back to the origanal state right?

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles