Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Expanding opinions

I expanded our coverage of Watts' opinions regarding carbon dioxide and driving forces of recent warming, and I summarized the mainstream assessment of his views with content from Global Warming#Solar activity and the lead of Scientific opinion on climate change. I think our coverage of Watts' opinions on this topic are fairly vague, and more expansion would probably help. For example, his self-description of "very green" doesn't explain much; "supports the use of alternative energy", from his 2010 interview, is better. Any input would be welcome.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to spend some time reviewing our sources. I dumped more than necessary from our science articles; picking the best one (or two) would be an improvement. We also need to begin migrating away from using Watts Up With That throughout the article, and move to secondary sources instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these suggestions -- and I also think your recent edits have been a significant improvement to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I second that, and if you are looking at sources, there are a number of decent sources referred to above that have not been incorporated and might be useful. I listed some of them simply to support what was already at issue, but if you are expanding...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, given the cavilling we see here I think it is one of those cases where more is more. Any statement that can be sourced three times to independent authorities, should only necessitate three or four months of argument, which will be a huge improvement. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. I'll note that Ubikwit has been doing a pretty good job of gathering sources which you can still find evidence of on this talkpage. I started some source gathering a few months back which you can read about here: Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_5#Sources.3F. jps (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Body edits look fine. Some of the political language should be changed to AR5 which has been out for more than a year. For the inline quotes, the science portions should be pulled, not SPM's (e.g. the "Human activity" null hypothesis is 50% of the observed warming is human caused. I think that puts the null hypothesis at 0.4C of the 0.8C - scientists disagree about where the line is actually drawn - some believe it is the low end while others believe it is greater than 0.8C - This is AR5 discussion). --DHeyward (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AR5 discussion is useless. The models of record are the AR4. In several years we can see how the AR5 adjustments actually predict. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does this "null hypothesis" come from? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann's opinion of the blog (redux)

Mann has apparently been publicly feuding with Watts for years. He has gone on twitter to insult and denigrate Watts. The idea that he is merely a disinterested scientist expressing a straight objective opinion on the blog is farcical. [1] We would be breaking new BLP ground if we put the personal opinions of a committed personal opponent in the lede, breaking ground and not in a good way. WP:NPOV. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

He has a time machine? You're citing a 2013 tweet as evidence of "publicly feuding" before a 2012 publication? Of course Mann is interested, he's a topic expert, and his peer reviewed academic publication is an appropriate source for how scientists have recieved the fringe theories of Watts. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree but in thread Mann is a poor source most editors deemed the Mann quote acceptable within the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So should we, under that theory, also include Mann's false personal attacks that Watts is a paid Koch shill, "Court Jester", "Denier for Hire"? These are also the published opinions of Mann regarding Watts. This is absurd and entirely contrary to BLP policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I found "the denialiti" characterization amusing in the blog linked to in the tweet by Mann.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine that you found the Mann's animus towards Watts very amusing. I find it amusing everywhere but at encyclopedia biography articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Mann is opposed to climate change denial and very public about it. That doesn't change the fact that he is a recognized expert in his field, and one of the most reliable sources we can cite for this material. In addition, he's widely cited elsewhere, so his opinion is significant and relevant to the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that Mann is personally and vigorously at odds with Watts, to the point of making public personal attacks and frankly obvious lies gross inaccuracies. That makes the inclusion of his opinion in the lead not useful as a neutral "expert". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that WP:BLP also applies on talk pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and when one publicly states that someone is paid by the Kochs when in fact the person is not, that is a lie gross innaccuracy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not necessarily a lie, as in your original statement. And I wonder where you get your information and how nitpicky you are. Watts did e.g. get money from Heartland, and Heartland did get money from Koch - directly and indirectly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd vehemently disagree. I'm pretty nitpicky. Cleverly, the Heartland Institute was fraudulently relieved of its internal documents and subsequently published so we all know the internal details of their finances. It is well documented that the Kochs gave $25,000 for the Institute's Health newsletter...not for Watts. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From the Heartland Intsitute article: "In 2011 the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade". Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to be finicky, but a) your link does not work (at least not for me), b) the Charles G. Koch Chartable Foundation is only one of several foundations by the Kochs, and c) it's no secret that more and more funds are funnelled through the Donors Trust and other donor advised funds, so the statement may be literally true, but substantially false. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So there is no evidence that the Kochs gave squat to Heartland for a decade or more. The leaked documents show that the Institute hoped for but never received the desired support. The Kochs deny it. Heartland denies it. Watts denies it. But you think that because Mann says it (without any evidence whatsoever) that it may be true? You posit that they, the Kochs, might have secretly contributed even though it didn't appear in any of the the Heartland internal donor documents. Well, there is no arguing with conspiracy theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your reading skill. Again, you manage to read things I haven't even written. My hat is off to you.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of climate scientists in the world. If this is a neutral or common position vis a vis WUWT then we could use another's opinion. It is self-evidently wrong to use one with an ongoing personal battle with the subject in the lede of the biography. We have this policy called NPOV that may apply. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing about this statement that is controversial, and I see nothing about Mann that would indicate his expert opinion on this matter is suspect. If you have another source you would like to replace this one with, propose it, but otherwise, I don't see anything about this that contravenes our policies of RS, WEIGHT, etc.   — Jess·Δ♥ 16:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Except of course that Mann is disparaging and purposefully innacurate about the subject in his other public statements(tweets). Capitalismojo (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That says we use reliably published experts, like, say, Mann when published by CUP. We don't cite Mann's twitter messages. There are plenty of scientists with a low opinion of WUWT. But, unless Mann, they usually don't get viciously attacked by organised mobs, so they can stick to the physical side of the science. However, there are additional opinions, not all as gentle as Mann's. Just from "Denying Science" by John Grant (Prometheus Books, 2011):

• "massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That"
• "Various AGW-denialist factions - notably bloggers [...] and Anthony Watts - were hard at word to spin the evidence"
• "The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism. No serious journalist would rely upon it as a source of informaton"
• "Among the sites still eager to promote the lie are [...] Watts Up With That?"
• Cited and endorsed: "In general, you can assume that if Watts has reprinted a piece, it's filled with anti-scientific disinformation"

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So I take it by this that you agree that we should some other person's opinion about WUWT rather than using the opinion of an individual engaged in an ongoing personal battle? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out were I said that? I think I said the opposite, and just pointed out that his opinion is not isolated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if it is not isolated then good practice would be to find someone to quote not know for indulging in personal fights with the subject. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not using the science-fiction author you quote extensively above. I like his work but find his screed in the Prometheus Press book over the top. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We can add a source if you want, and if you can track down an expert more recognized in the field than Mann, we could replace it altogether. Right now, I don't see that. Mann's the best source we have, and we should use the best sources, not ones we prefer for their twitter activity.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And responding to your comments above, if you think Mann is an unreliable source in this topic, and you source that opinion to the Koch Foundation, you should take your concerns to RSN. I don't really know what else to say about that. This is not a personal dispute, we are accurately presenting the scientific consensus described in a multitude of top quality sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My source for Mann's (very public) disputes with Watts are Mann. I didn't source anything of the sort to the Koch Foundation, your assertion is...odd. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is not a RS or neutral expert as regards Watts. He engages in public battles with Watts on a personal ad hominem basis. (Also Mann is not a recognized expert in the field of Anthony Watts.) We must replace the Mann quote with a neutral source. This is a flagrant and tendentious violation of BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And... I'm done. Mann is an expert on climate change (and surrounding controversy), and we are sourcing claims about climate change and surrounding controversy. Your goal shifting to "recognized expert in the field of Anthony Watts" is disingenuous at best. We are not going to source this article only to "experts on Watts", which would include... let's see... only Watts. Consensus opposes your suggestion. It's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested "sourcing this article only to experts on Watts". We should rely on RS and just not include the personal opinion of someone who has got an ongoing public battle. If we must include a line in the lede saying "WUWT is the most important denialist blog" we should find someone else. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a biography. We are required to be NPOV in biographies. A quote in the lede of this biography is from a (no one doubts) prominent scientist who is nevertheless engaged in a very personal battle with the subject of the biography involving insults and gross inaccuracies. If this opinion in the lede is important and the common understanding then it should be easy to replace the information with NPOV material. That is what I am suggesting. Let's comply with policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And the consensus on this page is that the Mann quote does comply with policy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I have seen no defence advanced on policy grounds. And is it the sense of this page that it is both compliant with (BLP and NPOV) policy and good editing practice to feature in the lede paragraph a opinion from someone involved in a personal dispute with the subject of the biography? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is really dumb. Obviously, most editors of this page support including the Mann quote and do not believe it violates policy. Also obviously, a somewhat smaller group of editors do not support including the quote, and possibly also believe it violates policy. Pretending not to understand this in order to keep going round in this debate is pointless. --JBL (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

JBL's comment is quite sensible. The edit in question is not in Wikipedia's voice, but is clearly described as Mann's characterization of the blog; this is neither a violation of NPOV or BLP. I'm curious, though: what criticism would the editors who don't think this edit is acceptable allow in the lead? Would they allow anything by Mann? Anything by a climate scientist? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. It is a statement unambiguously attributed to a public figure whose own opinions will be well known to the reader and weighed accordingly, sourced from one of the best known books on the climate change manufactroversy currently in print. It is relevant, significant and entirely compliant with policy. And it's time to stop playing silly buggers over it just because the wholly correct notion that climate "skepticism" is in fact denial and not a legitimate scientific position, hurts some people in the feels. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to the categorization of Watt's blog if we have a source other than Mann for it.--MONGO 22:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: We do. We have at least 4: Mann, Manne, Dunlap and Farmer/Cook. See Notes. Some of the other sources are even more explicit than Mann, but Mann is still the strongest source we'd be able to find, considering he is probably the foremost expert on both climatology and the global warming controversy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Then eliminate the Mann source and keep the rest. Problem solved.--MONGO 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree to throwing out Mann, but for NPOV "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", and a minority isn't a prevalence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure you'd love to throw out Mann, for NPOV we give due weight to majority expert opinion in science when discussing this science topic. Mann's viewpoint is supported by other academic sources, the "majority" you've alluded to seems to be in the popular press or other areas noted for anti-science views. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is not discussing the science topic, Mann is discussing Watts. And for WP:NPOV "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", words like "majority expert opinion in science" don't appear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is discussing the science claims of WUWT, which is the relevant topic area. Hadn't you noticed? . . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mongo, huh? I said we have several sources backing up the wording, but Mann is the highest quality. Your response "then throw out Mann" doesn't follow... why would we throw out the very best source we have?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If the opinion can be cited and the bone of contention can be eliminated then that is the cornerstone of collaborative editing.--MONGO 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war over using the Mann quote in the lede continues

I see that the long edit-war of removing and re-inserting the Mann on Watt quote in the lede of our article continues. I'm not sure how to resolve this. I think we have a sort-of consensus to include a version of the quote in the body of the article, which seems to have settled into stable text. No WP:consensus is apparent to include this in the lede, although a majority of the editors currently active here appear to favor that,

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann's memoir and polemic, was generally well-received, but the Wall Street Journal's reviewer said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work," which would include both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, both included in the "twofer" quote that has become so contentious. The WSJ also described Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior."

Michael E. Mann is extraordinarily vigilant -- some say vindictive -- in defending his academic work and personal reputation. He has an ongoing defamation lawsuit against two bloggers, a magazine and a think-tank for criticism of his work. Last year, 27 organizations, including the ACLU, the National Press Club and many newspapers, filed an Amici Curiae arguing that the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion and freedom of the press (cites at link). No outside groups filed documents supporting Dr. Mann. Both WUWT and McIntyre have published many posts criticizing Dr. Mann's work, and his defamation lawsuit: many examples.

As other editors have argued (for example), Dr. Mann appears to feel strong personal animosity against both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre. We have agreed to mention Mann's charges against Watt and WUWT in the body of the article. Why must we quote his invective in the lede? --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments above are unwarranted attacks against Mann, almost exclusively on issues unrelated to this article. Worse, your only cited sources are to claims made by WUWT and Watts. The content we're including is not "invective", it is an entirely neutral summary of the academic consensus. Frankly, given the large number of sources that back up the content, we shouldn't even be attributing it to Mann, per WP:YESPOV, we should be stating it in WP's voice. If you're disputing that WUWT passed Climate Audit in 2010 as the leading blog on climate change denial, you'd need to provide sources for that claim.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Just to be clear, the quote you (IB) introduced into the lede is that, per Dr Mann's memoir, WUWT has "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog". If that's not invective, I'll eat my socks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You say, "Worse, your only cited sources are to claims made by WUWT and Watts."

My cited sources, in order, are to the WSJ, the Climategate emails, a laundry-list of reports and filings on Mann's defamation lawsuit, a Google search of Watts & McIntyre criticizing Mann, and a reprise of PG's earlier arguments here. And how else to demonstrate the unsuitability of using Mann upfront, than by documenting his character and methods? I could also have added that Mann sued Timothy Ball for libel, after Ball remarked that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State". That's a joke that was old when I was in kindergarten in State College, back in the late Pleistocene.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Pete Tillman, I'm curious to hear how you think "documenting his character and methods" fits with WP:BLP, since you're assembling purely negative material here, including a link that includes the words "mike mann characterized as crazy". Seems like invective to me...

Even if I agreed that the Mann quote was "invective" (I don't), that is no reason to keep it out of the lead. If it's suitable for the body, which you seem to agree with, it's suitable for the lead. The reasons why Mann's book is a good source have been rehearsed over and over again, so I won't bother to do it again. Those reasons don't change even if a Wikipedia editor posts a bunch of stuff on a talk page about lawsuits that are unrelated to the book in question. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see two external links which can be investigated. One is to wattsupwiththat.com, and the other is to google. You've referenced other people (like the WSJ) without a citation, so it's impossible to investigate. But let me be clear: I don't need a citation that Mann has been criticized. It's irrelevant, and your comments are a borderline BLP violation, making attacks against Mann cited only to a self published source. Provide sources supporting or disputing this article's content, or move on, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to both comments: I cited the Climategate emails to WUWT for convenience -- it was the first Google hit, but the enails are independent of Watt's blog. They are a primary source, readily available elsewhere, here, for example. Primary sources are useable for BLPs, with caveats, but I'm not proposing to use them in the article itself.

Mike Mann characterized as “crazy” over MWP : this is from the Ed Cook ( “drdendro" at Columbia) email quoted as 4101.txt: "He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. "

Akhilleus: "The reasons why Mann's book is a good source have been rehearsed over and over again, so I won't bother to do it again." (etc)

OK, but you obviously haven't convinced a number of the editors here.... Please see WP:NOCONSENSUS.

Jess: the WSJ book review is linked at The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It's a minority viewpoint, but a significant source. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, an editorial columnist pundit for the WSJ (who is not a scientist) is not qualified to dismiss Mann's statements related to science, including those about pseudoscience blogs.

The attempt to denigrate Mann's POV as "minority" based on the editorial statements of Anne Jolis is ludicrous. Here, it should be noted that her review is the only negative review among all reviews cited in the WIkipedia article, among which are several reviews from scientific journals (i.e., written by scientists).

Neither she nor Stephen McIntyre (founder of the other pseudoscience blog, Climate audit) are qualified to represent the mainstream view in a science topic. McIntyre is associated with an industry that seeks to prevent the enactment of CO2 emission regulations, while Jolis is his cheerleader for the WSJ. Obviously, their POV is the minority POV. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You denigrate both McIntrye and Watts for calling then pseudoscientists. McIntrye, specifically, has several peer reviewed publications. Please stop the personal attacks on these gentlemen. Arzel (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What peer-reviewed publications? In climate science? If not, it doesn't matter. His blog is also characterized as a denialist blog by Mann.

Climate change denial is characterized as pseudoscience.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see McIntrye's by looking at his WP page, you know they exist. They don't argue denial, they argue skepticism, you seem to have them confused. Calling their work pseudoscience is a red herring. Arzel (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

No consensus for this contentious addition to the lede

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter" (etc). Wikipedia:Consensus discusses what consensus is: we're not there yet, and don't sem to be getting closer.. It's very unhelpful to keep edit-warring to add this contentious quote into the lede. Merely asserting that consensus has been reached, or how Dr. Mann's memoir is so high-quality that there shouldn't be any questions asked, doesn't make it so.

It would be best if we could reach consensus over this matter among the active editors on this page. We seem no closer than when this edit was first proposed. It may be time to consider the other options outlines at Wikipedia:Consensus. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that editors dislike the content, but have yet failed to provide any sources disputing it, does not mean there is no consensus. Furthermore, removing it unbalances the lead such that it fails to represent the mainstream scientific view, in opposition to our policies, and fails to summarize the body, in opposition to the MOS. That 3 or 4 editors seem comfortable enough edit warring to their preferred version doesn't mean there is a controversy. It means 3 or 4 editors are comfortable edit warring instead of providing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bald faced assertion that there is a consensus when there clearly isn't does not advance the efforts to gain actual agreement. The mere mention of a guideline and falsely describing it as policy is even less helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having the energy to point out for an umpteenth time how totally false Mann jess's statements are. I'd add: one reason that the lead would "fail to summarize the body" is that some editors including Mann jess have destroyed long-standing and well-sourced statements in the body, again without consensus. I believe that five editors have reverted the addition of the Mann quote in the lead of this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I added Watts's denial rebuttal to the lede, since the Mann quote is up about half of the time. I'm certainly not endorsing the quote -- but we'll end up with denial accusations in the body, and his rebuttal should follow those.

Incidentally, the latest edit adding this quote back explained the edit "As per WP:NPOV", a novel argument. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

A number of editors are reinserting (and removing) the disputed Mann material in the lede. I would like to share the WP:ONUS section of the Verifiabilty policy page. "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I was not sure if all were aware of this section at WP:Verifiability policy page. If you were, I apologize but I do urge everyone to consider that in these cases of disputed content, rather than reinserting, policy directs those who wish to add material to gain consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a limited RfC on this line in the lede. Just a thought. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You can assume that all of the participating editors are aware of this section of WP:V. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the editors who have restored this well-sourced content have said in edit summaries and in comments on this page that there is consensus for including the Mann material. I certainly think there is a robust consensus in favor of including Mann's characterization of WWUT, and the only reason it is being taken out is because a handful of editors insist on edit-warring rather than substantive discussion. Perhaps we could have a post on WP:AE about this edit-warring. Just a thought. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: Indeed, we know that the onus is supposed to be on the editors who insert material. But they will falsely assert that they have a consensus; Akhilleus's statement here is an example. As for your suggestion about an RfC, I fear that it would be considered too similar to the badly-formed one that has already started on the WUWT talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about as open and shut as it gets. The vast majority of reliable sources don't use the term 'deniar'. We should be following the majority viewpoint, not the fringe minority. And yes, the burder of proof are on those restoring the contentious content, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's last comment, which simply repeats arguments he's been making for over a month, are beside the point in a dispute over whether to include the quote from Mann in the lead: a book from a university press by an expert in the subject which has received many positive reviews in a wide array of newspapers and magazines is not a fringe viewpoint by any standard. This has been said before and will probably be said again. I still don't understand why the editors who don't want this material in the lead are ok with having it in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs)

I guess my request to not use the word "denier" wasn't heard. The content being removed does not include the word "denier". It is also extensively sourced mainstream opinion, which consensus has favored. I get that some editors don't like that, but to quote from AQFK: "Edit-warring is no way to win a content dispute." If you want the content removed, please participate in discussion here and demonstrate it isn't the mainstream academic view with sources. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess says Watts is known for denial, I doubt that anyone else sees or cares about the claim that this is significantly different from saying he's known as a denier. Anyway, most known reliable sources say skeptic, and that includes academic sources, although we should prefer to go with real Wikipedia policy rather than Jess's invention that only an academic view matters. Discussion has been tried -- what is Capitalismojo's statement above if not yet another futile attempt to engage in discussion? There is no consensus. There may be an edit war and of course accusations about which side is at fault are welcome, but are not discussion of the content. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just check the citations of the article's blogging section as it was prior to recent unconstructive edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refer directly to the sources you'd like to propose, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have referred you to the citations of the article's blogging section as it was prior to recent unconstructive edits. The ones quoting skepticism are of course the ones that follow the sentence containing the word skepticism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And we're back to a lead that represents Watts as an expert and then makes claims about climate change without a single reference to the scientific consensus. This is an egregious violation of our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

For the word "policies" you linked to WP:FRINGE, but there is no such thing as a WP:FRINGE policy. The article version lead at the time you wrote did not represent Watts as an expert, and did not make claims about climate change, and is not supposed to be about scientific consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the 3rd paragraph of WP:FRINGE, please. It is a summary of how our policies are applied to fringe theories. No, we can't just ignore it. All of the things you said after your first sentence are untrue, and I've explained them in detail at "What is Fringe"   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As has been noted above, WP:PSCI applies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, as well as being inapplicable, is not a policy, as the third paragraph confirms. However, WP:ONUS, which was supposed to be the topic of this thread, is part of policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your implication that we should ignore WP:FRINGE is nonsense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The implication is follow policy. The addition is controversial for which consensus has not been achieved. The addition is uneccesary (there being other non-controvesial terms to use). The majority of the weight of RS support non-controversial terminology. Policy suggests that it not be included in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• More sources Re: "pseudoscience" and "pundit"

1. Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists, Inside Climate News, 3-2015
2. Skeptic Talking Point Melts Away as an Inconvenient Physicist Confirms Warming

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why these links? They don't support the statement, they fail verification WP:V . The NYT ref uses "skeptic" in relation to Watts (not denier), and does not identify him as a pundit, nor does it use the term "pseudoscience" at all. The Inside Climate News story doesn't use "psuedoscience" either, and doesn't identify Watts as a pundit in the bio the article provides of Watts. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so, the first sentence of the ICN story is A network of pundits and scientists is consulted about stopping release of "Merchants of Doubt," a documentary film that exposes their work. That network includes Watts, one of the "bloggers" listed: he is not a scientist.

The NYT piece states ...report...powerfully challenges one of the prime talking points of pundits and politicians trying to avoid a shift away from fossil fuels, referring to Watts as a "pundit". Or do you challenge that?

The post was meant to start a new list. Pseudoscience refs will be included as found.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent change relating to fringe claims

DHeyword made this change, modifying a segment where we discuss Watts' claims alongside the view of the scientific community. There are two problems with this edit:

• Using the word "claim" is important in this context to satisfy WP:FRINGE, because our express purpose is to contextualize Watts' beliefs as fringe, and contrast them to the scientific community's opinion. The formulation "Watts claims X. The scientific community rejects X" is appropriate. By changing it in this way, we are providing a false balance: "Watts says X, the scientific community says Y"
• Providing a date implies that Watts may no longer believe the claim. I haven't seen any source suggest this is true, and in fact, I've seen a multitude of sources which suggest Watts still believes these claims today. Our coverage of this topic should be current; if Watts believes this currently, we shouldn't write it as though its an old opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I've found a secondary source supporting "Watts features claims in his blog...", should we get rid of the primary source after checking exactly what the NS covers? . . dave souza, talk 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. That's a distinct improvement! And yes, the more we can replace our primary sources, the better. I'm still working on that, little by little. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That source doesn't support the statement of what Watt's believes or has expressed, nor does it address the WTW problem especially in a BLP. It needs to be Watt's, not a commentator just like everything said on Wikipedia can't be attributed to Jimbo. --DHeyward (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As below, it supports Watts' role in uncritically presenting misinformation to his followers. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You've made this change 3 times today DHeyword, and I've addressed it in detail above. Could you please actually respond to what I've written? Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM is pretty clear. Don't use it. "Watts wrote X, IPCC wrote Y" is perfectly acceptable. "Claims" is to be avoided. There is no false balance, it's neutral writing that has weight of the people making statements. Did you have difficulty discerning which body has more weight? Second, I haven't seen anything since 2007 that specifies what Watt's believes regarding the three items mentioned. Much research has gone on in nearly 10 years and the scientists no longer hold all the same views (whence AR5) so I suspect Watts has also evolved his views. Either way, it's a temporal statement and the data does hurt it as it is juxtaposed against AR4. --DHeyward (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the top of WP:WTW. No, it's not forbidden to use the word "claim". Your suggestion that we give equal time to both Watts and the IPCC is exactly the type of false balance WP:FRINGE warns about.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. For policy on false balance, WP:GEVAL applies. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, Watts isn't even a scientist, so the attempt at equivocation is simply ludicrous. Such assertions are disruptive at this point.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• re WP:CLAIM -- "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." In regard to Watts's assertions about the causes of global warming, it seems perfectly appropriate to use "claim" precisely because doing so casts doubt on their credibility. To say that WP:CLAIM means "don't use it" is to miss the point of the guideline entirely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So we should use "claims" to discredit Watts? Seems like a violation of NPOV and BLP. Suggest you read WP:ADVOCACY. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to make the point about Watts. IPCC does it. Whence we use neutral terms. There is no false balance because it's absurd to think that IPCC and Watts are on equal footing to begin with. We don't need advocacy language to show that. It is not NPOV for WP to cast doubt on anybodies "claims", rather we write neutrally about various viewpoints according to their weight. It's very clear what scientific consensus is from this article and all the associated articles. Watts has a biography on WP - this means we adhere to NPOV and BLP when writing about him. "Claims" is a decidedly non-neutral term (we have a WP:CLAIM to illustrate this). When "wrote" can be used for "claim", we should do so. It takes nothing away from IPCC or the scientific consensus to use "wrote" instead of "claim." Nor does "wrote" add any more credibility. It's simply neutral where "claims" is not. --DHeyward (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A recurring talking point within climate change denial accuses the IPCC of being wrong; there are conspiracies, claims they don't represent the "real" consensus, claims they're political and not scientific, etc. Your assumption that our readers will understand the IPCC is more reliable than Watts is misplaced for at least a portion of our readership.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They have made mistakes, this is undeniable. Your assertion about what some readers may believe falls into WP:ADVOCACY. You are essentially saying we have to make this point so that these readers are not fooled into believing Watts over the IPCC. That is not the purpose of WP. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Abiding by WP:FRINGE is not advocacy. That's a pretty strange claim. Yes, I get that you want to provide "balance" between Watts and the IPCC so that readers can make up their own minds, or whatever, but that's forbidden by our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What is WP:FRINGE?

Editors have pointed to WP:FRINGE a few times, especially with respect to referencing climate change denial. I want to point out this version of the article that keeps being restored. Take note of several things:

• Watts is initially described as a "meteorologist", "president" of something weather related, and "founder" of a weather project
• Watts Up With That? is summarized as simply "a weather and climate change blog"
• After all that, his claim that humans are not causing climate change is shared, with no mention that his view is not an expert opinion (which is, by now, implied)
• There is no mention in the lead that Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, or what that consensus is
• Views on Climate change makes a multitude of claims from Watts, without once referencing the mainstream scientific opinion. Really, not once.
• Among those views, we quote Watts as saying the science is lacking on climate change, and represent him as a skeptic that changed his mind when he became more educated. This is sourced to Watts' own blog.
• In Climate change blogging, only one sentence is spent describing the blog or its contents. That sentence says it is "focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, his skepticism..." One third of the section is devoted to awards it won in the Bloggies, which gives internet-voting awards the same weight as the scientific community's criticism.
• In Connection with the Heartland Institute, no discussion of the scientific consensus or opinion on his project is listed, and Watts' opinions are given equal weight to independent sources.

Watts' views on climate change are fringe, and his notability is based exclusively on those views. Yet we devote no time to clarifying the mainstream scientific view or contextualizing Watts' claims. Our only representation that his opinions are not mainstream is the criticism of his blog, and editors here are contesting that content. They are also contesting any addition of the scientific consensus, or even links to pages which describe the scientific consensus.

Is it a fringe view that Watts advocates climate change denial? No. We have several expert opinions which say he is one of the foremost advocates of those views. But it certainly is a fringe claim that carbon dioxide levels have had little to no impact on the climate, yet this claim by Watts is represented repeatedly without once clarifying the scientific opinion, or even mentioning that it conflicts with the scientific opinion.

Does this article have a problem with WP:FRINGE? Yes. But it's not because we're linking to climate change denial.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess: Maybe you should take a deep breath, or edit something else as a break from this? Your personal opinions seem.... quite strong on this topic, and this person. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your only response to what I posted? Could you respond to what I said, instead of asking me to leave? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're conflating two different issues. It's completely possible for Watts' view on climate change to be a fringe viewpoint while the term "denier" as applied to Watts is a fringe POV. We need to separate these two issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The version supported by Jess does not appear to contain the label 'denier'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AQFK A request: please stop using the word "denier". I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section. I'd like this section to be helpful in discussing the inclusion of the mainstream scientific pov, not another rehash of "skeptic vs denier". Thanks. The issue I'm addressing is that we are violating wp:weight and wp:fringe currently, and attempts to address that problem are all being reverted. The best argument for the reversions I've heard is a pointer to WP:WTW, but the MOS doesn't override NPOV, and beyond that, the specific wording is not the problem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This page seems to be suffering from a coordination of a group of editors who are convinced that mainstream sources are not the best to use when describing the subject (e.g. the continual removal of content sourced to Michael Mann's book). The editors deny that they are pursuing an agenda, so it has been a slog. I think the flippant and irrelevant responses to your commentary as well as the anemic "slow down" exhortations are just more of the same. Don't slow down, Jess. Baptize this talkpage with fire and fix the article if you can. I support you. jps (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to take this to WP:AE before things get completely out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should skip straight to the stage "someone with power randomly blocks or bans 50% of the contributors to the ongoing argument," and hope that leaves a sufficiently lop-sided pool of editors remaining that we can declare a consensus among the un-banned ;). --JBL (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Do you mean you're contemplating bringing it up on WP:AE? Do you have an opinion about formal mediation, WP:MEDCOM, first? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jess: This is getting surreal. You have claimed that "I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section" yet here is a diff where you edit-warred the word "denial" into the article.[2] Also, there is no disconnect between WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. They both state that we should follow the mainstream viewpoint. Which is exactly what I am advocating: We should follow the mainstream viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for you to stop pretending that anyone is discussing "denier". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, given the fact that you were topic banned for the better portion of two years, you should probably stop and reconsider whether you might be slipping back into old bad habits. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Surreal, indeed. The one and only use of the word "denier" in the article was removed... by me. You keep putting "denier" in quotes, so I can't be misunderstanding. Do I really have to spell out that "climate change denial" and "denier" are not the same words?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I added one line to the article that Watts' opinion on climate change is at odds with the scientific community. That one mention was reverted. As far as I understand it, this is the crux of the dispute: should we summarize the scientific opinion? Policy dictates this isn't even a question we should be asking. Yes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mann_jess: 1. You said, responding to A Quest For Knowledge: "A request: please stop using the word "denier". I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section." Err ... In fact a quote with the exact word "denier" was added to the article on April 5, see [3]. But even if you can't see that, you should look at your own statement -- "We do need to describe what he [Watts] is known for, which is climate change denial" -- and realize it's (a) the same thing, (b) just your opinion. 2. With respect to Watts's honorarium for conference speaking, you changed "he acknowledges receiving payment" to "was hired", with the edit summary ... There's a better way to say that. Actually, no. An unsourced suggestion that Watts became an employee is BLP violation. 3. You said " I added one line to the article that Watts' opinion on climate change is at odds with the scientific community. That one mention was reverted.". False.You did not "add", you destroyed the original words "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" and replaced with "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", here. 4. You said "... we are accurately presenting the scientific consensus described in a multitude of top quality sources." False. There is no "multitude" of sources describing Watts or Watts's blog as denier/denialist, and the few that exist are mostly low quality: blogs, authors with bachelor's degrees, books by non-academic presses, and an involved party. There are more reliable sources which say skeptic/skeptical, and the proof that you've seen them is the fact that you've been removing them from the article. Your determination to destroy opposing information is an odd way to be "accurate". 5. You say "Consensus opposes your suggestion" answering Capitalismojo, who said "We would be breaking new BLP ground if we put the personal opinions of a committed personal opponent in the lede". But there is only a majority among editors for "denier" not a consensus (it seemed to be about 2 to 1 in my earlier count), and against that there is a majority among sources for "skeptic". N. That's just addressing a few of the things you've discussed, Your other action -- huge undiscussed changes to the article removing reliably sourced references about skeptic and pushing Watts-is-a-denier or equivalent -- could have been put on the talk page with search for consensus. Except, and by now you should know it, there won't be one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, I am the editor that removed "denier" from the article. It's not currently in the article, and no one is suggesting it be in the article. No, it is not just "my opinion" that Watts is known for climate change denial; it is presented in numerous reliable sources, including Mann, who is a recognized expert in both climatology and the global warming controversy. Lastly, you've completely failed to address my point that the single and only reference to Watts' opinions being at odds with the scientific consensus was removed, and not for the first time. If you simply want to discuss the wording we use when describing the scientific consensus, feel free to start a new section and I'd be happy to participate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Re: "I am the editor that removed "denier" from the article. It's not currently in the article..." Jess: Looks like you missed one:

...described by climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as having "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog".

Reverted back in 4 minutes by another editor, I think we have a problem here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a problem. We have several, in fact. One is that some editors cannot recognize a difference between calling a person a "denier" in Wikipedia's voice and quoting an expert secondary source for their characterization of WWUT as a "leading climate change denial blog." A second is the repeated claim that this characterization of Watts' blog is a BLP violation without making any compelling argument to back it up (and no, saying "denier" is in WP:WTW is not a compelling argument). A third is the use of reversion in the absence of substantive discussion. I'm sure there are more problems, but those are the three that jump out at me right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. The text was removed on the entirely spurious grounds that Mann is not a blog expert. That is farcical. He is widely recognised as an expert on climate change and his book is a widely cited authority on the climate change "debate" - it is hard to think of a more robust source. The idea that we can quote a swivel-eyed loon like Monckton and not Mann is ridiculous and entirely counter to policy. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann still isn't a blog expert, and nobody is trying to edit-war a quote from Monckton into the lead (by the way calling Monckton a swivel-eyed loon looks just a tiny bit like a possible BLP violation). I see that there are now five editors who have reverted the inserting of the Mann quote in the lead -- still a minority, but claims about consensus are incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a "blog expert" to discuss Watts or his blog. And your metric for assessing consensus is incorrect. Read WP:CON.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "swivel-eyed loon" is a British colloquialism for the unhinged radical Right. As Richard North put it:

"The BBC has an unerring ability to spot the 'swivel-eyed loon' and build them up. The 'mark', usually with an over-inflated ego, is invariably flattered and falls for it every time. Monckton fitted the bill admirably, and the hatchet job proceeded apace."

And yes, he was referring to Monckton.

However, if you would prefer, I can stick to strictly factual and WP:NPOV descriptions of Monckton: he is a liar, homophobe and crank with absolutely no expertise in most of the areas on which he chooses to sound off. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kindly read (or re-read) WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." This also applies to Talk pages. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit and this edit are moving us away from the sources and back in the direction of violating WP:FRINGE. Watts is not "skeptical" of the scientific opinion, he is opposed to it. His views on climate change are wholly rejected by the scientific community. I also don't understand the removal of several details, including mention of Climate Audit, and prominent guest authors at WUWT. Nor do I understand why we shouldn't cover that it is among the most prominent blogs in its category (if not the most prominent).   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problems in "Climate change opinion and activities"

There are apparent NPOV and unbalanced opinion problems throughout this section. Many negative critical commentators have been added, with no balancing positive opinions. Much of the article appears biased and slanted. For example, Watts recently rejected accusation that he is a CC "denier"; our article says that "he feels "climate change denial" does not accurately reflect his positions." Has he stopped beating his wife?

Opinion is presented as fact: WUWT is "among the most prominent climate change denial blogs" cited to 3 activist opinion-pieces. Sample: "a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." The article is a BLP for Mr. Watts: WP:Coatrack? All opinions must be clearly identified as such. And not given Wikipedia's voice, as they have here. Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

In my opinion, this section presents a caricature of both Watts and his work, sourced almost exclusively to his critics. It needs balance restored, and a WP: Neutral Point of View.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is he known for anything other than climate change denial? As far as I can tell that's where the weight of the sources place him. It's impossible to "balance" an article on a member of the fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources for "among the most prominent climate change denial blogs" are as follows:

• Dunlap, Riley; McCright, Aaron (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199566607.
• Farmer, Thomas G.; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231152558.
• Kirilenko, Andrei; Stepchenkova, Svetlana (2014). "Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide". Global Environmental Change 26: 171, 172.

@Tillman: which (three) of those sources in your view is an "activist opinion-piece"? They all look rather like scholarly publications to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The three I mentioned are the cites to that statement, at Climate change blogging, first para. Read the cite quotes, see what you think.... The 4th there actually is a misfit for this POV allegation: "The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That?..." --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that when a source says "the most authoritative climate change skepticism web site", that it contradicts the claim it is among the most prominent climate change denial websites. The two statements are not in conflict. While climate change denial and climate change skepticism can be different, there is absolutely overlap; a green apple and red apple are both apples, and this overlap is documented by sources. Obviously, the other 3 sources are not "activist opinion pieces".   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I changed your several pov tags to a single pov-check tag at the top of the page. I don't think that tag is necessary, but I also don't see the harm in keeping it around for a little while to stimulate discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Jess: You said "Obviously, the other 3 sources are not "activist opinion pieces." You might quibble re "activist", but they are certainly opinions, and must be properly identified as such, not presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Please carefully read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is pretty basic stuff, in one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. So it would seem worth your while to spend some time studying WP:NPOV, since you don't seem to agree that the article has NPOV problems. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tillman: I indicated the four sources currently used to support that statement. I don't understand your answer. Please indicate which of the four you mean, referring to the author surnames listed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same article? Climate change blogging, first para., "It is among the most prominent climate change denial blogs." Current ref #'s 30,11,31,32. It would seem best to start with the cites and quote we are actually using to support the bit you quoted. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks -- so you thus think that Dunlap, Riley; McCright, Aaron (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, Farmer, Thomas G.; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media, and Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press are "activist opinion-pieces"?? I doubt others will agree. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to Jess, above, and please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning here would make everything any source says an "opinion". No, these are not just opinions we can write off. These are the highest quality sources we have, and they all agree. Your understanding of NPOV is incorrect.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read the policy? And this is a WP:BLP, so there's little tolerance for violations. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WUWT: claims the "human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming"

I tagged this awhile ago as not supported by the quotation from the cite given, Schneider & Nocke 2014:

"Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."

Editor Mann jess removed the tag earlier today, commenting "I don't see how the quote doesn't back up the claim."

Since there is no mention in the quote either of the human role or CO2, or even a link to this 2011 WUWT post, you need a different quote, or a different cite. Was the post even wrtiten by Watts? What about later posts, such as this "For the Record post by Watts, on May 25, 2015? Basic due diligence needed! And this article is his biography, not primarily about WUWT. Is this WP:CHERRYPICKING? A WP:Coatrack?

And, to use Schneider & Nocke, or any other obscure technical book, you need to provide some evidence that this is a notable work -- books usually aren't peer-reviewed. In this case, the senior author is a postdoc, so I doubt she had established much of a professional reputation at the time of publication. So, why should we consider this a notable work? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot to address...

1. No, we don't need to provide evidence sources are "a notable work" to use them.
2. Sources do not have to be peer reviewed. This isn't a medical article.
3. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, so when the source says "the sun, not...greenhouse gas emissions", there is indeed a mention of CO₂
4. Anthropogenic refers to the human role in climate change, so yes, the quote mentions a human role.
5. Since Watts' blog is a significant part of him as a topic, we need to discuss his blog in this article. Our summary doesn't need to be as long as the blog's article, but it should include a basic description of what it is and why it's significant. It is related to Watts because it is his blog, and sources discuss the topics together.
6. Yes, there is a link to the blog post in the source. Please actually check the source before saying things like this. Here's the post.
7. His later post doesn't dispute what we've written in the article, which is that his blog, WUWT, hosts information suggesting CO₂ is not a driving force of warming. The blog post above is just one example of that. "...modern warming gets misattributed to CO2", "...misattribute the resulting warming to fossil fuel burning.", "evidence that much of 20th century warming might be explained by solar activity was a thorn in the side of the newly powerful CO2 alarmists, who blamed recent warming on human burning of fossil fuels.", etc.
8. The claim we're making is supported by other sources too, but this one is clear enough to back up the statement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prompt reply. As it turns out, the WUWT solar post you link was a guest post, not written by Watts. So, while it might be appropriate at WUWT, doesn't really belong here, in his biography. I'll remove it, once the discussion concludes. If you have an alternate source, please use it -- but be aware that I will rebut the current text with Watts "For the Record" statement, which I have just added to the lede. Probably better just to give his current position, imo.

You wrote, "No, we don't need to provide evidence sources are "a notable work" to use them."

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Weight. Yes, upon challenge, you need to demonstrate that this is a reliable and notable source. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're mistaken. You're also being inconsistent. Here, you've said content that applies to his blog isn't related to him so can't be included, and in the section below you've said he controls everything that's said in the blog so talking about the blog reflects on his views. In short, no, we're not going to remove important descriptions of WUWT in the section on WUWT just because you don't like it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but (as I noted above), this is Watts' biography. Most of the WUWT stuff should be there, with just a summary here. And this isn't written by Watts! --Pete Tillman ([[User talk:Tillman|talk

Watts denier rebuttal, again

• Jess: You've now reverted out the addition of Watt's rebuttal to the "Climate change denial" accusation twice: on 6-1-15, with no real discussion that I could find, just cryptic edit notes. Now you've reverted this naterial again, without even the courtesy of an edit summary: also see History.

This is unacceptable behavior. Please self-revert. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You've misread the diffs. Watts' response is still in two places, including the lead. The addition you made to the lead is unwarranted coverage, frankly, but I haven't touched it, because I'm waiting to review the lead and haven't been able to yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, I also did not "revert the addition of Watts' rebuttal" on June 1st. I moved it to the body, because the lead reflects the body, but you added content to the lead that we didn't mention anywhere else. Your edit today essentially reverted my edit from the 1st.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I misread the diffs Please accept my apologies for the errors and the dumb, false accusation. My bad.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

New Scientist source

Statements about solar variation cited to the primary blog article ref name=sunstupid are at least to some extent covered by ref name="New Scientist Watts 2012">"Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change". New Scientist. 14 Dec 2012. Retrieved 31 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link). That's a secondary source for this blog post by Watts featuring Rawls as a "Guest Blogger", with update comments by Watts. The NS says "Rawls posted the latest draft of the report's first section on his website. It was swiftly picked up by bloggers critical of mainstream climate science, such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That and James Delingpole," and ""The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."" That's a significant part of what Watts does, posting contributions promoting CC denial. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "New Scientist source" here that relates clearly to Anthony Watts (blogger). Somebody named Steven Sherwood (not the article author) was quoted as saying a spin about a report could be echoed by "very influential blogs" without saying WUWT and "deniers" without naming anyone; the article author wrote about WUWT and Watts in a different section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is, but there's more to the story: Watts and/or guest poster Rawls added a total of 9 updates to the original post, including "A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak", by Alec Rawls with Jo Nova. According to them, Sherwood was tap-dancing around some inconvenient data and behavior. Rawls includes 24 citations in his rebuttal -- which makes Sherwood's claim re "how deeply in denial the climate deniers are" (and yours) look a bit over-the-top. Note that all of this was back in 2012.

Dave wrote, "That's a significant part of what Watts does, posting contributions promoting CC denial." Nope. And making that claim in your name is a borderline BLP violation, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources which identify specifically denialist posts that have been made to WUWT. Whether Watts agrees with the posts that he allows to be posted on the blog he owns is a question to which I have not seen a decent answer. jps (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)