Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 14

Looking at WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD
(moving left) Let's look at WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD and the article's content, shall we? As a guideline, the lead should roughly represent the content of the article. WP:LEAD specifically says that the lead section should describe the notable controversies. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that we'd expect the controversies and criticism to get coverage in the lead proportional to the coverage in the article. The main body of the article is about 4500 words. Of that, about 1700 words (38%) of the article is found under Criticism or Controversy. The lead section is 203 words. Of that, one brief 12 word sentence (5.9%) has any mention at all of criticism or controversy. Compare that to Elhector's last revision, in which there are 46/237 (19.4%, half as much as in the article) words regarding criticism/controversy. And yet somehow KDP feels that Elh's revision is "out of proportion" with the article. Care to explain how the lead having half as much reference to criticism as the main article is "out of proportion"? Oren0 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right Oren0 - we have been far too lax - and included criticism and controversy far outside the weight that they actually merit. What do you propose that we cut? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I formally disagree. And who is the "we" you speak of, as if "you" are in control of this page and "allow" us to make edits?  Is there some politicing going on here that the rest of us should be aware of?  --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one interpretation. But if you really think that we'd get the criticism down to 265 words (5.9% of the article) that they're currently given in the lead, you're kidding yourself.  That's about the proportion of the article that currently deals with South Park, Futurama, and The Simpsons.  I don't understand how you can argue that the proper weight of criticism/controversy is 5%.  For the benefit of others, the proposed sentence that Elh added is: "Since the film's release it has generated controversy in regards to the recent English High Court case, the debate concerning whether or not the film should be shown in public schools, and among Global warming skeptics who have criticized the film, calling it "exaggerated and erroneous".[7][8]"  I think I've demonstrated that, barring a complete overhaul of the article, it's not unreasonable from a WP:WEIGHT perspective to include one sentence of this length in the lead.  Does anyone have any other objections to including this sentence or something similar?  Not to sneak another argument in with this one, but as long as we're talking about cutting does anyone oppose removing the sentence about schools in Norway from the lead? Oren0 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The NSTA section needs to be severely cut - the summary of the British court case is overlong - and the two resolved school issues, should probably be cut entirely. I think we agree that the Livestock part should at the most be a sidenote.
 * In general we should try to remove the criticism and controversy sections - and cook them down into weighted descriptions that covers both criticism and response, praise and responses etc. As per this. As it is the controversy/criticism sections have been dumping grounds for information without considering the relative merit or weight. (Nb: i've cut the N+S info, which certainly doesn't belong in the lead - but might be covered in a section on education (with both critique and this). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I formally disagree on all counts. --GoRight (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is shown that there were 9 scientific errors in the film and that the movie could only be shown in schools as long as teachers "point out controversial or disputed sections" in this article --Lucky Mitch (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the community thinks that this is notable, then it should by all means go in the article. But, in a way that shows controversial nature, not tells. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not "shown" that there were 9 errors. It has been decided in a british court that the film contained 9 "errors" (note scare-quotes) that had to be followed by a teachers guidance if the film should be shown in british schools. Most of these 9 are actually "errors" by omission. ie. without additional information they could be misleading. For instance Gore says that the sea's would rise 20 feet if Greenland were to melt - which is entirely correct - but Gore doesn't put a timeframe on it - so students could misunderstand this as being in the immediate future (which is incorrect). See: Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills (or for that matter the article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction, without this guidance the "errors" are politically biased and ARE misleading. There is no "could be" about it. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No - you need to actually read the reference and the court-documents - because your apparent understanding of this is severely flawed. The "errors" were'nt deemed "politically biased" as you say. They were judged as deviating from the IPCC consensus, and thus required teachers guidance to ensure that the pupils received proper information on what the IPCC consensus actually said. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not look at this through rose-colored glasses. Based on the court findings, only errors 1, 9, and perhaps 4 (as they're numbered in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills) could faithfully be called "errors of omission."  Oren0 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need rose-colored glasses - 3: Gore doesn't say that it will shut down (error by omission), 4:is "complicated" doesn't claim anything (error by ?), 5: Gore's statement is correct. Even if K. might be from other causes. (error by simplification?) 6: Gore doesn't go into detail (error by omission) 7: Gore simply doesn't say that K. is caused by AGW - he uses the "harbinger" argument. (error by using a contentions subject?). 9: Error by simplification. ..... All in all only #2 can be considered an error (without scare-quotes). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is that the court called them "errors". Period. --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But then you fail to understand why there are quotes around errors. These are called "errors" because the claimant had put them down as such - the court consistantly refers to these not as errors - but as "errors". And specifies that these aren't (at least not all) errors. Again - perhaps its time to read the court documents? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Gore didn't mean to suggest that Lake Chad, Kilimanjaro, or Katrina were due to AGW? Then why were they even in the film?  And while 3 and 4 may not explicitly say anything incorrect (I don't have a transcript or a copy of the film in front of me to review the whole sections), we both know what these sections imply to people who don't know better.  To call them not errors is a large stretch.  Same thing with the 20ft.  When you show that number in the trailer and you show Florida under water (using today's population numbers to talk about refugees), what do you expect people to think?  That you're talking about something that could happen after 2100?  It's all relative anyway, Monckton counts 35 errors, so it all depends who you talk to.  But this whole argument is straying off topic anyway. Oren0 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't seen the film have you? Or read the transcript? Because Gore doesn't say that Katrina was due to AGW - he specifically uses the "harbinger of whats to come" argument. Nor does he say that Lake Chad was primarily caused by AGW (he specifically states that AGW is only one of several causes here...) and so on. What you are interpreting Oren0 is not what Gore is saying - but what he is "implying"... While you may be correct in that - its subjective not objective. Objectively none of these are errors. And please spare me Monckton will you? What on Earth makes you think that Monckton is reliable - especially since he can be caught in blatant lies (not subjective lies - objective lies). Btw. notice that Mockton is making exactly the same error that he claims Gore is doing in #13 (and even worse - since Gore says "there is a growing consensus ....") - whereas Monckton claims that it has been debunked that hurricanes will get stronger. And that is incorrect. There is a very good reason that the judge didn't use the other "errors" (mostly because they are either wrong - or severely misleading). #18 about the NW-passage is 100% wrong --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the high court appears to disagree with your esteemed assessment as they referred to them as "errors". I think we should stick with the court's assessment rather than yours when discussing the high court ruling.  --GoRight (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the high court disagrees with the implication here that the 'errors' in quotes are genuine scientific errors. The judge states "It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407".  The 'errors' are essentially seen as content deviating from a mainstream view.  Scientists have disputed some portions of this ruling.  Kim's commentary above covers some of this. Gmb92 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether the court ruled on the validity of the science, or not. They clearly didn't, but the did refer to these nine points as "errors" so it seems appropriate to stick with what they actually say rather than trying to re-write their decision.  The points in question were deemed to be politically biased and in need of mandatory explanation before the films could be shown in UK schools.  Those are the facts so that it what we should stick to here.  --GoRight (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And noone is arguing that we shouldn't refer to these 9 "errors" as "errors". But the context has to be correct. As for your statment that the points in question where "deemed to be politically biased", that is incorrect. They were deemed to be deviating from the established consensus (the IPCC) - and thus required guidance from the teacher (not "mandatory" explanations - which is your own invention). Your "facts" seem to be quite a bit biased. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The case in question and the court's ruling were both made under statutes related to removing political bias in the materials used in UK schools, were they not? This is the fact of the matter, is it not?  Therefore the entire case and the court's admonition are entirely premised on the fact that statements in the movie were politically biased.  The source of that bias, as you point out, was the deviation from the scientific consensus.  Any ruling under the applicable statutes requiring action before the film could be shown in UK schools demonstrates a political bias ... at least in the opinion of court or the court would have no basis for making any ruling at all.  My facts, it seems, are directly in line with the law in question and this is a fact that you seem to want to ignore.  --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No - the errors were primarily addressed under 407 not 406. (406 is the partisan political part). I once again must ask you to actually read the court papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is such a waste of time as I am sure you are aware of what I am going to point out here. I quote from item 2 at the top of the decision:


 * "406. The local education authority, governing body and head teachers shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.


 * 407. The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are


 * (a) in attendance at a maintained school, or


 * (b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school


 * they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views."


 * Note my use of italics is to highlight the relevant portions of the text only.


 * Both 406 and 407 are directly concerned with political bias and, therefore, any action requiring attention under these statutes is clearly an indication that a political bias was involved. Neither of the statutes allows for court action based on any other rationale than political bias.  And just to make the point even more clear the Judge found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."  Thus the only thing that was found to be a "problem" relative to the statutes referenced above were the nine "errors" and given the nature of the statutes as quoted above the "problem" was one of being politically biased, as I said.


 * Finally, quoting from item 19 of the decision:


 * "Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:


 * i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].


 * ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407]."


 * we find that the Judge is expressing the exact same point that I have been raising throughout. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Google Discussion
Replicating discussion from TGGWS talk page to maintain a consistent view:


 * Looking over the first page of "+"controversial" +"controversy" for either movie, 7 out of 10 call TGGWS "a controversial X" ("movie", "documentry",...) in the 2 line preview. 0 out of 10 do so for AIT, and indeed two or three contain phrases like "there's no such widespread controversy surrounding this film". I'm not impressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This effect is simply because the media have picked up a specific phrasing and replicated it. If a particular page is discussing AIT within the context of being controversial, or not, it is by definition controversial.  If someone is trying to argue that AIT is NOT controversial then they are defending against someone who does.  So even negative hits such as the one you point out are still valid hits in terms of the film being controversial.--GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, "An inconvenient truth is a controversial" yields 7 hits, while "The great global warming swindle is a controversial" yields 927 (and AIT generates 4.5 times more hits than TGGWS). Still not impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular query is horribly biased because it completely eliminates any pages that legitimately discuss AIT within the context of being controversial but don't happen to use that exact phrasing, while at the same time playing into the tendency of the media to pick up news feeds and replicate specific phrasings such as the one applied to TGGWS in this case. --GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not claim that my queries have no false hits. If there are some specific phrases that appear to be biasing these results in a systematic way we can easily eliminate that bias by explicitly excluding those phrases.  I would think that this is a preferable approach to obtaining an objective dataset than picking a specific phrase that is almost guaranteed to introduce just such a systematic bias.  Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anybody share my feeling that the duplication of this discussion is getting pointy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not only be happy but would prefer to discuss all of this in one place. But since this discussion inherently involves BOTH AIT and TGGWS I am frequently confronted with requests such as these:


 * These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. [...] Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please keep the two articles seperate? Each has its own merits - and each have their own problems. Stick to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am only putting it in both places because the same data applies to both articles and I was trying to address the request above (i.e. by discussing the AIT merits here and the TGGWS merits there). If you have a suggestion for how to make everyone happy I am all ears. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't. Not to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that often issues here and at TGGWS are not handled in a way that seems consistent.  I understand the desire to keep separate articles separate, but when the same editors come to seemingly contradictory positions here and there, it gets frustrating.  Consistency among these articles is something we should strive for. Oren0 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Queries to Provide Objective Data on Purported Levels of Controversy
A discussion regarding the use of Google queries to attempt to compare the controversial nature of An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle is taking place at the link above. The discussion was originally in two places but has been consolidated at Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is also cross-listed here for the convenience and to receive input from the editors of this page. Oren0 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fine with me. I was going to suggest something comparable before all the censorship kicked in.  This is especially true now that KDP has reversed his request to discuss things in separate pages.  Assuming that I don't misunderstand his points below.  --GoRight (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Coincidence
Hey, I just found a great movie review site. Things to note there:


 * 1) The site lists 32 reviews by professional movie critics. Collectively their reviews gave a weighted average score of 75 out of 100 for AIT.  When I was in school a 75 out of 100 was like C or C- range.  :)
 * 2) The site also includes user ratings (which are not included as part of the 75). User's rate the movie on a 0 to 10 scale.  It currently lists 173 votes with an average rating of 8.7 out of 10.

I find the latter point very interesting. 173 self-selected but otherwise random votes for the movie and the result comes out at 8.7 out of 10. When the typical user gives a rating it is sort of like an indication of how much they like/agree with the movie. Given the nature of the content this should be a fairly good proxy for how "controversial" the movie is. I know you'll quibble with this view but I think you understand my point here.

So why would the 8.7 figure be interesting in this light? Well it is like saying that the movie is 87% "liked/agreed with" and 13% "not liked/not agreed with". This is pretty close to saying 87% "not controversial" and 13% "controversial". 13% controversial. Hmmm. That sounds sort of familiar. Oh, I know, my Google queries pegged the general level of controversy at 15.8%. 13%? 16%?  Same ball park for a SWAG as far as I can see. I just find that to be An Inconvenient Coincidence. :)

Note that the "professional reviewers" were much more "critical" with an even less favorable 75/25 split, but I know those opposed won't see it that way. Please let us all know why. --GoRight (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also find it interesting that a movie (according to the lead) that was "well received by film critics" got only a 75%, including low scores from the NY Post, Village Voice, Variety, and The Chicago Tribune, among others. Oren0 (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that controversial is a more than appropriate label for the film (just look at the controversy on this talk page). But this is not really a valid argument to push the point. How do we know the motives of the reviewers to be political? They could just as easily have given it a negative review for, say, the special effects in the polar bear sequence (quite possibly the most ridiculous tearjerk ever committed to film). ~ S0CO ( talk 04:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is easy. Read their reviews.  There are only 32 of them.  The site includes key quotes from each.  Obviously the movie critics were not only discussing the political aspects of the film, they are, after all, movie critics (and thus reviewers by trade).  The people who tended to write poor reviews also tended to mention the politics while those that gave 100's did not.  This is actually a pretty good view into the politics of the reviewers, IMHO.  The simple fact is that people who are politically aligned with the pro-AGW crowd won't ever discuss the movie as being "controversial".  That much should be obvious.


 * And who says "controversial" has to apply to either politics or science? Maybe the polar bear sequence IS what makes the film controversial, for instance.  Does that somehow not qualify as controversial on this page?


 * Since we don't have a poll that explicitly asks "Do you think that AIT is controversial?" we won't ever have a perfect match in the evidence. But I keep turning up different angles of objective data to support my position.  At what point does this pile of objective evidence justify one or two words in the intro sentence of the movie?


 * You know, it occurs to me that there is an irony at play here. I keep providing objective data and those opposed keep pointing the the uncertainty in that data as the rationale for rejecting it.  Doesn't that sort of sound like what the climate scientists say about the skeptics?  :)


 * If this is not a valid argument in your opinion then what would one look like in the absence of a direct poll on this point? What objective metrics or measures would be applied from available datasets to put some quantification to this topic? --GoRight (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, it seems clear that a few editors are going to continue to try to stifle any mention of controversy in the lead. Maybe it's time to look into an RFC or some other form of dispute resolution?  I think it's become clear that we can all argue until we're blue in the face and none of us are going to budge on this.  We could perhaps benefit from some outside voices Oren0 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. How do we proceed?  Have you done an RFC before?  If not I will pursue it tomorrow.  --GoRight (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Some instructions are given at Requests_for_comment. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, you're actually looking for Requests_for_comment slightly up that page. We want comments on AIT, not necessarily on any particular user(s).  I did it before (might've actually been here and on a similar topic, I don't recall) but I'd rather someone else does it this time.  You want to create a section, succinctly summarize your position and the opposing positions, and add the template following the instructions at that link. Oren0 (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd missed this one. And i have to say that when i was finished laughing - i was stunned at the level of desperation...
 * Film reviewers do not actually rate movies according to only their content - but rather for the overall picture. A 75% score is actually pretty impressive for a documentary like this. (75% is equivalent to 3 out of 4 stars). That some of the reviewers give the movie 100% - is totally over the top. Its a good movie, it has some good content, and a rather interesting filmic approach - but it isn't a 100%. Something which i'd give movies like "Apocalypse Now", "Schindlers List" or "Once upon a time in the West".
 * Just to give some perspective - most reviewers apparently consider the movie amongst the top 25% of all movies that they've seen. --Kim D. Petersen 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Book and Update
The Synopsis section contains a brief mention of both the book and 2007 Update (found on the DVD). I propose creating a new section that discusses the additional material in more detail. For instance, the book addresses at least some of PETA's concerns contained in this article, mentioning less meat consumption as one way to personally curb emissions. The update discusses several issues, including coral reefs and wildfires. In the update and book, Gore specifically makes a distinction between the body of science on global warming's link to hurricane frequency and hurricane intensity. Gmb92 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thompson's Thermometer
The source is WP:RS as the author has published papers in a relevant area.

As for it "not being discussed in the movie" I guess you must have missed this part:


 * Ice Cores: The 650,000 Record


 * There is a message in this. It is worldwide. The ice has a story to tell and it is worldwide. My friend Lonnie Thompson digs cores in the ice. They dig down and they bring the core drills back up and they look at the ice and they study it. When the snow falls it traps little bubbles of atmosphere. They can go in and measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere the year that snow fell. What’s even more interesting I think is they can measure the different isotopes of oxygen and figure out the very precise thermometer and tell you what the temperature was the year that bubble was trapped in the snow as it fell.


 * When I was in Antarctica I saw cores like this and the guy looked at it. He said right here is where the US Congress passed the Clean Air Act. I couldn’t believe it but you can see the difference with the naked eye. Just a couple of years after that law was passed, it’s very clearly distinguishable.


 * They can count back year by year the same way a forester reads tree rings. You can see each annual layer from the melting and refreezing. They can go back in a lot of these mountain glaciers a thousand years. They constructed a thermometer of the temperature. The blue is cold and the red is warm. I show this for a couple of reasons. Number one the so called skeptics will sometimes say “Oh, this whole thing is cyclical phenomenon. There was a medieval warming period after all.” Well yeah there was. There it is right there. There are one there and two others. But compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison. So if you look at a thousand years worth of temperature and compare it to a thousand years of CO2 you can see how closely they fit together. Now, a thousand years of CO2 data in the mountain glacier. That is one thing. But in Antarctica, they can go back 650,000 years. This incidentally is the first time anybody outside of a small group of scientists have seen this image. This is the present day era and that’s the last ice age. Then it goes up. We’re going back in time now 650,000 years. That’s the period of warming between the last two ice ages back. That’s the second and third ice age back.

--GoRight (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight.... Lonnie Thompson is mentioned in the movie, with a quote rather unconnected to the graphs, and quite a bit of time before we see the hockey-stick graph (this is the intro to the Dome-C/Vostok graphs) - and suddenly you have a reason to call the graph "Dr. Thompson thermometer"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then tell me what Gore is referring to in this statement: "There was a medieval warming period after all.” Well yeah there was. There it is right there. There are one there and two others. But compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison." If not the 3 red warm periods clearly displayed in the hockey stick graph and all within the context of discussing Thompson's ice core data, then what?


 * This is all described in the reference, which is authored by an individual with publications in the relevant areas. You are removing properly referenced material for no other reason that I can see than you seek to hide legitimate criticism of the movie.  --GoRight (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR - and ClimateAudit.org is not a WP:RS. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this critique is from a single source - and thus would receive excessive weight. Please the critique section is not a dumping ground for every little controversy or critique - it has to be considered on both its notability and in accordance with weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect you don't get to have it both ways. If RC is legitimate because the author's have publications in a relevant field, then CA is legitimate for the same reasons.  This is not WP:OR as I am not Steven McIntyre and even if I was I would be, by virtue of my past publications, qualified to comment.  Further, you are using RC to make claims based on their publications status to justify content which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fields in which they have publications (e.g. their speculation regarding ExxonMobil influence for which they have no relevant third party publications nor any first hand knowledge of the situation).  In the case of Dr Thompson's Thermometer the topic being discussed is precisely in line with the topic of McIntyre's past publications.  McIntyre qualifies as a reliable source on this topic so please stop removing properly attributed material. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry GoRight - but you need to read WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. "Dr. Thompsons thermometer" is an invention by Steven McIntyre - it has (to my knowledge) never been discussed in other media. You can't ever use a WP:SPS to document something that isn't described in other literature. When talking about the Mann and M&M papers - McIntyre can be quoted as a WP:RS - when talking outside of this, McIntyre is not a WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote - whether or not what Gore used is the Mann hockeystick or not is trivia - and not relevent in the critique section at all... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly which parts of the point being discussed, Thompson's Ice Core Data or the Hockey Stick Graph, are you contending, per your knowledge, to have never been discussed in other media? You believe that these are fabrications of McIntyre?  You may believe that the hockey stick graph is trivia, however the scientific community doesn't seem to think so and if Gore misrepresented it as being backed up by the Ice Core Data, which he clearly implied, it is a relevant point to discuss.  You still haven't identified what Gore was referencing in that section of the presentation, per my comment above.  --GoRight (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Try rereading the above - because you've apparently not understood it. And Gore doesn't misrepresent anything - because Gore doesn't say that the hockey stick was created by Lonnie Thompson. What McIntyre is talking about is in the book - not the movie. (And Gore's mistake in the book is rather subtle - since the graph is in a Thompson paper about ice-cores - and is a merger (by Thompson) of CRU data and Mann(1999)).
 * Finally (and once more) the hockey stick passage in the movie is rather small and it is rather unimportant whether this is the Mann hockey stick - or one of the many other "hockey sticks". Since every one of them shows exactly the same thing that Gore is using the graph for. (And again: The hockey stick controversy is about method not result.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally (and once more) the hockey stick graph was obviously being referenced in the context of the Ice Core Data in the movie where Gore is discussing the "very accurate thermometer" it provides. The viewer is clearly left with the mistaken impression that the graph is backed up by the "very accurate thermometer" which is precisely the point being made by McIntyre.  The fact that the book makes the same mistake only compounds the problem.  And since the book is described as a companion to the movie it is certainly relevant to discuss and include here. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can find more than one reliable source that considers this particular critique relevant - then you could start arguing that this critique is notable and relevant - and you still have to consider weight with regards to the entire articles balance between text and critique. Currently the critique section is weighted too much, when taking the balance of praise/critique in reliable source into account. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This critique is notable for the simple fact that it is written by one of the primary critics of the Mann hockey stick graph which the reference identifies as being the graph used in the movie. McIntyre's commentary on this point is still notable as it is directly related to his peer reviewed critique of the Mann hockey stick graph as it applies specifically to this movie.


 * "Currently the critique section is weighted too much ..." This is your opinion and it is duly noted.  I, and others, respectfully disagree on that point.  --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the hockey-stick - and AIT is not based upon the hockey-stick (which comprises a total of around 40 seconds of the movie). It is rather irrelevant whether Gore is using Mann's reconstruction, Osborn's or any of the others - the MWP is lower than current in all reconstructions. (which is the point in the movie). And another misconception once once more: notability is not inherited. McIntyre is notable - but everything he says is not notable. (his comments are also once more about the book not the movie) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "And another misconception once once more: notability is not inherited. McIntyre is notable - but everything he says is not notable." This is true, but I am not defending any old statement from McIntyre I am defending one that is a direct application of his published critique of Mann as it is applied to AIT. The length of time spent on the hockey stick graph in the movie is actually a bit irrelevent given the chart's own notoriety and controversy.  This makes it a significant part of the film regardless of the time actually devoted to it. --GoRight (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets repeat: Notability is not inherited. The existance of the Hockey stick controversy does not make everything touching upon the hockey stick notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, merely repeating your position does not strengthen it or somehow increase it's validity. The fact remains that McIntyre's commentary is directly in line with his published papers as they apply to AIT. --GoRight (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, merely repeating your position does not strengthen it or somehow increase it's validity. Irony meter pegs its scale and explodes. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Fair enough. The difference between the two, of course, is that my statement is statement of fact directly relevant to the article in question and the text being discussed, whereas hers is is neither.  --GoRight (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of this being a WP:WEIGHT problem. I have noted that the article on TGGWS has a rather voluminous and extensive set of information presented there in the form a criticism. Since you contribute to both articles would you also argue that the things being presented there are likewise WP:WEIGHT issues using the same logic and criteria that you are applying here? I ask here purely to determine if this article should be expanded in a manner similar to that used on the TGGWS page. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And once more you try to conflagate two different articles on two very different movies.
 * And yes there is a very simple reason for this - if you look at articles in reliable sources on TGGWS you find an overweight of critique. If you do the same on AIT - you will find the opposite. They are two entirely different beasts. Once more: TGGWS presents a fringe view, AIT presents a rather mainstream view. Appealing that these two should be "balanced" with each other (as you have done here and elsewhere) is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "if you look at articles in reliable sources on TGGWS you find an overweight of critique. If you do the same on AIT - you will find the opposite." Again, this is your opinion which is duly noted.  I, and others, respectfully disagree on this point. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That may depend on your exchange rate. How many unqualified blog posts do you trade for one statement by a national science academy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)