Talk:Christopher C. Horner

Removal of well-cited material
A series of recent additions have been removed by User:Peter Gulutzan, who is querying whether FirstLook.org is a reliable source. Yes, it is highly reputable. Its lead journalists include two Pulitzer Prize winners, an Academy Award winner and an Academy Award nominee for documentary film-making, and recipients of numerous other prestigious journalistic awards. The organization has run joint stories with the New York Times, the Washington Post and other reputable media outlets.

Even were this not the case, Peter Gulutzan should not be removing well-cited information from articles simply because he's ignorant of the sources. Add opposing information if you wish -- it will help flesh out Wikipedia. But simply removing stuff because of not liking it or not recognizing it is just destroying other people's work. Fuzzypeg★ 02:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done two reverts on this BLP of contentious material that cited firstlook.org with the edit summary "Does firstlook.org have a reputation as a reliable source?" Fuzzypeg leaves out the fact that another editor immediately restored the contentious material, which is still there, despite the usual policies affecting BLP and BRD. I looked for firstlook on wp:rsn and found nothing. Now I see a few assertions that it has hired unnamed award-winning journalists (no indication that the writer of the article is among them), and the question whether firstlook.org is a reliable source has still not been addressed. However, it's on this talk page now, let's see if any previously-uninvolved editor comments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Peter Gulutzan is somewhat of an edit-warrior when it comes to climate change AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Court documents
The court bankruptcy document can be found here, page 176. -- Green  C  15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What his views are
The lede calls Horner:
 * an outspoken political critic of climate science

Does this mean he thinks the field of climate science should not exist? Or that it is entirely fake? Or that he disagrees with certain (highly publicized) scientific findings/ideas/views?

I think we should be careful about stating or even hinting that someone is "anti-science", implying that they reject the scientific method or don't feel replication of results or data-sharing are important. I'd rather just say that Horner disagrees with the mainstream view, i.e., what most Western journalists call the "scientific consensus". --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at cei.org's Christopher Horner page. It cited three "op-eds and articles": Nixing the Paris climate pact, Persecuting climate skeptics, Email bombshell: Attorneys General worked with Green groups to punish political opponents, They are about politics and law, not criticisms of any scientific theory. Perhaps replace with "and a critic of American law and policy related to climate science"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is "criticism" an appropriate word for unfounded polemics, copy-paste internet rumors, bullying and frivolous legal persecution? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Climate change denial is the appropriate term, and is covered by the source I've added which highlights two of his CEI books. Chris Mooney has discussed the involvement of "Christopher Horner, the silver-haired counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition who’s also a CEI senior fellow", we don't seem to have used that source. . .dave souza, talk 12:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." says WP:RS. Your "source" merely says "At major bookstores you are likely to find titles like Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner" -- far from direct support of "Horner has been prominent in promoting climate change denial". But I haven't reverted immediately, I'm interested in what the thread starter (Ed Poor) says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Horner wrote a book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming in which he disparages the term "denier" as having legitimacy. We probably need to label him a denier in the context of who called him a denier rather than stating it unambiguously, since he clearly disagrees with it. "Denier" for him is a POV, not a fact (even though personally I think it is fact, the sources are still mixed for Wikipedia purposes). That he is a critic is an unambiguous fact (see his book). -- Green  C  15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say he's a "denier", in line with the academic source discussing "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks", Horner is among those writing books "promoting climate change denial", published by the CEI. The appendix to the study specifically lists "English-Language Books Espousing Climate Change Denial and Their Links to Conservative Think Tanks", including Horner's booksThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism), and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. Horner is promoting a fringe viewpoint opposed to scientific consensus on the topic, so WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL apply. . . dave souza, talk 16:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So the cited article doesn't say it, but there's an appendix that lists books saying they're denial books without an indication how the authors determined this, so Dave souza decides that justifies his adding "prominent in climate change denial" statement to the Wikipedia article's lead. Does anyone agree or (besides me) disagree with Dave souza? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say it is obviously true and does not need sources. Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The cited article, in its appendix, lists 108 "First-Edition English-Language Books Espousing Climate Change Denial and Their Links to Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs)" – two of the books are by Horner. In the body text, following the point that "nearly all of the authors or editors of the 108 books endorse a conservative ideology, confirming the strong link between conserva- tism and promotion of climate change denial", it notes particularly "Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner of the CEI" as one example of the "most influential" of these books, and states "It is therefore clear that CTTs have played a central role in the explosion of books promoting climate change denial." From that, a reasonable summary is "prominent in promoting climate change denial". As noted above, our article doesn't say he's a "denier". . . dave souza, talk 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So Horner opposes the mainstream view or "scientific consensus". I didn't see any comment above suggesting that he is opposed to the institution of science - rather, just the idea that most recent warming is human-caused and/or that there is definitive, scientific proof of this idea.

The reason this is important is that both sides in the (political?) dispute accuse the other side of being "anti-science". Perhaps we can step back from the political aspect of the dispute and report rather than source A called B "anti-science". --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to keep the illusion up that all the climate scientists are wrong, Horner and other deniers have to pretend that all of climate science is a massive conspiracy consisting of thousands of scientists. He may be "in favor of science" the way cats like mice, but he still is an enemy of science the way cats are enemies of mice.
 * WP prefers reliable sources and science to unreliable sources and pseudoscience, so we can't be on the fence here. See WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk)
 * Ed Poor: Shall I gather that you propose to change the end of the first sentence to "opposes the mainstream view of climate change", or "opposes the scientific consensus regarding global warming"? But you do not object to Dave souza's new sentence "He has been prominent in promoting climate change denial"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Peter, either of the proposed changes is good, although I prefer the first. I don't object to Dave's new climate change denial sentence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Who cares?


You asked who cares about attribution of The Intercept. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_C._Horner&diff=1030813650&oldid=1030813386

See here .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_302#The_Intercept_and_politics

Given that, what harm do you see with mentioning it, that you feel requires a deletion?

And what reason - other than redundancy to what the quote says, is the rationale behind your addition there?

Also, please explain your deletion here, of text supported by the ref, and your addition. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_C._Horner&diff=next&oldid=1030813650

--2603:7000:2143:8500:7083:DD01:ECCB:BFB8 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) It's been reported in multiple papers, I have added the WSJ. The story was broke by the Intercept, thus should be linked, but it is not the only reliable source to report it, meaning a disclaimer is not needed. The WSJ appears to be more than merely an 'according to the Intercept' rehash rather an investigative report.
 * 2) I removed "criticized by Horner" as it's unclear that is what the source says; the issue is more nuanced than can be tacked onto the end of a sentence about Mann's criticism of Horner's legal tactics generally speaking towards all scientists. It sort of makes it read like a personal tit-for-tat which can have the effect of nullifying the arguments. If you want to explain the relationship between Mann and Horner, it can be done using that source but needs more context. --  Green  C  19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should use the WSJ as a source for anything climate-change-related. They are not a reliable source for that. Also, that article was already used in the same paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The opinion pages you are absolutely right, but the regular news desk is fine they are not deniers or downplayers, it's a quality source. Check the given article for example. -- Green  C  18:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Green - just focusing on the one sentence in which you have a Mann quote, and for some reason change the reference to him to call him a "senior .." - a) The Salon article you use as a reference in turn is wholly based on an Intercept article, and you are again deleting reference to that fact, in the face of the RSN I pointed you to; and b) what is your basis in the refs you have for insisting again that he be called "senior .."? 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D3E:23EF:5B64:A7D5 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D3E:23EF:5B64:A7D5 .. just focusing in on the Mann quote you changed that had been in place for years with no dispute until you showed up yesterday making all these changes, for some reason, you contend Michael Mann is not actually a senior climate scientist and wish to remove that from the article. What else do you want to remove? Then you keep bringing up the Intercept as if that is the only game in town ignoring other sources such as the WSJ that reported the same facts. What is going on here? -- Green  C  21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple. Normal wikipedia editing, in accord with wikipedia rules. The project has all manner of entries for years that are not in accord with our rules. There is zero imprimatur of appropriateness, no mantle of correctness, from something having been on the project for 10 years vs 10 minutes. I'm not sure why you seem to think so. As to him being a "senior .." ... either there is RS support for it, in an article that relates to the subject of this article, or there is not. You re-added that, but even now you don't claim that you have such support. You simply argue for it based on it having been in the article for a long time. That's simply not of any moment. Let's address this sentence first, and then we can move on to other issues raised by your edit. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D3E:23EF:5B64:A7D5 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)