Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive 1

Blogs as cites?

Tim Lambert, a vociferous pro-warming blogger, is quoted twice as a critic of this book and its author. Blog posts aren't generally considered a reliable source, unless the author is a recognized expert, which Tim Lambert is not (he's a computer scientist, who blogs on climate as a hobby). Propose dropping the refs to Lambert here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

Lambert is about as qualified as Plimer to comment on climate. But if you insist on removing his careful assemblage of Plimer's errors, more rebuttals can be found here to replace the Lambert cites. ► RATEL ◄ 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This one is promising -- at least these critics have climatology credentials. And these reviews appear more balanced. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Plimer's response to critics" and "Criticism" sections

Ratel: I don't think we need every point that's currently in these lists. I was attempting to make this a more balanced and readable article. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

high POV of editor in response to criticisms section

Plimer's quotes in the responses section say nothing at all about Plimer's actual response to critics (i.e. they're not responses to criticism as such at all). They give the appearance of having been cherry-picked from the Australian article just to show Plimer's immoderate & angered rhetoric. The whole section needs re-writing. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So add the responses from Plimer you feel have been left out. ► RATEL ◄ 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point, the section is written as if to say a single opinion piece written in the Australian can be interpreted as a definitive response from Plimer to his critics. I would think the correct way of interpreting an opinion piece is merely... as an opinion piece... agreed? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Those are Plimer's actual responses to critics, on one level. If you want to add detailed scientific responses, find a source and proceed. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by his actual responses to critics, "on one level"? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a little to add context to some of these quotes... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

General revisions for NPOV and cleanup

I've copyedited for NPOV, removed a statement (from a newspaper) that appears to be a reporter's misunderstanding ("Of the CO2, 95 per cent is due to natural processes (volcanoes, plants, bacteria etc) with the remainder (about 0.1 per cent) resulting from human activities.") -- Ref. 2 in article, corrected typos, etc.

I reworked the response section, again, closer to Harvey's version. I think it's important to include Plimer's scientific responses, as we have a long section of other scientists criticizing his science. And his response needs context, per Harvey.

I reworked the quotes from Malcolm Walter, trying for NPOV. He's difficult to quote intelligibly. We may want to drop this one.

See what you think. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see how his rhetorical questions about people ignoring water vapor and his "betting the farm" on some hypothesis have anything to do with the criticisms aimed at the book. Please link these points to criticism or they shall be removed from the Response section. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note the section is now titled and intro'd to cover Plimer's general remarks in response to his critics. If this isn't clear enough, we can work on that, but I feel his scientific points should remain. To the best of my knowledge, both these points are scientifically correct. And many of his critics' specific complaints also appear valid. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator Fielding, an engineer by training

I added a couple of sentences on this Australian senator, who happens to be an engineer, and was influenced by Plimer and his book. Ratel reverted "an engineer by training," commenting "This redundant info, already on Fielding's page, is simply not relevant to this page and betrays a poorly concealed attempt to bestow authority on Fielding."

First, WP:Assume good faith. Second, Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to AGW. Third, Fielding himself mentioned his training in his Australian article, which is cited in our article: "As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities." --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a computer-related engineering degree that he has not used in 2 decades does not give Fielding any greater ability to assess Plimer's book than tens of millions of other people. If you want to insert the phrase "an engineer by training", ask for another opinion. I have already said that it's (1) already part of Fielding's own wp page, 2) largely irrelevant because it does not give him any special abilities to judge the science in this area and 3) it's a thinly disguised attempt to style him as a scientist of some sort, whereas he is simply a rightwing politician. And why have you tagged the other section as unbalanced? On what grounds? ► RATEL ◄ 05:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced. There is far too much in the "criticisms" section and nowhere near enough of the responses section. This page shouldn't be a place to debate Plimer's views, but a place to present them neutrally. What of responses from others besides Plimer? It's pretty obvious to the reader that the editor wants it to be known that he should read Plimer's book at his own peril. Also, if Fielding is an engineer by training, and if it's reliably sourced, there's no reason why this shouldn't be included... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, are you going to try to eliminate every bit of the article that you personally don't agree with? Please see WP:ownership. This is getting ridiculous. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss edits, not editors (basic rule here). If you want to insert Fielding's college degree info on this page, put it to a third opinion or RfC it. ► RATEL ◄

Ratel, WP:THIRD does not apply here because there is already a third opinion (i.e. mine). Which is not to say I am opposing more opinions, but you are the one currently overruled by a majority. Please allow the neutrality flag to remain. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, the fact that you have reverted the edit anyway suggests that you have no genuine interest in consensus and raises the question why you've referred Pete Tillman to WP:THIRD. Is that a rule that you feel should be binding on everyone including yourself? Respecting the consensus is also a basic rule here. Meanwhile you've asserted in the revision history that no reason has been given at Talk on why the section is failing WP:NPOV. Allow me to quote myself, "There is far too much in the "criticisms" section and nowhere near enough of the responses section. That is the difference between balanced and unbalanced. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: Balance: Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

There are many sources out there defending Plimer as well, e.g. Kininmonth thus until some of these are included, the article will not attain any balance or neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed something... who is stopping YOU balancing the article by adding properly sourced views to the Praise section? Not me. I simply deleted anonymous blog trash. ► RATEL ◄ 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you have indeed missed something. Your words, "...who is stopping YOU balancing the article...", concede the article is not balanced. What you have missed is the fact that the neutrality flag should remain in until someone does balance the article. You could also do this if you care about WP:NPOV. Your edit warring to remove the flag is spite to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Thanks, I'll put it back in, please leave it there this time. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I meant that if the article is not balanced from your POV, then balance it. Simply tagging the criticism section (which is by definition not balanced) as not NPOV is lazy and technically incorrect, and will be reverted if you do it again. I remain puzzled as to why you do not simply add properly sourced positive views. I'm starting to wonder if you are having trouble finding scientists who support this guy. ► RATEL ◄ 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, after I spent considerable time & effort trying to make your critical quotes balanced and neutral, you edited mixed reviews into purely negative ones. So don't act puzzled as to why I tagged the section. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Critical" quotes are not supposed to be "neutral". Sheez! ► RATEL ◄ 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Any quote needs to fairly represent the person & work quoted. We'll see what 3rd parties think of your versions, eh? --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for POV check

• I've nominated the article for a neutrality check. Let's see if others feel it is not NPOV. ► RATEL ◄ 04:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, always good to get an outside opinion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Praise & political impact" section

I've reformatted this section to match the rest of the article, copyedited and added cites, and restored a paragraph reverted by Ratel, who commented "Incorrect. The rightwing journos (sic) credit "a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum" with the so-called "climb down"

I've revised the paragraph in question, added a quote from the WSJ, and added another cite. Ratel, if you still have objections, kindly raise them here rather than reverting. We don't need an edit war. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, you are obviously here with a big agenda and POV. Sooner rather than later we will need a RFC on these edits. ► RATEL ◄ 01:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you need to look in the mirror. And please discuss edits, not editors (basic rule here). Eh?

My "agenda" is to get the article to NPOV. As should yours be. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

George Monbiot's comments

Well known journalist investigative George Monbiot has published a comment (blog entries by senior journalists attached to major newspapers can be RS) that could be worth mining for data for this page [1]. ► RATEL ◄ 01:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I intend to have a go at rewriting this article over the weekend to address the POV concerns that have been raised here and expanding it to cover the topic better. I have something of a track record in that department. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In The Guardian, Monbiot earlier wrote: "flying across the Atlantic is as unacceptable, in terms of its impact on human well-being, as child abuse". Ref: George_Monbiot#Solutions_to_control_the_climate

ChrisO, your contributions will be welcome, as things are getting a bit warm here...  ;-[ TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit my remarks here, Ratel. This may constitute obstructive editing. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take care to note how talk pages should be used, and that is only to improve the article, not to depart on a tangential attack on a respected investigative journalist. Try to stay on topic and address the issues. The rest is simply wikichat. ► RATEL ◄ 04:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for inputting your expertise, ChrisO. ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

article is now WP:COATRACK

I have added the response from Kininmonth, the WP:SPS of an expert.

Nonetheless the article is now getting worse & worse by the day. It now contains no less than seven (7) quotes from seven different scientists who say the book is garbage, a lot of unscientific, just plainly insulting stuff. Sadly, this article is clearly being used by Wikipedia editors to fight over their views on climate change. The result is that the page is far longer than it ought to be, which is not only giving far too much weight to the negative reactions to the book, but it's also exaggerating the importance of the book. Ironically, those using their agenda to attack are probably helping Plimer to sell more & more copies! :) Compare the fact that Gavin Schmidt's book, "Climate Change: Picturing the Science" doesn't even have a Wikipedia page... So really, when you get right down to it, Plimer wins & Wikipedia loses... Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. We're inserting notable and well-sourced views from top scientists. You don't like it. Tough. ► RATEL ◄ 13:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How many scientists have commented? And what is the ratio of pro vs. contra? As far as i can see (from sources given so far) its an accurate weighting. (i btw. doubt if Kininmonth really is an expert here, but will let it slide). Your personal opinions on whether the scientists comments are "unscientific" or "plainly insulting" should be left at home when editing WP. That there isn't an article on another book, isn't an argument here, but could be an argument for writing an article on that book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, reverted Kininmonth

Ratel has reverted the edit to include Kininmonth's defence, published at Jenifer Marohasy's blog, and I have restored it again. I invite Ratel to please read WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Alex Harvey (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not self-published, it's at someone's blog page. It's going to be removed again, shortly.► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, it's an open-letter, signed by the author, linked at the author's publisher's website. You say that's not self-published? I suggest that it in fact is. No? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My call is that this is not RS. A link from the publisher still does not make this a "self-published source". If you'd found this at Kinninmonth's blog or website, it'd be different. The source is some nobody's blog. I'll let someone else comment. ► RATEL ◄ 15:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please substantiate that Kininmonth should be an "established expert" here? What are his publications? What is his degree and education (none of this are on his article)? His comment in the letter about a negative water vapor feedback certainly doesn't indicate expertise, since it deviates from all the sceptical scientists (including Lindzen - his argument, while indicating a neg wv feedback is completely different), has he ever published this view? (btw. please read WP:FRINGE, which his comment certainly falls under). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kininmouth has a (sketchy) wikibio: William Kininmonth (meteorologist). In transit, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have read the wikibio... I've also checked Kininmonth's publications in Google scholar, none of which even remotely support the "established expert" label put here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinin. seems to be Plimer fellow traveller in the GW denier category in Australia. But if you can get his letter sourced to a proper location (not Aunt Sally's blog), it could be allowable... maybe. ► RATEL ◄ 15:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, allow me to patiently continue and quote more of the same policy on WP:SPS: "Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This open letter in its currently-cited form is very close to an internet forum posting and if it fails that one it certainly fits etc. There is no doubt that this letter, linked at Kininmonth's publisher's website, is a self-published source of Kininmonth. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not an internet forum posting by Kininmonth. It's a supposed letter on someone's blog.
2. The RS rules are there for a reason. We have no idea if Aunt Sally edited that open letter a little before pasting it into her blog, to reflect her own views. It's completely possible. You need to tie this more closely to Kininmonth. Are you saying this great scientists has no webpage of his own, and has not published this "open letter" anywhere on the internet?? ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You are dodging the major issue here... Does Kininmonth really fall under the exceptions to WP:SPS? So far the answer is: No. And thus the rest of your comments are moot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

KDP makes a telling point. Is Kininmonth really an "established expert on the topic of the article", the sine qua non of the SPS policy? I did some research on him, and I found that his only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [2], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [3]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth. ► RATEL ◄ 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

trying to remove insulting remarks against Plimer

Ratel is reverting my edits to remove the following text:

The book has met with a generally hostile reception from the scientific community. Professor Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales stated that the book "advance(s) all manner of absurd theories" and "deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken."

This text is highly inappropriate for the lead. The text is not written by an expert in climatology (Michael Ashley is an astronomer), and it is not constructive criticism, just idly insulting, it says nothing specific, and has no place here. Please remove the text per WP:BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. This is not the lede, it's the content section.
2. It is written by an eminent scientist, one of Plimer's peers. Plimer makes many statements in his book that touch on this scientist's field. The paragraph relates to the scientific community generally, not to meteorologists in particular.
3. It is certainly insulting to the book, not Plimer, and this underlines the hostile reception the book has received. We are a tertiary source, here to report on what's in reliable print, not to massage the text to reflect our own wishful thinking. You need to think about this. The fact that you seem to support Plimer has no bearing on the content of this page. The book has been panned by virtually every scientist. That's the reality according to reliable sources. This page has to reflect that. ► RATEL ◄ 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, look, there is no section break until after we arrive at the text that you concede is insulting, so it's in the lead. Secondly, as I've said, I am not here to defend the book; I haven't even read it. All I care is the principle that editors should respect NPOV. Thirdly, how eminent is Michael Ashley? Can you show me his publications, since I can't find any? Fourthly, in what sense is an astronomer one of Plimer's peers? He's neither a geologist nor a climate scientist. Fifthly, a little point about English usage: you can't insult a book, because it is an inanimate object. You can only insult the book's author. So can you agree that it is in fact insulting to the author, and not the book? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And will you kindly stop rewording other editors' comments here? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1. IT IS NOT IN THE LEDE.
2. The denigrating comments are aimed at the BOOK, not Plimer. Nobody has said Plimer is an idiot, although evidence to that effect is published by others.[4]
3. A list of Ashley's peer reviewed scientific publications is at the bottom of this page [5] ► RATEL ◄

Erm... Its written in a reliable source and surprisingly enough its a regular review, not an op-ed, it reflects the authors expert opinion, on the subject where he is an expert (astronomy). So you will have rather a difficult time dismissing it. I'm sorry to say that this book is generally considered nonsense, and pseudoscience by expert reviewers and thus the quoted part is correctly placed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, nonsense. Okay, firstly, sorry to Ratel, it was not in the lead, I must have been seeing things. Moving along, Ratel, you have given evidence here that some creationists think Plimer is an idiot. So what's the point of this; are you defending the views of creationists? On Professor Ashley, thanks, you've demonstrated that he's been the co-author on a number of peer-reviewed astronomical research papers, but climate science is not even listed as one of his interests. A number of times, Ashley reveals that he's actually writing outside of his own area of expertise: "To appreciate the errors in Plimer's book you don't have to be a climate scientist. ..." And then "Plimer probably didn't expect an astronomer to review his book. I couldn't help noticing on page 120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass". This paper argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite." This wording here suggests this paragraph is the only point actually relevant to Ashley's own field of expertise. Then Ashley's frequest reference to what he's read on the internet blogs is the real giveaway to where is own information on the subject comes from ("All of Plimer's arguments have been addressed ad nauseam by patient climate scientists on websites or in the literature."). So one cannot possibly justify including Ashley's view in this article so prominently. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you write, "it reflects the authors expert opinion, on the subject where he is an expert (astronomy)." So that's interesting, does that mean you're now willing to argue that Plimer's book is a book about astronomy? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, please relax. I am not championing creationists, simply pointing out what a real attack on Plimer looks like. As to Ashley, several points:

1. Ashley is an eminent scientist commenting on a popular science book by another non-climatologist, not on a climatology textbook. His comment represents the distaste most scientists have for the work, and encapsulates the views of many, and that's why it was used.
2. The book covers areas of astronomy (e.g. supposed solar causes for climate change) and so Ashley is perfectly entitled to comment on the book for that reason alone. And he does so, most appropriately, as you have shown above.
3. It is quite wrong to have everything "above the fold" on the page simply summarising the book and being slightly positive about it, when the science community abhors it. We are not the publishers trying to promote or sell the book; we need to reflect the reality of the situation. WP really isn't here to change the world or put a new spin on it. It is a tertiary source that reflects knowledge and opinion out there. So we need to insert some comment on the page showing how the book is viewed by scientists generally before the reader has had enough and departs. Leaving all negative comment to the bottom of the page is a way of manipulating the real-world data to put your spin on it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I think that you have a good point, but why not use one of your other reviewers here? Ashley is (mostly) out of his field, and is being pretty obnoxious to boot (at least in your quote). Also, I note you have removed his specialty, not good. It's not like you are short of climate scientists with harsh things to say about the book. You don't need overkill -- it's pretty obvious Plimer has some glaring scientific bloopers in this book. A little cooling-down and compromise seems called for. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed "astronomer" because his science speciality is on his own wikipedia page, so it's redundant, and there could be no reason to include it other than to vitiate the weight of his opinion. I'm open to moving the quote down to the criticism section and moving another one up. Nominate one. Or I may do it myself ... stand by ► RATEL ◄ 05:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if I disagree with all other points made by Kim & Ratel, I agree with moving the Barry Brook stuff into the lead rather than this comparisons with von Daniken nonsense... Frankly, I suspect that Ashley will be glad to have seen this little piece of rhetorical overreach removed as well. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and pulled Ashley, as unneeded and unnecessarily rude. Whatever the book's (and/or Plimer's) faults, I don't think such language is encyclopedic. Thanks for subbing a milder quote in the lede, Ratel. Maybe we're on the way to an article we can all live with? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ashley, a prominent astronomer commenting on a book that covers some astronomical phenomena, has been put back sans ascerbic comments. ► RATEL ◄ 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ABC news debate with Plimer et al

There is an ABC news debate on the topic of Ian Plimer's book available here. Another well known skeptic Bob Carter can be heard here defending Plimer's book. Meanwhile I am afraid that the battle for neutrality appears hopelessly lost at this page; I have run out of energy on this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Will go well in EL section. ► RATEL ◄ 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Article in the Spectator

There's an article in the Spectator which might supply some useful quotes from the author and about the book itself. Feel free to add. Sorry, I won't join the shootout.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pestergaines (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you. Thanks for the Spectator link. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

credentials

Here is what we currently have for scientists & their qualifications, let's play spot the anomaly.

1. David Karoly: "a meteorologist at Melbourne University"
2. Colin Woodroffe: "coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4"
3. Charlie Veron: "former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science"
4. Ian Enting: "Professorial Fellow at MASCOS based at The University of Melbourne"
5. Michael Ashley: ???
6. Malcolm Walter: "Director, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, University of New South Wales"
7. Kurt Lambeck: "president of the Australian Academy of Science"

Can anyone see it?

Question 1: Why exactly have we removed the fact that Dr. Ashley is a Professor of Astronomy again...? It says above that it was removed because it was not "relevant"(?).

Question 2: Whilst on the subject of relevance, I can see the relevance of the opinion of Karoly & Lambeck immediately. It might be sensible, actually, to move Lambeck to the top, since he & Karoly are arguably the most relevant. Woodroffe is probably worth including. UNSW gets well-represented in Wikipedia doesn't it! I'd say that's because they have a newly-established activist pro-IPCC school of climate science there & it kinda spreads around the campus. Which brings me to Michael Ashley's colleague, Malcolm Walter. Why is an Astrobiologist so important here exactly? Isn't that even less relevant to the article than the opinion of an astronomer? Finally, on Ian Enting, what is MASCOS? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Astronomer replaced, no biggy. I thought you'd "run out of energy on this one"? An astrobiologist is perfectly entitled to comment on a book by a geologist who is writing outside his field. As for MASCOS, it is wikilinked, so why are you asking us what it is? ► RATEL ◄ 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Other positive reactions to Plimer's book

I'm posting these here as something of a progress report. Not all of these belong in the article (imo).

1. Review by David Stockwell, I think. Thoughtful review, deserves mention if we can establish who wrote it. Here's a version I posted AWB (no wikilinks): Statistical modeler David Stockwell, in a favorable review, recounts his own "horror at the methods used in the alarmist papers to support AGW. They were so obviously flawed, the results should never be taken seriously by anyone with any quantitative science training." Stockwell finds Plimer's book to be "a useful compendium" by "an old-school geologist who is absolutely appalled at the sloppy methodology and opportunism that climate alarmism embodies." [cite to above] Ratel reverted, noting correctly that it's posted by "admin". I emailed Stockwell a couple days ago asking for clarification, but haven't heard back. Assuming it's him, he's the real thing: CV & publications.
2. Review by Peter Gallagher, a "leading Australian consultant on trade and public policy", says he. He also appears respectable and an expert at that sort of thing. We might want to sub in a quote from Gallagher to replace the Klaus blurb that KDB objected to.
3. Letter to the Editor from William Kinninmonth. I'm not proposing to use this, but it tends to support the authenticity of his "open letter" -- which I don't really think is appropriate, either, see ff.
4. "In Defence of ‘Heaven and Earth’", another posting of Kininmonth's letter. Ah, I see it's sourced to Jennifer Marohasy, and there are more dupes around the blogosphere. His "the science of climate change is not as settled as you have led the public to believe." would be a nice quote, but I agree that the source seems dodgy, probably not a RS. Maybe he'll put up something at a RS we can use??
5. "Cold Facts Dispel Global Warming Theories", column by William Kininmonth. He has some nice things to say about Plimer's book. Alex, you could try using this one, maybe??? I dunno, he's not a model of clarity here. At least it's first-hand.

Happy reading-- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Fixed yr numbering problem).

Responses:

1. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. It seems that scientists supporting the book are few and far between if we have to turn to anonymous blog-style websites for quotes.
2. Peter Gallagher's paean to the book is useless since it fails the self-published test. He's an Arts/Law trained nobody.
3. The "Letter to the Editor] from William Kininmonth" is actually a blog of letters from all and sundry, and does not rise to RS standard, nor does it shed much light on anything. Kininmonth, as far as I can make out, is a superannuated non-entity. Although we hear that "William Kininmonth is a climate consultant who headed the National Climate Centre for more than 10 years", no mention is made of the fact that this 'centre' has no standing in the international scientific community. He's actually another Plimer, turning a coin from opposing the scientific Zeitgeist.
4. Not RS for sure.
5. That's usable, but not worth much. ► RATEL ◄ 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about (#5). Please don't jump the gun on (#1). (Fixed mixed up numbers -- which is why I like to comment inline. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Another batch (using this as a public notebook):

• There's another open letter to Kurt Lambeck, President of the Australian Academy of Sciences, concerning his public criticism of Ian Plimer’s new book. Lambeck seems to have touched a nerve. This one is from Don Aitkin, Foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council:

"In my view we are only at the beginning of an understanding of ‘climate science’, and to rush in and propose quite extraordinary public policies, which would greatly reduce our own quality of life and condemn the world’s poor to a continuation of their lot, on the basis of arguments from science which are not well demonstrated by observation or experiment, does not endear me to the IPCC and those who run it. I regret that you have moved the Academy in support of these measures, and wish you had not done so, given the great standing that the Academy has in our society."

Jennifer Marohasy, it turns out, is notable for (inter alia) her work as (now former) director of the environment unit at the Australian Institute of Public Affairs. Her blog thus gains credibility (imo), but it's always an uphill slog to get a blog accepted as a reliable source, especially for a quotation from a third party. Perhaps another reader can source this one directly to Chancellor Aitkin? He'll be harder to dismiss as marginal.

• I'm also looking for a transcript of the ABC interview of Robert M. Carter: "Professor Carter defends Professor Plimer's work, explains his own work, and discusses the role of scientists in researching climate change." Carter is a geologist and paleoclimatologist at James Cook University. Or, if some patient reader wants to listen to the podcast and transcribe a couple of quotes (see article for format)...

Gee, they're big on this Professor stuff in Oz, aren't they?

TIA & happy reading-- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[I've fixed yr comments above. Please do not intersperse comments within another editor's comments. Numbering is broken by empty lines between numbered lines.]

The IPA is an industry front organisation that decries the dangers of passive smoking and is funded in part by the tobacco and coal industries — no credibility whatsoever. So Marohasy is just another "usual suspect" in my eyes, a ex-gopher from a lobby group. Meh. RS her blog shall never be. ► RATEL ◄ 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pete wrote, "Gee, they're big on this Professor stuff in Oz, aren't they?" I didn't want to say it, but you're quite right. I am Australian, and went to university here myself, and I can say that it's very easy to become a professor in Australia, relative to the US or the UK... as you can probably see, this is certainly a part of the reason why there are so many "Professors" attacking Plimer in Australia... Alex Harvey (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A "Professor" in Australian terms is a Chair, which is the highest purely academic rank in the university. In the US, the term "professor" is applied to senior tenured lecturers. Thus I might be an associate professor in US terms, but not in Australia. A given university department in Australia may have multiple senior lecturers, but only one or two may be professors, if any. So the use of the term is because it is a formal title, and because it is a big deal academically. - Bilby (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hopeless blend of hot air and hubris, opinion piece in The Australian by Greg Melleuish, an associate professor in the school of history and politics at the University of Wollongong in NSW. Eh. Praises the book, but pretty gassy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Published comments on the book

Let's keep a list of backup comments here:

T.J. Kelleher of Seed (magazine) calls the book "bunk".[6]

Mike Pope of On Line Opinion's Science Alert says that "to avoid following the polar bear to extinction, homo sapiens would do well to reject the science fiction espoused by Plimer."[7]

More to come.► RATEL ◄ 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ascientific (sic)

Moot discussion collapsed

This one gave me a good laugh. In the following: Climate change theory is an "ascientific" (sic) urban religious fundamentalist movement, promoted by academics and activists who would be unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes. Ah, the editorial spite implicit here. :) This suggests a little editorial spite. Not only is the editor at pains now to show Plimer's grammar is off, but a link given so that a most uneducated reader can also find out what 'sic' means. :) Now, down to business, But what is the actual error here? Someone will have to educate me too because as far as I can see it's perfectly valid to add the prefix "a-" (not, outside-of) to the word "scientific" as you can with "amoral", "atonal", "adiabatic." If Plimer chose the word "ascientific" rather than "unscientific" he would be co-noting a manipulation of science to political ends, as contrasted with, say, astrology, which is just a pseudo-science and unscientific. Should the editor who put this one in consider removing it? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC) :And I've confirmed that the word is being used, e.g. here. It also seems to be a word used to to describe creationism; I'd say that that's how it entered Plimer's idiom. I'll fix this up. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The word is not found in any major dictionary so the use of sic is most appropriate. I see you continue to use personal attacks on this Talk page. I shall probably take this to AN/I if it happens again. ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I am sorry again, but what personal attack are you referring to this time? I am showing that your edits are consistently POV and you perceive each demonstration as a personal attack. Where does it say that an editor can take a side-swipe at a published author's grammar if he wants to? That is WP:OR. Moreover, it's faulty original research, as I've just shown that the word is in academic usage! Does it say somewhere that a word not found in your dictionary should have (sic) inserted by an editor? I know lots of words that you'll not find in ordinary dictionaries. Ratel, don't revert my edit; please remove this incorrect side-swipe at Plimer's correct usage. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, edited it.... Alex Harvey (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC) It becomes a personal attack when you say I am editing out of spite. "Ascientific" is a neologism and thus needs a (sic) attached. I was absolutely correct in appending it and you were totally wrong to insult me for doing it & for implying that I am not editing in good faith. You break rules with almost every comment you make. An apology would be appropriate at this stage. Oh, and please do not edit out your offensive comments after other editors have responded to them, but instead use strikethrough, like this. ► RATEL ◄ 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Editor-to-editor insults restored in all their gore and ugliness! Now, it ain't a neologism, man. And even if it was, that's not what you'd indicate with a 'sic'. It's just a prefix 'a-' + 'scientific'. You can make up all sorts of valid words and not all of them will appear in dictionaries. Quoting sic, "In writing, it ... indicate[s] that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error." The 'sic' has been added in the text in error, and the word "ascientific" doesn't need the quotes around it. Now, Ratel, I am very sorry, indeed, that I have offended you. But a fact is a fact; this has got down to a level where you're picking on the guy's spelling! Even if you'd legitimately found a spelling error, or incorrect usage, why would you want to include that in the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Please see "Ascientific Beliefs about Large Organizations and Adaptation to Change", a scholarly article. "Sic" removed as inappropriate. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC) It does not matter if you can find the word used in a few places. If it is not in any of the major dictionaries (including US and UK versions), it is by definition a neologism and that's exactly what the inline template {{sic}} is for. ► RATEL ◄ 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Ratel, usage trumps the dictionary -- especially scholarly usage. This is a standard English prefix, formed according to standard English grammar. Please provide documentation for your neologism claim (not just "I say it's a neologism"). Note that the cite I provided is from 1979, so the WP:NEO definition, which begins "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined..." clearly doesn't apply. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Recently can mean the last few decades. If you can show me one dictionary that carries the word, the (sic) gets removed. Otherwise, it should stay, or else I can guarantee you we'll get driveby editors changing it to "unscientific" on a regular basis. It's not me being spiteful, it's me being exact and preventing numerous reverts and rollbacks. Thanks. I should add that despite my own tertiary qualifications, wide reading and extensive vocabulary, I have never come across "ascientific" before, so it is either a neologism or protologism. ► RATEL ◄ 03:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [Bah, 2nd edit conflict, please forgive the choppy wording.] Anyway, please see Google search for "define ascientific" for many more usages of the word. I don't recall seeing it before either, but "ascientific" is a word formed using a standard English prefix, according to the rules of standard English grammar. Its meaning is obvious to any educated English speaker, and no dictionary defines every grammatical word formed with a prefix (well, maybe the OED). Please document your claim that "recent" can mean "within 30 years" (geologic time doesn't count <G>). Look, I'm not being difficult, either. "Ascientific" does not have the same meaning as "unscientific", and "sic" is perceived by many people as derogatory. If you're worried about drivebys & such, let's put in an invisible comment to tell people that "ascientific" really is the correct word in the quote. I hope we don't have to spend more time & effort on this. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) You know, this is becoming quite interesting to me now on a principle basis. Putting an invisible comment may work to stop the inevitable spelling edits (although my experience is that they are ignored), but is it the right thing to do? Is [sic] derogatory, or does it simply mean "this is as the original is spelled", as I take it to mean? Should we allow words into wikipedia that are not in common usage or dictionaries without using [sic], which itself is there as a template for this very reason? What if I wanted to write that someone is "apolite" rather than "impolite", because I wanted to express a particular meaning not catered for by impolite? Or if I quoted someone who had written that? I think we need a RfC on this, just for our own edification and for future reference. ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [Groan] I hope you are pulling my leg here. I guess we could piggyback [sic] & Stockwell? Ah, well, bedtime here in NM. G'night, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Let's have a read of sic again. "It is most often used, though, to highlight an error, sometimes for the purpose of ridicule...". Alex Harvey (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality of edits on book by Climate Change sceptic Plimer

• Does the article contain neutrality issues?

• Is the Criticism section POV or simply properly sourced criticism?

• Should Senator Fielding be identified as having an engineering degree? diff

• Is Tillman's edit claiming that this book had influenced the Australian Government properly sourced, or is it OR and SYN? diff

Thanks for any comments.► RATEL ◄ 03:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Ratel

• Neutrality — I cannot see neutrality issues in the article as it stands. The criticism in the Criticism section is all well sourced and germane.
• Fielding — It is not necessary to re-state the man's education. He is a politician, and does not work as a scientist. Repeating his educational status here is a blatant appeal to authority.
• Book has changed Government actions — Tillman appears to be indulging in WP:OR and WP:SYN here. He quotes a rightwing website commentary that obliquely speculates that the book may have been part of what influenced the decisions made by the Australian Government, but otherwise it's pure OR.► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claims to NPOV would be more persuasive if you hadn't ignored everything I've added on this thread here in your summary. The big POV issue is one of balance: we have found six critics of Plimer, and no defenders in the article (I provided a link to Kininmonth has defended the book above). Finally, we have an immoderate op-ed response from Plimer which hasn't been summarised at all, rather a list of direct quotes have been cherry-picked so as to show Plimer's rhetoric but not his argument. Regardless of how many defenders/attackers of the book there are, I would argue that having six attackers here in the article is too heavy and not consistent with WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Unfortunately I'm quite busy right at the moment but in a few days I may be able to add the Kininmonth stuff in. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking your points in sequence:

1. Balance: as I have repeatedly stated, other editors should find and insert cited supporting text (not anonymous blog commentary). I did a quick search and was able to find quite a lot. I'm not sure why you and Tillman are not using it.
2. Plimer's response: Plimer himself chose the words for his response. I "cherry-picked" the core arguments he made, which unfortunately turned out to be a rather vitriolic attack on the science community. If you can add to it by inserting scientific arguments he made in that article, go ahead.
3. Too many critics: There are 6 scientists quoted, but I may even add more. NPOV does not dictate that all views should be of equal length. Since both for and against views are in the article, you cannot really complain about POV editing. You could try to make an undue weight argument on the grounds you cite, but note that the rules state that "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". Since Plimer is definitely voicing a maverick opinion, it would hardly be correct to have as many supportive views as there are critical views. I would argue that since scientists like Plimer are in the tiny minority, the issue is one of fringe theories and therefore Wikipedia's equal validity rules are invoked. Oh, and this is not a biography page, so we are not dealing with any BLP issues here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, you clearly have not understood what Wikipedia is about. Your tone, wording suggests that you see WP as a place where people should defend their respective POVs... It's not... You're saying it's the job of those with your POV to add the negative material, and the job of others to achieve balance by adding positive material... "There are 6 scientists quoted, but I may even add more." So take that, you mean? If your personal objective is not to see the article balanced, you shouldn't be editing it. For the record, I am not a fan of Plimer either. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the one not understanding. I am representing the accepted scientific view in the article and there are many people to quote. You still have to find one scientist. Wikipedia makes it clear that fringe theories like Plimer's need to be given less weight. I'm following the rules, you don't have a clue, apparently. Re-read my response above yours, carefully.► RATEL ◄ 13:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tillman

• Neutrality: The article as a whole is not too bad now, much improved over (for example) this earlier version. The Criticism section has specific POV problems, as follows:

Colin Woodroffe's critique is here, and opens as follows: "“This is an interesting book, written in a confrontational style, and sure to create a stir." -- and continues with mixed praise & criticism: a mixed review.

Here is the current version in our article (no wikilinks):

Professor Colin Woodroffe, a coastal geomorphologist at the University of Wollongong, and a lead chapter author for the IPCC AR4, writes that the book has many errors and will be "remembered for the confrontation it provokes rather than the science it stimulates." Woodroffe notes Pilmer's "unbalanced approach to the topic," and concludes by saying that the book was not written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and was evidently not aimed at a scientific audience.

Not much trace of Woodroffe's original mixed review remains. Additionally, the last sentence is unencyclopedic and of no value to the article readers -- this is a popular science book, intended for a general audience. Other examples of POV problems are listed above on this page.

Editor KD Peterson (below) brings up some new issues. I will reply to his comments there, when time permits. I am leaving on a business trip early tomorrow.

• Senator Fielding, an engineer by training: Fielding has technical training, which is pertinent to his investigation of the scientific background to AGW. Fielding himself mentioned his training in his Australian article, which is cited in our article: "As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities."

• Political impact in Australia. Here is the draft contribution in question:

Plimer's book is credited with contributing to a "a series of climb-downs as [Australian] Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government has been forced to delay its plans for cap-and-trade controls."

References for this draft

As the contribution is basically a quote from an article at Real Clear Politics, it would be difficult to find original research or synthesis here. Please see that article, and the other cites, for context.

Thanks for your interest, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by Kim D. Petersen

To answer the neutrality question first, now that i've looked at all the references, is pretty simple: The Criticism section is well sourced, most comments are by experts, most are in reliable sources (and not Op-Ed's) and where the comments deviate from RS, it full fills the exception clauses in SPS (written by an expert, on the experts expertise subject). So far so good.

The Praise section on the other hand is comprised of non-expert Op-Ed's (2), a book-blurb (that most certainly isn't an RS) and a blog used to comment and speculate on BLP material (Fielding). This is not good. (the Fielding part has to go - the Fairfax article is an RS (i assume without knowing Australian media), and could be used on BLP comments though).

So to the neutrality issue: No its not neutral, it is tilted with undue weight towards Praise (which seems to have been thrown in with a showel).

Now i'm not saying that there shouldn't be praise, but the praise section has to balance the weight of the criticisms. That means finding equally weighty praises - or cut down on the praise section to a shortened version.

Both sections should be incorporated into a section on critical reception (ie. both praise, and critique mixed).

The Plimer response section is undue weight, and should be cut down to something like (Plimer has responded to these critiques in an Op-Ed in the Australian). Of course an author doesn't agree with critics, debunking has no place here.

About Fielding: See WP:PEACOCK. Fielding is not an expert, and his comments should be seen as a politicians. If people need background on Fielding - they go via the Wikilink. The larger problem is the sourcing of Fielding's comments/opinion. Reference 6 (op-ed) and 9 (blog) are not reliable sources on Fielding. Which as i said above is a BLP violation.

To summarize: WP:NWP:NPOVcorrected is about weight of arguments in reliable sources - not equal time. If there are more critics than praisers, then the article must reflect that! We break neutrality if we have to use substandard sources to "balance" good sources.

(as a notabene: please include the RfC in some of the relevant wikiprojects to get a wide array of comment) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(brief comments, in haste)

• Václav Klaus's recommendation is certainly reliable for his opinion of the book.
• Fielding: since this section covers political impact, and Fielding is a player, your objection is puzzling. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Klaus' recommendation would be reliable for his opinion - if the source was reliable for stating Klaus' opinion.... It isn't. A Book blurb is not a reliable source to Klaus' opinion.

I have no idea what you find puzzling here - The entire Fielding section is not reliably sourced. Its from a blog for goodness sake. And Fielding's opinion (no matter how you turn it), is a BLP issue. The whole section is WP:SYN based on non-reliable sources, but as i pointed out, the Fairfax article is reliable, and contains info on Fielding if it is needed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the publisher would print a faked endorsement from a prominent politician like Klaus? This seems very unlikely.

The Fielding section is based primarily on a column by Fielding himself at the Australian newspaper, with a supporting cite from the WSJ. There's a secondary cite from an article (not a blog post) at Real Clear Politics. And this isn't a biography -- how would BLP apply here? So I'm still puzzled. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I am frankly flabbergasted that you believe you're the right person to step in to mediate in the neutrality dispute here. It should be someone who is neutral on the issue of climate change, rather than a single-purpose editor with a well-known bias. In any case, I will respond to these arguments. (1) On Fielding, I am also less than certain that Fielding's opinion is relevant in this article, as he is indeed a right-wing politician rather than a particularly reliable point of view. That said, if we are going to include Fielding, the fact that he's an engineer by training is no more and no less relevant than the fact that most of these critics are also left-wing politically-active professors of their own various fields. The article makes it clear that he is first and foremost a politician so I am struggling to understand this quibbling about including this fact. However I feel that Fielding's name here, whether he's an engineer or not, is harming rather than helping Plimer's case and support pulling it altogether. (2) You write "WP:N is about weight of arguments in reliable sources - not equal time". I want to ask, huh? So where does it say that...? I can't understand what this means, but it sounds like a reinterpretation of WP:N that allows a bias editor to arbitrarily filter out any source they don't like. Do you mind reframing your argument to reference the actual policy here? (3) Here's some very simple maths to demonstrate lack of balance in the article: there are currently six attackers given in this argument and zero defenders (or 1 if you count the unreliable Fielding). The ratio of 6:0 is very high (infinite) and suggest therefore it's a tad heavy on criticism and light on defence. I am now about to endeavour to add the defence from William Kininmonth to help address this. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Long reply - so i'm going to cut out some of it, and answer them seperately

• "the fact that most of these critics are also left-wing politically-active professors of their own various fields."

  Interesting - can you back this tidbit of yours up by references?

• "WP:N is about weight of arguments in reliable sources - not equal time". I want to ask, huh? So where does it say that...?"

  (WP:N should of course have been WP:NPOV) Please read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. A topic must be covered according to the weight of the sources, not by presenting an equal amount of pro vs. contra (equal time).

• "that allows a bias editor to arbitrarily filter out any source they don't like"

  No. This is exactly what it prevents. Sources are weighted according to their reliability , prominence and abundance. If there are more critical sources than praise ones - then the article must reflect that. (thats the whole idea of NPOV and WEIGHT).

• "The ratio of 6:0 is very high (infinite) and suggest therefore it's a tad heavy on criticism and light on defence."

  Correct. But the question to ask here is "how is the ratio when looking at all reliable sources" and then balance it to that ratio. Remember to look at weight of opinions as well, a scientist within his field who criticises the science in the book has more weight than a political opinion column (in both pro or contra). Go ahead and propose some "pro-" sources, as far as i can see from the discussion, its been requested several times.

As a sidenote, we are not here to "defend" (your Kininmonth comment) or "attack", we are here to present what reliable sources tell us, in proportion to their weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The RCP article is basically a blog posting, and it is an unreliable source in this context. Fieldings personal opinion is connected with this blog-posting to generate a synthesis. The WSJ article which isn't a reliable source on Fielding doesn't connect Fielding and the book (although both are mentioned) Fielding himself doesn't claim the book was a deciding factor, he states that it was personal conversation with Plimer. All in all: Original research. BLP applies everywhere where you imply/comment/interpret on living persons. (cite: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I call a spade a spade and struggle with politeness about it after a while. There is certainly some attacking of Plimer taking place here. Meanwhile you write, "To summarize: WP:NPOV is about weight of arguments in reliable sources - not equal time. If there are more critics than praisers, then the article must reflect that! We break neutrality if we have to use substandard sources to "balance" good sources." As always, there is some truth in your statement, but you can't get from your true statement to a defence of this article as currently written. Viz., it does not follow that the proper way of achieving balance is to exhaustively list every single criticism and every single defence. In this case, a good balance would still be achieved by including the three most important instances of criticism, and possibly mentioning that there are others out there. The point would be made just as well, and balance would still be achieved. The article is certainly not supposed to be an exhaustive index of all criticism, which is what Ratel is evidently trying to turn this into, and what you seem to be defending. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by ChyranandChloe

Requested by Ratel. In the section "Content", Pilmer is attributed in almost every sentence. Rename the section to "Synopsis", and take out "he" and "Pilmer" where if possible. This is about the book, we know who wrote it from the lead and infobox. Don't make every sentence a reminder. Going on Wikibreak, sorry if its a bit short. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Still POV and unencyclopedic language problems at Criticisms section

As noted above on this page, Plimer's responses appear cherry-picked to be light on substance and heavy on sound-bites (which he obligingly supplies many of). We need less snark & more substance, both in the critics and in his response.

This article, a May 05, 2009 response to critics by Plimer, may be useful in getting this section (finally) to NPOV and encyclopedic language. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Pete, it's just a different article with exactly the same vitriol:

Book not read by critics ... well-known catastrophists .... who have everything to gain by frightening us witless with politicised science .... arrogant pompous scientists who talk down to the public.... average punter has been told for more than two decades that we are all going to fry.... they know it smells but they cannot find where the smell comes from .... CO2 is plant food, it is not a pollutant .... if we had carbon pollution, the skies would be black with fine particles of carbon. We couldn't see or breathe..... human arrogance to think that we can control climate.... climate politics is just a load of ideological hot air

Not much worth inserting there either ... ► RATEL ◄ 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

But since you've mentioned it, I'll use it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to rewrite the "Plimer's response" section so as to properly summarise his response rather than to be a series of ad hoc direct quotations of a newspaper article, which is considered bad style in Wikipedia. Assuming I can fairly summarise the article, are my edits simply going to be reverted? Otherwise it's a waste of my time. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not put your proposed edit here and we can have a look first? BTW, looking at your punctuation edits, you may want to read WP:TQ. Ta. ► RATEL ◄ 15:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Strunk & White say the comma/period should always come inside the closing quote. Very well, I'll follow this convention fix everything up consistently shortly. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I am constantly forgetting that one, too. And I can never remember how to properly do an ellipsis....

Thanks for volunteering to take this on. It will be a challenge -- Ratel has a point re Plimer's over-the-top language. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

David Stockwell's review

It appears that authorship of the David Stockwell review has been clarified: Plimer review: Backpacker's Guide to Heaven and Earth / David Stockwell. Dr. Stockwell is an environmental scientist/statistician & meets caveat of WP:SPS (self-published view of an expert). Alex Harvey (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where may we see Stockwell's credentials? Since this is a self-published blog, does he fit the description in WP:SPS of an expert in the climatology field? ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right here-- David Stockwell: http://landshape.org/enm/about-the-author/ -- which isn't responding today, dammit. Ah, here's the Google cache Stockwell is a statistical modeller and computational biologist, who has been venturing into climate science lately. He's probably best known for his book Niche Modeling: Predictions from Statistical Distributions (Chapman & Hall/Crc Mathematical and Computational Biology Series): publisher's description. I can't find a review that's not behind a paywall: Google search. His most recent paper is “Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts“, by David R.B. Stockwell and Anthony Cox, submitted to the International Journal of Forecasting, preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650 . It's been getting quite a bit of comment in the blogosphere. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so I was correct. He fails the SPS test. He is not a climate expert, so we cannot quote from his blogs. NB: The fact that he has written a paper or two that deals with the mathematics and stats of climatology does not make him an expert in the climatology field. ► RATEL ◄ 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please compare Stockwell's qualifications with the non-climatology scientists you quote among Plimer's critics. In particular, I'd like to see a list of climate related publications for the astronomer Ashley and the astrobiologist Walter. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. The rules of SPS are clear. And btw, where can I see a list of Stockwell's qualifications? Ashley and Walter are quoted in reliable sources and we don't have SPS problems with them. ► RATEL ◄ 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

See above, and below. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if Stockwell is usable (but I'm thinking he isn't), then we should look at skeptic Jim Lippard's critique of Heaven and Earth. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I assume good faith... how is it that you cannot see this impossible double-standard you are applying here? For anyone defending Plimer, it must be established strictly that he is an expert in climate science -- and not just any expert, either, but y'know, a darned good expert! Bill Kininmonth, may be a meteorologist, even a published meteorologist, but, oops, sorry, not enough publications; next! But, for anyone criticising the book, it's totally different! Who cares what he does, just join the party! C'mon in, Tim Lambert, lecturer in computer graphics at UNSW, your view is fine! Michael Ashley, astronomer, no work even tangentially related to climate science, not even an interest listed, but you're just perfect too. Dr. Walter? you're an astrobiologist, whatever that is, you've said the right things about Plimer here, so you're perfect too.

Anyway, Dr. Stockwell's publications as indexed in google scholar: D.R.B. Stockwell publications... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say it one last time. Please read carefully:

1. Scientists, and even non-scientists, can be quoted in the Praise or Criticism sections if their comments are in WP:RSes.
2. If a comment is in a SPS, then the rules of SPS must be followed. If Kininmonth had commented in his own blog, it would be admissible. But on a lobbyist's blog, it's not. Stockwell's blog is also not admissible because he fails SPS. Is that so hard to understand? And we are not using Tim Lambert on the page, so that's a straw man argument.

Alex, please think through what you are saying on this page before posting, because your arguments are becoming repetitive and display WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. ► RATEL ◄ 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Ratel, scientists, and even non-scientists, can be quoted if their comments are in WP:RS and if they are relevant and appropriate such that the article as a whole passes WP:NPOV. Have you understood yet that this is a dispute about neutrality, not about WP:RS?

Here is the inconsistency; I'll spell it out for you verbosely: in choosing what to include and what not to include you are arguing from relevance and in arguing from relevance you are implicitly delineating this "field" as it were.

Let me get philosophical. What is anyone's area of expertise here? Is Plimer a climate scientist, or is he a geologist? Well he's written a book on climate science, so I'll bet he knows a bit more about it than most politicians, what do you think? What about Gavin Schmidt, that famous GISS modeller. He's written a book about climate science too. But what's his area of expertise? Is it 'climate science', or is it GCM modelling? I think it's GCM modelling, but he probably knows more about climate science generally than Plimer does. Fair enough. What about Ben Santer. What's he? Is he a climate scientist, or a statistician? Right now, he's embroiled in a controversy with David Douglass, a physicist, and John Christy, a climate scientist, and Steve McIntyre, a statistician, and Ross McKitrick, an econometrician. Now he's not just a little bit embroiled, he had to lead a 17-author study to rebutt the Douglass et al. 2007 paper. It gets awfully confusing, doesn't it.

Which brings us back to WP:SPS and the field of Stockwell's expertise. His field is environmental science & statistics but in arguing that his review fails WP:SPS you are implicitly defining the field that you, the supposedly neutral editor, deem the subject of Plimer's book. In your view, as the neutral editor, Plimer's book is about "climate science" whereas Stockwell's field of environmental science is too broad to be defined as climate science, and statistics is too narrow, thus Stockwell's opinion piece about Plimer's book on climate science fails WP:SPS and is inadmissable. Fine, I don't agree, because I would argue that the idea of "climate science" itself is too broad & inspecific, but it's a valid point of view; the whole thing's murky and you can argue that sort of thing (see preceding paragraph).

But, it is precisely at this point that you have gotten yourself into a bit of knot of neutrality with your willingness to otherwise include astronomers, astrobiologists, computer scientists, when they were critical of Plimer's book.

When you draw the line in one place whilst interpreting WP:SPS and then draw it in another place whilst interpreting the "balance" clause of WP:NPOV you have rather revealed that your personal point of view has entered and biased the article. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your rant above attempts to turn the talk page into a battleground and achieves little. Your now attacking me instead of discussing edits. If you can find Stockwell quoted in a reliable source, he can be used. Since as a statistician he is not "an established expert on the topic of the article" (or that the article deals with), we can't use his personal blog. You would be more productive in adding material to the page if you looked for properly published opinions. ► RATEL ◄ 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Attacking you? How? :) I have demonstrated a double-standard and a violation of WP:NPOV therein. There is no doubt about this. I am sorry if such a demonstration is perceived as a personal attack. It gets a bit problematic that WP:AGF thing, doesn't it, because one can begin with an assumption of good faith and then by analysis demonstrate a POV. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm done debating you per your WP:IDHT. ► RATEL ◄ 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to quote Ratel above on his view of WP:SPS: Responding to "Tim Lambert, a vociferous pro-warming blogger, is quoted twice as a critic of this book and its author. Blog posts aren't generally considered a reliable source, unless the author is a recognized expert, which Tim Lambert is not (he's a computer scientist, who blogs on climate as a hobby). Propose dropping the refs to Lambert here" Ratel wrote: "Lambert is about as qualified as Plimer to comment on climate. But if you insist on removing his careful assemblage of Plimer's errors ..." I don't think there is any ambiguity on who is having trouble hearing around here. So clearly, we weren't being too strict on WP:SPS when wanted to include the review of a computer graphics lecturer. Let the record show this. Meanwhile, Stockwell's review passes WP:SPS as demonstrated by Pete Tillman below but Ratel won't allow inclusion per a very strict interpretation of WP:SPS indeed. I am also done per WP:IDHT. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Final comment: Lambert publishes under the aegis of scienceblogs [8] where the only bloggers allowed to publish are first selected by Seed Media for their excellence. It's not strictly a SPS, but it would be open to challenge, which is why I dropped it. Pity, because Lambert is an expert on Plimer's numerous blunders. Finito ► RATEL ◄ 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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

It would seem that Stockwell is amply qualified to speak with authority on Plimer's book, especially on topics related to statistics and computer modelling. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As you prove above, he's a biological statistician, not a climatologist. If you're unhappy with this, take it to RfC. I'm not going to break the SPS rules to make you happy. ► RATEL ◄ 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quoting WP:SPS, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As noted above, Stockwell has published at least 5 climate-science related papers. Please note that climate science is the relevant discipline here; climatology is a narrower field. Additionally, as you know, IPCC (etc) climate projections depend heavily on statistics and computer models, which is precisely Stockwell's area of expertise. I'll repeat: Stockwell is amply qualified to speak with authority on Plimer's book, especially on topics related to statistics and computer modelling. This seems self-evident to me. Ah well, off to look up RfC rules. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets look at SPS, "established expert on the topic of the article": No. The articles topic is not statistical modelling, or biodiversity distribution. All of Stockwell's PR papers related to climate change are about biodiversity - not about climate itself. Sorry. Climate models are not statistical models. (hint: you've already had an expert on that subject point this out to you). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is (sic) appropriate for "ascientific", a word not found in dictionaries?

Moot discussion collapsed

<<rfc tag removed after rewrite by ChrisO>> Is the inline template [sic] appropriately used when quoting "ascientific"? Other words formed by using the prefix a- (such as apolitical or amoral) exist in all dictionaries, but ascientific exists in none, and may be a neologism, although it is to be found in some published papers. Some editors feel [sic] is derogatory and they oppose its use. Please leave a comment. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 05:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Quote from the article: Climate change theory is "an ascientific [sic] urban religious fundamentalist movement", promoted by academics and activists who would be unemployable outside taxpayer-funded climate institutes. Comment by previously involved editor Alex Harvey Have you actually consulted the 12 volume Oxford English reference dictionary, or only free online dictionaries? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) No, but I have searched the 2,956,026 pages on wikipedia. See the result yourself. ► RATEL ◄ 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Here are some more examples that I've managed to find pretty easily: 9,840 hits in google (some are probably typos of course) here Japan's Ascientific Whaling programme. etc etc. Why not just remove it now Ratel? I think everyone has spent enough time on this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Most of the Google hits are for erroneous concatenations of "A scientific" ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Of the first two pages, exactly 10 are real instances of the word "ascientific" and 10 are typos. That's enough of this. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC) It's not up to you to decide when this debate ends. Please stop editing your view into the article while this RfC proceeds. ► RATEL ◄ 07:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Finally Ratel's comment below shows further that he does not understand that "unscientific" and "ascientific" have different meanings... Just as "amoral" and "immoral" have different meanings, as "arational" and "irrational" have different meanings... Alex Harvey (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC) How clever of you to deduce the true meaning of ascientific! Perhaps you should add the meaning, as you see it, to the article as a footnote. ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Not that clever; I learnt the prefix "a-" as a 15 year old in high school. According to the dictionary I have here, "a-" means "not; without". Meanwhile, "un-" means "not; denoting the absence of; or the reverse of." If it's still confusing you, compare "amoral" and "arational" with "immoral" and "irrational." Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment by previously involved editor Ratel I find the definition of [sic] at wiktionary [9] perfectly in keeping with its usage here. All sorts of neologisms can be found in academic papers, but if the word is not known and not findable by the readership in dictionaries, they will definitely edit it to "unscientific". The usage of [sic] prevents that, and that's one of its primary purposes in a context like wikipedia. ► RATEL ◄ 05:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Comment by previously involved editor Tillman "Ascientific," while an uncommon word, has a history of scholarly use extending back at least 30 years --see, for example, "Ascientific Beliefs about Large Organizations and Adaptation to Change", a 1979 paper. Sic is inappropriate here, especially since this page has become contentious, and is perceived by some editors as having NPOV problems. Sic is "often used... to highlight an error, sometimes for the purpose of ridicule" -- from sic. Thus it is likely to be seen as POV if used in this context here. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Which doesn't answer my points about it only existing one time on the whole of wikipedia and the dead certainty that it will be changed again and again by editors without the [sic]. I would hope you would use the wiktionary definition (see above in my statement for the link) of sic rather than the wikipedia one, btw. The wiktionary def. does not contain the "ridicule" statement. ► RATEL ◄ 03:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) As I suggested to you earlier, we can simply insert an invisible note in the text, to tell future editors that "ascientific" really is the correct word in the quote. Please don't make us spend more time on this. The quote probably shouldn't even be used here, as it's not even from the book. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Comments by uninvolved ChyranandChloe The "derogatory/disparaging" meaning from "sic" is connotative not denotative. It's how it's used that makes it derogatory, the arbitrary meaning is quite objective: "to indicate that the preceding segment of the quote was copied faithfully, in spite of a mistake or seeming mistake".[10] The example in the article cited, Sic, is unverified, but it makes sense. The NY Times doesn't want to risk its editorial reputation over a misspelled word. It's easy to flip it either way though, in my opinion, a good faithed reader could could mix up "an ascinetific" with "a scientific". ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved N p holmes While sic need not be derogatory, it isn't helpful here. A reader of the quotation is very unlikely to think it misquoted, since there are no obvious alternatives close to it – after "an" we don't expect "a scientific". They might want to know what the word's supposed to mean, but sic won't help them there. N p holmes (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC) So a footnote maybe, using cnote/cref? ► RATEL ◄ 09:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Maybe. The problem is that there is no definition to refer to. You could refer to the privative a article. But that doesn't mention that in modern English there are compounds with words of non Greek origin, created by people who like fancy sounding words and have no feel for language. N p holmes (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, do we have a consensus here to remove the 'sic'? Or remove the contentious word altogether? Do we also realise that we're not directly quoting the book here, we're quoting a journalist who is allegedly quoting Plimer, and please note also that the journalist saw no need to use 'sic' against Plimer here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC) more on 'ascientific' sic The source of this word appears to be an article in the Australian by Nic White, who allegedly heard Plimer say this in a speech... The journalist himself has not used 'sic' suggesting he knew what the word meant. It could even be Nic White's word. More good reasons to finally just drop this. Finally, I'm struggling to understand why we're using this short White article at all. It adds nothing other than one contentious word. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Beep, no. See [11] It is what he said, and we're using it because it's his book launch speech. You know, for the book the article is about? ► RATEL ◄ 06:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) That rules out journalist error, good. Then, we have otherwise a consensus of editors saying it is wrong to include 'sic'. (Pete, myself, N.P. Holmes). One responder was non-committal. The journalist from the Australian, a high-quality conservative newspaper, also printed the word without 'sic'. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)