Talk:Nigel Calder

deleted unsourced libellous material per BLP policy
Disputed text is reproduced here:


 * Calder is a long-standing denier of global warming. As early as 1980, he predicted that within 20 years "the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age". After his prediction was proven wrong, Calder participated in the polemic documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle.
 * He also co-authored The Chilling Stars. Regarding global warming, Calder has said that "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

issues: (1) "denier" is offensive, a term of abuse; (2) this stuff is given undue weight in Calder's career as a science journalist (his contribution to the climate change debate relative to other areas of science such as general relativity, astrophysics, etc. is small; (3) "After his prediction was proven wrong" is unsourced, unargued, and states the POV of the editor. All violations of WP:BLP. My view is that there should be no discussion of his views on climate change until there is a proper context of his biography in which to insert it, otherwise the article becomes a WP:COATRACK. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, what Calder is known for these days, is one thing: His scepticism on Global warming. (i agree on denier btw, sceptic is appropriate even though the other is correct). To test this i checked on BBC for Calder - and roughly 2/3 (or more) refer to the Chilling Stars or his AGW scepticism . So there is apparently no weight problem. If you want to flesh out the rest of Calder's career - then find reliable sources, and expand the article.
 * As for BLP - since the article is referring to reliable sources for the information - it doesn't go against BLP. Sorry. BLP is not a blanket dismissal of criticism - but to protect that criticism is adequately sourced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ironically enough the material that you are opposing (except for the new Vanity Fair addition) has been inserted by well known sceptical WP editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Calder!=Nigel Calder
Does anybody know if this is the same Nigel Calder who has authored multiple books and hundreds of magazine articles on boating? If so, this profile can be updated with much useful information. He's a recognized expert on boats and boating, with a great deal of technical expertise. Several of his books are considered definitive resources. BUT...I'm not sure this is the same guy. Thoughts?

--TheMadMariner 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I believe he is the same. --PlanetNiles (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see up above that someone asked the obvious question of whether the fellow that this article is about is the same fellow who is famous for writing a series of boat maintenance manuals. I can pretty definitively say that the answer is no. Recent pic of the global warming contrarian vs the diesel mechanic. and never does the bio of one mention any of the info about the other. Mystery solved! Sailsbystars (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Calder's views on climate change
I have reverted a recent edit which had the comment "(Clarified Calder's views on global warming)". It had changed "Calder is a long-standing skeptic of global warming" to "Although not a scientist, Calder has long rejected the science of global warming." Well, a search for the phrase "Nigel Calder, educated as a physicist at cambridge university" yields 1700 hits with Google. They might all come from his publisher's publicity, and they don't prove he graduated, so I don't think this should affect the article. But unless there is evidence that he does not have any scientific qualifications, saying he is not a scientist is improper -- such things must have a citation. Also, there was no citation for "has long rejected the science of global warming", and it is implausible, scientists may reject scientific evidence without rejecting science. I have changed to add a view that is backed by Mr Calder's own blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All but the first paragraph in the first section should be removed from the first section
No article would be better than this. A list of his works can be had from his blog or Amazon. The author seems obsessed with discrediting Calder for his defensible skepticism about the AGW junk science. Like so many on controversial subjects written by True Believers, this article, or at least the challenged 3 paras in the first section, does little credit to Wikipedia or its spirit. CorlyssD (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC) CorlyssD 6/27/14