Talk:Garth Paltridge

Group affiliations section, the way it should be
Here is the edit of that section as it should stand. I [Ratel] am not editing the page any longer (reasons above) but I invite other editors to use this as a template:

acronym MEP
The acronym MEP is I think not a good idea for the Wikipedia to foster. The physics of proposed principles, such as of of maximum rate entropy production, is not well established, while the use of such an acronym suggests that "everyone knows about this established fact"; it suggests a point of view of familiarity with an old friend, when perhaps the right attitude is one of suspicion of a dodgy-looking stranger. I would like to delete the acronym MEP from its new appearance here.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Is there any reason why this person is notable?VR talk  10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is good reason. Paltridge is the originator of a large scientific literature about a hypothesis of maximum rate of entropy production in non-equilibrium processes, and the author of at least two books. The present Wikipedia article about him has been fiercely attacked in this talk page and contracted because he does not agree with some other scientists. Apart from his scientific contribution, the ferocity of the attacks is testimony to his notability.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

notion of maximum rate of entropy production
I have weakened a new edit that intended to give greater credibility to Paltridge's proposal of maximum rate of entropy production.

My reason is that the proposal is disputed and this should be made clear. The proposal has been taken up with enthusiasm by some writers, but the disputation is on strong ground, and the proposal has no theoretical justification. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a difficult and poorly understood subject. I suggest editors on this point examine the literature very carefully.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (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 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Garth Paltridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090914153628/http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/ResearchGroups/EBG/profiles/Garth_Paltridge/ProfGarthPaltridge.php to http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/ResearchGroups/EBG/profiles/Garth_Paltridge/ProfGarthPaltridge.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090923034252/http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/ResearchGroups/EBG/profiles/Garth_Paltridge/documents/Paltridge_Publicationsto2009.pdf to http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/ResearchGroups/EBG/profiles/Garth_Paltridge/documents/Paltridge_Publicationsto2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garth Paltridge. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918141040/http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf to http://www.drroyspencer.com/Paltridge-NCEP-vapor-2009.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Global warming hiatus
The article Global warming hiatus explains, with sources, why this is not a real effect, but only an alleged one: it is based only on the very high value in the year 1998, plus three rookie mistakes: Avoiding any one of these rookie mistakes destroys the "hiatus". Adding "alleged" is like adding "pseudoscientific" before "homeopathy". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * dishonest cherrypicking of data by starting in that uncharacteristically hot year,
 * choosing an interval that is too short to show anything but statistical noise,
 * the amateurish method of comparing the start value with the end value, instead of using the professional method of linear regression.
 * Hob Gadling inserted "alleged" with the edit summary "see the linked article". I reverted with the edit summary "Poorly sourced". I apparently need to inform Hob Gadling that Wikipedia is not regarded as a good source WP:NOTRS, and that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too (so I believe that the word "dishonest" should not have been used even here). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is disingenious. I inserted a source which says it is indeed not a hiatus, reflecting consensus within climate science.
 * I am sorry to inform you that cherrypicking is a dishonest technique. Insofar "dishonest" was redundant, but not a BLP problem because I did not say Paltridge was dishonest. He accepted a myth, which was based on dishonesty, as true. I thought that would be obvious; I did not expect having to explain such simple concepts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling has re-inserted "alleged". Are there other editors with opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I inserted it with sources, taking the reason away you gave for being against "alleged". So you still have a reason for being against it? Why don't you name that reason? Why didn't you name it before? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Poorly sourced" is a reason, I named it before. Are there other editors with opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)