Talk:RealClimate/Archive 2

Criticism with Cato and Heartland
If we can't have blog like posts as sources, then why do we use blogs as sources? RealClimate is a blog, so why is RealClimate being used on the climategate article? Some of you need to be rational about this and drop the partisan defense. Look, whether or not global warming occurs doesn't matter, these emails make these climate scientists look bad and it raises questions about RealClimate. They may very well be correct, probably are, but they look really, really bad right now. Your lame, irrational, and logically inconsistant defense of them by deleting information doesn't help the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blog like sources can be used in some cases, there are exceptions in WP:SPS. The most relevant one is experts talking about their area of expertise. As for the "climategate" article, RC is there because they were hacked, and Climateaudit is there - because they were the place where it was first noticed. As for your "lame...." rant - please see WP:CIVIL. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I find 2 sources, Heartland and Cato, which have poor opinions of RealClimate, and someone finds a way to exclude it? You people would probably do anything to keep criticism out. This is nonsense. I have sources from two respected and notable policy research organizations. Just because they are right of center and dislike RealClimate does NOT mean they cannot be included.(LVAustrian (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Why exactly should Heartland and Cato's opinion about RC be relevant? (just as the other way around). Has any reliable sources commented on the two think-tanks opinion of RC? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you've already made up your mind on this issue.Why do you not consider them reliable? As it stands, however, both organizations are cited frequently in the nations top newspapers.(LVAustrian (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC))


 * You may want to re-read WP:NPOV. Your mistake is the assumption that if there are two opposing opinions on one issue, both of them must be given equal weight (Scientific American and Nature praise RealClimate / Patrick Michaels and the Heartland Institute criticize RealClimate). This fails to give these opinions proper weight (see WP:UNDUE), as a lobbyist organization promoting what are considered fringe views in mainstream science is given equal weight with some of the most respected science journals. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither group is a lobbyist organization. They are private non-profit research organizations which are forbidden by US law from lobbying. Dr. Michaels at Cato is also a research professor at UVA, the same school were Dr. Mann once taught. And anyone in academics knows the problem with the peer review process-these email hacks have let the dirty laundry out. Are you sure you're just not trying to come up with any excuse to delete criticism? Even if they are wrong on the climate change issue, why would that mean that RealClimate does not deserve a criticism section?(LVAustrian (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I've read those articles and the inclusion of Heartland and Cato does not violate wiki rules. You may be stretching here. The minority viewpoint on global warming is not at question here, nor is that the point of including Heartland or Cato. That is their verifiable, sourced, and reliable opinion. The quotes question RealClimate, not climate change itself. This is what makes wikipedia so frustrating. Fanboys circle the wagon around their favorite issue and keep out all dissenting opinions no matter how illogical their defense. This occurs on right and left, right or wrong.(LVAustrian (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * By "lobbyist" I meant that this is a political organization funded at least in part by lobbyist groups to pursue a particular agenda, not a scholarly institute pursuing open-ended research. And the article Patrick Michaels gives a more complete picture of his current status as climate researcher than your comment.
 * To better understand the "undue weight" issue, just ask yourself if you have looked equally hard for climate researchers with an equal or better reputation than Michaels (or political organizations which are equally partisan or more mainstream standing than the Heartland Institute) who have commented favorable about RealClimate, and why their comments are not cited here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just turn up, make a series of increasing POV edits, break 3RR, and expect to be part of a polite conversation. Please self-revert before you get blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cato and Heartland are clearly biased, but so is RealClimate. It seems to me that criticism from notable organizations should be included; not as indicative of the truth of the criticism, but as indicative that criticism exists.  This is especially true as the charter of neither Cato nor Heartland mentions "global warming".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm? That is a direct contradiction of NPOV isn't it? By not considering WP:WEIGHT of arguments - but simply choosing them because they are convenient as critique (its the 'equal time' argument - and that is a fallacy) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly wrong. There's little WP:WEIGHT about RealClimate, so we should include notable commentary by notable (although not reliable) organizations, such as the Cato Institute.  That comment is by Cato, not just a blog entry.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the organizations aren't reliable, why argue that their opinion is nevertheless "notable"? That doesn't make sense.  Don't we write about verifiable facts?  If Heartland and Cato are regarded as unreliable (and I have no argument with that at all) and their opinions aren't widely held, then we don't put them on this article without pretty big caveats.  RealClimate is fair set to be the most reputable climate website, bar none. --TS 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The organizations' publications may not be reliable sources for anything other than their opinions, but those opinions are still notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * – and we don't know that those opinions aren't widely held. We have no evidence either way, so the opinions of notable organizations should be noted, in the absence of evidence that the opinions are fringe.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither Cato or Heartland are reliable sources. Therefore, they can't be used per the verifiability policy. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Whether they are notable or not makes no difference. You'd think an admin would have a better knowledge of policy than you do. Really. -Atmoz (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. Perhaps it's time to propose deletion of this article, as it's existence appears not to be confirmed by reliable sources.
 * On the other hand, I'm not sure that the Cato Institute publications aren't reliable (although biased). And, isn't any organization's official publication reliable for the purpose of describing that organization's position.  However, the detailed position need not appear in the article; merely a sentence stating that the Cato Institute and Heartland question the value of RealClimate's contribution.
 * On the gripping hand, the quote, being apparently from an editorial in Scientific American, is not reliable, and should be removed.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its not absurd that we shouldn't cite primary sources, and its even less absurd to notice that both Cato and Heartland are on the very fringes in their view on climate science. They may be useful sources on politics in some cases, or even on economics (what do i know), but on climate science they aren't. As for SciAm, they aren't on the fringes, and their opinion is clearly marked as such. (the editors of...). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Words like "refreshing" and "brainy" in the SciAm editorial certainly do not qualify as being a scientfic opinion by experts on a scientific subject. It's fine to include their view though it does read like advertising and the language is a bit flowery. You're giving their view of the website, not of the specific content. They make broad statement about the content but they're not claiming to have vetted everything in a scientific sense (nor would the editorial board of a popular science magazine be reliable if they were), they're just saying they find the website intelligent, interesting and useful. It is not undue weight to have a different view from a notable website and they are clearly a reliable source on their own opinions. Any quote from a different source though clearly needs to be about the website not on the merits of the science. The quote can't say "they're wrong" because just as SciAm is not reliable in vetting what's on the website (and even if they were, they haven't claimed to have done so) but a quote can say someone finds the posts "unconvincing" or "annoying" or any number of other things which are commentary on the website not the science. HarmonicSeries (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a WP:WEIGHT distinction needs to be maintained between 'mainstream science' and 'fringe beliefs' though. We don't give equal weight in all articles to science vs creationism, science vs flat earth, science vs alien visitation. The same holds with science vs global warming denial. --Nigelj (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To expand on the above. If an article lacks a criticism section (or critique in general), then we do not go out and find/search for such - that would be a failure to adhere to a neutral point of view (as defined on wikipedia). This particular fallacy is what in journalism is called a False balance. If there is significant criticism, then it wouldn't be necessary to search for such, or to find it in primary sources. Realclimate is a science blogs, and Scientific American (while not an authoritative source on science) is a mainstream writer/distributer of information on science - Cato and Heartland are not even close to being mainstream on the science, but are instead political advocacy groups. Giving these equal time is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is about the website not the science. Let's dispense with "science vs. global warming denial" that is not what this article is about ... the SciAm quote is about the website ... it's a website they like and enjoy and think is good.  They are not making a scientific claim about global warming (and if they do, it should not be included as they are merely stating an editorial opinion about science not the website).  The article is about RealClimate, the website, it is not about Global Warming.  The website is clearly open to criticism and praise for its qualities *as a website*.  This is not a discussion of global warming.  You can say (with references) that RealClimate is one of the strongest advancers of reporting science in this area or something to that effect.  Similarly, criticism of the website that is confined to comments on the site is not only allowed but desired in a good NPOV article.  An article on a website that reported on Evolution can have cites praising it for its qualities of reportage and cool-headedness but there it can also have cites that say such and such creationist group says the website is "unconvincing" or "wrong-headed" etc.  Evolution is not being discussed.  Whether or not the science is settled or fringe is not relevant.  Reporting on what different significant factions think is not only allowed but desired. KDP makes a fair point that we would clearly not include the opinions of a political group on a page discussing the Riemann Hypothesis.  However, there is a political component to the RealClimate topic and therefore other opinions, about the website, are relevant.  Creationists are not scientists but because the topic of Evolution impacts their religion, their opinion, on such a website, is relevant. I think the SciAm quote is too flowery and I think a non-inflammatory comment from Cato or Heritage is appropriate. HarmonicSeries (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we're not just talking about a website - we are talking about a specific website. SciAm would not be a notable commentator on any website... It is notable because the SciAm and RealClimate have the same topic: Science.
 * And you are still confusing NPOV with "equal time" - Cato and Heritage are neither notable in commenting in websites in general - nor are they notable in commenting on RC in specific. If anything their only connection to RC is that C&H have fringe views on the topic that RC is about. So it is undue weight presented to a minority viewpoint. Sorry. (and of course neither Cato nor Heritage are reliable sources) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't about their "fringe view" on climate science but on their widely held view about Realclimate.org (Meltwaternord (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC))


 * And how is questioning the reliability of climate modeling a fringe view? Maybe I'm mistaken but the last survey I saw of scientists showed that a healthy chunk didn't think we could accurately model or predict climate at this time. And that is despite an even larger chunk thinking that humans contribute to global warming. PM at Cato does not disagree with that latter assumption. (Meltwaternord (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC))


 * It's like asking the turkey for a quote about Christmas, isn't it? RealClimate is a climate science blog; I would be happy for a quote from NOAA, the Met Office, New Scientist or any such organisation, had they criticised it. At least they would have a legitimate use for it if they thought it was any good, they would have the viewpoint to be able to find legitimate fault and they are notable in related fields. There is no realistic 'debate' about AGW: it's not a debating-society matter-of-opinion, it is an established fact, I'm afraid. The only debate is when are we going to do something about it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * New Scientist and the Scientific American editorial board are questionable sources, at best. In general, editorials are not reliable, and WP:UNDUE suggests we should not include praise from unreliable sources if we cannot include criticism.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of course is completely out of sync with policy. Opinion sources are reliable to the authors opinion, and of course the authors (SciAm or any other science or popular science magazine) are significant opinions on this topic. (I think you should ask RS/N if SciAm, NOAA etc. are "questionable sources" - otherwise i find your comment rather dubious (to say the least))
 * And you seem to have mistaken reality here, no one is saying that we cannot include criticism - people are saying that the criticism must be notable and reliable, otherwise its undue weight. The case here is that people aren't picking Cato & Heartland because their critique is notable, its being picked to create a False balance.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And it saddens me to see you guys edit warring on the main article, especially really stupid tit-for-tat edits like this. The idea is that we discuss here, reach a consensus, then alter the article. This kind of stupid to-and-fro is what can give WP a bad name - every time you look at an article it says the opposite of what it did five minutes before. I guess you'll get yourselves blocked and then we can have some peace and sort things out. Until then I strongly advise people to get with this discussion and leave the article alone. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Critics of RC are out there, and they are notable. Cato is cited by nearly every news organizations as a prominent libertarian think tank and CATO representatives are cited often. It seems that many editors are falling back on their favorite policy prescription to exclude this material. WVBluefield (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur that Cato is notable, and it appears that their claim is that RealClimate is incorrect as to economic consequences, which is more in their expertise than RC's.
 * As for edit warring, WP:UNDUE requires that all notable comments be excluded or included. "Excluded" is probably a more stable situation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not American, so I had never heard of Cato until you folk mentioned them here, let alone seen them referenced in any news source. (I've looked them up since) But I'd certainly heard of Scientific American. They are not remotely comparable. --Nigelj (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * CATO, they are cited multiple times a day. WVBluefield (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess their stated goal "to allow consideration of the traditional American principles" makes them of limited interest outside of the US right-wing. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability has nothing to do with a topic should have an article. Saying that X is notable only says that X deserves an article, not that they can be used as a source. And it certainly says nothing of their reliability or reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -Atmoz (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, were you talking about RealClimate or CATO? WVBluefield (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - but could you leave your personal POV at the door? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, really, I'm serious. WVBluefield (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither. I was talking about yours and ARs apparent confusion of WP:N and WP:RS. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, an editorial in Scientific American is not a reliable source, except as to the opinion of the editors, and probably shouldn't be quoted, although it may be notable. In other words, in terms of WP:RS, neither the editorial comments in Scientific American nor the criticism of Cato are allowable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are continuing to beat the same dead old horse... Scientific American is cited for their opinion. And the opinion of SciAm's editorial staff is certainly both interesting and notable in the context of a blog about science. Saying that the editorial isn't a reliable source flies against policy - sorry - the editors of SciAm are certainly reliable to their own opinion. Even had it been a self-published source, the opinion could have been reliable, since SciAm's editors are supposed to be experts on the topic of presenting science to the public. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim you have an odd view of fringe science, considering the Cato Institute's position on global warming is that its real and man is contributing to it. Where you disagree with them is their position that the worst case senario is at the lower end of the IPCC projections. That does not make them fringe. You are just inserting your own partisan opinion.(LVAustrian (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Do I? Hmmm - i guess that this is within the scientific/economic mainstream? Sorry - but that doesn't parse... And that is the official handbook for Cato. Both scientifically and economically it lies outside the mainstream, even if its not as far outside as the Heartland position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Care to explain what is NOT mainstream about that? Global warming is real. Humans are contributing to it? What is controversial about that? Their economic point is that cutting carbon emissions is very expensive and very harmful economically. No controversy there, that is the truth - although I'll admit the economics field is far more divided today than many years ago. They argue that current efforts to combat carbon emissions will be ineffective. That doesn't sound all that fringe to me when there are other scientists out there suggesting the same thing, like Dr. John Christy. Cato is not commenting on RealClimate's cost benefit analysis research. RealClimate does not make cost benefit analysis like Cato. You'll have to do better (Meltwaternord (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC))
 * There is more to the Scientific opinion on climate change than just that "humans are contributing to it". Arguing against setting a price on carbon, is outside the economic mainstream (by far) - its even beyond the opinion of people like Bjørn Lomborg who, while arguing that current measures are expensive, is still saying that we must set a price on carbon. Christy is not an economist so that argument is rather weak. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

More, like what? They DO NOT say you cannot set a price on pollution. However, their offical position seems to be A) warming will be mild b) new technologies will arise even absent government direction that will take care of the problem (this is why many scientists have been wrong on overpopulation for 200+years...they don't take into acount human ingenuity). From what I've read at Cato the environmental problems are a tragedy of the commons. Everyone benefits from polluting as much as they can, but no body has to pay for it. Everyone also suffers from the pollution but no one has to pay to pollute, or pay to have clean air. Cato has said that a cap and trade would be worse than simply taxing carbon emissions itself. The difference between you (others) and Cato is that Cato is actually sensible about this. They don't have a one track mind on how to solve the problem. Additionally, I've seen other like-minded people talk about geo-engineering to solve the future problem. Hard-core alarmists hate that idea. They simply want to cut carbon emissions and roll society back 100 years in terms of energy usage. Cato believes this is a stupid, regressive, harmful and expensive proposition and they use science and economics to prove their point. That does not make them a fringe organization. Especially since most scientists a) don't understand economics and b) don't bother with cost benefit analysis when they make policy suggestions (Meltwaternord (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

And what is wrong with Lomborg? He makes some good points. If you want to save polar bears the cheap way is to outlaw hunting them. Humans kill more polar bears with high powered rifles than global warming does. Why do you green types have to pick the most expensive solutions to any problem? (Meltwaternord (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Kim, how is a UVA professor, writer of academic articles in Nature, ClimateResearch, and Science, and a 2007 IPCC author NOT qualified to criticize realclimate, but editors of a science magazine can give all the praise they want?(LVAustrian (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC))


 * How is Michaels an IPCC author? He is not listed as a contributor in any of the reports I could find. He is listed as a reviewer in the WG1 and WG3 reports. But reviewer is not the same as author - it is, in fact, a volunteer position that essentially only climate contrarians use in their CV, usually to cover for the lack of serious qualifications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels here is his email pmichaels@cato.org ask for his CV as well so you can see his academic positions and peer reviewed papers too. (LVAustrian (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Well he is not a contributing author to any of the 3 AR4 reports. He is a reviewer on the WG1 and WG3 report. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had this settled hours ago and that you guys were just chatting about your local politicians. Now I come back and you're edit warring over it. Listen: this is a clear policy issue. It is legitimate to use the editorial opinion of a worldwide scientific publication to rate the relative significance of a scientific blog. They don't mention many, and when they mention one in detail, it is notable. It is not equally notable that some parochial right-wing political think-tank in the US hates the blog. They are in no position to judge, everything they say has a political agenda and, on the world stage, they are less notable in themselves than the blog is. Due weight does not mean equal weight for every flat-earth society's views on everything to get WP air-time. This has been explained over and over. Edit warring will not change it. --Nigelj (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to be inflammatory and insulting about different points of view. It does not matter if you don't like the politics of the organization being quoted. It is entirely irrelevant. It is notable that they made the comment and the comment made is not at all about the science of global warming. The comment merely says that they mix science with opinion and it is a notable person saying this. If they make a comment about science that isn't backed up by science that is different. But quoting another viewpoint that they don't like the blog is entirely fair. Would you expect those folks to say anything else? You can't just put in quotes that you like. At least one of the people reverting unflattering comments and adding flattering comments on this RealClimate page also posts on RealClimate itself. Consensus is not "we have more people to revert than you do". Consensus is not reached until the parties concerned actively agree to a particular tact, it is not "I made a comment that no one's gotten around to disagreeing with yet so consensus is reached". I'm sure that this can be taken to arbitration. I agree with ArthurRubin, if you open the door for flattering comments, then an opposing view can be added. The opposing view can be held by a FlatEarther, they can even be "wrong", but as long as it is representative of the viewpoint of a significant sector, it goes to NPOV. It is clearly POV when you eliminate the OPINIONS of people you don't like. HarmonicSeries (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is just the point, 'climate change' and 'science', the topics of the blog in question, are worldwide issues. The blog has worldwide notability, hence this article. The opinion of a small pressure group concerned with preserving the American way of life (or whatever their wording is) about such endeavours rates nowhere on that scale, little more than your or my opinions do. I.e. non-notable. They do not represent a 'significant sector' of the world, or of the world that this blog addresses. It's hardly worth arguing about. --Nigelj (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cato Institute is highly critical of neoconservatism, and supports drug legalisation and gay rights for starters. That hardly sounds like a parochial right wing pressure group. It's certainly not one of those "American way of life" outfits. Gnomatic (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Nolan Chart shows that far more people agree with Cato's free markets free minds principals than some would give it credit. Hardly a fringe organization. If my memory serves me correctly Cato used some political survey data to estimate that about 15% of the American voters had strong libertarian sympathies even if they did not identify themselves as such. (for reference Democrat and Republican party membership is in the mid 30% for each party). I don’t think Cato likes defining themselves as libertarians either.

On another note, I do find it funny that the defense against criticism continues to get lamer as it adapts to the arguments in favor. Now in order to have a legitimate criticism against real climate your political affiliation has to have a substantial following across the entire planet? What nonsense. I guess we could eliminate anything related to green politics if libertarians cannot be included - that wouldn't make Dr. Connolley very happy.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

The way I see it is as follows: here is a very highly praised science blog maintained by expert climatologists, and someone took a look at Nature's praise of the blog and thought "ooh, that needs some balance", so the opinion of people from one or two conservative and libertarian organizations was sought. As it happens the Cato institute fellow happens to be a former state climatologist. Does this mean we've got balance? I don't think so. The opinion of an individual climatologist isn't really up to much. If however the IPCC or some other body were to criticise (or praise) RealClimate, I think that might be worth including. There are any number of qualified individuals within any field who may have negative opinions about specialist publications such as RealClimate in their own speciality, and so it is with Michaels. --TS 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See below. The Guardian is a reliable source and Michaels is a notable figure. Suppressing Michaels while including equally notable praise from others is POV. I object to inclusion of one without the other. I would not object to removal of both. ATren (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific American (editorial) quote
I see no argument in favor of including the quote in this talk page. Arguments against:
 * 1) If we cannot include notable, but not reliable criticism, we should not include notable support.
 * 2) It may be an editorial, so it reflects the opinions of the SciAm editors, which may or may not be reliable.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can include reliable criticism, just like we can include reliable support. SciAm is a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE allows us to consider material we cannot include, to determine the appropriate weight. Apparently not.  It logically should, at least per WP:FRINGE, but it doesn't.  I'll put in a request for discussion at WP:RSN after I get back from dinner, unless you want to pre-emptively add one now.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I should note that the Nature praise of RealClimate is an editorial opinion as well. Here is part of their opinion:

"Few would argue with the need to tackle attempts to distort science, but is a blog the best way to do it? The approach certainly has its dangers. For example, many issues in climate science, such as the course of temperatures over previous millennia, are hotly debated by researchers. Some would argue that a rapid-rebuttal service, run with minimal peer review, can never hope to combat industry propaganda and properly represent this diversity of views.

Such criticisms are legitimate, but there is no reason that a prompt reply need be unbalanced. The researchers involved will, for example, have to work to ensure that they do not oversell their own opinions when commenting on research issues that divide scientists. Their goal is to provide solid scientific comment to journalists and other interested parties — and there is no reason to doubt that this can be achieved in this fashion."


 * Dr. Michaels quote suggests that they have, in fact, mixed more of their opinion with the science. Something nature did worry about. The link to Science requires you to pay, so I cannot tell what they said. In this context, Dr. Michaels quote is even more appropriate to include.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

POV section
The recognition section is POV if it contains praise while equally notable and reliably-sourced criticism is suppressed. I have tagged the section as POV until this is resolved.

The dispute is this edit.

My view is this: the criticism is well sourced and from a notable person. It is properly attributed, and sourced to the Guardian, a well-known and respected newspaper. Either we should remove both praise and criticism, or keep both praise and criticism, but keeping the praise while removing the criticism is POV. I would accept either inclusion or removal of both, but I object to inclusion of one without the other. ATren (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two problems with Michaels quote. First, how is he notable outside a very small sphere? To be honest, he's a retired third-rate scientist. His only claim to fame is the man-bites-dog effect of being a climate contrarian, and that is extremely restricted. Secondly, Michaels is a frequent subject of RealClimate, i.e. he has a major COI. If we include his opinion, we also must make this COI clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen, COI does not apply outside of Wikipedia. Michaels is not the editor adding the quote, he made the quote off-wiki in a reliably-sourced commentary; it would only be COI if he actually added the text to this article. ATren (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course COI applies outside of Wikipdia. We would also not uncritically report the opinion of Osama bin-Laden on the US. Such sources need proper context to avoid being misleading. WP:COI does not apply, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be time for yoga, deletionists are still stretching their logic to keep notable opinions out.(LVAustrian (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * LV, this is inappropriate. Please keep the debate on topic. ATren (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, but I don't think these people intend to be rational about this issue. They seem to be waiting their time until they have numbers on their side or we lose interest so they can continue to revert criticism.(LVAustrian (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Stephan, apologies for misinterpreting your comment about COI. As for the issues you raised, Michaels is not bin-Laden, and I've seen many cases where the person's POV stance is not disclosed when delivering a quote. For example, on Michaels' own bio, there are quotes from John Holdren and Tom Wigley, and there is no POV qualification listed for them. Michaels has a bio which is linked from his quote where his entire GW opinion (which is more nuanced than simple "contrarian", IMO) is discussed. As for COI, I don't really follow the argument as applied to this case. Perhaps you could suggest qualification text which would address your COI concern? ATren (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Steven, third-rate scientists don't teach at the University of Virginia, which by many measures is (at the least) tied as the best public university in the United States and (not surprisingly) one of the best universities on the planet. And that is hard for me to say because I'm a Virginia Tech fan. There is no conflict of interest, the quote provides good balance, it is not undue weight, it is from a notable and reliable well published climate scientist. You have a POV you are pushing, it’s that simple. (LVAustrian (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * A good university has a good faculty on average. Michaels publication record is, erm, not very impressive for someone in his position and at the end of his scientific career. He has little to no scientific influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Says who? What university do you teach at? BTW, you are only resorting to personal opinions to keep out his criticism at this point. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * My academic affiliation is not particularly secret. And my "personal opinion" is that a major magazine is more important than an individual. By your criteria, my comments should be in the article, not on the talk page... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you a climate scientist or a computer scientist? Have your comments on this been published in a major news outlet? Has your work on climate science been in a peer reviewed academic journal? How do we know you're not a third rate professor? Did anyone teach you civility? (Meltwaternord (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Unsubstantiated panegyrics for the University of Virginia aside ("one of the best universities on the planet" is certainly not true in terms of Nobel prizes), teaching at an established academic institution does not mean that one's opinion about each and every topic is notable enough to be featured in an encyclopedia article about that topic. And he doesn't even teach there anymore (even his biography page on the department's web site has been deleted). There are various possible reasons for his premature retirement from environmental research. But to quote the (current) director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy: (2003)


 * ''[Patrick Michaels] lacks Richard Lindzen’s [another climate sceptic] scientific stature. He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science
 * (NB he holds fringe views not only about climate change, but also about other topics).
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC) ( added source link as requested, and the year that remark was made - note that back then Michaels hadn't even retired yet from his position at the University of Virginia. HaeB (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC) )
 * Agreed that Michaels is biased and third-rate, but still an expert (barely) and the quote's published in a notable media. I think it should go in.  I think the section could be improved still further with evidence that most climatologists agree with RealClimate. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you include a link to the quote? This opinion does not mean Dr. Michaels criticism cannot be included. You don't seem to get it. You are holding up two different yardsticks for what can be included. A couple of journalists can praise the website but a published peer reviewed academic at one of the nations best universities cannot? Even if he isn't a nobel prize winner he is farm more credible and notable than the editorial page of a popular science magazine in this instance. Your complaints are simply measures of your own POV(LVAustrian (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I included the link, you are welcome.
 * This was from the Patrick Michaels article, which you do not seem to have read yet.
 * As for "the nation", please remember that this is an international encyclopedia.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazing there doesn't seem to be a petty edit war with people trying to keep out criticism on that page (Meltwaternord (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC))


 * http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings A) the US has some of the best universities on the world and the most Nobel Prize winners (that is what you get for making that comment). US News and World Report ranks UVA 3rd best public and 24th overall in the U.S. You don't teach at a top university for 27 years and make full professor by publishing junk - unless you are in the soft sciences, jk. (Meltwaternord (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Erm, what's the point of this quote anyway? All it seems to say is that scientists have opinions (surely not!), and that the website this article describes mixes these with science. It's a website — if anyone was after raw science, they'd surely go to the original scientific papers. If this quote is supposed to represent something profound, I suggest finding a better one. It's ambiguous, and seems to have been inserted to "damn-by-implication", i.e. it says nothing about the relationship between these "opinions" and "science". --P LUMBAGO 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Scientific American quote calls RC "A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants..." and "a focused, objective blog...". It is the editorial opinion of SA. Michaels quote counters that and indicates his opinion that it is mixes politics with its science. Though they disagree, both are reliably sourced opinions. As I have said, I have no objection to removing both, but as long as one view is included, we should not exclude the other. ATren (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Plum, one comment says its an objective blog the other says its an opinionated blog. (LVAustrian (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * One is by a major magazine, the other is by a lone (and mostly irrelevant) person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WMC, having enough friends to win an edit war does not make you right.(LVAustrian (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * LVA, you seem to have a problem over WP:CONSENSUS. We're not each other's friends, we are just a lot of unrelated people who happen all to agree that you are, in this case, not correct in your judgement. Please accept the consensus here and find something more useful to do on WP. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ATren, your statement "as long as one view is included, we should not exclude the other" reveals a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I am removing the POV tag until you have found time to familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. If you reinsert it, please give a justification which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't remove the tag until the dispute is settled. Especially since the dispute is so very clear and that you (And others) continue to stretch wiki rules to suit your needs - this is why your complaints continue to morph. (LVAustrian (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Lets try again: The section as it currently is describes how other scientific outlets describe realclimate, i would say that it reasonably summerizes notable comments. If there are negative reviews from scientific outlets, then they could be included here in accordance to their relative impact. Its rather hard to argue though that Scientific American, Nature and Science aren't relevant and notable mentions.

As for the critique by Michaels, that would describe a personal view from a scientist, and thus should be presented in accordance to its relative weight amongst other personal views. So if you want to have Michaels included, then you will also have to describe how other scientists see RC, and present these according to their WP:WEIGHT. Ie. if we take a subset of personal views from scientists about RC, how common is Michaels critique - if it is uncommon or a singular view, then it shouldn't be included.

Its a False balance to think that we must always have "balancing" critique, and it is completely out of sync with a neutral point of view. Critique is only merited if it is described according to its prevalence in the literature --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A) Scientific American, Nature, Science are notable. As is Cato, the Guardian and Dr. Michaels. Dr. Michaels is giving his persona view - as are the journalist editors of a science magazine which you seem to have no problem with. If he is undue weight, they are clearly undue weight. I can find more criticism of real climate including McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and Pielke Sr. for starters. No doubt you would have the same bogus claims. I've stuck with Michaels though Pielke Sr. would be just as notable and worthy of inclusion.(LVAustrian (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC))


 * If a scientists opinion is not noteworthy or gives undue balance then how is a nonscientists opinion better? Furthermore, if the only measure of critiquing a science blog is their science related noteworthiness, why is technocrati ranking even included? KDP, in order for your view to be held logically consistent, you must virtually blank the entire recognition section. (LVAustrian (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * You are still not getting it, critique in and by itself is not notable. It has to reflect the balance between praise and critique. SciAm, Nature and Science are in a different category than personal views. If you want to describe personal views, then you will have to describe the balance of personal views in the literature - and i haven't even seen an attempt to do so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A balance of personal views? Give me a break. A balance of person views means opinion priase from journalists and two opinion priases from science magazines balanced by no criticism at all, no matter who makes it. That is the extent of your logic. [cut personal attack Kim D. Petersen (talk) ] (LVAustrian (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * (e/c)It is two different categories, the first is the opinion amongst science distributers (Michaels is not such), and the second is personal views amongst scientists (Michaels is such). If you are really trying to argue that Michaels personal opinion is as important as the opinion of Scientific American's editorial board, then you have misunderstood WP:NPOV to rather an extreme degree.
 * If you can come up with critique from a scientific outlet such as Nature,Science or SciAm, then it would have merit.
 * If you want a balanced description of how scientists see RC, then by all means propose such, but do remember that it has to be balanced (prevalence of praise vs. critique).
 * But if you on the other hand just want the critique because it is critique - then you have misunderstood WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically your strategy is to widdle down the potential sources of criticism so that no criticism exists. This is not allowed in wikipedia. I'm sorry, you are wrong. You have to explain how your favored opinions are more important, notable, and relevant than the critical opinion. You have failed to accomplish that goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LVAustrian (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 December 2009
 * Sorry, but please assume good faith. No, i am trying to make you realize that balance is to present things according to their relative merit, that is what WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT requires us to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't all that hard to follow KDP and others. The praise offered by Science and Nature are EDITORIAL opinions. That is, the opinions of the editors (At the time) of that academic journal. The praise from ScientificAmerican is the opinion of the editorial board as well - of journalists. Wikipedia does NOT see a difference between these sets of opinions and the opinion offered by Dr. Patrick Michaels - a climatologist, retired UVA professor and a contributor to a past IPCC report. There are all relevant, notable opinions on the realclimate blog. Even the Nature editorial says there is a chance the scientists could improperly mix their opinions with the science. Dr. Michaels believed that happened. It is perfectly legitimate to include his criticism (LVAustrian (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * LV, I agree with your analysis in the above paragraph, however, I disagree with your latest edit, which gives the impression of a timeline, i.e. "However, by 2007...". That is POV in the other direction, and I will revert it back to the last version which includes neither. Also, you've made a lot of edits today, so I suggest you leave the article alone for the day, and we can revisit tomorrow. No deadlines here. ATren (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted on your page, creating a timeline was not my intention. I was merely trying to provide context for the complaint. A) Nature praised the website but warned that they had to remain objective to B) Dr. Michaels says they mix in their opinions, ie, are not objective. Maybe there is a better way to reflect that.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Which is about as classic as a synthesis can become. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [cut per WP:NPA Kim D. Petersen (talk) ](LVAustrian (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * And you failed again. This does not fit that criteria. Nature says they have to watch their opinions and remain objective. Patrick Michaels says they mix in their opinion with the science. That isn't synthesis since they both, independently reach their conclusions/opinions.(LVAustrian (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * You are taking A and B and creating a story of A+B => C. That is classic synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I'm taking story A) which says "look how great this article is, the better stay objective or they'll be just as bad as corporate sponsored lobbyists" (paraphrasing here) to put B into a context you deny exists B) scientist says article is based on opinion. That isn't synthesis that is simply stating the two organizations separate opinions. (LVAustrian (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree that paragraph is SYN (though unintentional), which is why I removed it.. This does not change my view on the weight issue. ATren (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, if the best criticism you could find is from a pay-to-talk guys blog, it's not notable. Removing the Scientific American comment only sounds like "if I don't get what I want, I'm going to destroy everyone else's contributions". —Apis (talk ) 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Apis (talk ) 07:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A terrible criticism. Not only do lots of scientists get paid to give presentations, this guy was holding this opinion BEFORE he retired from UVA and went to Cato. Postmodernism needs to stay out of the hard science.(Meltwaternord (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * In these talks, are they told what to say and think by those who pay them, I would be surprised if that was the case.
 * How many scientists will agree to give a presentation on subjects they don't believe in? Give me a break. This postmodernist excuse is bogus. If you can accuse Dr. Michaels of holding an opinion because a corporation paid him, he can accuse climate alarmists of holding their opinions because the government paid them. This is why science must be OBJECTIVE and be aired in the open - transparent. Good science will win out. Personal attacks (like the ones done at Realclimate and other sites) don't help the debate. Neither do these petty attempts to keep out valid criticism (Meltwaternord (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * But he's not working as a scientist, he's doing advocacy work. I don't know what he believes in, it's true that people believe in all kinds of strange things. Would he still be employed if he was saying things that didn't match his employers opinion? If a public university fired a researcher because they didn't like the results there would be an outrage. Who gets funding for what projects is typically decided by other independent scientists, not the government (I don't know how they do it in all the different parts of the world though.) If this weren't the case I think they would tell you exactly what you wanted to hear. Fortunately the scientific evidence does not always do that.
 * He's working as a scientist for a policy research organization with libertarian leanings. Cato Institute hired him because he already agrees with them. In some ways perhaps he even changed their view, we don't know. I do know you are engaging in postmodernist thinking - attacking people, organizations, affiliations and not the facts. Scientific evidence does exactly what the data put into it says it will. The numbers don't lie, but sometimes the numbers are manipulated or the math is done poorly. That is what Cato and Dr. Michaels attack (though Michaels does point out that government researchers stand to lose billions if catastrophic climate change proves false and has mentioned that may be a motivator in overstating their case) Again, drop the postmodernist thinking because any attack you make can be aimed right back at you. (Meltwaternord (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * The data comes from many independent systematic and repeatable experiments. It's been discussed by thousands of independent scientists over the world for over a century. The whole point of the scientific process is all about removing the human bias. That isn't what think-tanks are doing. They make things up that suits their interests. But there is no point in discussing that here.
 * We are discussing this article, and since we apparently cant agree on the facts we have to fall back on Wikipedia policies. Those say we should try to present a neutral point of view and not give undue weight to minority views.
 * Humans, I'm afraid, are human. We make mistakes and we do insert our own biases. Sometimes we work very hard to find the smallest error and make the biggest deal out of it. Academics are NOT immune to this, especially in my field. Perhaps this is what the climate change skeptics are doing at the moment, but to think that academics are immune from mistake and are driven only by objectivity is nonsense. As for undue weight your point is bogus. You cannot disregard criticism simply because the critics are in the minority on the climate change science. This isn't about the climate change science this is about realclimate.org. Furthermore, climate change skeptics get swaths of pages on wikipedia. In fact there are 43 skeptics with their own articles. NPOV requires that you include minority views of this stature. You do not have to include every minority view. And for the "proportion" of the article we have 2 science journals praising, one popular magazine praising and one science journal mentioning that it is the number 3 most popular science blog. That is 4 elements of praise. One element of criticism is NOT undue weight - especially the one sentence variety several of us have been posting.(Meltwaternord (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Most scientists and researchers I have met, on both sides of the isle, whether they work at think tanks, policy advocacy organizations, or at universities think they are right because the data is on their side. Simply working for a university does not confer moral or intellectual superiority, it does not make you right, and it does not make you immune from making errors.(Meltwaternord (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

—Apis (talk ) 08:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point: what I said was that the scientific process is designed to remove human bias. Science ensures that the conclusions made agree with "reality". Scientists (i.e. humans) however, are highly unreliable, that's why we need science.
 * NPOV states that different viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence.
 * Yup and 43 wiki articles on skeptics and dozens of sections on skeptic thought and criticism suggests they are deserving of at least some notes. 4 items of praise and one item of criticism hardly creates undue weight. (72.193.58.49 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * And it doesn't remove human bias if data is hidden, manipulated, and other scientists are attacked for double checking the math. Petty squabbles in academics and among academics are common (they even fight amongst each other over office space size and who gets keys to the lounge after hours), but climate science has gotten out of hand.(72.193.58.49 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Von Storch assessment
think its a better point than a CATO voice. However i dont see a pov tag as being necessary. BR --Polentario (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, i certainly do see the POV tag as necessary now. Stating/implying that ZentralOrgan is associated with communism, is directly wrong. The SPD's newspaper Vorwärts is a good example of such, and the German socialdemocrats are certainly not communists. Seems to me that you are interpreting von Storch your own way. Not to mention that all of the arguments about personal viewpoints of scientists being presented in accordance to their relative prevalence goes for vS as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First Storch is an important player with regard to mann and the Hockeystick since he did the report about the controversy in the 4th AR. Undue weight does definitely not apply here. My reference to Zentralorgan is just a comment to make the comment understandeable to a non german reader. As a regular reader of the Vorwärts, i clearly can state that it was founded as a Zentralorgan but is not dubbed that way nowadays in the derogatory way Storch did. Check Handbuch der Phraseologie für a better understanding. resp i did the lemma. (Ooops). --Polentario (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a very good german reader and somewhat rusty speaker, the phrase zentralorgan to my understanding means the official outlet for a political party, not specifically a communist one - the example being Vorwärz. As for the weight part, see above, if you are going to insert personal opinions from scientists, then it has to be balanced (per WP:NPOV) in the proportion that scientists see RC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO you keep trying to weasel using formal regulations in an not at all appropriate way. This is not a private statement of Storch on his blog, but a statement mirrored and printed in a prominent newspaper. So far anything not praising Realclimate has been excluded or erased in this lemma so dont start telling me about balancing a statement. --Polentario (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not against critique, i'm asking for it presented in a way so that it matches its relative prevalence. If vS or PM are representative of the personal opinion of climate scientists on RC, then it would be balanced, unfortunately both you and i know that vS and PM's views are outliers, and thus it is not presented neutrally. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KDP, you continue to conflate issues. There is not going to be a scientific consensus on whether or not RC is objective or opinion based. You are holding critics up to nonsensical illogical standards. (Meltwaternord (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry, but i'm not "conflating". NPOV demands that when you present a view, you must present it neutrally, and that means, in the wikipedia sense, that you have to present it relative to the sum of views on a given topic. (that is weight in a nutshell). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with KDP in this case. It's not constructive criticism either. One also has to wonder why vS says this now, directly after the incident with the stolen e-mails? Was he mentioned unfavourably in the correspondence? Speculative of course, but it makes you wonder. In general I think this critique falls under the notability standard. If there is some notable constructive criticism of RC I'm not against including it either, but lets try to be serious about it.
 * KDP, you are conflating the issue. Unless you have evidence of some kind of scientific consensus on realclimate's website then you need to drop your complaint. Show me the consensus, because that is the only way you can eliminate the criticism with this bogus complaint. The "sum relative to the point of view" is just nonsense.(Meltwaternord (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * You still don't get it. I'm not interested in "eliminat(e)[ing] criticism", i'm asking for it to be presented according to NPOV. And that does mean (no matter if you think its nonsense or not) that praise and critique has to be presented in measures corresponding to their relative prevalence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you continue to fail to prove just that. I don't even think you have made an honest attempt to go and find proper criticism. Think of it anotherway. Why does Nature, Science, or even the editorial from that magazine have "relative prevalence"? Have you built a data set on opinions of this blog to show how it is all relative?(Meltwaternord (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC))
 * To describe von Storch as outlier and compare him to PM is completely out of judgement. Storchs statement is as well printed in a major German newspaper, the close connection to the east anglia incident is noteworthy, since Storch has identified there Manns repeated attempts against a suitable judgement of the hockeystick controversy. vS asked mann already to be excluded from any further peer review. --Polentario (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing von Storch with Eduardo Zorita, to my knowledge vS hasn't asked anyone to be excluded from "any further peer review" (in fact from reading vS's comments, that would be rather contradictory to his views) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the note on Mann being roasted by others. vS defintely wants Mann AND Gavin Schmid to be kicked out of Peer Review, Statement on his Website. Thats as well the back ground for the anti Realclimate stance. --Polentario (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except of course that such a statement doesn't exist on von Storch's webpage (except as a "i didn't say that" notice)[unless of course it's changed since last night]. So i guess i'm correct, you are confusing Zorita (a rather minor character within climate research) and von Storch (a major player). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Check his Website for the following quote Also mails from/to Eduardo Zorita and myself are included; also we have been subject of frequent mentioning, usually not in a flattering manner. Interesting exchanges, and evidences, are contained about efforts to destroy "Climate Research"; that we in the heydays of the hockeystick debate shared our ECHO-G data with our adversaries; and that Mike Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.) I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC. --Polentario (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now sit down quietly and reread the last paragraph, and ponder a bit about whether von Storch deliberately said "A conclusion could be" or whether he (as you apparently think) meant something different than what he wrote (since you apparently exchange "could" with "should"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) KDP is absolutely right that Storchs view in this case is rather unique and it would be undue weight to include it. The references form Nature, Science and the award from Scientific American is proof in itself. (somewhat ironically, isn't excluding from peer review what the contrarians accuse others of having tried?)
 * This is a very unusual conclusion to reach considering Dr. Mann admitted in one of the hacked emails that they censor the website. This is pretty standard criticism for realclimate. Ironically, you all have deleted any references to that email as well in other edit wars. Something tells me nothing would satisfy your very very strict requirements.(Meltwaternord (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

You all have displayed the most aggravating round of circular reasoning I have ever seen on wikipedia. Your complaints shift with the debate and even contradict each other. (Meltwaternord (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Aside

 * I'm shaking my head reading all this. Only the likes of von Storch can save climate science. When people hear a choir of voices in perfect tune they get suspicious. Healthy vigorous debate is needed and von S is one of a minority providing this -- providing the whole discipline with credibility in other words.


 * The social organisation that ceases to debate loses the ability to deal with challenges. Anyone thinking AGW is a critical threat needs to embrace the reasoned but critical voices coming from within the camp. The truth is not to be feared. Attempts to present a PR front can only backfire. Dduff442 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Only the likes of von Storch can save climate science"? What? The work of thousands of scientists over decades means nothing if a few of them were rude or off-hand in private emails? So only von Storch can save climate science now? This is an alternative reality where the sky is green too, I assume? --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've come back to this because it's been bothering me all evening. How did you conclude from the message above that my belief was 'the work of thousands of scientists over decades means nothing'? And what conceivable purpose was served by your last sentence?


 * I assume you jumped to conclusions about who I am, my opinions and so on. None of these assumptions was correct. I might have been a hard core denier, I could have been uncertain, scientifically illiterate or just plain stupid. As it happens, I don't believe I'm any of these things however had I been any of the last three your comment would have gone a long way towards alienating me and pushing me into the arms of the deniers.


 * What I'm pointing out here is the need for a little bit of political subtlety and I do this in the interests of furthering aims we presumably both share.


 * First of all the belief people will look up Wikipedia, read a negative remark and immediately form a concrete opinion about Real Climate (or whatever) is simply incorrect. Every signigicant figure in human history has had copious amounts of mud slung at him and this doesn't determine people's perception on its own. People are familiar with the idea of devious or hidden motivations and parse statements accordingly, especially in political matters. Anyone who took everything presented to them at face value would think if they shaved with Gilette razors then Elin Nordgren would want to shag them. It's not possible to survive with that degree of naivety.


 * I don't know about you, but if I've any interest in the contents of a Wiki page the first thing I do is look at the talk page and edit history. And if I did that with the climate pages here having just arrived from Mars, my immediate conclusion would be that Global Warming is a giant conspiracy. Why? Because though both sides here edit war and employ unfair argument to try and get their way, the AGW proponents are more numerous and winning and that would then automatically draw their point of view into question. Remember that AGW proponents need to convince people; deniers need only foster doubt in people's minds.


 * I can guarantee you that ill-informed people do what I described every day and some are certainly going to get suspicious of the AGW claims as a result. The reason is AGW proponents feel the need to engage in a PR campaign to convince people of things, but this is the opposite what is really the case. This comes across as false on the Talk pages (as do the deniers) which causes confusion. Equal impausibility doesn't imply a draw however... It's actually the very best its possible for the deniers to achieve.


 * In reality, the facts are completely in favour of AGW and the articles would have the greatest impact if strictly honest argument were the standard. The deniers might then still employ rent-a-scientists (as tobacco companies did), fringe politicians, unsound reasoning etc etc and that wouldn't bother me because the more tendentious their arguments and the more ridiculous the sources they employ the more they provide ammunition that may be exploited. The rent-a-scientists are corrupt and the fringe politicians are idiots and blowhards; the position being combatted is self-discrediting in the final analysis.


 * At this point I should say that I just cannot understand the desire to keep the von Storch quote out of the article. It's the statement of a respected scientist and the rules of evidence, so to speak, need to be subject to rationality-defying distortions to justify its exclusion. Is it seriously imagined that this will lead to AGW being discredited in anyone's mind?


 * I really am not concerned about the content... My concern is for the integrity of the discipline being portrayed. T*h*e*y are the ones who need to cheat. We are the ones who stand to lose by cheating.Dduff442 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen. ATren (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All I meant is that robust debate is essential to maintaining the credibility of any movement. What I said was 'only the likes of...', which is not the same as 'only...'. I didn't dismiss the vast corpus of scientific research in any way and I don't know how you inferred this. All the good science in the world is futile if it lacks the capacity to drive action on the practical plane.Dduff442 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What movement/social organization? Of course vS in general is interesting and worth listening to (i just heard a german radio interview) - but that doesn't make him more prominent in the context of RC, than other individual scientists. People are not even arguing that critique shouldn't be here - just that if you want opinions from individuals, then that opinion has to be balanced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a massive stretch of the policy to suggest the source be excluded until those who want it in can go off and find countervailing opinion to 'balance' it. Wouldn't praise for RC be the 'Small Earthquake in Chile, Not Many Hurt' of science journalism? Who's going to print that, and why? Controversy is newsworthy, its absence isn't. Dduff442 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)