Talk:William Nierenberg

Jolly edit wars

Magruder seems determined to fill this article with twaddle, under the guise of verifiability. Ah well, I shall fight this one to the death, on the entirely spurious grounds that I know what I talking about. Weak grounds I know, but I can hope.

So, Macgruder insists that "A third report was commissioned from Nierenberg. Although individual chapters were in line with the two previous Charney and Jason reports, the key Nierenberg's synthesis chapter went against the scientific consensus, and played down the problem" [1]. The source is a newspaper [2] - apparently, we are now obliged to accept anything from a newspaper as Immutable Truth.

The facts are different. Nierenberg was appointed to chair the CDAC commission by October 1980 [3] (note that MacGruder is for whatever reason removing the "october" [4]) before Reagan was elected (thankfully MacGruder has at least given up reverting back in the idea that N was appointed by Reagan in 1983 [5]). There is no evidence that Reagan commissioned anything from Nierenberg. Oreskes specifically states in her paper that "Academy records do not reveal how or why Nierenberg was chosen for the job." The times article is pap. Newspapers are not WP:RS for science William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia policy WP:V again

' I know what I talking about': 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.' Lots of editors claim they know what they are talking about - hence we verify. Since your claims are 'so clearly true' it shouldn't be too hard for you find a reliable source to back them up.

You may think verifiability may be some inconvenience but it's what stops Wikipedia descending into chaos with editors claiming that they know what they are talking about, and that anything that anyone else says is twaddle. I for one am glad that this playground-reminiscent stance is prevented by Wikipedia policy. If you're not happy with this method then Wikipedia is not the place for you - try Citizendium.

Oreskes specifically states... thus accepting that Oseskes is a reliable resource. Who is that 'unreliable newspaper article' by? Naomi Oreskes. Why do accept Oreskes paper but not her newspaper article.

(thankfully MacGruder has at least given up reverting back in the idea that N was appointed by Reagan in 1983. Nice strawman - what the edit actually said was that N was appointed in 1980 and he was commissioned to do the report in 1983 which is pretty much word in line with Orestes's paper and article - I removed the 1983 because I couldn't verify it. You seem to be confusing the appointment with the commissioning.

There is no evidence that Reagan commissioned anything from Nierenberg. Orestes writes: 'Reagan commissioned a third report about global warming from Bill Nierenberg' . Once again it comes down to what you think you know versus verification. Macgruder (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Papers trump newspapers. Newspapers are not WP:RS for science. Oreskes probably didn't write the Times article - it was probably ghost-written William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And blogs certainly don't trump anything. This is what the paper says: "It did not disagree with the scientific facts as laid out by Charney, the JASONs, and all the other physical scientists who had looked at the question in his own report. Instead, it rejected the interpretation of those facts as a problem". which you reduced to 'was broadly in line' (or was that the blog?). Well, reducing 'CO2 rises was not a problem' compared with 'CO2 rises were a problem' as 'broadly in line' I would call 'twaddle' ( a word you seem to like) . Oreskes reduced this rather major point in her paper to 'But the key chapter was Nierenberg’s synthesis – which chose largely to ignore the scientific consensus.' It seems after all that Oreskes (or 'her ghost writer') is able to synthesize her own paper better than you. As a simple option I've added that point pretty much word for word. Macgruder (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article said very little about his scientific accomplishments, so I added that. Also cleanup of dead and duplicate links, moving external to inline cites, a summary of what the papers by Oreskes and his son say, and new sections. I think more work is needed on his political views and the Marshall Institute in relation to climate. -- Margin1522 (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate whitewash

The climate section misrepresents Nierenberg's views, evidently due to his son's advocacy. In 1991, Nierenberg co-published with notorious climate denier Frederick Seitz a paper (incorrectly, as it turns out) rejecting the validity of climate models.Global warming: What does the science tell us? In 1995 Congressional testimony, he strongly argued against action to limit global warming, misrepresented the potential for future CO2 increases and sea level rise, and emphasized the "weakness" of climate models. Climate models and projections of potential impacts of global climate change : hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, November 16, 1995 Nierenberg continued in the same vein for the next 15 years (see this video. --The Cunctator (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

misrepresents Nierenberg's views possibly, evidently due to his son's advocacy less probable. Its more likely that no-one has bothered add the newer material. JNS is definitely bad (e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/31/nierenberg-vs-hansen/) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1995 Congressional testimony, he strongly argued against action to limit global warming.... I've just read your link. I disagree with your assessment, at least at first blush. His views there are on the skeptical side, but well within what would have been reasonable at the time William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Nierenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720101043/http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/base-folder1/From%20Chicken%20Little%20to%20Dr.%20Pangloss.pdf to http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/base-folder1/From%20Chicken%20Little%20to%20Dr.%20Pangloss.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)