Talk:Marc Morano/Archive 1

Joe Romm as a source for criticism?
I strongly question use of Joe Romm for this purpose as a borderline BLP vio -- as Romm's reputation for factual accuracy is very spotty. I'll plan to delete the Romm bit unless someone cares to defend him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 January 2014
 * I would object since the statement is sourced to a published WP:RS. If you like we can request more comments on whether this criticism is acceptable or not. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the removal of Joe Romm's comments concerning "He makes stuff up". That is a strong statement and one that could be considered slander if pushed. There is simply no justification for the statement and it cannot be backed up.Jvaughters (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest then that one of you opens a new section at WP:BLPN to ask whether this statement can/should remain in the article. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you supporting the edit? Or what? I don't think we need BLPN for this sort of thing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No I do not support the edit as I clearly stated above. I'll comment on the new section you added (for some reason) below so as to avoid fragmentation. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Tillman. Romm is far from reliable as a source for criticism of Morano. Is this section on Marc Morano supposed to be good information about Morano, or is it supposed to be one more internet tool for slandering him? (olsonjs444) 4 February 2015

"Known For" Deletion
In the little box on the right top of the article there is a "known for" section that needs to be deleted. In all the Bio's I have read on WP, I have yet to see this used. More importantly the people that that are listed as critics on this page do not have this in there bios. It seems to me be consistent on how bio is written in the effort for NPOV. Let the body and details allow the reader to decide what he is known for by the content. Furthermore, while the nature of the article that is referenced is very contentious indeed and the validity of that "denier" label is questionable on it's own, I would think that we need sources to for such a label.Jvaughters (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Never seen this before. Pretty sure there aren't similar little blurbs on Pres Clinton ("Known for Lying to Under Oath") or Pres HW Bush ("Known for going back on his 'Read My Lips' pledge on taxes"). Having something in here basically opens the page up to any editor's non-NPOV or personal bias... Ckruschke (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * (ec) Agreed, saying it is "known for " climate change denial (as much as he really is) seems non-WP:NPOV. I went ahead and removed that line from the article, thanks for pointing that out Jvaughters. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a little cringe of mine is the idea that you can deny something that has not been proven. I cannot deny bigfoot, because proof of the existence is not known. Albeit much evidence that cannot be explained away exists but it cannot be proven and therefore cannot be denied. Consensus is not proof or Albert Einstein's Theory of relativity would not exist because consensus was against it. Maybe a more classic and dangerous example is Copernicus' Theory against the consensus Ptolemaic theory. Just a thought and sorry for the distraction but comments "like as much as he really is" is a bit closed minded about the macro picture. Skeptic is more appropriate and technically more accurate if you choose to honor Descartes' Scientific method.


 * Thanks for the agreement.Jvaughters (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We'll just have to agree to disagree again. Being a skeptic of climate change is on the same footing as being a skeptic on gravity. It's just silly. Morano is not only a denier with all that it implies, he is possibly the most prominent figure among them. Anyway, regards. Gaba  (talk)  16:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With that logic, you would have killed the idea of Einstein's Relativity. This controversy is not over by a long shot and will not be in our lifetime and most likely not even our grandchildren's lifetime. I think what the skeptics are demanding is proof. We do not have it and we do not even have the ability to obtain proof at this stage. In short we are in the midst of a very immature science. I recommend you study Science History and how little truth actually comes from many many ideas that end up false. If it were not for Descartes and his Scientific Methods, we would still be ruled by people that just know better because they say so. Not so different than today's situation. Stick to the method and prove it or it remains a theory. Like Evolution. Just a theory with continued study. To compare to Gravity, a measurable and clear result is truly just a silly simplification.Jvaughters (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Stick to the method and prove it or it remains a theory. Like Evolution. Just a theory with continued study", that right there tells me we'll never see eye to eye so it's just better if we both drop it. It is completely immaterial to the article in any case. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gaba! Ckruschke (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Edit restoring some BLP vios
I cleaned up the funding section, removing a contentious, unnecessary "right wing" tag on a Living Person, and tagging 2 cites: Diff The Esquire article is a problem, because we can't use partisan opinion pieces to verify facts.

Editor Gaba reverted, commenting "he statements are in the source given and in the person's WP article. "

Please refer to WP:BLP. We don't use contentious tags like this on LP, and any uncited, challenged claim *must* be verified or removed. There's very little tolerance for this sort of thing on BLPs. Are you the OP for this? If so, you need to do some studying, please. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted because the right-wing qualification is in the source given and I disagree with the tags you added: I take Esquire is a WP:RS and the "known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations" is in the Richard Mellon Scaife article right in the lead (also in a section below it states "The Washington Post dubbed him "funding father of the Right" in 1999".
 * While we're at it you might want to give WP:BRD a read: if you make an edit and are reverted you do not revert again (as you did), you open a section in the talk page in seek consensus. I'll leave your last edit (I really shouldn't, I just do it to avoid needles confrontation) but I'll ask you to open a section over at WP:BLPN about that whole sentence that you feel should not be in the article so we can get more input about the issue. I'll await your notification for the new section requesting comments at WP:BLPN, please be so kind to leave a notice here. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's specifically against WMF policy to leave known (or reasonably suspected) BLP vios in WP articles, as this has gotten the Foundation in legal hot water. You're making a case that they're not vios (I think) -- but I'm not available to work on this issue for awhile. Gee, I'm not very coherent here-- flu talking. Later -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK Pete, I can understand that but since you're not going to take this to WP:BLPN and we obviously disagree, I'll revert back to the original version. When you have the time to see this edit through, please do come back and we can work on it. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed both of your positions, and I find Tillman is correct. Gaba appears to be arguing to retain his own POV, while claiming Tillman's edits introduce it. I find Tillman's edits to be balanced and reasonable. Since Gaba is no longer in the "consensus", I would urge the next reviewer to revert to Tillman's edits again. olsonjs444  9 Feb 2015

Reverting properly sourced information
recently reverted my addition of a properly sourced bit of information claiming "POV-pushing and unencyclopedic". As I said, the statement "funded by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife" deleted by Froglich is perfectly sourced to an Esquire article:


 * "Now he [Marc Morano] sits at the anonymous desk in his California hotel room and taps away on his Web site, which is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the right-wing billionaire..."

I'm not sure if Froglich is accusing me or the magazine of POV, in any case it is not a valid reason to delete this bit of information given that it is reliably sourced (unless he wants to challenge the source as reliable). Regarding the unencyclopedic part, we'll have to disagree. I see this as a very relevant piece of background and the fact that Froglich previously deleted the same statement with the summary "The funders of pro-warming sites are not listed in their articles." makes this looks like WP:POINT. If this is the reason then we can take the edit to a noticeboard to get more outside opinion. Regards. Gaba (talk)  13:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having an RS is not an excuse to write a non-neutral article from the first sentence of the lead. (You can find an RS for almost any claim.) There's plenty of room further down the article for a sub-section detailing whatever groups he's created. Follow the guidelines for writing good articles.--Froglich (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But you actually can't "find an RS for almost any claim", that's the core of how WP works: we take WP:RSs and report what's in them. I see you believe this information would be better located in its own sub-section below so I'll go ahead and add it to the article. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  19:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, although I certainly believe the "information" sourced to Soros 501c3 front-groups is "better located" in a round-file.--Froglich (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, Please explain your revert of my edit. This Article is clearly guarded and ripe with POV issues. You allow poor sources such as Esquire and thinkprogress, but do not allow a comment about an official US Senate document to promote opinions. This is a clear case of POV in the sense that you allow opinions from one source and block them from others. Please explain. Jvaughters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarified statement concerning the US Senate report to more accurately signify the achievement. Comments like "he believed" do not meet the standard for documentation. The author has no clue what he believed and it is ambiguous at a minimum. The new statement is more accurate on the accomplishment of the report and what it is factually about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, Please explain your revert. The previous comment is very subjective and inappropriate for proper documentation. If you have an edit to my comment then please advise or change. You are incorrect that it is unsourced, it is directly from the reference #5. This is not disputable. Jvaughters (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jvaughters: This might be moot now but I reply since you specifically addressed me. The comment I made for this revert was "This edit doesn't seem to be specifically about Morano" because the text that you added mentions prominent scientists, the IPCC, and Kiminori Itoh -- but not Marc Morano. Of course you could reply "yes but this is the opinion of Morano" -- that's verifiable, a blog by Morano is cited. In that case, though, you'd have to change the text of the edit from saying "critics do not dispute the fact" to something like "Morano says that" etc., -- and the article already says that. Now, as for the suggestion that I might have a POV against IPCC critics -- I don't have the power to "allow" people to quote from thinkprogress when they make it clear that they're quoting an opinion. Maybe there's a problem there too, if so I'm sorry, but I only looked at a particular edit and believed there's a problem there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * blogs are not a WP:RS as per WP:SPS and the statement you added was very poorly worded. As Peter pointed out, anything Morano says should be attributed to him not written in WP's authoritative voice. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, Thank you for your comments, I have come to agree with you, so yes it is moot at this point Jvaughters (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, you are far off base and I am not going to back down on the improvement of statement concerning Reference #5. You will need to help draft a more acceptable wording. The current wording is clearly a POV issue. The statement I added was not any more poorly written than the existing comment and furthermore was much more accurate and factual leaving out opinion. Find a better wording or I am moving this to dispute. Jvaughters (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jvaughters please discuss improvements to an article in the article's talk page, not on my or any other talk page to avoid fragmentation. As I said, the source you use is a blog which qualifies as an WP:SPS. This is enough to source a statement properly attributed to Morano (since it is his own blog) but no more than that. For anything else you need a WP:RS. The current wording is a valid summary of Morano's list. You are free to move this to dispute if you like, may I recommend WP:RSN? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Gaba, I think I was getting frustrated because I was leaving comments on the Talk page but not getting responses to the rapid reverts. I realize now that I should have waited, but I also felt that reverting a change but not responding on the talk page to be somewhat rude. Here is my edited version leaving out the US Senate document language. I did not realize it was a Government blog. None the less you need to be a little more clear on how this does not meet the test as a reference. I make factual statements in relation to the report of the reference. It is not at all clear to why this is not valid. I realize you are more knowledgeable about wikipedia editing, but that does not make you correct on your opinion here. I value your explanation so I can learn the logic of sourcing properly. I am truly not seeing how this statement below is not properly referenced and it adds the proper balance to an article that is clearly slanted in a way to undermine reference #5 with other sources that are more questionable in my opinion. Please explain clearly and in more layman's terms how the statement below does not capture the report of Reference #5. After all, the statements come directly from the report itself. If you prefer, I take a quote from the report that will state a similar and in my opinion even more dramatic statement than mine.

Proposed language:

He followed this up a year later with a report of over 650 scientists including many current and former UN IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN IPCC. In this report the scientists provided statements that supported global warming was not caused by human activity and directly disputed the evidence provided by the UN IPCC.Jvaughters (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Language based on direct Report Quote:

He followed this up a year later with a report that "features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC". In this report the scientists provided statements that supported global warming was not caused by human activity. This figure has since been updated to "over 700."

I think at this point you have to concede some variation of the two options. This is a direct quote from the report and it is important information that is needed for the balance of this article. I have already toned it down by removing the Gov. Document which as I found out is an official Senate Document, not just a blog. If you prefer, I can create a new reference directly to the Senate Document. I need feedback from you so we can work this out. I am not asking for anything other than documentation of History here and I truly do not understand the push back on this factual piece of information that is now part of the US Government history that is a direct reflection on Marc Morano's effort.Jvaughters (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jvaughters I clearly stated twice the reasons why that report can not be considered a reliable source: it is blog entry by Morano itself (doesn't matter it is hosted in the Senate's site) and thus it's a self-published source. At best it is a source for Morano's claims and nothing more.
 * Now, to your proposal. The statement currently in place is a better summary for two reasons:
 * 1- this quotation "features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC" is unnecessary and misleading. The article already states "650 scientists who, he claimed, believed that global warming was not caused by human activity" which is correct since it is a claim by Morano. You'd need a third party WP:RS to back what you propose and even then it would have to be clearly attributed to the source.
 * 2- "In this report the scientists provided statements that supported global warming was not caused by human activity.", this is a statement taken from a non-reliable source and thus not suitable for inclusion.
 * I suggest you give the guidelines I presented above a good read. While you are at it, please consider reading WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE too. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, Again you fall far short of a valid explanation. If we are to follow your logic, then Ref #5 needs to be purged completely and all of it's information related to it. This article is slanted with other blog sources with near slanderous comments yet you fail to allow an Official US Senate Minority Report as source. This is called cherry picking in my terminology. You pick and choose what you want from a valid source and allow it to appear in your desired view. I offer an objective factual comment from the same source and you say it is not a valid source. This is obvious POV issue and you are clearly protecting that POV. With an objective view point you would allow equal weight of POV. You allow reference #5 to be denigrated with strong language and fail to supply the pertinent information that is key to the updated Minority Report. I am going to clean this poor article up with proper references to the official US Senate report and remove duplicate references. This is truly a sloppy article.Jvaughters (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up duplicate references and added sub-heading for media appearances which I expect to grow.Jvaughters (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1- I've presented the explanation three times now: it is a WP:SPS and thus not suitable as a WP:RS. I don't know how that can be made any more clear.
 * 2- Ref #5 can be used as it is used right now: assigned to Morano as something he "claims", since that is precisely what that list is: a claim by Morano.
 * 3- Please don't make accusations of POV. That is a personal attack and you should always focus on content, not editors.
 * 4- If you have issues with other sources used in this article, please present them and we can discuss it. Furthermore you can always request comments at WP:RSN.
 * I do not own this article and of course any improvements you could make on it would be appreciated. Remember that WP is a collaborative project which means you need to get consensus for the edits you propose. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  16:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, Three strikes and you're out. I heard you explanation and I reject your explanation. In short it is just wrong to allow ref #5 for what you feel is appropriate and not what others feel is appropriate. I am not as experienced as you in the terminology, so forgive my ignorance, but it is clear to me that this article is not up to the quality it needs to be fair and objective. I my plan is to take this article as my first serious Wiki Project. Including finding objective editors both for and against this influential individual as long as they are objective and allow actual facts to be presented both for and against. It is clear to me that you are not meeting this requirement at this time. This article deserves to be similar to Joseph J. Romm or other Bio's in structure and we need to expand the editors. Get on board as an objective editor, or step aside.Jvaughters (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jvaughters please do your best to improve the article. I'll be here though, and if I don't agree with some of your edits I may modify or remove as I see fit since that is how WP works: collaboratively. I've given my reasons to oppose your edit, you are more than welcome to raise your concerns over at WP:RSN, WP:RfC, WP:NPOVN or any other venue you feel would be appropriate. I'd just like to get two fundamental points across: 1- you are currently failing both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by accusing me of not being objective and telling me to "step aside". These are WP:PAs and you'd do well to stop commenting on me and focus on improving the article. 2- I'd strongly advise you read all those policies and guidelines I link to. I know they are a lot, but I too was a new editor at one point and it would have saved me a lot of headaches if I would have just taken the time to make myself acquainted with WP's rules before diving head-first in making heavy editing. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  19:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, I do appreciate your patience and I will work on my tactics going forward, and I will continue to work on my editing knowledge. At this point we have to agree to disagree about the source and content issues we discussed. I have a serious problem when I see rapid rejections to small editing. I did not do major edit and nothing I did in my mind concerning the issue you and I have was incorrect. This article does not warrant any escalation at this point because it cannot even be considered a valid article yet, it is too early. I will be building a team of editors to get this article up to proper WP standards for Bio's. I would only Hope that you and I could agree that it is not even close.Jvaughters (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We agree to disagree :) I'd be cautious about "building a team of editors" since it can be considered WP:TAGTEAM and/or WP:CANVASSING. Usually it is advisable to let articles gather their own audience and if at some point you believe an issue should get a wider audience, then you can WP:RfC to draw more attention to it. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaba, Thanks for the advice, I think this article is so new that there is little chance of any tag team issues. I am just looking for editors that are more objective. It really does not matter to me what side they are on as long they allow a fair representation of Marc Morano. Sorry if you take that as an accusation, but I am not the first to raise the issue on this article. I think that for whatever reason there is an unnecessary stringent editing environment on this article and that needs to change. We need to allow some information in this article. More to come, I am working on it.Jvaughters (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel there are people that are limiting information on this article. I'm not sure what you are comparing it to, but many of the pages on Wiki are full of fluff and uncited nonsense - which is the opposite of the enclyclopedic "mantra" that Wiki goes by. On the flipside, even well-referenced resource books do have footnotes attached to every sentence. I think you should strive for a middle road and just keep in mind that a page is not judged by its character count. Ckruschke (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Poor referencing restored
This edit restored a lot of stuff from non-reliable sources and unnoticed critical stuff. Why are we keeping this in? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources look ok, and give due wp:weight. . dave souza, talk 21:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how. The sources are actually pretty terrible, one of questionable reliability and one that is a significant ideological source in a direct dispute with the subject, neither of which received any attention outside of their own universes.  The weight doesn't seem to add up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I somewhat concur. Why do I care as a reader that Media Matters thinks Morano is a flake? They are from opposite side of the political spectrum. Its like making it notable that Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann don't see eye to eye on a subject - OF COURSE they don't. That Media Matters listed Morano as the chief "Climate Change Misinformer" is only notable to those on the Left. In addition, the line about who funds Morano is an obvious slur attempt (for those who care about that thing). Conversely the same information is shared on the Media Matters site as "(Media Matters is) Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock". Clearly a very different POV in the word smithing. Ckruschke (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Unless you are arguing MediaMatters (or some other specific source) is not a WP:RS in which case we can take the issue over to WP:RSN there's little to discuss here. As Dave pointed out WP:WEIGHT is also being respected since the mentions are minimal. Stating whoever funds Morano's site is absolutely not a "slur attempt" but a properly sourced piece of information. If there are issues with other articles (like you said there is with the MediaMatters article apparently) they should be discussed and fixed over there, not here. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , there has not been much of a consensus over the years as to whether it's a reliable source. See here for a breakdown. The weight of the criticism by MMfA is a problem because it gives significant weight to a point of view ignored everywhere else.  Media Matters exists solely to go after what it calls "conservative misinformation," so by giving any and all criticism they make a soapbox, we're giving their opinion undue weight.   I'm not so much married to removal/keeping the funding issue, but it seems like just an attempt to discredit rather than an attempt to illuminate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For what I can gather from the link you point me to the consensus seems to be that MMfA is as reliable as Fox News. That said, I'd have no problem if you'd like to bring the matter to WP:RSN once again.
 * "point of view ignored everywhere else" not sure what you mean here. Morano is regarded pretty much everywhere as a paid anti-science shill and he made a "name" for himself doing precisely that. Are you arguing he is know for something else other than his denialism? The opinion of MMfA is attributed as such so I see no issue with WP:WEIGHT here. Same with the funding which is sourced to Esquire, is a relevant and reliably sourced piece of information. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaba, that's a little unfair: Morana largely made a name for himself by originating swiftboating, which isn't exactly anti-science. . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you read the link, you'll see a clear lack of consensus for its use. If you feel the need to bring it to RSN again (since you're the one who wants to include the information), feel free, but if the issue is weight, why does MMfA have it?  What about their criticism is so noted that it deserves any spot here, especially in a BLP, especially given that it's essentially an attack on the man? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I see is lack of consensus for it not being a WP:RS and repeatedly being compared to Fox News. Again, if you want to remove this properly sourced piece of information the burden is on you to prove MMfA is not a WP:RS. The criticism on his climate change agenda is notable because this person is spearheading the anti-science attack on climate change by big money. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  12:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's not an RS because of its cavalier attitude toward the facts, but the issue in this case is really due more toward the weight, as one agitator's opinion of a BLP isn't really proper weight. If you disagree, you should let us know why. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This exchange between Wiki editors seems to be thinly veiled POVs attempting to argue whether or not Marc Morano "deserves" to be "tarred and feathered" by Wikipedia, in addition to Media Matters and other clearly left-wing political machines. MMfA is only non-profit because they get all of their funding from left-wing political activists - it is not an objective source for any type of information. In my opinion, there are several POVs remaining in the article on Morano, and this leaves Wikipedia open to charges of libel. Good thing for you all that the USA has a very high threshold for such things when an individual like Morano is considered a notable public figure. olsonjs444  9 Feb 2015

NPOV
I'm not a wikiguy, sorry that this edit doesn't follow guidelines, but this article clearly violates NPOV by addressing this asswipe's critics as "not being sufficiently versed in climate science." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.17.184 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, it is saying that Morano's list of scientists skeptical of global warming contains people who aren't sufficiently versed in climate science. Jinkinson   talk to me  22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)