Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WP:BLP and the bet

"Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article"

Therefore, I'm removing all material not in the Reason article. --Theblog 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it poses any problems to go ahead and put that material in whatshisnames article though. --Theblog 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop cutting stuff that embarasses you. Lindzen wimped out of the bet, people deserve to know that William M. Connolley 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. A scientist should stand by his claims. Dysmorodrepanis 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please present arguments as to why the rules don't apply in this case. --Theblog 00:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's commentary by one of the principals in the exchange, properly attributed as such. Raymond Arritt 03:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me exactly where in WP:BLP blogs are allowable if involves one of the principles who is not the subject of the article? --Theblog 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already brought up the issue at the BLP noticeboard. Let's wait for comments. Raymond Arritt 04:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting this nonsense. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Lindzen

The first part of this section seems okay, and refers to a source with more criticism of Lindzen, but the material based on the PBS report is problematic. I don't see criticism of Lindzen there; there seems to be a kind of guilt by association attempted (specifically conflict of interest) . I.e., Lindzen is a member of an Advisory Council for an organization which has apparently received some industry funding. He is a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has allegedly received the same, and is a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute. It's not clear what "contibutor" means. In the case of the Cato Institute, they published an article of his. It's one thing if Lindzen receives funding from a possibly biased source, another if he *gives* something to an allegedly biased organization. Quite simply, the PBS article notes these associations, but doesn't actually criticize him on this basis; perhaps the associations are intended to establish some kind of political affiliation? Would we consider a scientist biased because they made a contribution to the Democratic Party, for example, or a Democratic think tank? Its inclusion seems POV to me, part of an attempt to smear Lindzen. The Cato Institute is a major Libertarian think tank, AFAIK, and the connection between a donation to the Cato Institute and some conflict of interest for Lindzen, making this into a "criticism," is really thin. Lindzen may be biased, but from what I've seen, it's unlikely that conflict of interest has anything to do with it. There is real criticism of Lindzen that focuses on his claims, yet we pass over it in favor of pure spin. I intend to take this PBS material out. -Abd (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can give it another headline - but its a very real thing (ie. WP:WEIGHT since its covered in reliable sources) that Lindzen is often accused of having a conflict of interest by his association with these groups - and thus it has its place here. If you have other relevant criticisms, that are appropriate according to weight in reliable sources, and weight overall, then you should add it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Often accused" by whom? Reliable source? The PBS source doesn't accuse him of anything, based on these, that I saw. There is an implied accusation, because those alleged facts are asserted after having asserted information about real COI. Consider the analogy I used above: we might establish from reliable source that a scientist was a supporter, say, of a politician or political party. Would this have anything to do with conflict of interest? It might have something to do with establishing that the scientist was a nut case, if the politician or party were seriously fringe. But the Cato Institute? Frankly, this association tells me almost nothing. They published an article of his, perhaps because it provided evidence some position of someone at the Institute. To turn that into a criticism of the man or his work is a stretch. This is the cart pulling the horse.

I just looked again at the source. The source provides "profiles" of global warming critics. It's fairly obvious that someone thought that mentioning these associations was a criticism, but no actual criticism was connected with them. I.e., they could just as easily have been praise, or just reporting, except that it then, makes no sense that isolated funding sources of these organizations would be mentioned. The Cato Institute, as I mentioned, is a major libertarian think tank, covering many, many topics. The money that was reported as going to them from industry was relatively small, I expect, given how active and prominent they are. There is nothing solid there. If these are the facts being used to criticize Lindzen, it's weak indeed.

The article begins with Many of the researchers expressing doubts about the science of global warming have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries. This kind of association isn't a "financial tie." It's guilt by association: the Cato Institute and the others., have financial ties with the industries, weak or strong, but the Cato Institute isn't supporting Lindzen financially. That material is currently in the Criticism section, and I don't see another appropriate section to use or create. "Organizations that have published articles by Lindzen"? Which ones would you pick? "Organizations that Lindzen has been asked to advise"? And then, would we look at income sources for these organizations and discover if any contributors might have an axe to grind? If, indeed, the facts reported are being used to criticize Lindzen, we need notable and reliable source for that. This is a BLP, standards are a bit higher than in general articles. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can call it guilt by association as much as you like (and it probably is). The fact is that several reliable sources, report it - and that is what we represent here. We do not take a stand on what is right or wrong here - what we do is present what reliable sources tell us. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, it's just poor style; innuendo. Completely inappropriate in a Wikipedia biography. I am going to delete it unless it can be properly rewritten. The perhaps-relevant facts are (1) people have "accused" Lindzen of taking money from oil interests. (2) Some of the evidence they've used is already found in this article. (3) Many climate change skeptics have been with oil interests. (4) An analysis of just how much of Lindzen's research has been and has not been funded by oil interests. Obviously, the answer to this question is, not very much. If you want to go into oil interests, let's do it fairly. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent question is: Are the sections reliably sourced (the answer is: Yes). Is it undue weight? (perhaps). See the above discussions on both items - and react to the content in these first. The tobacco part is (imho) something that should be there, since its mentioned in (almost) all 3rd party interviews with Lindzen (where the newspaper or journalist doesn't exibit bias (pro or contra)), so the weight should be clear there. As for the betting - its in a long tradition of scientific betting (again see above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, you have predictably reverted all of my edits. You admit here that you have 'perhaps' given 'undue weight' to a number of facts, but you insist that they must be ncluded anyway. Can you explain this without conceding that you are introducing your own bias? And as for 'mentioned in (almost) all 3rd party interviews with Lindzen (where the newspaper or journalist doesn't exibit bias' that's a ridiculous statement. Since you make the statement, show me all these articles please. 144.140.16.10 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous, it's not just Kim - I would've reverted too. I suggest you try some light editing if you think weight is an issue.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are no shortages of people who want bias in this article. Weight is obviously an issue, as many have noted above. This is all irrelevant nonsense (tobacco, Annan, ExxonMobil). What is meant by 'light editing'? How do I lightly edit what needs to be removed? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. If it's hard to find a compromise through editing (how hard have you tried?), you'll have to work harder to get people to agree with you. That's difficult if you don't assume good faith, because people will react the same way. Rd232 ^talk 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious from the discussions above how hard people have tried to have this biasing material removed & each time it's been put back by the same few. The values we share and that Wikipedia shares include 'innocence till guilt is proven'. In the meantime, until relevance & guilt is established, none of this should be appearing in the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Some drastic editing done now. Comments? I'm sure those lengthy report-related quotes have been there a long time, but WP:NOT a newspaper, so I tried to summarise the points. Rd232 ^talk 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, the issue remains: Lindzen's views on smoking are of no relevance - *in an article this short* - in the career of a distinguished professor of meteorology. To understate the matter, yes, they're given undue weight, as Kim D. Petersen has almost admitted. Was Lindzen ever a spokesperson for Big Tobacco? No. Did he ever take money from Big Tobacco? No. Has anyone even ACCUSED him of taking money from Big Tobacco? No. This is just innuendo, and in any case, of no relevance to this article. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, the other issue is there's no way that it's fair or balanced for the last word in this article to be given by Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl and his quote "He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette." The innuendo here, is that Lindzen will say ANYTHING for (attention? money?) and that's why no one should listen to him. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Lindzen has made himself, for good or bad, notable on this issue. As i said above it comes up in (almost) all 3rd party interviews or biographical articles on Lindzen. Rd232 has cut down the section to the bare detail, which (imho) is good. Your personal analysis on why people are writing about it is (rather) irrelevant, since what we have to stick to here is how reliable sources detail Lindzen... My personal view on that part, is that this is always touched upon, because Lindzen (from what i've read) is a chain-smoker, so it kinda "jumps" to the journalists attention, and therefore gets mentioned. Not really sinister - but rather a comment on how our culture has changed its view regarding smoking. That aside, the sections on Lindzen scientific achievements and career, seems as if they are in need of expansion - perhaps you should focus there? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide some sources for that, at the moment the only ref is to the interview itself. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one more: Cris Mooney "The Republican War on Science" - section is apparently important enough to merit mention in a NYT review of the book[1]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"merit mention"? Well for those of us who don't have this book, what does it actually say? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have found this book review: NYTimes Book Review "Mooney notes that one prominent doubter and sometime Bush administration adviser on climate change, the M.I.T. meteorologist Richard Lindzen, is a smoker who has also questioned the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer." But for this to be relevant, it would need to turn out that Mooney is not citing either the same Newsweek article, the Philip Morris thing from above, or of course this Wikipedia article. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is utterly false to assert that Lindzen has 'made himself' 'notable' for his views on smoking. The media, the internet, the Union of Concerned Scientists and most importantly, this very Wikipedia article (listed first when 'Richard Lindzen' is typed into google), has made him notable for this. The very quote we're arguing about more or less concedes that his remark now in Wikipedia (!) was presumably thought by Lindzen at the time to be an 'off the record' remark. ("Newsweek journalist reported, AFTER an interview with Lindzen ... ' Thus we don't even have a direct quote of Lindzen himself here. So again, where are all these articles that made Lindzen 'notable' for his views on smoking, if it is not this very Wikipedia article, as I contend.

I think you're misreading that. Lindzen talked during the interview, but the journalist reported it afterwards (well it would hardly be before or during...) Rd232 ^talk 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As for your other point, yes, I may very well add some of Lindzen's other contributions, both to the controversy of AGW, and his other work. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From quickly glancing over it, it addresses many of the concerns that have been raised here earlier (on both sides). Good edit (imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Rd232's edit has improved the readability and presentation of the article. Unfortunately, it still contains the same biasing material. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the quote is quite complimentary. The bias refer to seems to be from linking Lindzen with another fringe theory. However if he holds those views and those views are as widely noted as Kim says, then it seems reasonable to include it (though it is a bit awkward in its own section and I can't see where else to put it). I've asked Kim to provide sources on notability of those views. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Complimentary? The quote is clearly being used here to discredit Lindzen as a scientist, just it has been used elsewhere on the internet (although not in print as far as I am aware). See here for instance: Credibility up in smoke. Currently, we have no evidence that Lindzen even meant for the remark to be made public. Rather, it looks like journalist mischief; I am not convinced that this Newsweek journalist even had Lindzen's permission to quote him. Thus, yes, the quote is potentially libellous. Meanwhile, in many (most?) other internet sources I find repeating this story, the source is given as WIKIPEDIA. E.g. "...not really relevant but still quite funny: Richard Lindzen's views on the health risks of smoking (in wikipedia.org). Reference Frame; this article here just copies the (old) WIkipedia article verbatim: AbsoluteAstronomy.com; posters at RealClimate cite the Wikipedia as their source for this 'views on smoking' material. I could go on... So where's the evidence that refutes my position? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs... [with] measured cadences..." is complimentary - that's what I was referring to. The problem is reporting Lindzen's view on the weakness of the link between lung cancer and smoking. Lindzen hasn't published academically on this, or (excluding the 1-para general science remarks reported in that 1991 Phillip Morris document) apparently said or written anything either. Nor can I find any other reliable sources reporting it other than that Newsweek piece (I'm waiting for Kim to provide sources). Either way it's a bit problematic in terms of WP:NPOV: to exclude a subject's reliably reported views because they discredit (in some people's eyes) his life's work is a judgement that WP:NPOV doesn't permit. On the other hand including them based on only one source and no publications etc is also not great in terms of WP:NPOV. If Kim can't come up with more sources in a day or two, we could try an RFC for more input. Rd232 ^talk 01:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restructure

In the meantime, I have just made a few grammatical & punctuation corrections (I also removed some double-quotes that weren't in the right place, and probably didn't need to be there at all. At any rate I couldn't work out where they were supposed to begin and end). I would also like to propose adding new material, and having an overall structure:

• • early work (~1965-1980)
  • global warming skepticism (~1980-2000)
  • iris hypothesis (~2001-present)
  • public criticism of the scientific process (~1990-present)
  • controversy section (which will include much of the contentious material we're currently discussing)
  • publications section

Would appreciate comments. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding his early work would be particularly valuable. And have the added bonus of being non-controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding biographical content to an article on a scientist sounds like a lot of work too much like writing an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

2006 op-ed quote

I've deleted the 2006 oped quote about scientists losing funding for opposing climate change orthodoxy. I can find no evidence other than Lindzen's opinion, and presenting the entire quote here gives it excessive credence, especially with the wikilinks; and the "tarring" claim has WP:BLP issues for the alleged tarrer. (It might be OK in summary form, eg "Lindzen has claimed...") The claim about the Italian scientists "disappearing from the debate" seems straightforwardly disproven by Google Scholar. And I can't help finding it odd that this Lindzen opinion piece, which repeats most of the claims, doesn't in its 20 footnotes find space for any supporting evidence.Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks, I agree with you; also I think it grossly oversimplified the Lindzen argument & presented an easily-refutable straw man. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that Lindzen and Henk Tennekes actually know each other? Or at least have talked to each other at a conference? Every quote does not need 3 references when one comes from a good source. BTW, BLP does not apply since Bert Bolin is deceased. Q Science (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to conclude from your speculative remarks. On the BLP point you're right - it occurred to me after I turned off my computer yesterday. Rd232 ^talk 13:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the remarks were written by Dr. Lindzen and published in The Wall Street Journal. I attempted to find an alternate source for the Henk Tennekes claim and failed, but I also failed to find anything discrediting the quote. Therefore, Dr. Lindzen's claims should be accepted as WP:V. If they are true, then they are truly notable. Also, in order to provide a little balance, the Journal article itself needs to be referenced because Dr. Hansen has had a lot of coverage about how he has been censored and that article specifically states that some of the opposition have been fired for not agreeing with Dr. Hansen. I might also add that that information has been in this wikipedia article since July 2006 and, therefore, represents a significant consensus view that it be left in place. Q Science (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is, these sorts of beliefs about funding and so on can never really be proved. There are so many things I know for a fact about the various companies I've worked for but I have nothing in writing, because nothing is ever put into writing in any case, so I couldn't prove any of them. If it assists, here are three Japanese scientists making the same allegations: Japanese scientists cool on theories: "Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction." I'm sure Dr. Maruyama can't prove this either. I agree that it's best to steer away from anything that's not factual. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To quote WP:V

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

and

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Therefore, it should be restored. Q Science (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Low" importance status of this article

So how was this article classified as "low" importance in the area of meteorology? Love him or hate him, how could anyone genuinely argue that he is "unimportant"? If he is wrong, his importance lies in being something of a galviniser of skepticism around the world. If he is right, his importance goes without saying. There's no question he'll have a place in any history of meteorology in the future. This is yet another attempt at misusing Wikipedia to marginalise his views. This importance rating needs to be changed if Wikipedia is to retain (gain) any credibility at all... Opinions? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick request—if you are not a member of a wikiproject, please don't change the importance tag for that group. That is extremely rude, and the members of a project should decide for group the importance of specific articles, not people outside the project. Horologium (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE, Horologium. Alex - the importance rating is not officially for Wikipedia, it is merely for WP:WikiProject Meteorology, a voluntary group of Wikipedians who can set whatever priority they wish for parts of their project. If you disagree, join and/or discuss with them. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my note sounded harsh; it was not intended to be nasty. WP:FLA has had issues in the past with people outside the project changing the priorities for the group, so this is a sensitive subject for me. I didn't mean to come off as a snarling beast, though. I added a "please" in above to attempt to soften my request a bit. Horologium (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

more on the Annan bet

Okay I have found out some facts:

1) The 'Reason' article that started all of this merely stated: 'Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.' Reason article

That does not go very far at all in establishing that Lindzen ever had any serious intention of putting money on this. Which is hardly surprising since he has always held that increasing CO2 might cause some very small amount of warming.

2) Annan's page on 'climate betting' Betting on Climate Change reports that "[Lindzen] says he was misrepresented in the quote on the reason.com site...." If Lindzen says that he was misrepresented, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that he was.

3) The Wikipedia editor William M. Connolley is credited by Annan as having a role in the creation of this story: ""Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." (thanks to William Connolley for the tip). Given his widely-promulgated views, I took this quote at face value and contacted him to arrange a wager.

4) We see here that even Annan himself seems to realise ('...I took this quote at face value...') that he was making mischief and understood that Lindzen may not have meant to be taken literally.

This should be removed from Wikipedia as a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the current summary as problematic in BLP terms, and the final bet details seem useful to represent Lindzen's views.Rd232 ^talk 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What, so you mean the Wikipedia policy here is just to assume that the blogger (in this case Annan) is automatically telling the truth? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the policy: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below)." "Avoid repeating gossip." From WP:BLP. I'm sorry, this Annan story is clearly, unambiguously a violation of the policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For Lindzen's actual views, see Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously. I can't find anything in this article even vaguely suggesting these Annan-reported odds, suggesting they are of no interest to the serious reader who is trying to understand Lindzen's views. 50-1 odds may have been a joke? It may of been Lindzen's way of saying, "get lost please." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Annan wrote this about Lindzen on his blog two weeks ago Much ado about nothing: "I know who Lindzen is :-) I don't think many people would care particularly about his views, were he to offer them. I've not heard a peep from him recently, and the last I did read was just a rehash of old debunked stuff. I don't think he does much research these days." And this was at the time Lindzen was about to speak against AGW at the Heartland Conference and well after Lindzen's very clear statement of his views in the above-linked paper. It is obvious that this blogger, Annan, is biased against Lindzen, it is likely that he is not capable of being objective in this matter, and his blog is therefore a most unreliable source. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Annan's a climatologist, not some random blogger. He would know if Lindzen is doing research, and your assumptions of bad faith need to be backed with some evidence.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian... there is plenty of evidence that Lindzen is still working as a scientist; anyone can look this up if they want to at his home page. There are a number of papers that are given an 'in preparation' status. Then there is Lindzen 2009 forthcoming Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?.

His most recently published paper is Ronandelli & Lindzen 2008, Observed variations in convective precipitation fraction and stratiform area with sea surface temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16119, doi:10.1029/2008JD010064. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is completely beside the point, however. The policy is clear: it has no caveat "If the blogger is not random but in fact a bona fide climatologist then it doesn't apply." It is very simple: blogs don't count. I've provided all the evidence needed here, viz. that the source is a blog. Ergo, the policy is violated. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, the reason there are policies is so that people's opinions about politics are not presented as facts in Wikipedia. It has been shown clearly (by myself and plenty of others) that the Wikipedia policy for WP:BLP is violated in this article. Do you deny this? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong in these: "The policy is clear: it has no caveat" and "It is very simple: blogs don't count". There is a caveat, and blogs are not always ruled out. (see: WP:SPS caveat on experts talking about the area of expertise). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Annan's material and references had been deleted from this article a while back, apparently because of an inappropriate use of the BLP argument. I think it should be put back.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Annan's blog isn't even cited in the current version of the article, so I'm not sure what AH is going on about. The only two sources are [2] and [3]—neither of which is a blog or a SPS. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, so you are now saying that because the article is not telling the truth about the fact that it's primary source is in fact a blog it's okay now? :) Alex Harvey (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Erh? Its primary source is Annan and Lindzen, and is verified by Bailey. (and Bailey most certainly spoke directly to at least Lindzen (its in the article)) - so the source (even though it doesn't matter) isn't the blog... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, my apologies, I had not noticed that there were two Bailey articles referenced. However, it doesn't change the fact that the primary source is a blog and that a secondary source, the Reason-online article, cites the blog. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The primary source is Bailey's original article, that got picked up by Annan (who wrote about it on his blog), then picked up by Bailey again, who went directly (at least to Lindzen) to the involved parties. The primary source is not a blog. And even if it had been, what exactly are you trying to indicate with that? A reliable source commenting on a blog is not in any way or form ruled out, and in this particular case, Bailey's personal involvement as a fact-checker makes whatever argument that could have been made on "blog sourcing" moot. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side-note, what exactly is your problem here? The section doesn't in any way or form even come close to BLP concerns, its reliably sourced, it has a balanced description - and there is nothing controversial about it.. I'm confused. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't got time to play these sorts of games. You win again, Kim D. Petersen, and Wikipedia loses again. Let's agree that another "balanced" Wikipedia article as co-authored by Kim D. Petersen & William M. Connolley is allowed to quote a journalist's statement that the same journalist later retracted -- without any need to mention the fact that it was retracted.

But, yes, what's the problem? The problem is this is silly: it is a silly story, and it doesn't belong here. If I open up Encyclopaedia Britannica, here is my bet to you: I bet that I will not find this silly story repeated in an article on Richard Lindzen. And I bet to you also that I will not find an article on James Annan at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

From 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Yes, okay, it was repeated, but only in the context of the journalist retracting his earlier remarks and trying to extricate himself from the situation.

From WP:BLP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether ... even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." No, it is not relevant, and the policy is violated. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also thought about how I could go about making the article tell the whole truth (i.e. I thought about adding the rather pertinent fact the statement attributed to Lindzen that he was "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now" is retracted by the journalist who made it in the second reference, and I thought about adding the fact that Annan himself conceded that he knew Lindzen denied having made this actual statement but that he persisted childishly in trying to negotiate his bet anyway, and I thought about adding the fact that William Connolley seems to have had some role in suggesting the whole idea, but finally I have given up -- Rd232's version of this whole thing at least sounds less silly than the truth. I may contact the Wikipedia foundation directly to see what they think about this. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)