Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Book used as source

By the way, how often has this book been used as a source so far in AGW articles in Wikipedia? I just received my copy in the mail, and although I haven't started reading it yet, I noticed via a quick pass that it is extensively footnoted, more so than several other AGW books that I've looked at so far. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Be afraid, be very afraid. Plimer misquotes studies left and right. Not a reliable source in any way. ► RATEL ◄ 02:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

John Moore quote

A quote from John Moore, a Canadian actor and broadcaster, is currently the lead sentence in the "Reactions from Scientists" section. Moore doesn't appear to be a scientist. Should his quote remain in that location? Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's making an introductory comment about how scientists have reacted. I think you should delete the "and actor" phrase. AFAIK he is known as a broadcaster. On the other hand, it may be worth looking for an introductory comment from a scientist. ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Something on Mr. Moore's opinion could probably be included in a different section, but it seems to be out of place in the "scientists" section. Either that, or perhaps that section should be retitled. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. As I said, it's an introductory comment to how scientists in general have responded, and the new sentence from the Advertiser that I added reinforces what Moore said, so it's not a maverick opinion. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that the Advertiser is a scientific journal. If so, then it's opinion, including any subjective, sweeping generalizations, does belong in the "Reactions from Scientists" section. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Why does an introductory para to the section have to quote scientists only? Why not quote people who are commenting on the overall scientific reaction, before we get down to the nitty-gritty comments from individual scientists? ► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, can you think of any reasons why having those two quotes at the beginning of that section might be problemmatic? Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, I do not think these quotes are "problemmatic" since they summarise the text following, and indeed they are demonstrably true in fact. I suggest you leave them there until at least 3 other editors have commented. ► RATEL ◄ 04:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, three is certainly a fine number, but I don't recall saying that I was going to remove the text in question. Nevertheless, I will give one of the issues that I see, and that's that by having those two quotes at the beginning, it makes it appear that the entire section has negative feedback from scientists on the book. The last two paragraphs in the section, however, detail positive feedback from scientists. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the kneejerk support he got from fellow denier Kinninmonth, a retired nobody (from a research/scientific POV). Not nearly good enough to change the overall thrust of the section. ► RATEL ◄ 05:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Position on regulations

I'm curious, does Plimer say that his opposition to regulation has nothing to do with his commercial interests? I know he says that his position on the science is independent, but it would seem a bit bizarre to say that his commercial interests don't impact his opposition to regulation. For instance, the article states that he "rejects criticism that the book and his opposition to an emissions trading scheme are the result of these commercial interests," but the sentence is not sourced. A person usually doesn't deny that the expenses are a reason for opposing what they perceive to be unnecessary regulations. I don't know all or much of what he's said on this, but it might be useful to look closely. Mackan79 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was sourced. It is in his bio. ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Page? The previous ref states the following:

Those who have hinted that Plimer has close ties to industry need only to ask; he does. He holds directorships with two mining companies, but claims with a hint of irritation that this does not affect the independence of his beliefs.[1]

This makes sense, to say that it does not affect the independence of his beliefs. But does he really say it doesn't affect his opposition to regulations? I would like to see this sourced or change the wording. Currently we present this as an inconsistency in his position, by following it with his statement that the regulations would destroy the mining industry. That in itself should be changed (the interview that this comes from does not present it as a rebuttal of his general position), but the point is that a libertarian would maintain the independence of their scientific assessments, but would not generally claim that they are indifferent to economic harm, so if he does say that then we need to have a source. Mackan79 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the sources, I am concerned with how loosely this material follows the source. I see that Ratel added the statement: "Elsewhere Plimer has stated that any carbon trading scheme would "destroy [the mining industry] totally."[2] In fact the source has Plimer speaking of a specific emissions trading plan, and Ratel has omitted the word "probably" where Plimer says that it would "probably destroy it totally." If someone says that something "might" do something or "probably" will do something or "won't" do something, you can't just leave out the qualifier. The language that he was commenting about "any carbon trading scheme" also directly misrepresents the source, in which he is asked about "the Emissions Trading Scheme," in capital letters. This is a serious WP:BLP issue, to exaggerate a source to make them sound absurd; I hope more care is taken in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

His statements are pretty general, if you take the article quoted as well as his interview in the Mining Journal mining-journal.com (free membership). I would appreciate it if you would replace my edit, which is almost verbatim from his interview cited. If necessary you can insert "probably" and "Australian" emission trading scheme. ► RATEL ◄ 05:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please quote the text that supports your wording. You are suggesting there's an inconsistency in his position, to say that he defends his independence, but then also comments that regulations would have a disastrous economic impact. I'm skeptical that he presents these views inconsistently since, as I've noted, these are the positions one would expect a libertarian to have: the science is not strong enough to justify the economic costs. It's only the science as to which they would generally claim to be independent. In the one interview, at least, it's also clear that it is the science he's talking about, for instance where he comments, "Some of the major physical features of the planet don't change depending on who funds it." You can't then combine this with his statement about the economic consequences to make out like he's contradicting himself. Mackan79 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am not about to commit the crime of OR here. Look at the interview at the Adelaide Advertiser more closely. Read it right through. You'll see that the whole theme of the piece is that there is a unacknowledged COI for Plimer, one that the interviewer is at pains to expose and ask Plimer about. If you want to personalise the paragraph more to that interviewer, or that paper, I have no objection. ► RATEL ◄ 06:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the question has to do with his statements about the science, and the question is whether we can really trust his views on the science considering he has money on the line. That is where he defends his independence. My point is he wouldn't even dispute the relevance of the COI with regard to the regulations. Actually he makes this point in the interview explicitly, where he's quoted, "'Well, I say very little about the emissions trading scheme, in fact I don't think I say anything about it there at all because it's a book of science,' he says, tapping his book." This is what I'm talking about: he is acknowledging that on the trading scheme it is an economic matter, in which he wouldn't deny that he's looking out for himself. The previous wording we had here made it sound like he was trying to deny that as well, which is what I am saying misrepresents his argument. Mackan79 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, you're tying yourself in knots here. You made this edit "he defends the independence of his views, saying that these commercial interests do not colour his arguments. " The struck text you removed is verbatim from the article, and in no way implies that he is trying to deny anything. It's simply what he actually said. I think you are straining at gnats here and being somewhat tendentious. ► RATEL ◄ 08:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're free to ask for other views, but frankly I don't see why this should be difficult. Plimer maintains the independence of his scientific views. He doesn't maintain the same about his economic views, so we shouldn't suggest that he does, and then present his statements to the contrary as if they contradict him. The portion I removed is all "woolly," to adopt your term, other than that it tries to suggest he is claiming independence in all respects, immediately before saying that he has nevertheless commented on grave economic harm that would result from certain regulations. We aren't blind, are we? The stricken text doesn't need to be there, unless we want to say something more specific. Mackan79 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the juxtaposition of his two statements does give rise to questions, but so exactly does the article from which it is derived. That's why it's appropriate and why there is no OR (reflects source). Note that "numerous" interviewers have asked him about this very issue, so the clear potential for COI is apparent to almost everyone. I'm sorry if the phrasing unavoidably makes the same questions apparent again, but we are here to reflect what's out there, aren't we? We do not know if Plimer's significant financial interests in the mining industry — the same industry that he says actions to abate global warming could destroy — led wholly or in part to the writing of this book. But posing the problem of this possible COI, in the clearest and most unambiguous way possible, is what we need to do. ► RATEL ◄ 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't addressing the issue. Yes, people note that he has a COI in some sense. However, he maintains his independence only with regard to his scientific views, and not with regard to his opposition to industry regulations. You are presenting his statements on the latter as contradicting his statements on the former. They are separate issues, which he himself separates, so this is not accurate, and besides that we don't have any sources that do it. They suggest he has a COI, but they don't suggest his statements are internally inconsistent. Mackan79 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot see how your deletion of a direct quote from the article somehow addresses the obscure distinction you are making above. His claims of independence are in the article. We are not suggesting internal inconsistency, simply highlighting the same clear COI that the source highlights. Plimer has been very actively lobbying against a carbon trading scheme in Australia, which would be as a result of concerns over AGW. At the same time, he writes a book claiming AGW is tosh. The two events are unrelated, he hints, but obviously they are not. Consider also this extract from the Mining Journal: "Meanwhile, Prof Plimer is making his voice heard in the debate about the Australian government’s proposal to combat global warming by implementing the most sweeping carbon-trading scheme outside the European Union. Of course, his conviction that human activity is not responsible for global warming makes the government’s proposals for him even more galling. There is a danger that the carbon-trading scheme will decimate Australia’s mining industry, the main driving force of its economy, but which needs a great deal of energy for its operations, he points out. It could also force many “clean and green” Australian smelters to close and have their operations transferred to “dirty” plants overseas. The Australian government has backed itself into a corner, he suggests. The carbon trading scheme could make Australia poor by destroying mining and processing operations – which would lead to the government being kicked out by the electorate.". Note that he has a LOT to day about the ETS. There is such a blatant and screamingly obvious COI here, as so many interviewers have not failed to notice. ► RATEL ◄ 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)