Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 12

Gelbspan, de Granados & Lindzen
I have just spent the evening actually reading every single edit Kim D. Petersen has made to the talk pages here to see if I could find evidence to substantiate his above claims that he's produced additional sources before, or why he would assert that he knows that I know they're there, and that I'm not acting in good faith.

This has taken me around three hours.

Now, after making this exhaustive, time consuming search, I can confidently assert that, no, Kim D. Petersen has never, ever produced another source for the oil industry connections other than Gelbspan & de Granados sources that already appear in the article. Instead, what I have found are numerous claims by Kim that there is a huge weight to this story in the literature, but no one has ever called him on this and demanded that he show us the evidence.

So I have now gone even further and started seriously trying to find them myself, and, basically, I can't. There are indeed many websites & blogs like ExxonSecrets, DeSmogBlog, Sourcewatch, and RealClimate, who carry the story -- and they all link it back to Gelbspan (1995, Harper's Magazine) as I have said -- but there are no other mainstream news hits out there.

Kim, I put it to you that this whole thing is in your imagination. Will you please agree that this mountain of sources actually nothing more than lots of internet pages? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Update, this may be wrong if you do a news search throughout all archives on Google. I believe, yes, there may have been some news activity around the mid 1990s on this one, and the odd book reference to it. Still, I haven't been able to find a reliable source so far, but a bit of searching will probably produce a few more sources for it. What I did find was this, though: Gelbspan ABC interview. In that interview, Gelbspan explains why there are no sources -- this whole story, I now find, is allegedly based on Lindzen's word of mouth. Gelbspan is reporting what Lindzen allegedly told him... Very interesting given Lindzen's subsequent description of Gelbspan's piece as "slanderous". It likely also explains why Gelbspan didn't respond to my emails about his sources... Alex Harvey (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gelbspan, "Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth." My emphasis, very interesting. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section, here. I am not playing this game any longer. The section has no weight, unless we consider a few, less than 10, news references, mostly being 15 years old, as our definition of weight. The section has no weight, according to KDP's 'strict' understanding of what weight is. Per WP:BLP, and WP:NOT it stays out until KDP can explain using sources and evidence why this should be in the article, and why it has been in the article for so long in the first place, against the objections of so many editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of this section. It is not worthy of an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

consensus?
We have had silence for a number of weeks here and the contentious material hasn't been readded. Unfortunately, we have no record of a "consensus" here to remove it. This is likely to be a problem, as someone will, sooner or later, just readd it. Can we get more voices supporting this removal of contentious material, as failing WP:WEIGHT and therefore WP:BLP? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this removal mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a problem with removal of the Gelbspan material, but the iris hypothesis does need a mention in the lead, as does the fact that Lindzen does not work primarily on climate change - existing wording is not ideal, but better than nothing. JQ (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gelbspan removal. I have removed the subjective "published little" from the career section and rewritten. I have removed the source for this, a blog post about an Australian shock jock of which Lindzen was a passing mention. This article is starting to look encyclopedial.Momento (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the talk thread after making edits about whether L has written on climate change. JQ, appreciate your support for removal of the Gelbspan. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

consensus for permanent removal of "conflict of interest" allegations after Gelbspan (1995; Harper's Magazine)
In the talk page above, as well as in a number of independent discussions in the archives, it has been argued that allegations against Dr. Lindzen -- first published in a 1995 article by the environmentalist and journalist, Ross Gelbspan -- are seen now in 2010 to fail our weight guideline such that they should not be included in the biography of a distinguished living scientist. Readers should consider policies, WP:NPOV subsection WP:WEIGHT; WP:NOT; and most importantly WP:BLP, noting that many, many editors have objected in the past in good faith to inclusion of the section.

Please also review the above discussions.

Other editors have argued that the material has weight in reliable sources, and must be included. It has been asserted that there is a great volume of coverage of this material in reliable sources, but no evidence has been brought forth. My own searches suggest that aside from Mr. Gelbspan's own repeated coverage of the allegations (e.g. in a subsequent book; and on ABC Lateline), and a PBS documentary by de Granados, there is in fact very little coverage of the material in strictly reliable sources. Further, this material is not connected with Dr. Lindzen's notability.

The material was removed a few weeks ago here and inclusionists have since gone silent. My concern is that without a community consensus logged, preferably including uninvolved admins, it will be readded in the months ahead, and argued that there was no consensus for its removal.

Alex Harvey (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Responses from previously involved editors

 * Agree with it`s removal. mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree with removal. It meets wiki standards.  The problem is with the wiki standards themselves.  Editors should be able to use editorial discretion, in my opinion, and that's what's being done here, probably appropriately, but not according to wiki.  Weight isn't determined by our opinion on an issue's weight but by the weight it carries in an RS.  I won't put it back in, but I won't go along with an incorrect statement of consensus. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. The only Wiki standard it meets is "undue weight". I'm sure hundreds of article mention Lindzen so why do we delve back to the 90's for this bit of gossip.Momento (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * JQ agreed with the removal above. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Responses from previously uninvolved editors

 * Please provide links to versions with and without the disputed content to help with the request for comment. MiRroar (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I have added the diff where I removed the material above now. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the diff. This is a contentious political issue and it is difficult to say include or do not include. The incidents happened and there are reliable sources, but the part you removed had too much weight. An editor who wants to use these sources should cut the size down alot, it is a minor incident for the BLP. MiRroar (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with removal. One quote from the removed piece says all that is necessary, '...allegations that Lindzen described as a "slander" and "libelous". Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tiger Woods could say the affair allegations are slander and libelous but they are notable, they are in reliable sources. MiRroar (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a particularly good analogy, because the Tiger Woods allegations are not allegations; they're facts. On the other hand, the Gelbspan allegations are indeed just allegations. If you want to believe Mr. Gelbspan's story, then you have to believe that Lindzen made up a defamatory story about himself, and that Gelbspan has faithfully published it, and that Lindzen then had a change of heart and decided to deny it & call it slander when he saw it in print. This is utterly absurd. I don't think any respectable people believe this story is true anymore. For instance, Spencer Weart (the left wing science historian) seems to have withdrawn reference to the Gelbspan allegations in his book, The Discovery of Global Warming, after Lindzen called it slander, and we'd have to assume that he's done so not from fear of litigation from Dr. Lindzen but from simply coming to doubt the truth of it. This mantra that " we just report what's in the reliable sources" needs to change. We don't do that, and we never have, and we never will. What really happens is (1) we begin with an opinion that a particular source is reliable and then (2) having assumed our opinion to be correct, we cite the source and assert its reliability. The Gelbspan source is almost certainly presenting false, slanderous information about a living person. Ergo, it is not a reliable source, and it must stay out. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include this. It looks like the 'allegations' are "Lindzen got paid for doing a legal job.  Oh, and he didn't use his own personal money for travel expenses to testify before Congress".  I don't think that saying professionals get paid for working is WP:DUE; I also don't think that it's libel (and neither, apparently, does Lindzen's counsel, because I see no evidence of a lawsuit).  If this unimportant 'allegation' were to be included, I'd summarize it in a single sentence:  "Lindzen has been criticized for working as a professional consultant for some energy companies."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are the facts that he was paid $10,000 for doing legal jobs, and then there are the unsubstantiated, unproven allegations that come from undocumented conversations between Mr. Gelbspan & Dr. Lindzen. This would include the allegation that Lindzen's 1992 paper was "underwritten" by OPEC, which if true, would indicate presumably some kind of unethical behaviour by Lindzen. The fact that there has been no lawsuit does not prove anything. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We must err on the side of caution in the case of a BLP. If Lindzen himself believes that the claims are libelous then they cannot be included unless they are proven without doubt to be completely true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mr. Hogbin, and I think that ought to be the standard for the way unproven allegations are handled throughout Wikipedia. --Goodranch (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Point proved
I think it's clear that the Gelbspan material is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The next big improvement would be to reduce media appearances to about 10% of its length. Currently it looks as if he's a science reporter doing the rounds, not a respected scientist.Momento (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestion
An editor has pointed out that Lindzen's biography has been included in American Men and Women of Science. I suggest this may give us a lot of good material that will help us to structure neutrally this Wikipedia biography. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not get distracted. That "Media Appearances" takes up half the article is clearly absurd. Imagine an article on Bob Dylan, Bob Hope or Bob Kennedy where half the article is taken up with "Media Appearances"?! Please!Momento (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Momento, the trouble is that Wikipedia is full of absurdity and it requires both cunning and patience to get it even into the same room with sanity. I fully expect to be having these same sorts of absurd discussions about this article come New Year's Day 2011. I have accepted that, and I do hope you'll stick it out here with me! In the mean time, it is my prediction that the American Men and Women of Science biography will turn out to be a genuinely neutral treatment of Lindzen's life. Let's do this scientifically, and I will propose an hypothesis: I expect that the AMWS biography will have only a small section on Lindzen's contributions to the climate change controversy. I am sure it will cover the Iris hypothesis briefly. It may or may not mention his earlier, discarded hypothesis about the water vapour feedback. And I'll bet that it won't mention the Lindzen/Choi hypothesis at all, as that is both a work in progress and being discussed at the same time in the literature. I'll bet that it won't at any point contrast Lindzen's views with any so-called "consensus" view, but it will simply allow his views to stand as they are. I predict, further, that there will be possibly a sentence or two, but quite possibly nothing, about Lindzen's media appearances. Finally, I predict that the proportion of the biography in any way treating Lindzen's climate change skepticism will take up no more than 10% of the word count. Now I am very motivated to go to the library tomorrow to find out. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My library doesn't have this, and I may have to travel a bit to find a copy. Does anyone else have access to this work? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Email to Mr. Gelbspan reproduced
I have emailed Mr. Gelbspan again, and he has not responded again. I have decided to reproduce the email here, because I believe Mr. Gelbspan should have responded. If he will not respond to me, perhaps he will respond to someone else.

from	Alex Harvey to date	4 February 2010 23:07 subject	Ross Gelbspan's sources for Lindzen in Harper's Magazine, 1995 Dear Sir/Madam,

I write this email for Ross Gelbspan.

I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia involved in a long running dispute over the biography of Dr. Richard Lindzen.

It has been famously written by Mr. Gelbspan, in Harper's Magazine (1995), "Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."

This appears to be a reference to a 1992 paper Lindzen had published in Regulation, available at Dr. Lindzen's university homepage, here.

In an ABC interview (Lateline, 2005) Mr. Gelbspan later stated,

"ROSS GELBSPAN: Well, Mr Lindzen does, but Mr Lindzen is really sort of out there on a limb. I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world."

I am trying to get to the truth of this story, as Lindzen himself later has described the 1995 Harper's article as "slanderous."

As far as I can tell, further, it is widely accepted that Lindzen is, if nothing else, an honest scientist.

I should add, I have read Lindzen's 1992 paper that was allegedly underwritten by OPEC and compared it with other papers written by Lindzen and the story seems implausible. The paper is in Lindzen's original style from beginning to end. Further, Lindzen is famous for giving his speeches off the cuff. He is, as everyone knows, a very good speaker, and a very good debater -- regardless of his views on climate change.

I have emailed before and had no answer, but I ask again: can Mr. Gelbspan please clarify this remark? We are living in a time when the public just wants to see people being fair and ethical, and a clarification of what this all meant in Harper's 1995 I am sure would be well received.

Kind regards,

Alex Harvey Sydney, Australia [mobile phone deleted]

Alex Harvey (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe in your letter you have misunderstood the word "underwritten" - the word does not have anything to do with who wrote the paper, nor the writing style, but rather who funded it. "The paper is in Lindzen's original style from beginning to end" isn't really a response to the claim that the paper was funded by OPEC. (Whether that is true or not, I have no idea. And whether it matters or not, I also have no idea, although typically claims about who paid for research amounts to a form of ad hominem argument.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you're right and certainly I hadn't considered that "underwritten" meant that "his speaking fees were underwritten." I thought the word could also be a synonym for "ghostwritten", but now that I look it up I seem to have got that wrong. As far as setting the record straight, then, Gelbspan is still hiding his source material for all of this, and I think it's still incumbent on him, given Lindzen's claim that it is slanderous, to engage in some dialogue to settle the matter. From the point of view of this article, though, I believe the point has been settled, as the contentious material has been removed from the article now. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex, Gelbspan is not "hiding" his material nor is it "incumbent" on him to do anything. Journalism doesn't work like Wikipedia - you very seldomly get the background material. If Lindzen really means that it is slanderous (as opposed to just not like it), then he is the one who should file suit (or ask for corrections when it is repeated), especially since the Gelbspan research is being quoted in other reliable sources. Frankly i doubt if it isn't correct, and i believe that Lindzen's claim of "slanderous" is referring to the fact that it gets brought up at all (ie. ad hominem). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

POV edits
JQ, you have yet again modified the text to have it state your opinion that, "[Lindzen's] main contribution to the academic literature on anthropogenic climate change is his proposal of the iris hypothesis in 2001..." This is your opinion, it may be William Connolley's opinion too, but it is POV; it is not WP:V and is WP:OR. I don't happen to agree that Iris was his "main" contribution to the academic literature on climate change. Why not IPCC TAR or the NAS Climate Change panel? Others will doubtlessly have yet other opinions that are different from both mine and yours. This article is not an article about climate change, but an article about Lindzen's intellectual history. It is not going to remain as a blog where editors can argue about climate change with each other. Will you please revert this back to the previous wording and build consensus here for contentious edits first? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IPCC and other panel work is not really a research contribution as such. It's definitely notable, but I don't think that it represents scientific progress per se.  The iris hypothesis is clearly a relevant contribution on this score, but he may have better ones.  Also, the current wording may give the impression that he's a johnny-come-lately to climate topics (cf. some other climate contrarians), when it's clear from his academic record that his research (e.g. in atmospheric dynamics) is aligned to climate interests even if it often isn't directly related to anthropogenic climate change.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  12:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You have demonstrated the point I made above that others may have opinions that differ from both JQ and myself. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No statistically significant warming since 1995
This claim has been contentious lately, | to put it mildly. It appears Lindzen is the | original source, but I'm not sure if this blog entry, claiming to be posted with his permission, is a WP:RS. Amy thoughts on this? JQ (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i doubt watts would post it without his permission and i believe wp:rs policy has a section saying scientists are reliable even with self published stuff, but i`m not 100% sure on this, best wait for another poster mark nutley (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The text quoted is statistically illiterate. I think BLP would prevent us reporting L as saying that, unless we have very good evidence for it. WUWT isn't good enough evidence for this kind of stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BLP policy specifically excludes blogs etc. as suitable sources. Let's leave the sensational and start reducing "media appearances".Momento (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, I don't see a note sent to a blog to have any WP:WEIGHT in the biography of a reasonably successful scientist. Alex, do you have an opinion on this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindzen has repeatedly asserted that global warming stopped in 1998, using the phrase "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between" in at least two Newsweek pieces, most recently | here. This assertion is reliably sourced, and definitely notable, in my view.JQ (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now found a reliable source for (a restatement of) the "no statistically significant warming since 1995' claim. An article by Lindzen published by Quadrant (magazine)in 2009 states "there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. " . That seems to meet all the requirements. JQ (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well those are wp:rs so i think you can stick this in mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I guess I'd have to agree that a very short email reproduced at Watts' blog has no relevance to this article. It would inevitably fail weight, regardless of how it might be used, and could not be considered a reliable source. If it did turn out be relevant to something, and I don't think it will, it might be the global warming controversy article, or the temperature record article, or the Climategate article, or something like that. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A Quadrant Magazine quote is likewise not relevant, given the already obscene dragging out of the media appearances section. Agree with Momento, we need to get back to discussing cutting media appearances to about 1/10th its present length, in order to present a neutral, balanced biography here. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Quadrant magazine article? It's a full-length article, by Lindzen, with references. Lindzen is stating his own views, on an issue of major importance. This is clearly a reliable source for Lindzen's views. JQ (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether Lindzen actually holds this view, or whether you can find a reliable source for it, but whether it has any weight. Lindzen has published 230 papers, and not one of them is about the statistical analysis of temperature trends. Presumably he has seen the temperature trends analysed, or he has analysed it himself, and he sees that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. But we are talking about a single passing reference to this fact in an op-ed, and a brief email sent to Anthony Watts. You are confusing the importance of an issue in the context of the present controversy about temperature trends, and the importance of the issue in the context of Lindzen's intellectual history. Please see WP:COATRACK. This is not the place to be arguing about climate change. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with AH. Let's leave the Climate Change debate and who said what and concentrate on making this article encyclopedic and that means reducing the "Media Appearances" section.Momento (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. No one outside climatology would care two hoots about Lindzen if he weren't a prominent critic of AGW consensus. To suggest that the article should omit his major claim to fame has no basis in policy. The claim about no significant warming since 1995 is a major issue of public controversy, and Lindzen appears to have originated it -he has certainly published the claim in Quadrant, which is a quasi-scholarly journal.
 * JQ, I am not sure why this is so hard to understand, but once again, Lindzen's claim to notability is that he has made significant contributions to scientific knowledge, whereas his stance on global warming has nothing much to do with it. So having more than half of the article devoted to his stance on global warming would be kind of like having half of Einstein's article devoted to his views on nuclear disarmament. If we found that over at Einstein's article, we would say that the article had been hijacked as a WP:COATRACK about nuclear disarmament. This is what has happened here, and now it needs to be undone. Meanwhile, as for this "major issue of public controversy," you seem to be referring in fact to the BBC Phil Jones interview here, Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming? Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. It is completely original research for you to be assuming this observation originates with Lindzen. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with JQ here. Lindzen would be sufficiently notable for an article due to his scientific work, no doubt. But his existing notability does not come primarily from that, but from his very public dissent on global warming. Looking over e.g. Google hits, it looks like 18 out of the first 20 are concerned with global warming (the other two are his home page and our article). With Google News hits, it looks like 20/20 deal with his contrariness on climate change. This is a major part of his fame, and needs to be reflected adequately in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

← I would suggest that Lindzen has two claims on notability. One is his scientific record which is pretty significant, but he'd be completely unknown to the wider public (and would likely not appear here; cf. the hundreds of otherwise similarly distinguished scientists) were it not for his other claim: his climate change contrarianism. The article should clearly address both, with the balance between them a key aspect to keeping this article NPOV. I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. Both for brevity and to avoid an expanding morass of material based on every contrary thing he says (cf. WP:COATRACK). Regardless of whether Lindzen is the ultimate source for the "no statistically significant global warming" statement (which would be significant for his scientific notability; and this should be established one way or the other), if it is something he is pushing hard then it clearly is notable for his contrarian notability as one of these points of disagreement with mainstream scientists. Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 09:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, largely. I think that L would be notable even without his contrarianism, even though most people wouldn't have heard of him (it would be for the atmos tides stuff, though that is a long time ago). I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. An excellent point. I entirely agree William M. Connolley (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Plumbago, I am mostly in agreement with you, and where I disagree, I think you've just been misinformed by the present discussion. No: "no statistical warming since 1995", is definitely not something Lindzen has pushed hard. JQ has taken the remark completely out of context in the Quadrant article, where the real context is Lindzen comparing the performance of the IPCC models with actual observations. To Stephan, you are confusing notability with fame and topicality. To William, Lindzen's contributions to science go well beyond his early work on atmospheric tides. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alex, the relevant quotes from the Quadrant article appear to be "This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years" and "Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged" (my emphasis). While Lindzen is discussing the performance of climate models, these statements appear to be talking about the real, rather than simulated, climate.  Unfortunately, he does not attribute the content of either statement to any publication (unlike other points in the article).  As such, I'm not at all sure that the remark is being taken out of context.  That said, judging from this piece and some others that I've briefly perused, Quadrant does not seem the most reliable of sources for reporting on scientific matters.  While I'd much prefer that Lindzen's contrarian views were sourced to his scientific papers on the subject, his frequent appearances in more popular media are notable because he often makes more extreme statements there.  And since climate change is debated much (much) more in popular/political settings than scientific ones, this makes such pronouncements an important part of his notability.  Your mileage clearly does vary.  --P LUMBAGO  14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Plumbago, given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight. What possible justification could we have for including this here on the basis of a passing sentence made in the context of a different discussion, rather than in Phil Jones' biography, where the context is clearly the temperature trends? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My point about the one sentence was not that it should be included, but that it did not appear to be taken out of context, contrary to your statement to this effect. As I've said before, I would much prefer that Lindzen's scientific articles be used to source his contrarian views, but I do not believe he is anywhere near as strident in formal publications than informal ones.  As I've also said before, since he is at least as notable for his engagement with climate politics as he is for his science, I believe that less formal (or even polemical; cf. Quadrant) sources can be useful if they elucidate his contrarian views more clearly.  If he makes his most outspoken and most widely disseminated statements there, then that's where the article should pick them up.  But I don't have the view that we must include this particular source.  --P LUMBAGO  11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as effective utilisation of my time and Wikipedia's server space is concerned, have you actually concluded now that Lindzen has "pushed this hard", which was the very good criterion you gave initially, and if not, why did you continue with the discussion? The point was settled already; there is no way policy could allow this into the biography. If it happens to be your opinion that Lindzen has made "extreme" statements in the media, your opinion doesn't belong here in this talk page, and it certainly doesn't belong in the article. Obviously, there is nothing extreme about stating an uncontroversial fact -- a fact that Phil Jones, and all other honest scientists, agree with. This conversation has so far cost us 20 kilobytes of server space, and 2,000 words of volunteer editor time. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I've not really written a huge amount here. I am just trying to express my view that Lindzen is notable for both his science and for his contrarianism, and to challenge the assertion that certain of his purported views are being presented here out of context.  Anyway, I think I'll try to look more at the article than here.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  11:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

given that this is one sentence in one of many op-eds, and that Lindzen has written 230 papers and three books, once again, it doesn't have any weight. is wrong. As others have said, L's contrarianism is why he is publicly known. This is a fairly clear example of it, so is good to include. There are no BLP issues left: it is clearly something he wants to say and wants people to hear. P has suggested that ''I'd suggest that descriptions of his contrarianism should focus on, and clearly delineate, where he breaks with the scientific consensus. '' and this would be one excellent example.

However, from the Quadrant piece, I'd say this is a fairly clear statement of his contrarianism: ''Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming.''

All of those statements conflict with "the established wisdom" and we could suefully delineate how he disagrees.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * William, you said above that you didn't agree with including this. Now you are saying you want it included after all. Again, after we had an agreement not to include it. You know very well that this is fails the weight guideline. It is not clear why you want to continue what is heading to be another pointless Wikipedia battle. Please contribute to these discussions in good faith, and stop being disruptive. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also appreciate it if we could cease usage of the politically-motived designation, 'Contrarian', here in the talk pages. Just as its present inclusion in the biography is POV, and needs to be removed per BLP policy, so is it a BLP violation to be repeating ad nauseum this POV here in the talk pages, as if by saying it 1000 times it'll become some kind of objective truth. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex: Nonsense - see collapse box below --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few Reliable sources that call Lindzen contrarian.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.
 * - note here talking in context of German media.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Kim, calling Lindzen names, in this case 'Contrarian', is a BLP violation. Your list of refs is highly misleading. Please go through it and remove from the list all of those sources that merely refer to one of Lindzen's views as a 'contrarian' view (i.e. where the contentious adjective is applied to a viewpoint), those that are op-eds and not reliable sources, and leave any highly reliable sources that remain such that it is objectively established as a fact that Lindzen himself is a 'contrarian'. Please don't make me do this, as I am busy. Thanks in advance for choosing to participate here constructively. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These are all highly reliable sources, and the only Op-ed in it ... is .... by Lindzen himself. And no, calling Lindzen a contrarian, the way that WMC just did, and to which you objected, is exactly what these references are about, and is not a BLP violation - since it is very much verifiable. Lindzen is widely regarded as a contrarian on this particular subject, whether you like it or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [ comments removed at KDP's request - AH. The local time is 3.30pm Saturday afternoon ]

The community apparently rules that it is in fact my job to remove from KDP's list of references the bogus ones that either do not say what he says they say and the ones that are op-eds and as such fail to be highly reliable source suitable for a BLP. I am going to begin with the ones that just do not say what he says they say as these ones will be easier. After this is established, we'll return to discuss the opinion-piece character and other problems with the remainder.

1) William K. Stevens, Global Warming: The Contrarian View. Quite simply, this article does not say anywhere that 'Lindzen is a contrarian'. There is not a single sentence in the article connecting the idea of 'contrarian' with the person 'Richard Lindzen'. Indeed, by actually reading the article we find that, despite the article's title, the author doesn't necessarily believe that these labels 'contrarian' and 'believer' are helpful. He writes, "Although the climate debate has usually been portrayed as a polarized argument between believers and contrarians, there is actually a broad spectrum of views among scientists." The local time is now 4.03pm on Saturday afternoon.
 * Interestingly enough the whole article is about contrarians and their views - but lets ignore that..... doh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2) Yang & Tung 1998, Journal of Climate. The quote that KDP has found from the article ("A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that...") shows the adjective 'contrarian' is applied to one of Lindzen's view and not to Lindzen himself. One can hold contrarian [adjective] views on all sorts of things without actually turning into a contrarian [noun]. 4.07pm.

Kim, can we have your agreement at this point that your list included two references that simply didn't apply the 'contrarian' idea to Lindzen himself and were not applicable? Would you be so kind as to remove these two from your list so that we can continue? Thanks. (Local time is now 4.15pm.) Alex Harvey (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A contrarian holds contrarian views, and likewise someone who holds contrarian views is a contrarian - especially when it is shown by a multitude of other reliable sources that contrarian is a label that is often attached to that person. And it gets even more weight when the person in question calls himself a contrarian. You may possibly want to consider the whole, and not ignore it, because you can find nit-pickings with a few. Face it: Lindzen is called a contrarian by reliable sources, and he himself also considers contrarian an apt description. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

JQ has, despite failing to build consensus for his position, added a whole new section for Lindzen's alleged views on the significance of the fact that there has been no statistical warming since 1995. I have reverted this edit, which had plenty of other policy violations I won't go into. I have asked JQ to please explain why he did this, despite failing to build a consensus here at talk. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, 'failing to build consensus' means WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I haven't convinced you, but you seem to be alone on this one. Even Mark Nutley who rarely agress with me on sources, agreed there was no problem here.JQ (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * MN is new. Meanwhile Momento, myself & Plumbago all disagreed. WMC also disagreed, at first, but changed his mind for reasons he hasn't really explained. You clearly do not have a consensus to include a new section. More to the point, no one has even tried to answer the actual policy-based objections. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Plumbago " I believe that less formal (or even polemical; cf. Quadrant) sources can be useful if they elucidate his contrarian views more clearly. If he makes his most outspoken and most widely disseminated statements there, then that's where the article should pick them up.' That's about as clear support as I could ask for. As regards policy, your claim that there exists a policy against mentioning Lindzen's public pronouncements on climate change has been discussed at length, attracting support only from Momento as far as I can see. JQ (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Momento's comment on this only referred to the use of a blog as a source, which is no longer at issue. The same is true for WMC, who changed his mind when a WP:RS was produced. So, you're all alone on this one. Obviously, you should feel free to try to change the consensus view, but you shouldn't revert until you have done so. JQ (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can cherry-pick some quotations if you like. But do you have any response at all to my observation that this has absolutely no weight in the reliable sources at all? You have found a single, passing mention to this material in one of several hundred writings by Lindzen. Does one sentence give something weight enough to devote a new section to it, or do you just not give a damn about our guidelines? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find numerous instances where Lindzen has said things along these lines, lots of references to him saying it, and vast numbers of references to the claim, which apparently originated with him and Lubos Motl, and has now become the meme du jour of the anti-AGW crowd. As far as weight is concerned, this is one of the most influential statements he has made. As lots of people have pointed out, WP:WEIGHT does not mean that the biography of a scientist who engages in public controversy should focus on the scientific career at the expense of the public controversy.JQ (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I know for a fact that everything after the first comma is incorrect, and I see that you still have not grasped our WP:WEIGHT guideline (have you actually read it yet?), but if you were able to justify the text preceding the first comma, there could be something that needs to be discussed. So per WP:BURDEN (you should read that too), please actually provide references to the "numerous instances" rather than simply asserting they exist. I, for one, do not believe you. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've called me a liar, Alex, I don't intend to interact with you any further, and will disregard any contributions you may make. There are plenty of reliable sources on Lindzen's claim that global warming stopped some time in the 1990s, and I will add them as appropriate. A rather trickier point, on which I would like the advice of other editors. In this blog post, Lubos Motl states that he helped to promulgate the "no significant warming since 1995" question, used by the BBC in their famous interview with Phil Jones, but attributes the primary credit to Lindzen. Is this WP:SPS OK to use here, or only with respect to Motl?JQ (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JQ, I have not called you a liar, although my wording was careless, so I'm sorry about that. What I meant was, I simply think you are wrong. I do not believe there are any other sources than the Quadrant piece, and it is your job to prove that there are others, not to simply tell us that we have to take your word for it. I have read most of Lindzen's papers and op-eds and I don't recall him making much of this observation. So please provide the additional sources. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, apology accepted. Here's a Newsweek piece he wrote, in which he says "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." . Here's an open letter he signed (I think the only working climate scientist to do so) asserting "there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.". Here, Deltoid links to a presentation Lindzen gave in 2006 (not an ideal source for WP, since the presentation itself is hard to link directly, but evidence that he has been saying this for a long time). Here "Lindzen also stated that the global mean temperature has not increased since 1995, even if one includes the anomalous big El Nino year of 1998." . As you can see, he has changed the details of the claim, but it is one he has been making consistently, in high-profile public forums for some years. JQ (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JQ, these sources don't mention the issue of statistical significance, so they're not applicable to the present discussion. They show, instead, that he has argued for a long time that the predictions of the models are falsified by actual observations. If you want to understand his arguments here, you should begin with his 2007 paper, Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously (Energy & Environment) here. HOWEVER, he has already, to an extent, backed away from some parts of the arguments in this paper, in Lindzen 2008, Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?. At any rate, since it is clear that you do not know of any other sources than the Quadrant one, can we close this discussion and can you please revert the problematic coatrack text? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop with silly statements like "it is clear that you do not know of any other sources than the Quadrant one", which I take as a further accusation of dishonesty. The only problem here is, as you indicate, with Lindzen's changing and inconsistent statements, all of which are variations on the theme "global warming stopped in the 1990s". I'll extend the section to include the main variants
 * # no warming since 1998
 * # no statistically significant warming since 1995
 * # no warming since 1995
 * As regards reliability, a Newsweek article is more credible than a piece in Energy and Environment, since Newsweek has at least some editorial standards. But I'm happy to include the E&E piece. To be clear, the fact that you don't like this material is no basis for excluding it, and I'm not going to debate further with you unless you can establish a consensus for censoring discussion of Lindzen's main claim to notability. JQ (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of dishonesty. On the other hand, I know that these other sources don't exist. Please see WP:BURDEN. It is your job to build the consensus, not mine. However, I'm going to back down at this point and let you say whatever you want in the article. You may expand the already bloated coatrack section, add in your misunderstandings of the material -- even cite your blog as an authority if you like. This will illustrate how fundamentally flawed the climate change probation is. I'll be willing to bet that, despite your blatant, repeated, and unapologetic abuse of process and disregard for all policy, no one will interfere unless a battle with skeptics forces them to. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can give me evidence I am going to remove the section "View that global warming has ceased" as OR in 24 hours. No where do any of the sources claim that "Lindzen has argued that data since the mid-1990s show that global warming has ceased". On the contrary the sources quote RL saying that "Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now". The claim "That (RL has the view that) global warming has ceased" is incorrect, it is part of the natural cycle and I don't see why I, or other editors, should have to waste time correcting this crude addition.Momento (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is silly. Lindzen's view that temperature fluctuates naturally is entirely consistent with his claim, directly stated in the linked articles by him that the recent period of warming ran from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and has since stopped. The section has one sentence summarising the claim, and a series of statements by Lindzen to this effect.JQ (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well JQ you should have made the headline according to RL "the recent period of warming ran from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and has since stopped". Not "RL claims that 'global warming has ceased'. Make it right or remove it.Momento (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to make this change, and have done so.JQ (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section again per WP:BLP, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. Aside from all of these problems, it's just plain wrong. Momento, I believe the way it works now is that you and I are now allowed to take turns each day to revert the material, providing that neither of us reverts more than once in 24 hours (that's the 1RR restriction due to the so-called climate change probation). Now, despite his protestations to the contrary, there is a clear consensus here against JQ's position. If another editor wants to support JQ's inclusion of this incorrect original research, that editor will presumably at least feel compelled to answer the policy-based objections above. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Momento, there's a pretty clear question of good faith here. I made precisely the change you requested, to ensure that the headline accurately (if rather verbosely) sums up the reliably sourced statements from Lindzen included below. If your suggestion was intended sincerely, you'll presumably agree with me that Alex's wholesale deletion of material, based on totally spurious policy grounds (most obviously OR - how can a section consisting entirely of reliably sourced statements by the subject, with a summary you agree to be neutral constitute OR) was unjustified.JQ (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * John, three editors have agreed that you need to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT. They include, me, Momento, and Plumbago. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I aready quoted to you, Plumbago said "I believe that less formal (or even polemical; cf. Quadrant) sources can be useful if they elucidate his contrarian views more clearly. If he makes his most outspoken and most widely disseminated statements there, then that's where the article should pick them up.'" I implemented Momento's suggested change, so in the absence of further advice, it appears you are in a minority of one here. Or rather given your earlier statement "I'm going to back down at this point and let you say whatever you want in the article", a minority of p, where 0<p<1.JQ (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I already responded to you, you have cherry-picked the quotation. Later, after I said to Plumbago, "Obviously, there is nothing extreme about stating an uncontroversial fact -- a fact that Phil Jones, and all other honest scientists, agree with," he responded, "I agree." I am taking that to imply support that weight needs to be firstly demonstrated. He also said that he wanted to see evidence that Lindzen has "pushed this view hard." The only place this view has been pushed hard is at your personal blog. Plumbago may weigh in to further clarify this, if he wants. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally considered poor citation practice to quote a sentence beginning "I agree, but ..." as "I agree." The full stop is a mark in English punctuation, indicating the end of a sentence. The construction ", but..." generally indicates a qualification. JQ (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, generally, although in this particular case the "but" wasn't followed by a relevant qualification. Perhaps I should have been clearer, although it wouldn't have changed the fact that you need to answer the objection about weight. If I have to, I'll short start a new thread that takes apart your new section line by line and policy violation by policy violation. I am also concerned that after typing "john quiggin lindzen" into google that you are using these same Lindzen arguments to promote your blog at the moment. This may imply a conflict of interest. So I am concerned, indeed, about a number of things, but my main concerns are that you have not understood Lindzen's views, and that you refuse to answer the policy-based objections. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To Kim D. Petersen, you know very well that Lindzen's never been a "global warming stopped in 1998" proponent, and you presumably don't agree with JQ's new section either. You have argued this over at the great big list of skeptics page, where you have been very happy for Lindzen to be placed in the "thinks global warming is naturally caused" and NOT in the "global warming ceased" box. If Lindzen can in fact be placed in either category, then you would have to admit that the categorisation is bogus. Over there, I did indeed argue that one could, if one wanted to cherry-pick statements, place Lindzen in the "global warming ceased" camp. My point was of course to illustrate the problems with the categorisation, but we both agreed that Lindzen is not a proponent of "global warming ceased". Why not come forth now and say so so that we can end this madness? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor, Peter Lewis, has stepped in to support JQ's position. He needs to now answer the policy-based objections. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Claiming this is a BLP issue is nonsense. I've readded it. Remove it because it's undue weight, or some other reason, but this is not contentious material that is poorly sourced, as required for removal under BLP. -Atmoz (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So let's get this straight. You're saying you've readded it because in your view I appealed to the wrong noticeboard? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an odd silence here. Atmoz has cryptically restored the problematic material and asked me to "Remove it because it's undue weight, or some other reason ...". Well I'm taking that as a further voice stating the need for John Quiggin to justify this material with respect to our weight guideline. Do I really need to take this to NPOV/N now? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)