Talk:Stefan Rahmstorf

VFD results
This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of Keep. --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Ramstorf lawsuit removed, why?
An editor removed this section, commenting: "Not a correct summary, and not important enough for this stub, anyways." I strongly dispute the second assertion: A prominent climatologist being convicted of trying to silence a journalist isn't important? Note that his conviction was reported in Der Spiegel, a very prominent German newsweekly. If you think the summary isn't accurate, please edit it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section follows:


 * In 2011, Rahmstorff was convicted of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner. Meisschner reported errors in the IPCC 2007 report in the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper, in early 2010. Rahmstorff publicly attacked Meichsner's article; the newspaper withdrew it. Meissner sued, and won. The Cologne court ruled that Rahmstorf's attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous.

I've reverted the undo, I think it's relevant material too. Udippuy (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know who of you can read German and who relies on less-than-perfect translations. The court ruled on three very specific and quite minor points, granting two to Meichsner and one to Rahmsdorf. The court ruled that Rahmsdorf was mistaken in claiming that Meichsner copied part of her article from two bloggers, and in claiming that she had her editor ask for her name to be removed from his blog (the editor apparently did it against her request). Nobody was convicted of anything ("verurteilt" and "convicted" are equivalent in some cases, but not in all). The lawsuit had nothing to do with Rahmdorfs request to the FR, but only with his description of Meichsner's work in his blog. And the court did in fact acknowledge that much of the criticism levelled at the IPCC is indeed unjustified (although this had no effect on the lawsuit, since neither the content of the IPCC reports nor of Meichsner's article was the subject of the lawsuit). I don't think including this kerfuffle is due weight, but quite independently of that, please keep in mind that this a WP:BLP, and you should be very careful of not misrepresenting the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephan, thank you for the additional information. I don't know the details of the story (I'll check them out as soon as I have some time), I simply found the removal of the information not sufficiently justified. I still don't think it should be deleted but in case corrected - also to avoid anybody else readding it in its wrong form. Udippuy (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It was commented not only by the association of science journalists as presenting a "muzzling" by Rahmnstorf but in the meanwhile as well by The Spiegel. If violating personal rights is a minor issue, especially if "The Cause" is on stake, so be it. But Stephan parrots Rahmstorfs view in a copy and paste way from Rahmstorfs press release. The original sentence is published on von Storchs Klimzwiebel blog, an english descritopn see http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/07/german-court-orders-stefan-rahmstorf-to-cease-and-desist-violating-journalists-personal-rights/ Polentario (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires us to be scrupulous about our sources and not give undue weight to minor incidents. The paragraph as written clearly misrepresents the sources, and is a BLP violation so I've removed it: please don't put it back without consensus on this talk page. Note that "conviction" appears to be incorrect as it was a lawsuit, so I've amended the talk section heading to reduce that misrepresentation. The notrickszone.com blog Polentario has linked is clearly an unsuitable source per WP:BLPSPS, it should be removed from this discussion, and the same applies to Klimzwiebel which may be suitable for von Storch's views on science, but is unsuitable for BLP information. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Von Storch hosts, although not on KlimaZwiebel, the full text of the description decision, from which I got most of what I have described above. I have not, contrary to Polentario's claim, seem Rahmsdorf's press release, much less copied from it. I tend to write my own texts, quaint as that may seem today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry you claim things that are not at all - at least if one tries to stay to NPOV - to be found on von Storchs comment and neither can be derived from the court decision. I would suggest to have a closer look on the articles from the science journalists quarterly. The main points are  in the meanwhile available in English. Polentario (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? If yes, I don't get it - I've not, so far, read von Storch's comment, nor claimed to. I reached the the full decision text directly via the Spiegel article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tried to gather as much information as I could about this news story. I agree with you (Stephan) that the removed paragraph was slightly ambiguous, allowing for some possible confusion on what the court actually decided about. It should be stated clearly that the decision of the court is about the attack moved by Ramstorf on Meichsner and not about the accuracy of the content of Meichnser's article. That said, I still think that the paragraph should be added to the article, maybe in a new section. The fact that googling for "Stefan Rahmstorf" this story appears 5 times among the first 20 results (excluding wikipedia) proves that it's relevant; and the fact that it's been added multiple times indipendently by different people to the wikipedia entry it's a further indication of that. What follows is a proposed text (partially revised from the last published version):
 * "In 2011, Rahmstorff was found guilty by a German court of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner, who in early 2010 had criticised the 2007 IPCC report in one of her articles. Rahmstorff had attacked her on his blog, accusing her of plagiarism and, later, of privately asking him to remove her name from his blog posts. Meissner sued him for defamation, and won. The Cologne court ruled that Rahmstorf's attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous."
 * Please let me know what you think. Udippuy (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not correct. "Found guilty" is typically used in criminal lawsuits, not civil ones. "Defamation" is a misleading translation. "Plgiarism" also is too strong. "Privately" is in no source I'm aware of - indeed, it was the FR editor who asked. Meisner did not sue "for defamation", either, but asked for an injunction to stop him from repeating certain claims. That was granted only in part. And so on. Since this is a BLP, every claim needs reliable sources - which ones do you think support your version? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldnt take the lawsuit as main piece. Rahmstorfs methods and (ab)use of his significant power as a policy consultant have been subjec of various controversies over the years. The current law suit and the eclat around it is just a sort of landmark. Polentario (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Three new sources for this section:
 * Der Agitator Rahmstorf und sein Jüngstes Gericht, Die Welt (German)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 December 2011‎
 * @ Pete Tillman, by "three" you mean one; as you know well, blogs like that aren't acceptable for BLP issues or articles. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave: this was a very unhepful delete on your part. Let's see if I can recover it:


 * Hans von Storch on the case (German), at his blog.
 * A Journalist Fights Back and Wins] by Roger Pielke Jr., updated 12-6-2011
 * Did you bother to read these before you fulminated? As there isn't much of this available in English, Pielke is particularly helpful. Note that these are eminently qualified professionals commenting -- unlike you, Dave. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, Pete Tillman, "fulminated" is hardly collegiate and in no way relevant to my concise comment. Both are blogs, see WP:ARBCC: 4.2.1) All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply). Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Please desist. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I think you are over-reacting, and misinterpreting policy re using links to two professional's blog articles that are clearly and directly related to our discussion of the lawsuit. Were these conventionally published, they would clearly (imo) be RS's. If I was excessively sharp, it's because I was annoyed with you re several such incidents.
 * There's an ongoing discussion of this at my talk page, which is probably the best place for it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and the third is an opinion piece in the second-rate (if that) conservative newspaper Die Welt, brought to us by the same great publishing house responsible for Bild. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this editors opinion.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Some remarks: User:Polentario carried the dispute about the relevance of SRs lawsuit from the german Wikipedia to the english Wikipedia. When his contribution in the german wiki was reverted, he wrote it in the english article. Most of the participating editors in the german wikipedia contradict his opinion that it is appropriate to mention the lawsuit according to the wiki guidelines for bios - me, too. --Hg6996 (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And your reason is? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason ? Do you mean "my motivation" ? Motivation for what ? --Hg6996 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that "me too" means you don't think this belongs in the article, and I was asking why? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should know this, but why the reference to a transient ischemic attack? Or is it the Telecommunications Industry Association? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Thanks in advance" -- old Usenet-speak. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha....I'm so old, I've already forgotten that again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Better leave Hg6996 out. Hes a hidden climate denier which among others doesnt believe climate sensitivities have any scientific evidence. Polentario (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:NPA or de:WP:KPA and refrain from such unfounded claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommand to read Hg6996 posts with care.Polentario (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Polentario, my recommendation is that you edit BLPs with more care: I've made minimal changes to your edit, and have drawn you attention on your talk page to ARBCC. What's left is still giving this issue a lot of attention, looks rather like undue weight. . dave souza, talk 22:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The casewas described rather specificly and there is no daoubt that Rahmnstorf still cared - hes well known to use legal pressure against journalists and in the case of Meichsner, it backfired. I mean if you think that getting told and fined by a German state court, ordering that you should be more careful about messing with a Holtzbrinck laureate, is a minor issue, youre on the wrong track. Polentario (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "backfired"? you know very well that the points that were disputed were rather minor, R's claim that the article was misleading and factually incorrect was never challenged. it was his strong wording that the court objected to. the article itself was widely criticised for its poor journalism. --MarioS (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Widely crititzed? Poor Journalism? Minor Points? Please take into account that you copy and paste the libelous claim for which Meichsner went to court. I suggest to translate Irene Meichsner (done) and Markus Lehmkuhl. WP:Bio doesnot apply for Sr alone. An intersting point is that the court agreed with Rahmstorfs critisim about the title of Meichsners article - thats the only part which was not from her but the the newspaper ;) Polentario (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Generic desciption of Rahmstorfs publicistic activities
Besides his blogging activieties, rahmstorf was several times the subjet of controbverises in major newspapers, as FAZ, SZ and others and as well (in case of Nir Shaviv) Haaraetz. His methods are being descrivbed as tough and agressive and include direct calls to leading editors and publishers and legal claim, if a journalist fails to pass rahmstorfs standards. This is as well repeated within Lemkuhls comment. Polentario (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Public Role"
...which was partially based on unreliable sources, and partially a WP:COATRACK. We can certainly have such a section, but it needs to follow WP:BLP and avoid one-sided misrepresentations. To be honest, I see more whining about Rahmstorf in "skeptical" "sources" than I see activities by him in the German press. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources is definitely wrong - neither Meichnser nor Lehmkuhl nor the Spiegel are unreliable. To put Lehmkuhl in the denial or sceptical camp is definitely against WP Bio - his previous paper about the climate debate in the media is worth a read and btw peer reviewed. Lehmkuhl, M. (2008) Weder Zufall noch Erfolg: Vorschläge zur Deutung der aktuellen Klimadebatte. In Gaia, Ökologische Perspektiven für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft 17 (1): 9-11. Polentario (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I have asked for a third opinion and you should come up with better points than unspecified claims about whining. Polentario (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read more carefully. You reverted this edit, which relies not on a RS, but on the opinion of an individual in an interview.  This is not acceptable for a BLP, in particular not without attribution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the rest, the sources are a mixed bag. But that's not the point. Restricting Rahmstorf's public role to the Meichsner incident (and then in misleading words - Rahmstorf is certainly not in a position to "demand" that newspapers change their reporting - as we currently see, not even the Bundespräsident can do that). This is a WP:COATRACK and a violation of WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Srephan, I'm pretty sure the "demand" language came directly from the NY Times (checks): "Rahmstorf "successfully demanded in February that some German newspapers remove misleading articles from their Web sites."  -- do you have a reason to dispute the NYT as a RS? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First the discussion about the court case proved that Rahmstorf has "wulffed" a lot in the past. He surely was in a position to demand changes or reports not being brought. even the NYT confirmed this. BTW Nir Shaviv spoke of a scientific Lynching which Rahmstorf had brought up against him, Hans von Storch calls the court eklat as a sort of bringing Rahmstorf PR cabals finally to accountZitat: "Wie gesagt, im Grunde ging es um eine Abrechnung mit Rahmstorfs Öffentlichkeitsarbeit". Polentario (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This does indeed seem to be a COATRACK for gossip and disproportionate assertions. The version Polentario put back is completely disproportionate and misleading, have removed it. . dave souza, talk 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's more, the blog statement Polentario ascribes to von Storch is actually made by an anonymous commenter who signs as "Andreas". I honestly don't think this careless assembly of arbitrary snippets is useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree and when a cossack has been worn it was Rahmstorf himself. Its not gossip, its about a court decision being commented in the assocciation of science journalists. Its quite interesting that Sanktus Stephanus has higher protection than Bundespräsdient Wulff. Ar least in Wikipedia. Polentario (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree and when a cossack has been worn it was Rahmstorf himself. Its not gossip, its about a court decision being commented in the assocciation of science journalists. Its quite interesting that Sanktus Stephanus has higher protection than Bundespräsdient Wulff. Ar least in Wikipedia. Polentario (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to be having difficulty arriving at a version of SR's "Public role", despite documentation by RS's of the the Meichsner lawsuit and other public roles by SR. I'm a bit behind -- just finished moving -- but wonder if it's time for another approach? --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is space for a balanced description of his public role. The problem seems to be is that those who want this section don't want it balanced (or are unable to balance it), while those that want it balanced don't really care too much about having one at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If youre not interested in describing an important aspect at all, maybe you should consider other articles, or something outside Wikipedia. Epanding WP is something else. ;) Polentario (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
To move things forward, I'd suggest we introduce two sections: "Scientific career" and "Public role". Below are some of the things that I think should be mentioned in the "Public role" section.


 * Rahmstorf is actively contributing to the public discussion on climate science. He is a co-founder of the blog Real Climate, which has been described by Nature as one of the top-5 science blogs in 2006, and included among the 15 best environmental websites by  Time in 2008. . He also co-founded the German blog KlimaLounge. He is a frequent contributor of articles on climate and climate change in the popular press, some of which are internationally syndicated via Project Syndicate. He is writing a regular column for the German environmental magazine Zeo2 and has published the children's science book Wolken, Wind und Wetter (Clouds, Wind, and Weather) on weather and climate.
 * Rahmstorf has commented on climate change and climate policy on TV and radio.  He was portrait as one of the worlds 10 leading climate scientists by the Financial Times in 2009. The ARD presented a portrait of Rahmstorf in their prime news magazine Tagesthemen when he received the Deutscher Umweltmedienpreis (German Environmental Media Award) in 2007.



--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice try for a Hagiography. Rahmstorf has gone through various controversies with journalist and scientific opponents, which found as well some echo in the German Media. 2001 he was asked to court and lost, which gave reason for a longer report in the science Journalists association quarterly and some echo in the blogosphere. Polentario (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the endorsement. I don't know anything about 2001 - do you have a source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try being collegial here -- the confrontational approach isn't going well here, is it?
 * Stephan, I think this is a good start, though it does rather skip over the controversial part of his public role. I'll take a whack at adding that, maybe later tonight. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was sure someone would volunteer that part... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Schulzens fairy tale Rahmstorf is sort of lacking important aspects, right. 2003, 2007 and 2011 are the milestones for public controversies with open Rahmstorf involvement, he took stands e.g. with Veizer, Shaviv and on the Hockeystick with von Storch. The hidden "wulffing" seems to be a constant. Considering collegiality, Nir Shaviv frankly identified a mail of Rahmstorf reveled by CG 2.0. as start of a "scientific Lynch" by rahmstorf btw targeting him., Shaviv startet blogging after rahmstorf tried to sue his faculty about his website there. Polentario (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, can you please provide reliable sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Herr Schulz, we have seen them on this side already, why do you actively ignore them? I suggest to add Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science, Aynsley John Kellow Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007 covers the issue with Veizer and Shaviv, you know already about the various newspaper sources, e.g. The Ruthless methods of SR. Polentario (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you try for a polite form of address, you should try to get it right. Otherwise, Stephan is fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Storchs Blogthread and and continuation about the Meichsner issue, the one mentioned above had some interesting aspect about the paper in question. Polentario (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out before, blogs are not acceptable sources for BLPs, especially not for articles governed by WP:ARBCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yawn. The blogs contain the newspaper sources. Polentario (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize?
I removed this award as misleading: we said:


 * Nobel Peace Prize, as co-author of the IPCC AR4 report (2007)

--cited to Nobel, which says "The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr..."

We've been through this at (eg) Michael E. Mann: half of  the Nobel Prize (and money) went to the IPCC. The many co-authors got (IB) a certificate from the IPCC thanking them for their contribution. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as an author of the IPCC he received the award, what exactly is it that you do not understand? prokaryotes (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You won't find SR's name at the cite given. Kindly see Michael_E._Mann for the language we use there to describe his certificate, --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, then let us adjust the content, rather then to just remove it, i.e. mention of joint award or something. prokaryotes (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * done. prokaryotes (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, still no mention of SR at that cite. You'll need to find a RS listing him as getting a certificate, and the language is still misleading. --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Resolved:  ..dave souza, talk 07:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. Much better. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)