Talk:Vincent R. Gray

Question

Why is a chemist described as a climate scientist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkine (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Because he says he is, apparently. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather because apparently, anyone who is trained in a natural science field that touches the climate can be called a "climate scientist". This language is used throughout Wikipedia in climate articles. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This [1] is not a RS. Gray is not a climatologist just because he says he is. As near as can be told, he's more into coal. I don't trust that for the paper count either: he clearly doesn't have 12 in climate (E&E doesn't count, obviously, since its not a proper journal) and have no reason to belive the 100 William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Source / notable?

All this:

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based geologist. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and according to the National Resources Stewardship Project has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. is sourceless.

Furthermore, there is little evidence here for notability William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What can you disagree with in this sentence? That he has a college diploma? Or that according to the NRSP, he had a long career? Sources are needed for "likely challengeable" items, not for an article's every word... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He has published more than 100 scientific papers --85.165.73.186 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the ISI Web of Science database, he has published 10. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been over this? Many of his publications (by his own admission) are in less than reputable venues such as LaRouche, E&E, etc. Counting those, the 100 number is probably accurate. Oren0 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this is very much in doubt, as has been pointed out, so it shouldn't go in. I doubt btw. that you could claim even 100 scientific papers using less than reputable venues. I can buy 100 articles on global warming, but that is hardly something that is worth mentioning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not worth mentioning. But discrediting sources because they repeat the 100 number when we don't know if it's true or not seems unreasonable (see below). Oren0 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary: we know the 100 number is wrong, so we know its an unreliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to hear how you know this. Have you counted his publications in LaRouche, E&E, and the like? It didn't say 100 publications in ISI. Oren0 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Boring. Go on, have the last word and the rest of us can give up on this tedium William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Publication record and credibility of NRSP

ISI says Gray has 10 pubs, all between 1980 and 1986, all having to do with coal. Since Natural Resources Stewardship Project's "100 publications" is off by an order of magnitude, its credibility is toast I'm going to scrap everything else that comes from that source per WP:BLP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is essentially about protecting an individuals reputation and such. I dont think that it can be threatening to V. Gray's reputation that his WP article states that he published 100 articles rather than 10. Strange approach if you really want to delete this. Also, if he published in publications that are not caught by ISI, I see no problem with this for the purpose of this page. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think thats fair. Unless someone comes in to put some reason why Gray is notable, I'm going to AFD this very soon, unless the festive season intervenes William M. Connolley (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one did, so I have William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue

I think there can be a WP:BLP problem with the moot change of article's name from Vincent Gray (scientist) to Vincent Gray (consultant). I am far from certain that we all use the same definition for "scientist" (some seem to think it's restrained to having a certain publication record, while that's not what the dictionnaries tell us). The guy reviewed every IPCC report and he would not be a scientist? That would open the door to some questions... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He calls himself a consultant, so it's hard to see how this objection has merit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All scientists on Wikipedia whose name is already taken by another article are diff'ed with(scientist). This article would likely be the first and only with (consultant), which would suggest that he's not a scientist. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he a scientist? By what definition? How can you tell? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest that non-scientists can be involved in the IPCC review process? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can. If there was a vetting process, people would complain that they were being excluded. Best to let everyone comment. Surely you're not opposed to such openness? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I am not opposed. Nor would I be to openness towards the comments made. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A real kindergarten eh? [2] Forcing me to the 3RR rule instead of being mature and try to see your wrongs here before making potentially libelous edits. As an admin, you'll certainly be interested to read WP:REF (you know, the part where they say that sources are for likely challengeable claims). Then please have the maturity to revert yourself. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you're the one who mentioned his web page, you obviously know where to find the information. Is it really such a burdensome task to add a link to it? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Oh wait, you'll delete it again because you dont like the NRSP. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I missed the fun. Anyway, being an IPCC reviewer doesn't make you a scientist, obviously. Mentionning it prominently in 99% of cases makes you a desperate septic. But the move to his full name probably fixes the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More tedia... we start Vincent R. Gray is a New Zealand-based coal chemist[1][2] and climate consultant who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England[3]. - so - 1,2 are publications, and don't support the present tense. I have a feeling that he is retired - does anyone know his current status? And what does "climate consultant" mean, is this anything other than a self-description (if so from where?) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Climate consultant

William, this is silly. The NZ herald calls him a climate consultant. He also calls himself a climate consultant. If a reliable source calls him by a certain title that's good enough. How many sources would be enough? 2? 5? 100? I've never seen any Wikipedia rule that says that one reliable source isn't good enough simply because, as you put it, "you can't believe everything you read in the papers." Oren0 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another. I don't think we want to go through every climate-related individual and make sure there are large numbers of citations for claim, do we? Oren0 (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that source also says he's published over 100 papers, whereas the ISI database shows 10. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

People are not necessarily reliable sources about themselves, obviously, as RA points out. But I'm happy to say he calls himself a CC William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that he calls himself that, the NZ Herald calls him that as well. Saying that he "calls himself" a climate consultant has a very negative connotation given that we have a reliable source that says so as well. Rather than keep fighting about this, I've listed it on Wikipedia:Third opinion (since the dispute is between myself and WMC, RA hasn't offered an opinion one way or the other). Oren0 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any indication he has actually done any "climate consulting" (whatever that is)? Are there reports that he consulted for corporation X or agency Y? That would solve the question neatly. (The bit about the 100 articles demonstrates that the blurb in the paper can't be taken seriously; they're obviously just repeating Gray's self-description without checking the facts.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't see the bit about 100 articles in the NZ Herald article. Maybe I'm just dense and I'm missing it?
2. He gets into publication in the interview. He talks about being published by the "Tech Central Science Foundation" (whatever that is) and Energy and Environment. While these aren't peer reviewed publications (he readily admits that in the article) and likely won't count in your ISI searches, that doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't published 100 papers counting these.
3. Again, it's reported by a reliable source. I'm yet to see any reason why that shouldn't be trusted. Not to be a dick, but I could probably go to the Wikipedia page of a certain editor and place "he calls himself" or "he claims" in front of lots of things that are only reported in self-published sources, let alone in only a single newspaper. I wouldn't do that because it's insulting to the subject. Oren0 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We could call him a "climate consultant who has not been reported to have performed climate consulting." (Just kidding.) More later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think a modicum of common sense is needed in this situation. If Mr. Gray referred to himself as "The Grand Climate Wizard of Cambridge", or even "Climate Guru", clearly we could scoff and dismiss. However, with at least one significant source (NZ Herald) referring to him as a climate consultant, I don't see any real reason why he shouldn't be able to claim the title. What are we fighting about, the definition of the word "consult"? I don't think it matters if he's written ten papers or a hundred; if certain people ask him questions about climate from time to time, he's free to label himself a climate consultant, and I don't think it detracts from the respectability of the article at all to follow suit. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The point about the papers is that sources relying on him have been mislead. The NZ herald is clearly relying on Grays self-description. We have no reliable source indicating that he has ever done any consulting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I was aware that the NZ Herald was relying on his self-description. I don't see how he's misleading someone with a massively subjective job title. Anyone can be a "consultant" if they so choose to be. There's not a test one needs to pass in order to wear the badge. There's no "consultant degree" that gives one the right to put initials after one's name. Theoretically, as long as he's advised anyone at any time, he'd technically be a climate consultant. Of course, this would make me a consultant in about a thousand other areas, but that's a different issue - and, you have to admit, this man IS making the papers in a climate-related story. It seems that the opposition here wants concrete proof that he has made money, signed a contract, walked around with a clipboard, or other things that the proverbial consultant does - but none of that is needed. I've thought about the opposite point of view, and the only real reason I can think that you would oppose letting Mr. Gray have this title is that you are unwilling to give him the recognition or "honor" of being a climate consultant. The man HAS climate experience - wrote a book about climate change, founded a climate science coalition, reviewed climate change reports - I'd say that it would be a further stretch to claim he hasn't given advice or knowledge to anyone. Tanthalas39 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the NZ herald isn't indep in this case. Now you've reduced the state on "consultant" to something so weak that its meaningless. In which case, we should leave it out. Consultant strongly suggests professional expertise - there is no evidence of that here. Please stop the meaningless habit of using IPCC reviewer as a "status". It isn't. Its puffery overwhelmingly used by skeptics with no other credentials William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear you are vehemently opposed to this. As a mere third opinion, I will stand aside. However, you may want to work on your debate tone. A tad prickly. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw this page listed on WP:3O, so here's my take. If you look around, the term "climate consultant" has been used to describe other people: Dr. M. R. Morgan, Dr. Keith D. Hage (here), the same two and a bunch more here, and even Al Gore has been described as such. While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed. Does this help? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gone way overboard, and I concur with your stance, especially with your last point. The guy also reviewed the IPCC reports, submitted comments, and is sought by some media to discuss climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you providing any evidence that wiki uses the term to describe people. And the argument "elsewhere, X has been called Y therefore here it is OK to call Z a Y" is obviously nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with the term "climate consultant" in general, though it can be abused. Its amusing that you pick Morgan and Hage [3] since this is a clear example of septics puffing themselves up with meaningless credentials. Similarly, the use of IPCC reviewer as a status (as Ce attempts to use it) is also meaningless. Someone sought by the media is called a "pundit" - I'd be happy with "climate pundit" for Gray - would that be an acceptable compromise? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't call him that. Nobody reliable has. I really feel like the other editors that have come from WP:3O have settled this. There's no reason not to call him a climate consultant given that he's reported as such in at least one reliable source. It's not like the term confers any expertise. It's unreasonable to assume that some record of his consulting work would be reported in a reliable source, as that wouldn't be newsworthy. Oren0 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The 3O people agree that the NZH calling him a CC is merely reporting his self description; henace, as I said before, we have no RS for the claim. We can continue to call him self-described, if you like, though. If you don't like "pundit" then you're dismissing Ce's stuff about media as irrelevant, and I agree there. So we're back to having no RS for him being a "consultant" in any meaningful sense. If you're now saying that his being a consultant isn't notable, then fine: lets leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading their comments with rose colored glasses. User:HelloAnnyong: While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed. User:Tanthalas39: However, with at least one significant source (NZ Herald) referring to him as a climate consultant, I don't see any real reason why he shouldn't be able to claim the title...It seems that the opposition here wants concrete proof that he has made money, signed a contract, walked around with a clipboard, or other things that the proverbial consultant does - but none of that is needed. I really don't see how you have a leg to stand on here. And I didn't say that being a consultant isn't notable, I said it isn't very meaningful. Both people who came from 3O seem to agree with myself and CE: he should be listed without "he claims" as a climate consultant. Do you really want to take this further? We could go the RfC route but I think we both know where it would end up. It's time to bow to the WP:CONSENSUS and let this one go. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have run out of things to say here, certainly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You could always start an RfC... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

I think we're getting away from why he's notable in the opening sentence anyway. He's neither notable for being a coal chemist (which, as stated above, may or may not be his current profession) nor for being a climate consultant. He's notable for being a climate skeptic (he's been interviewed in this regard several times, that's why he survived AfD), author, and head of the NZ Climate science coalition. Therefore, I propose:

Vincent R. Gray is a New Zealand-based global warming skeptic, climate author, and founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Is that acceptable? Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its progress. Don't wiki-link skeptic, it has nothing to do with GWS. I don't think you should air-brush out his former life; the article is about him, not just the recent excitement. How about:

Vincent R. Gray (born London 1922) is a retired coal chemist, New Zealand-based global warming skeptic, climate author, and one of the founders of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More info

I finally found something about him...

Dr. Gray was born 24.3.1922 in London, UK. Won a major scholarship to Emanuel College, Cambridge in Chemistry 1939. First Class Honours degree (B A) in Chemistry 1942, Ph D in 1946, (also M A). Petrocarbon Ltd, Manchester, 1946. Institute Pasteur, Paris, 1947-1949. 1949-1950, amongst the first Post-Doctoral fellows at the National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada. Returned to UK 1950, and worked for National Coal Board, Cheltenham, Timber Research Association, High Wycombe, and Ministry of Works, London. 1970 appointed first Director, Building Research Association of New Zealand. Subsequently forensic scientists with the Department of Scientific Research, and Chief Chemist, Coal Research. 1987 to 1991 I was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and at the Teachers University in Kunming, Yunnan China, [4]

Shall I put it in? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you think it's relevant. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP discourages including birthdates for marginally notable individuals. See Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_birthdays. Since Gray's notability is marginal (at best), I've deleted the d.o.b. His approximate age can be inferred from the dates of his degrees. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. But it does suggest including year of birth. There is little point in leaving people guessing (especially for people with degrees during the war, which could easily delay things) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like "born 1922 in London" should be fine. The mention of London is worthwhile since he's worked in several countries. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

continued reversion of coal chemist...

We are not just talking one paper on coal - here are the rest (which are overkill in the article) [5][6][7][8][9]. He (contrary to what i wrote) has written one science article on climate change [10] (but i'm uncertain as to whether it is peer-reviewed). (E&E is not a hard science journal (and not a WP:RS)). So No. He hasn't published more on climatology. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"He (contrary to what i wrote) has written one science article on climate change [11] (but i'm uncertain as to whether it is peer-reviewed)" It is actually peer reviewed, see here. Maybe worth mentioning along with his book?--70.234.164.224 (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still going on: FG took out Gray has been associated with the Coal Research Association of New Zealand and has written on the chemistry of coal on not-very-plausible grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No source calls Gray a "coal chemist". Reaching that conclusion a chemist once wrote a paper about coal is WP:SYN, as well as an attempt to make this a WP:COATRACK article. If you have a source that specifically mentions his association with a coal organization, it would be proper to list that separately as such. FellGleaming (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On similar grounds, you would argue that calling someone a climate author on the basis of one book is also unreasonable? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you begin the bio of well-known fiction Michael Crichton as "he is a climate author" simply because he wrote one book on climate? (he did, in fact). Gray is a physical chemist with papers on dozens of different subjects. Leading with your phrase "coal chemist" is both WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE that ignores his many other contributions, and a gratuitous attempt to smear by association. If further in the article, you wish to mention he has done research on coal, that can potentially be presented in a balanced manner. FellGleaming (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MC's book on "climate" wasn't. But you have evaded my point: can we call VG a climate author because he has one such pub? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gray's climate credentials also include status as an IPCC expert reviewer, the founding of a climate coalition, and authoring of at least one scholarly paper on climate. But you're still missing the point. Reputable sources call Gray a "climate author" and a "noted climate skeptic". No RS calls Gray a "coal chemist". It a synthesis, invented by you to POV push. FellGleaming (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The "climate coalition" you talk about consists of ..... Gray (as far as i can tell). As for IPCC expert reviewer - its puffery.... If you ask politely the correct place, then you can write this on your CV as well. Yes, there is some synthesis on coal-chemist, but not more than on everything else (Gray isn't very notable, and should really be AfD'd), the papers that he has written are all on coal-chemistry. But i've exchanged it to the verifiable "retired coal energy researcher", even though i prefer coal chemist. Your claim that "reputable sources call" should be referenced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The coalition has a number of scientists, who are called "leading climate scientists" by the same source you reference in the article As for Gray, he's spent the last 20 years focusing on climate, and 20 of the 30 years before that in chemistry areas other than coal. Leading the article with a the "coal" reference is POV pushing, as you're well aware of. As I said earlier, referencing his work with coal later in the article can certainly be done in a neutral manner, but leading the article with a label from an editorial is clearly a NPOV violation. FellGleaming (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! The NZCSC, sorry, i was thinking about his firm/org. - sorry - apparently left the head in another drawer. Now as for Gray and "spending the last 20 years", thats interesting, but unsourced, and apparently also quite unproductive, since he hasn't published any papers on the topic.

Gray's entire career and background was in coal chemistry, that is a base fact, and something that should be in the lede. As for leading with the ""coal" reference", it is not thought or intended as POV, but if you believe that this is wrong - feel free to go back to the established "coal chemist" and without a ref. You are the one who thinks that it is contentious, and thus must be referenced (per WP:V). I'd also rather have some more neutral material to base upon, but as said Gray isn't very notable. It is not an editorial btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that Gray's "entire career" was in coal chemistry? Also, I've said this many time already: If Gray has an association with the coal industry, it's perfectly fine to mention that. But leading the article intro with a label that doesn't fit is WP:UNDUE.

You say Gray is 'not very notable'. If you're not pushing a POV, then why are you so focused on linking a climate skeptic to the fossil fuel industry,? Looking at your contribution history, I see it's almost entirely focused on climate articles. Gray has spent the last 20 years (since his retirement in 1991) focusing on climate. This is not unsourced, and in fact his stint in China (ref. above) was with the Beijing Climate Center. FellGleaming (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Gray is a coal chemist, that has nothing to do with being a sceptic or not. Are you really saying that we should leave out information because it is inconvenient? And you are indicating that i'm pushing a POV? From what i can tell almost all biographies start by saying what the persons profession and background is, and Gray has from what i can calculate been a coal chemist for his entire working life. That is not POV.

Your statement about 1991, fails verification to the two articles linked as references. (no 1991 mentioned in them)

And i see that you've reinstated the reviewer part - despite the fact that everyone else here have tried to explain to you that reviewer: A) doesn't give any credentials B) anyone persistent enough can become so. That is why it isn't mentioned in any article, where the person is a reviewer. As for the Beijing Climate Center, i'm rather confused as to what he was doing there, can you point me at some scientific material that he produced? Some position that he held? Some credentials for the Center? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gray is not a "coal chemist" (whatever that is). He is a chemist who has done research on many areas. If you have a source that claims his "entire background is coal", then put it forth -- but we've already seen sources (including the NZ Herald you yourself put forth as a RS) that demonstrates he has been working in climate for the past 20 years. As for a reference on the Beijing Climate Center that Gray was a visiting professor at for 4 years, here you go:

• http://bcc.cma.gov.cn/en/

FellGleaming (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a large and not very subtle difference between working and having it as a retirement hobby. Working would imply results, and results in science is scientific papers. And Gray hasn't published any such. Can you cite any reliable sources for Gray being a visiting professor in anything related to climate at the Beijing Climate Center? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As for Gray doing research outside of coal chemistry [which is a subbranch of chemistry [12]] - what exactly would that be? His papers are all (afaict) on coal and coal properties - sulphur content, analysis of quality, ash etc. The NZ Herald says he is a "retired coal researcher" who has an interest in climate - not that he is working (science) in the field. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A "hobby" is your slanted, obviously inaccurate view. He's published a book, several papers (Gray, V R 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; Summary for Policymakers Energy and Environment 18, 433-440., for one example). He has been a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center, and a researcher with GNS Science, a NZ Governemnt-owned research organization on the earth sciences. , and spoken at climate conferences. And you call this just "a hobby"?

As for your contention that "anyone can become an IPCC reviewer, given enough persistence", that is not only incorrect, its irrelevant as well. Anyone can become a doctor, given enough persistence, yes? Does that mean we can't give doctors their proper credentials? But not anyone can become an IPCC Expert Reviewer. FellGleaming (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was a hobby - i just haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Anyone can publish a book these days - that doesn't make you an expert or a scholar. As for the papers: The one in E&E is nothing to be proud of, its a trade journal with a slant towards climate change scepticism (see article) - you say: Several papers - how many? Where are they published? And are any of them on science and in a peer-reviewed journal?

As for reviewer: No, it is not incorrect, that anyone can become a reviewer, it doesn't require any expertise. All you have to do is send in a request to a national government agency, and state some interest in the topic, and convince them that you'd be a good prospect. Reviewers are unpayed and volunteers, and a sparse resource. Not many lay-people do so though. I've considered it (just to get a first hand read), but the work-load is simply too great, and i couldn't talk about it anyways (since the reports are confidential, prior to publication).

You are reading the AR4 reference wrong - Gray is not a researcher with GNS science, he isn't affiliated with anything in the AR4 ref. And i'm still asking for a definite reference on what Gray actually did at the BCC, what was he a visiting scholar in? (nb. your ref. isn't reliable for that info) Did he teach? Did he publish any papers?

Take a look at the section on Gray in this[13]

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Energy and Enviroment is not "a trade journal", it is a peer-reviewed publication. Your claim that a paper there is "nothing to be proud of" again displays your personal opinion, rather than a neutral point of view. Thank you for the other reference though, it revealed another peer-reviewed paper of his: "Gray, V. 1998. The IPCC future projections: are they plausible? Climate Research 10: 155-162." That's at least two, plus his IPCC status, a climate book, visiting scholar status as a climate center, and being asked to speak at a climate conference. . . and you call it "just a hobby"?

Further, your claims about being an expert reviewer are far off base. There is no "workload" requirement to being an expert reviewer. If you're accepted, you merely choose (or do not choose) to comment on working drafts. I've spoken personally to a few reviewers, and I myself (with an MS in physics) was unable to obtain similar status. It's not given out to anyone who shows up hat in hand. FellGleaming (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

E&E is a trade-journal according to Scopus, it has a rather bad reputation in climate science (have no idea what it is in other topics), having chosen articles/papers not by accuracy, but by whether they were appealing politically to the editor, that is not personal opinion - its verifiable. As for Climate Research, as Von Storch said at the time, that climate change sceptics "had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common", again not that impressive.

Now as for "his IPCC status" - there is no such thing. I've spoken to authors of the IPCC, an they are the ones who state that reviewer isn't particularly impressive, reviewers can be chosen for political or scientific reasons. As for work-load - you may not take a given consent (to review) as important enough to actually adhere to - but i do... and a review of this magnitude is not something to shake off with the left hand.

Now for the "speak at a climate conference" - which? And about what?

You are still avoiding answering what Gray was doing at the BCC. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that tell us anything about this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed, Academic Journal. And yes, an Expert Reviewer -- as well as an IPCC author or anyone at the IPCC itself -- may be chosen for political, rather than scientific reasons. How else do you rationalize an industrial engineer with no credentials in climate science (Raj Pachauri) being chosen to lead the IPCC? Are you suggesting that Vincent Gray was chosen as a reviewer for his political pull? Even if he was, you're moving the goalposts again in the argument. The US President's Chief of Staff is chosen for political reasons. Does that imply that "anyone who asks politely" can get the job?

Finally, as for what Gray was doing at the Beijing Climate Center, I do not know. I only met Gray once, and I didn't ask at the time. In the context of our discussion, does it really matter? He was chosen to be a visiting scholar there. That alone -- ignoring his book, published papers, speaking appearances, etc -- would qualify his climate background as much more than "a hobby". FellGleaming (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article for E&E - have you noticed btw. that the E&E "paper" is an opinion, and not a science paper?

Re: Reviewer - please see section 1.2 in this, anyone had a chance to be a reviewer. (there is no distinction between expert reviewer and reviewer - they are all called expert reviewers)

I'm not surprised that the head of any organization is chosen from outside the field of the organizations topic- they are after all chosen to do bureaucratic jobs, representation and management - not science (or whatever day-to-day thing that an organization does). From everything i've read, Pachauri is an good manager.

What Gray was doing at the BCC: It matters if you want to use it for anything in the article. Information that originates solely with Gray (as for instance the Solomon art.) is unusable as fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the focus on E&E? I gave you a reference to one of Gray's paper in Climate Science. Surely you don't have a problem with that journal? Regarding your IPCC link, I see nothing in it to support your contention that "anyone can be a reviewer if they ask politely". In fact, the source seems to say just the opposite. Governments and science organizations can nominate candidates, and that "appropriate experts" can also register their interest, but they have to be approved as such. Given the numbers in the article-- 1000 potential candidates, and only 600 expert reviewers estimated to be chosen (and the goverment/scientific body candidates included in that 600) it seems clear that most of the people who request reviewer status are denied.

Regarding Gray's stint at the Beijing Climate Center, I don't think it appropriate to include it in the article without a clear reference to support it. I only mention it to show that labelling Gray's climate work "a hobby" is very far off the mark. FellGleaming (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Incisive new article

Gray appears to have written http://climaterealists.com/?id=5583

shall we include it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More accurate depiction of his views

An earlier draft distorted Gray's views by calling him, in effect, a global warming denier. This is only part of his main position. More broadly, Gray disbelieves in the AGW theory. His disagrees with both aspects of the theory: not just the claim that the earth is warming, but the claim that "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible"

It's important to describe each advocates views fairly, and not to try to discredit them. (Of course, if an advocate for one POV has made attempts to discredit the advocate of an opposing POV, we might need to describe that as a discrediting tactic. Readers are often interested, not only in the reasoning advocates have about scientific and other issues, but also in the ways the characterize their opponents.

I bring this up because in the broader context of the global warming controversy, personal attacks by one side against the other are germane to how people decide how much credibility to give to arguments the various sides make. This discussion, therefore, needs to go a bit beyond the boundaries of only improving this article. My aim is to improve the neutrality of the encyclopedia as a whole, and NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed -- I agree that it is important to properly present a living person's actual opinions using their most general statements in their own words.

I am very very concerned to see that William M. Connolley and Kim Peterson are actively engaged on this climate-science-related BLP page. I intend to re-visit this page regularly to carefully and minutely monitor their activity here and invite others who might have more time and experience to do so as well. --- KipHansen (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

no peer reviewed paper claim on climate science

Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006) - Vincent Gray

ok it is E&E and about physics, sort of! still a peer reviewed paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.2.147 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the expertise to judge this one for myself, but since the claim (that he's 'never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change') has clearly been contested, I've removed it. It shouldn't be restored without a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vincent R. Gray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10409062
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110072412/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Profringe article

This article takes a profringe stance by just expanding on his fringe views on climate change without balancing it with refutations by mainstream science. If we do not have any sources specifically countering him, it needs to go. I'll delete the direct quotes at least. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I wouldn't bother. He wasn't very notable so I doubt you can find much mainstream stuff rebutting him, specifically (though if you can find any such then by all means include it). I think we should just live with pages like this - if the reader can't work out for himself that VG was a fringe nutter, then rebuttals probably won't help William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Childhoodsend in 2007 added a mention of what Mr Gray thought re IPCC. Hob Gadling removed it. I oppose suppressing Mr Gray's opinion and insulting him but will wait and see whether others do. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Everybody can have an opinion on anything, but Wikipedia is not required to add every brainfart to the article about the person who has it. If reliable sources notice it and mention it, then it can be discussed if it is due. If the person just wrote it somewhere, and nobody cared, we wait until some reliable source does care. It's not that difficult.

Climate change denial is fringe, and we have rules about that. You will not get around that fact by pretending that mentioning the fact in articles is an "insult" to the people who hold that fringe view. We treat it the same way as we treat flat-earth beliefs, creationism, or anti-vaccination. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)