Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 13

Scientific work

Hi. Can anyone familiar with the fields that Lindzen has worked in identify major example papers on the topics that he's working in? There are lots to choose from on the subjects that the article lists as his expertise, but I'm reluctant to identify the ones that are most significant (largely because atmospheric science isn't my bag). Furthermore, as has been remarked above by other editors, the article would benefit from expansion on his regular scientific output. A sentence or two on what his tidal work is all about, for instance. It also sounds like there's some pretty interesting stuff in there too (e.g. other planetary atmospheres). --PLUMBAGO 16:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with it either. Browsing google scholar, I'd go for:

• Atmospheric tides S Chapman, RS Lindzen, VM Canuto, S Chapman - 1970 (maybe his Ph D work?; hold on: Thermally driven diurnal tide in the atmosphere RS Lindzen - Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 1967 is earlier. Even earlier: Thermally driven diurnal tide in the atmosphere RS Lindzen - Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, 1967 )

insert This should be: Chapman, S. and R.S. Lindzen (1970). Atmospheric Tides: Thermal and Gravitational. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Press. pp. 200. Google Books Preview here. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• A Theory of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation RS Lindzen, JR Holton 1968
• Loads of dynamics stuff, like Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator RS Lindzen, AV Hou - Journal of the atmospheric sciences, 1988
• More recently, and controversially, Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? RS Lindzen, MD Chou, AY Hou - Bulletin of the American Meteorological …, 2001 (and other papers doubting the std ideas of water vapour feedback).

Those account for most of the areas his bio [1] lists, except for He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact for which I can't find a good example. (1965) The radiative-photochemical response of the mesosphere to fluctuations in radiation. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 469-478 maybe but that is mesospheric and little cited William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Plumbago, please have a look at the draft I have written for the early work. It's not all accurate and can't be just added wholesale, but it'll give you a good start. I gave up due to the sheer difficulty of the work on atmospheric dynamics. (There is a link to it on my user page.)

insert Here is the link to my draft: [2]. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

William, there is far more work in there on climate change than you are admitting here. There was the cloud parameterisation work with E.K. Schneider that I believe is still used in the ECHAM series of GCM models and probably others that derive from Tiedtke; there was his work on the ice age cycle; his now refuted Lindzen/Sun hypothesis on the water vapour feedback; his work on the effects of volcanoes with Giannitsis; his 1982 paper on the sensitivity of model choice to doubling of CO2; other 1970s work on the stability of climate; the Lindzen/Choi 2009 hypothesis; and of course and very obviously his work with the IPCC TAR and the NAS Climate Change panel. And this is what I can tell you just from memory. On ozone photochemistry, I believe his most important contribution was the widely cited paper by Lindzen & Blake. I think it's true that he was the first to try this sort of modelling, which I guess is justification for calling it "pioneering" work. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it led to any ground breaking discoveries, so probably it may be presented misleadingly in the article at the moment. Atmospheric tides had nothing to do with his Ph.D thesis; that was the ozone-photochemical modelling.) Alex Harvey (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In this The Debate: Climate I: Is the Debate Over? Hadi Dowlatabadi, Research chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia, acknowledges Lindzen as a world leading expert in cloud physics. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrarian / contrarianism

The article presently contains the following problematic text:

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[26][27][28][29] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." [30] This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. 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"[31] – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.[32]

The problems with the text are many, so I'll just focus on the problems with Wikipedia's voice stating, "X has been characterized as a contrarian...".

1) As with most of the participants in the climate change debate, Lindzen has been characterized as everything: a denier, a contrarian, a shill, a skeptic, a scientist, and a modern-day Galileo. Likewise, there are probably no climate change skeptics who have not been characterised as "contrarians", as one of Kim's quotes above showed: "Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates, Sherwood Idso, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels" (M.T. Boykoff in the Geological Society Special Publication piece).

2) So what is a "contrarian" then, and how does it differ from a skeptic? It would be difficult for me to pin down exactly what the word means in the context of the climate change debate, but it is certainly intended to convey that one's sincerity is less than it would be if he was just a scientist who happened to disagree with the consensus. In other words, the word is not neutral; it is a loaded term. There is no way of objectively showing that a person is a contrarian. Anyone who calls someone a contrarian is merely expressing an opinion.

Simpler:

1) we have a lack of relevance (=lack of weight): every skeptic has been called a "contrarian" and likewise Lindzen has been called everything, so the reader wants to know, so what? What's the point you're trying to make here, Wikipedia?

2) the language is not neutral (=POV): "contrarian" is a subjective term, and as the term that may lead the reader to question Lindzen's sincerity, it's a subjective term with negative connotations.

As this is a BLP, BLP policy applies, and we have an urgent requirement to get the article right. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt Contrarian just another way to say rebel? Although from websters it seems to be more to do with stock investors?

Extended content
Main Entry: con·trar·i·an Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtrer-ē-ən, kän-\ Function: noun Date: 1657 a person who takes a contrary position or attitude; specifically : an investor who buys shares of stock when most others are selling and sells when others are buying — contrarian adjective — con·trar·i·an·ism \-ə-ˌniz-əm\ noun

mark nutley (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that definition up to the semicolon is okay, although we'd probably need access to the present edition of one of those multi-volume dictionaries you can only find in libraries. What matters, I think, is how the word is used in the context of the climate change debate, rather than how it was actually defined in the pre-Hansen era. One thing is certain: whatever it means, it is not a neutral term. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I collapsed the dictionary thing, it was a tad spread out lol. I think you need to look at it in context, hansen said lindzen was a contrarian because he disagrred with him. I don`t think it was meant as an insult at the time the way it appears to be now. So i am unsure of what to do. Hansen said it, it is reliably sourced, i don`t think it matters if that stays in tbh mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I don't know what Hansen himself has said. By "Hansen era", I simply meant the historical era of the climate change debate, which I'm arbitrarily suggesting began in June 1988 when Hansen appeared in the US Senate. I have no idea if Hansen himself has called Lindzen a "contrarian". I can understand why you wouldn't think it matters that much, because it is a minor point in the scheme of things. I am, however, trying to get this particular BLP right. Once I've done that, I plan to use it as a template to get all the other ones right too -- including biographies of the likes of Phil Jones & Rajendra Pachauri. It seems pedantic, I know, but I can assure you, this text would never get into a real encyclopaedia, where you'd find some far more pedantic-sounding discussions than this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex, it is reliably sourced, and you know that may more reliable sources can be attached to that sentence. You can take some from the list i've provided. BLP articles does not mean articles without criticisms or "negative" statements - it means that criticism and "negative" statements have to be extra carefully sourced. And this is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, one of the sources is this slanderous piece of hate speech here. That is a blog posting, not a reliable source. In any case, to keep it simple I have ignored the reliability of the sourcing in this argument here and focused on two main points: (1) it fails weight; and (2) it is not neutral. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(I have removed that source from the article now.) Alex Harvey (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, when you get back to this, please respond to the main point, (1) (assuming you do wish to continue). Alex Harvey (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against the removal of a single reference, there are plenty available (as shown). I do object to your labelling it "slanderous piece of hate speech" though (even though i'm rather certain that i wasn't the one who added it), especially since you are commenting on an author, who is also covered under BLP. (play it fair dude) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kim, I didn't say you added it and I didn't suspect you added it either. It is slanderous, and it is hateful. Now, will you be so good as to respond on point. That's point (1) above. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to the point. Now please refactor your BLP vio on Kit Stolz ... [you can remove this comment when you've done so] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will shortly have to escalate this issue to the BLP/N or some other noticeboard (that is the Lindzen BLP issue). Alternatively, you can choose at this point to contribute constructively rather than disruptively. Please respond to the point of this thread, point (1). Alex Harvey (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently see the Stolz blog post listed as a source for any information in this article. So, what exactly is the problem here? Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not limited to article space, and the trouble is that Alex is making rather serious allegations about Stolz. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because BLP policy states - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Grist is not a news organization. And Grist "full editorial control" is summed up on the website as "Start writing now! No hassles, hardly any questions asked! You'll get immediate exposure, the joy of seeing your name in lights, perhaps a moment or two of fleeting fame".Momento (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated i have no objections against the removal of that particular reference. Btw. the Grist "start writing now" line is for commentary on stories - not for their journalistic aspects[3]. Here btw. is a bio of Stolz[4]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex Harvey, I have read your comments and tried to understand your objections. Unfortunately, I have found them lacking in clarity, and failing to produce actual evidence that the cited policies have been violated as claimed.

1) Your argument is based on the assertion that "Lindzen has been characterized as everything: a denier, a contrarian, a shill, a skeptic, a scientist, and a modern-day Galileo". The first part of this statement is sweeping to the point of meaninglessness ("everything") and the second, more specific part is not backed by evidence - can you present as many reliable sources describing Lindzen as a modern-day Galileo as those describing him as a contrarian? If so, we surely could consider mentioning that view in the article, too.

2) The term can certainly be understood in a more objective sense than you suggest, namely as describing someone who habitually takes a stand against the prevailing opinion, i.e. in this case not only with regard to global warming, but also, say, lung cancer. (Which also shows that the Boykoff quote does not support your argument 1), since it talks only about "Climate contrarians", without telling us whether these people are adherents of the mainstream views in other fields.) To quote from one of the cited sources [5], which is even titled "The Contrarian":

“If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus,” said Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, a former student of Lindzen’s at MIT. “You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong.”

He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong,” Kirk-Davidoff continued. “If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that.”

The same article also mentions Lindzen's success at portraying himself as the principled underdog, a David against the Goliath of the scientific mainstream. All this shows that the insinuation it is certainly intended to convey that one's sincerity is less is entirely your own and presumably even Lindzen himself wouldn't agree with this negative interpretation.

But even if one ignores these problems with your argument and focuses on its conclusion, the language is not neutral (=POV): "contrarian" is a subjective term, it does not make sense as an objection to the current article version: The text does not call Lindzen a contrarian, it only says that he has been characterized as such - an entirely objective statement. WP:NPOV does not forbid reporting notable opinions (on the contrary, it requires us to do so). You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, that these sources (USA Today, Seed magazine, the scientists quoted by the Seattle Times and Outside magazine) are wrong and that Lindzen is not a contrarian. But until you get your view to a similar level of notability (by having it published in a reliable source, etc.), we will have to restrict coverage in the article to the view that you are disagreeing with.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, it seems you have skimmed through some of the issues, and I apologise if I haven't been clear. I haven't spelt out the policy violations line and verse yet as most of the editors here know the policies pretty well. Okay, as you've written quite a lot of text here, it'd take me quite a while to write up a response that properly addresses all the points you've made. Instead, I'll apologise in advance for not responding and return instead with a question: Do you believe that Lindzen habitually -- these are your words -- takes contrary positions on arguments, in the same way that, I suppose, a kleptomaniac "habitually" steals things from others? Or, if not in the same way, then how would you say his habitual contrary stance differs from that of the habitual theft of the kleptomaniac? Apologies that this is a round about way of getting back to the policy, but I'll return to WP:WEIGHT in a moment. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(If you're uncertain about where this is going, I'll also get you to look up WP:INDISCRIMINATE: ...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I point this out because you appear to have argued, because the "contrarian" may be verifiable per WP:V (I don't think it is but I'm not going there yet) it is automatically suitable for inclusion, whether I happen to agree or not.) Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that Lindzen ... I am a bit puzzled by that question. Didn't I just argue that our own opinions about Lindzen do not matter in this debate?

I am even more surprised at the introduction of kleptomania into this discussion, and am trying hard to interpret it differently than as an attempt to discredit the rather innocent, factual term "habitually". In my understanding, it denotes nothing more than a recurring activity, a persistent trait - in other words, exactly the kind of thing that should be covered in biographies (as opposed to one-off events that are not characteristic of the subject). For example, one could say that Mother Teresa "habitually" picked dying people off the streets of Calcutta.

Or to mention examples closer to the subject area at hand: Richard Feynman or Wolfgang Pauli certainly had a contrarian streak: They habitually questioned and criticized things that most of their peers accepted. In both cases, this is a well-known and important fact about their personality and scientific activity which is mentioned in most biographies and indeed alluded to in both Wikipedia articles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see why I would try to discredit the word "habitual." It's a fine word. It can have two meanings, according to the Mirriam-Webster: doing, practicising, or acting in some manner by force of habit, e.g. habitual drunkenness or inherent in an individual, e.g. habitual grace. That is, it either means something good, or it means something bad. Habitual altruism (Mother Teresa) is a good thing, whereas habitual substance abuse, e.g. a smoking habit, is probably bad.

You note that Feynman and Pauli have been observed to have "contrarian streaks." I don't doubt it, even though their articles don't say so. I don't believe that you could be a great scientist and not have a contrarian streak.

So what is really being said when various people call Lindzen a "contrarian"? You've mentioned Kirk-Davidoff, but a careful reading of the source suggests that he was quoted out of context (you'll note that it is the only text in the article attributed to Kirk-Davidoff). K-D himself appears to have meant something positive, and in a context that is hidden from us. But generally, how is the term used when applied to Lindzen? The answer is, it is generally used in a pejorative sense, and takes a meaning which is peculiar to the climate change debate (where it is usually used as a euphemism for "denier.")

So coming back to weight, then, what do we have on this really? If you go through KDP's six sources, you'll find it's not as simple as his quotes suggest. The word is indeed used against Lindzen, but in incompatible senses, that none of this is captured in the present article. Wallace & Kirk-Davidoff clearly mean the positive sense of "contrarian" that all great scientists have. Others clearly meant the pejorative sense of the person who just refuses to admit he's wrong, or is an industry funded denier (e.g. the Boykoff clearly uses this latter sense, which is completely incompatible with Wallace & Kirk-Davidoff). Of the sources, we have just one source which actually looks in depth into the question of Lindzen's contrarianism, but that source is not reliable; it's published by an environmentalist with an obvious agenda. Subtracting that source, we have nothing. So there's no weight.

Given that we have ~ 600 words for a great man's career and accomplishments, how can we possibly justify a wishy-washy section on alleged contrarianism on the basis of this sketchy source material? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, have you reconsidered the matter now? If so, are you going to say something? If not, are you going to say why you stand by your original arguments? Although I said above that I "expect" to be having these same arguments come 1/1/2011, it's certainly not my wish. What I'd really like to be doing come 1/1/2011 is using the arguments and precedents set by the discussions at this page to bring sanity to the other climate change BLPs. E.g. I would rather be spending that time demonstrating my good faith and fixing Phil Jones's or Kevin Trenberth's biographies. Right now, Phil Jones's article is an article about Climategate, and that isn't fair either, and for all the same reasons that Lindzen's biography is not fair. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC #1: Section on 'Statistical significance of recent warming'

This RFC follows from the above thread Talk:Richard_Lindzen#No_statistically_significant_warming_since_1995.

An editor has, after failing to build a consensus above, added the following section, which I reproduce verbatim:

Statistical significance of recent warming

Writing in Newsweek in 2007, he stated "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." [19] In a paper presented to the Competitive Enterprise Institute Lindzen referred to the "warming episode from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s" and the "fact that the global temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties" as evidence against climate models.[20] An open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, signed by Lindzen includes the statement "there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."[21] More recently, he has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and restated this as "warming has ceased for the past fourteen years".[22][23]

Other climate change advocates have supported this editor by restoring the material when it has been reverted.

Summary of problems:

1) Extremely WP:UNDUE emphasis on passing statements of a minor fact: I believe that the four sentences appearing in this article are of only a few statements that Lindzen has made to this effect.

2) Quote-mining (see WP:SYN): The text is classic quote mining that draws four sentences from four disparate sources, each removed from its original context, and presents Lindzen, falsely, as a believer that "global warming ceased in ~ 1998". In fact, Lindzen's well known view is that global warming is naturally caused, that increases in CO2 should lead to small increases in surface temperature, with no strong view on whether or not warming will continue into the 21st century.

3) Violation of WP:STRUCTURE: it is not clear why this section has been given its own subsection. Lindzen has published at least 230 papers, and many op-eds, and not one of them has been devoted to what is referred to in this subheading.

For his part, John Quiggin has argued that because there has been such a great deal of media furor surrounding this little fact of lack of statistically significant warming since 1995 (which has in fact been generated largely by Phil Jones's recent concession in a BBC interview that it is true and also presumably from revelations in the Climategate letters that other scientists like Kevin Trenberth have also worried about this privately), the section therefore derives a lot of weight indirectly.

I have said that this is a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.

Note: editor John Quiggin is an environmental activist and author of the recent Lindzen attack pages 'Lindzen and “No statistically significant warming since 1995″' cross-posted at his blog and Crooked Timber.

Presently, Professor Lindzen's article is grotesquely skewed to presenting his climate change skepticism at the expense of his career and contributions to mankind's scientific knowledge.

I therefore seek consensus to have this material completely removed, so that I can return to the task of having trimmed the bloated media appearances section and other sections to lengths that are consistent with our WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP policies. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses from Previously Involved Editors

• Comment I will leave this discussion to others. For the record though, User:Alex Harvey appears to be the only editor who has maintained an objection, while numerous others supported it in talk or re-included it after Alex Harvey's deletions. I don't think, therefore, that I was editing against consensus, or having failed to build a consensus among editors other than Alex Harvey.JQ (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Those editors supported you only after you had already added your material, which in turn occurred after you had firstly failed to build a consensus, which is exactly what I said, and this will be clear to anyone who can be bothered reading the above thread. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gasp. That's how WP works. When are you going to realize that? -Atmoz (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Atmoz. It may be how Wikipedia works -- in the climate change pages -- but it's definitely not how it's supposed to work. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No. In all of Wikipedia, edits are made without prior consensus. There is no requirement that consensus be made before making an edit. How many times does this have to be said to you before you understand? I know I've told you several times. I'm beginning to think you're just being obtuse. -Atmoz (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, there is nothing wrong with making a WP:BOLD edit without consensus. That, however, is not what happened here, and it is not what we are talking about. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Alex. I think it is WP:SYN. A few quotes taken from many hundreds of words and arranged to make paragraph. The whole paragraph should be deleted and anything important inserted elsewhere.Momento (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses from Previously Uninvolved Editors

• Support inclusion of material — I can see no problems with sourcing or weight, and it's very interesting stuff that helps readers get a handle on what RL is saying. These are not "minor" facts. I can hardly think of more major pronouncements he could make. If there is quote mining, you have not shown it up by quoting RL saying the opposite. So if the quotes accurately reflect his opinions, and they seem to, you cannot call is SYN (which relates to marrying several unrelated facts/sources to come up with a novel conclusion, which is not happening as far as I can see). Your STRUCTURE objection is simply a fishing expedition. ► RATEL ◄ 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, would you be willing to make it transparent here that you are in fact a climate change activist from www.350.org and not a neutral, completely uninvolved editor here? When you write, "if the quotes accurately reflect his opinions, and they seem to...", I should say, I do believe this is probably your sincerely held view (so I assume good faith), but that you are wrong on this point, because you don't have any actual knowledge of, or interest in, Lindzen's views. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of material - I'm uninvolved on this issue, but involved on other issues for this article. JQ's reasons are persuasive. Lindzen is the best that the climate skeptic/denial camp has, sadly, so his arguments on these issues are far more notable than his scientific work of past decades. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, the problem is, though, that John hasn't given any reasons that are based on policy. You might like John's reasons, but that doesn't mean his reasons are consistent with policy. Are you saying that you believe, in fact, that his reasons are consistent with policy? If so, what is it that I have misunderstood? Please refer to a policy. You appear to be explicitly arguing that we should, in fact, use this article as a WP:COATRACK for the argumentation/refutation of climate change skepticism. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The policies are notability and weight - it satisfies both. This stuff is a major reason why Lindzen is wiki material and no more of a coatrack than to talk about his prior work when he did accepted science. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, you say that "[t]his stuff is a major reason why Lindzen is wiki material". I ask, "What stuff?" Are we talking about the same section or are you talking about something totally unrelated? How could this stuff be a major reason Lindzen is Wiki material when Lindzen has been advocating for climate stability for at least 20 years and this stuff just blew up in the media less than a month ago (and of course the blow up is about Jones and has almost nothing to do with Lindzen). Do you really want to say that with a straight face? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think that this is a simple yes or no question about including this material. First, one of the sources, NowPublic, doesn't appear to be a reliable source, but the rest appear to be reliable. Second, the paragraph obviously is synthesis, but I personally think synthesis is ok within reason. Many articles in Wikipedia include synthesis, but no one complains because they don't dispute what the synthesis is saying. Third, the text obviously is cherry picking quotes from those sources. So, what I would suggest is simply trying to figure out how you want those sources represented in this article. What do you think the main message of each is? How should they be summarized or synthesized in this articles? In short, I suggest removing the paragraph in question and discussing each source in turn and how to present the information contained in each in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. On your point 2) I suppose that synthesis to an extent is unavoidable, and simply reflects the reality that we really are researchers, or at least should be, and not automata. So I agree; it is silly to pretend that we don't ever do original research. Again, the problem is that this particular piece of original research is flawed, and presents the reader with a distorted impression of Lindzen's views. On your point 3) thank you, yes, the text is obviously cherry picking, and I have no in principle agreement to having the article actually present Lindzen's actual views, as you said, providing we can return to focus on the overall balance of the whole. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Removal Per wp:weight and what alex has stated above. I also believe Quiggin has been asked to leave this blp alone after [6] this came to light mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Given the series of personal attacks here, would Alex and Mark like to comment on this Climate Audit post criticising Wikipedia [7]. In comments, someone signing as Alex Harvey calls for assistance on this article. JQ (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment This page is on my watch list, and i do not actually visit climate audit. I would also ask you to redact your wp:npa of calling me a spa and to remove yourself from this talkpage per my reason given above. Your wp:coi is now well known and i am stunned you still have the cheek to post here mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, Mark, you're saying that you're not a reader of or commenter at CA or similar 'sceptical' blogs, recruited by an appeal similar to that I've noted, but rather an independent editor with no axe to grind. On the assumption that this is the case, I've redacted as requested.JQ (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, i looked through the thread you link to at CA, the last post there is posted Rich Posted Feb 7, 2010 at 5:11 Were exactly is this alex harvey post? mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment is [8] -- Unsigned edit by JQ.

Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM How does that post coincide with my posting on this RFC? That was posted months ago. As i said i do not post nor visit CA, i have read and posted at Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That however i maintain a wp:npov with regards to articles, and i fail to were i post gives you leave to make PA`s. You say you have radacted it yet i still see it up there mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I was not criticising Wikipedia, but the unethical behaviour of individual editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the battleground mentality of most climate change articles, I'd really like to see the input of editors who are truly uninvolved in the wider debate, rather than hearing from the usual suspects whose opinion you could easily deduce anyway. I support inclusion, but acknowledge that by my own reasoning there are less involved editors than myself. Although I don't see any evidence Mark was involved, the off-site canvassing on a "skeptical" blog by Alex demonstrated above is a very serious concern. StuartH (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuart, your reasoning for inclusion is based on ... ? Did you consult an oracle this morning? Can you please comment constructively and base your response on Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. Alex Harvey (talk)

My comment was just that -- a comment, not a vote one way or the other. I stand by my two main points, that we need less involved editors than those above, and that your off-site canvassing is extremely inappropriate. As for including the section, I believe the appeals to WP:UNDUE are unjustified because Lindzen's "skepticism" is clearly significant as is his minority position on the significance of recent warming. It's clearly not synthesis or original research either, since it's almost a straight presentation of his own quotes. If you would like to use reliable sources to improve the context, please make a constructive suggestion on how to do so. StuartH (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment included a sentence, "I support inclusion", but doesn't anywhere give a reason. Please add the reason. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do so next time. Please see my follow-up post above for my reasoning. StuartH (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)