Talk:The Deniers/Archive 1

Help to keep the article NOPV
Collaborations are encouraged but please, keep your edits WP:NPOV and referenced from reputable sources. This first edits is lacking NPOV because so far I could not find (Google) rebuttals or negative reviews from reliable sources (this might be because the publication is recent), so please, in order to balance the POV, the "Critical reception" section needs rebuttals and other opposing points of view (not from blogs please!), particularly from scientific sources or mainstream media book reviews. I you know some, please go ahead.- Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After a Google search I found that some of the scientists profiled by Solomon strongly disagree with the label "Deniers", but I can not find a reliable source (other than blogs I mean). To improve the NPOV of the article this is an important fact. Does someone can provide a reputable source to make an edit on this issue? - Mariordo (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To improve NPOV, is there any article on the Singer-Revell-Gore controversy? If there is, a source should be cited/referenced.Wingsabre (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the account presented in the book (I suggest to follow up with Google), Singer wrote his version of the controversy, clearly not NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So should we leave it as the "Singer-Revell-Gore controversy" or change it to Singer's "Revell-Gore story" and reference his article? - Wingsabre (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article title is too long
Do we really need to include the very long subtitle of this book in the title of the article? Or would "The Deniers" or maybe better "The Deniers (book)" suffice? 206.116.63.240 (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the same, and I actually cut it a bit (see the infobox). But searching in Wiki I found that for example "Cool it" also kept the whole thing (Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming), and in fact it was redirected from the short title. Also, when doing the search for this article, the term deniers alone gives many hits related to the holocaust, so I did prefered to avoid confusion. It is up to you to decide here which way is better. If there is consensus for a short version, I will go with "The Deniers (book)", and keep the whole thing only in the infobox. Mariordo (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: and sorry about the stupid typo I did when creating the article, thanks to Dethme0w for correcting it so swiftly. Mariordo (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Criticism Section
I believe that the scientific criticism section is inappropriate in its current form. The content is targeted at the National Post series and not the book, so I would argue it does not belong in this article at all. Thoughts?

Rather than simply delete the entire section at this point I thought I would give others a few days to weigh in. If I hear nothing by then I intend to remove it. I do not have a general objection to a criticism section, but I would prefer to have content that specifically addresses the book itself if we are to have such a thing.

If the consensus is to keep the section despite the fact that it does not address the book, I believe that we need to remove the claim that Steve McIntyre complained to Solomon about being labeled a denier. The following citation is incorrect:



I raise the following two points in that regard:
 * 1) Steve McIntyre did not write the piece being cited, John A. did, and the piece was NOT critical of the content of Solomon's piece except for its propagation of the pejorative label coined by those perpetuating the myth of anthropogenic global warming.  Otherwise it referred to the series in a positive light.
 * 2) The current statement is misleading because the author of the piece, whether it be Steve or John, is not complaining that they were labeled "a denier" because they are not deniers ... but rather because the label itself is considered a pejorative coined by those perpetuating the myth of anthropogenic global warming and they object to it being propagated.  If the claim is to be retained this distinction must be made clear.

Thoughts on removing the McIntyre comment? --GoRight (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please wait a little bit longer, I want to comment on the issues you raised. This section has to do with the background of the book and the fact that due to the lack of negative reviews (so far) makes it looks with undue weight to one side. Also, let's first resolve the other issues. I have more comments I will do later. Mariordo (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you wish. --GoRight (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be in favor of removing or reworking the McIntyre comment. As it currently stands, it's clearly not supported by what the source actually says. J. Langton (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we must keep this section, and indeed it needs some reworking. Regarding the question about McIntyre authorship. Even though the post is signed by John A, the Climate Audit site is McIntyre's, as clearly stated "by Steve McIntyre". Second, the comment after the list is written in the first person, I quote: "The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail." So it is reasonable to assume it was written by McIntyre. Regarding the second issue, clearly as per the quote, you are right, and I do think a rework of the phrase is justified, to reflect what McIntyre said.
 * Now, regarding whether the section belongs to the article, I think it does for two reasons. First, it helps to keep a NPOV, and second and most important, the book was not written out-of-the-blue, it is based on the newspaper series, and Solomon mentions this fact several times throughout the book (for example see the two quotes of pp. 7 and 8 below). I do think what is wrong is the section's title, that should have reflected the content is just background to the book. So I suggest changing the section's title, and the Scientific Criticism Section will be created when specific critics from the book are published by RS.


 * It seems most of the other editors are not so interested in the questions raised here, so I if you find my proposal reasonable, I suggest you guys put a draft text for further discussion here before making any changes. I think the clarification on McIntyre merits to be made immediately since it is currently not reflecting what he actually said. Mariordo (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem having a scientific criticism section as long as it is third party material about the book and published in WP:RS which are WP:V.


 * "So it is reasonable to assume it was written by McIntyre." - I respectfully disagree. The fact that it is written in first person suggests that it is the product of the author, John A.  John A. would have written "Steve has protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail."  At the very least this is inconclusive, IMHO, and not worthy of attribution to McIntyre for WP:BLP reasons without a second source.  What makes you think that piece was actually written by McIntyre himself? --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is his website and it is written in the first person, and both, in the series and the book, Solomon talks about his participation in debunking the Jockey stick graph. Anyway, if you are not in a hurry, I can search for a better source during the next weekend, now I do not have time. Notice also in the quotation below that Solomon recognizes this issue among some of the profile scientists. Mariordo (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I am not arguing that Solomon doesn't mention McIntyre because obviously he does. Second, the fact that it is his website is irrelevant if he did not write it.  The purpose of a by line is to indicate the author.  Note that it says the piece is "by John A.", not "posted by John A."  Wikipedia is arguably Jimbo Wales' website, does that mean we can attribute everything written here to him?  DailyKos is Markos Moulitsas Zúniga's website, does that mean we can attribute everything written there to him?  --GoRight (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is another post by John A. written in first person, . Do you also contend this was written by Steve McIntyre? Hint: take note of the second sentence.  --GoRight (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even better, check out this google search, . Skim through it to see how many 1st person posts there are by John A. that refer to Steve by name.  If these first person posts by John A. are actually written by Steve, why is he refering to himself as "Steve", and only some of the time?  --GoRight (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case it is ultimately irrelevant that John A wrote it rather than McInytre. The objection to the term Denier is made on the grounds that it is a "disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame", not to being named as sceptical of AGW. Its inclusion in the current context as "critism", given the way the word "denier" is used on wiki (to describe any and all people who are sceptical in any way of mainstream AGW) is an inaccurate, whimsical attempt to imply that a renowned sceptic objects to being called sceptical.Jaimaster (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. --GoRight (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well taken! The source is not valid, so I will reverse my temporary edit regarding McInytre. Mariordo (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PS for GoRight: I do not think it is a good idea to keep updating the stats on Amazon. Originally it was July 15th because I created the article on that date and the point was to show the notability of the book among the millions of books sold at Amazon.com, particularly in the science books. Before that, it had better ranking in some sites (Canada for example). Yesterday it showed improvements, but let's say 6 months from now? Just check again today, the rankings are different, some better, others worst. So this will be an endless task of updates, and with time the ranking will decay. So I think we have to set a criteria to leave it that way. Any ideas? -Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, in general, but my assessment was that the stats were significantly better today so I wanted to reflect that. I don't see this as being any different from books that make claims about being on the New York Times best seller list.  Once they make it there they get to claim it long after it is no longer true.  So without being to anal retentive about it I think it would be fair to simply record the best showing that we have observed, and perhaps change the stats to word them along the lines of "it has been as high as NNN in the rankings on such and such a date" and let the dates vary by country.  It wouldn't be 100% accurate as neither of us plan to check the rankings every day, but for those random times we do check it would be WP:NPOV.  If you prefer simply revert the ranking to what you have and I'll leave them as is. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yours is as arbitrary as mine, so I am comfortable leaving yours, my concern is with future editing/updating. Mariordo (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problems
There are some problems with this article, which I've tried to begin to deal with. First off, not all in his list are renowned scientists (Bromwich, Wingham are scientists but are hardly renowned; the redlink is a bit of a clue if you've never heard of them). Indeed, some aren't scientists at all (Gray, Bellamy are the obvious ones). I've never heard of Kirkby or Ollier so I don't know if they are not-renowned or not-scientists.

The scientists whose scientific work and opinions are profiled in the book... is also problematic. From personal experience, I know that Bromwich and Wingham are essentially in agreement with the consensus. Their work is not profiled. What is profiled is cherry-picked bits of their work. I dubt we can say that, but we should not give the impression that the book is a neutral presentation.

he highlights the views of those scientists who dissent, the so called “The Deniers”. is not acceptable: I've tried to re-write it, but it wasn't easy. What he does is a mixture of taking views from those who clearly do dissent, and taking cherry-picked statements from some who definitely don't dissent. Some stuff (like the Antarctic cooling) is hard to describe, and doesn't really fit into either.

The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria is obvious nonsense: many of the people on the list haven't "stood up" at all, except in the sense of standing up "for" the IPCC etc

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My friend, to begin with, this article is about a book, which by the questions you are asking, it seems clear you did not read. Second, because of Lawrence critic of your work in Wikipedia, it will be very nice if you refrain voluntarily to participate in the editing of this article. Third, you are just violating NPOV and trying to change what the book actually says. As requested above, if you have reputable sources backing your view, they are welcome and go ahead in the editing with proper references. I am reversing your edit and please, let's try to work together with NPOV a leading paragraph based on consenus. Mariordo (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. --GoRight (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PD: Instead of your OR edit, we can quote a similar idea hewrote in the book regarding the agreement with GW and also the conflicting positions among of the persons profiled. And just Google the name of the guys you are questioning, the book has a short CV for each of them and the Google search confirmed who they are. Mariordo (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not my friend. Please don't be patronising. Now, do please address the substance of what I've said. You could try beginning with First off, not all in his list are renowned scientists (Bromwich, Wingham are scientists but are hardly renowned; the redlink is a bit of a clue if you've never heard of them). Indeed, some aren't scientists at all (Gray, Bellamy are the obvious ones). I've never heard of Kirkby or Ollier so I don't know if they are not-renowned or not-scientists. if you're finding it difficult to concentrate on too much at once William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out by Mariordo, your edits are WP:OR and have no place in this article. Therefore there is no need to address any part of what you've said here.  Find a reference or remove your edits, please.  Mariordo seems perfectly willing to work towards a consensus, but I'm not so sure about you.  --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Noooo... you're not listening. Let me try this again, veeeerrryyyy verryyyy sloooooowly. Your version says The book profiles and presents the arguments of these renowned scientists. It doesn't say "people who LS considers to be RSci"; it states baldly that these people *are* RSci. It does so with no source whatsoever, other than (implicitly) the book; which clearly isn't a WP:RS on whether these people are RSci or not. Now (once again) some of these people aren't even scientists (have you realised that yet?) and are thus logically not possibly RSci. Some others are clearly scientists, but no-one has offered any evidence that they are RSci. The people guilty of OR are you and M. I'm claiming that, for example, Bromwich or Wingham aren't RSci. If you want to call them RSci, you need to present evidence that they are. Now both of them have published in Nature, but thats a rather low bar, and doesn't equate to RSci. Now please, pause long enough to think before posting again William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you remain less condescending and more WP:CIV. Thanks.


 * Even so, the current description accurately describes what the book claims and is WP:V. You are free to claim whatever you want, and being a notable person yourself once you get those claims published in a WP:RS which is WP:V we will be more than happy to note those claims appropriately.  Until then, as a wikipedian, your claims are simply WP:OR which is to be avoided.  Note, please, that I understand that you are trying to make the article "true" as you understand it but per WP:V the goal is verifiability, not truth.  Truth is attained by quoting WP:RS's with differing points of view in proportion to their relative frequency in the media, not by conducting WP:OR as wikipedian's.


 * Therefore, even if you find a WP:RS or create one by publishing your claims the correct response is to list both views in a point/counter-point fashion with appropriate citations and NOT by editorializing to content ourselves. This is the letter and the spirit of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V.  --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * William, the attitude is really unhelpful. I have to agree with the responses here, you saying that you don't think these scientists are renowned or aren't "deniers" is irrelevant WP:OR.  You said:
 * "The people guilty of OR are you and M. I'm claiming that, for example, Bromwich or Wingham aren't RSci. If you want to call them RSci, you need to present evidence that they are. Now both of them have published in Nature, but thats a rather low bar, and doesn't equate to RSci."
 * The article is reporting on the claims of the book; we could place rebuttals here provided that some exist, but we can't qualify and/or toss everything he says because you don't like it. We aren't calling these scientists renowned, the book does.  As a sidenote, I also agree that your personal history with the author (both "as a Wikipedian" and "as a journalist") indicates that you should be very careful with your edits, though I wouldn't go so far as to say you should recuse yourself.  Oren0 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article isn't reporting the claims of the book. It is stating those claims as fact. This is not NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Connolley, the book presents a short CV for each of them, and they seem to be scientists indeed. I do agree that some or most of them are not renowned, but we need a WP:RS to back this fact, so in the meantime I will put a to see if we can find such a source, I looked for it very hard (Google), and so far, I couldn't find it. But if after a reasonable time one does not appear, the sentence "even though several of them are not scientists" will have to be deleted. We, Wiki editors are not qualified nor it is NPOV to judge who is a scientist or not as you are doing, and did you at least Google Kirby or Ollier?. Mariordo (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the book is a fringe source, rather than a reliable source. As such, you need to find another source for the fact that the people in question are indeed scientists, and that they are renowned. Smptq (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody is defending that all individuals profiled in the book are renowned, and the leading already makes that clear. The discussion is regarding WC unsourced edit that some are not scientists. Even though is WC who should be doing the homework, the following is a example of the risks of his WP:OR regarding living persons. He said "...I've never heard of Kirkby or Ollier"
 * * The CV of Jasper Kirby is presented in pp. 157 of the book. He is author or coauthor of some 250 scientific publications, an experimental particle physicist at CERN, with degrees at Oxford and London. Among others he led the CLOUD experiment at CERN. You can confirm through Google: New Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds and Climate or PS215 CLOUD A Study of the Link between Cosmic Rays and Clouds with a Cloud Chamber at the CERN PS, and there is more, just Google!
 * Since it seems some editors are working on a book they did not read I can provide the page number of each CV, and then go to Amazon and search by last name using the "Search inside" tool. So, I kindly request WC deletes the phrase "even though several of them are not scientists" until such assertion is supported by a RS. Mariordo (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vincent Gray in particular had retired as of 2005, well before the publication of this book. At this point, he is basically a denial-of-climate-change activist, rather than a scientist.  Smptq (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now if you find a WP:RS that is WP:V that says that, we can consider it's inclusion in the article. Lacking those this is WP:OR.  Besides, once a scientist always a scientist.  Retirement does not erase one's work or one's credentials.  --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2007, Vincent Gray gave a blog interview stating that he retired in 1987. and the article on Vincent Gray uses this cite (dated 2005) to indicate that he is retired. It isn't appropriate to describe somebody who is retired and working outside his area of expertise as a scientist.  Smptq (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument. The issue is not whether he is retired or not, the statement is that he is not a scientist.  Show me where either of the sources state that Vincent Gray is not a scientist.  Then you'll have a case.


 * I argue that these references actually refute the claim being put forth.  includes "I give regular lectures. Last year I was invited to the Beijing Climate Center as a visiting scholar, where I gave three lectures to an appreciative audience. This year I went to Vienna for a conference of like-minded scientists" which clearly indicates that Gray considers himself to be a scientist.   contains:


 * Of those thousands of independent scientists, hundreds are active in giving lectures, writing books, articles and letters to the newspapers, debating the science and discovering many flaws in it. I know of many New Zealand scientists who are AGW sceptics. I won’t mention the names of those who have not spoken out publicly, but I can mention those who have been active in public: Bob Carter, professor of geology in Townsville Australia (originally from Otago University); Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor environmental sciences at Auckland University; Vincent Gray, retired chemist living in Wellington (who wrote a booklet “The Greenhouse Delusion”, published in the UK); Augie Auer, the well-known meteorologist; and myself. Unfortunately, none of us is “in the pockets of the oil industry”. Unfortunately, because I could do with some extra pocket money.


 * Which is clearly discussing Gray as being a member of a group of "independent scientists." You're going to have to find something that actually states that Gray is no longer a scientist if you want to get anywhere, since that is the claim being put forth.  --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It tells us that there are denialists who consider themselves to be scientists. It doesn't tell us that they actually are such. Ongoing publication of research in peer-reviewed journals would be a good indicator.  In the case of Gray, we don't see that -- he seems to have confined himself to the publish-anything Energy and Environment since his retirement. Smptq (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. On-going publication is not a requirement for being a scientist.  Regardless, the bar is where it has always been.  Find a source to back up your claim that Gray (and others) is not a scientist or remove it.  --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

I believe that this sentence, "Solomon argues that even though most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is real there remains a small group of renowned scientists who dissent, i.e. “The Deniers”" makes it quite clear that the status of "renowned scientist" is the subject of Solomon's personal opinion since he is arguing for that status.

The only open question is WMC's claim that these people are not scientists. You can make WP:OR claims here all day long on that point, but unless you find an appropriate source to back them up they don't belong in the article. You all know this. --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're being silly. You have no source to say that they *are* scientists. Claiming that they are is OR, and manifestly wrong, as a glanc at Grays page will show William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about the book. As such it is about what Solomon is claiming and that much should be obvious.  We can't simply put words in the man's mouth by changing what he actually said.  We are not claiming anything by writing this article other than it can be WP:V'd that the book exists and that this is what it was about.  If you want to put counter claims into the article that is fine, really I'm OK with it, as long as you have WP:RS and WP:V citations and the material is actually ABOUT the subject of the article, i.e. the book or complaints about the book.  That doesn't seem an unfair bar to set ... in fact it seems to be wikipolicy as far as I can tell.  --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. The book profiles and presents the arguments of these renowned scientists... is not a quote from the book; its an assertion by wiki that these people are renowned scientists. Its OR, and its also factually wrong (I notice that you've run away from even trying dispute that they aren't even all scientists, let alone RSci). BTW, a little while ago you made some suggestions or 1RR. Was that intended to apply only to other editors, or did you indend to apply it to yourself as well? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I intend to apply it to myself as well. I was unaware of WP:1RR until just now.  I had assumed it operated just like WP:3RR (where the initial edit does not count as a revert) except you were only allowed 1 revert instead of 3.  I don't think that I have violated my intent based on those assumptions.  If I have it was inadvertent.


 * So under WP:1RR I get zero reverts? Seems weird.  Even so, I'll be happy enough to play by those rules as long as the regulars here do likewise.  So do you plan to self-limit to a 1RR as documented in WP:1RR on the GW pages?  That would make things so much nicer, actually.  :) --GoRight (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)::::
 * Nobody's arguing about whether they're scientists because the argument is entirely irrelevant. The book calls them scientists and we're reporting on the claims of the book.  I don't understand what's complicated about this. Oren0 (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with User:Oren0, the book calls them scientists. Anyone interested in working a new leading please go below to the section "...Even though some of them are not scientists..." -Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

People in the newspaper series, but not the book
My impression is that the folks in the newspaper series, but not the book, are all people who published some sort of objection: Weiss, because he got Solomon to print a retraction Schwartz, whose home page makes it clear that he is not a denier:
 * It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock.

William Nordhaus, an economist, whose published work advocates a carbon tax (various forms in various places) Possibly others (I haven't checked everybody yet) Smptq (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. Michael Griffin. He acknowledges the reality that the earth has warmed, and states that it is a result of human activity, though he thinks it isn't worth doing anything about.  Smptq (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anastasios Tsonis. Not sure what he has to say at this point. Smptq (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Salter proposed a geoengineering scheme rather than denying that humans are altering the climate. Smptq (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hans von Storch -- Solomon's original piece says "Germany's Hans von Storch, one of the world's leading climate scientists, believes that climate change is for real and that humans are responsible." Smptq (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Carl Wunsch: "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component." There's a bit more nuance to his views (mostly about high probability vs certainty on various predictions but that's ok) Smptq (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this even belong in the article?
Before you go much further doing this research, perhaps it makes sense to first decide whether material that is unrelated to the book itself is relevant on this page. There are many articles in the series that are unrelated to the book, correct? Do we have to address each of them here? If not, then how is the selection being made and how is that selection not WP:OR? --GoRight (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Are you asserting that all of these people you are listing have complained to Solomon or otherwise made it publicly known in WP:RS including WP:SPS that they disagree with what Solomon wrote about their positions? --GoRight (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The material is relevant because the fact that a whole lot of the people weren't denialists at all seems to be the only criterion used for deciding which ones got mentioned in the book. If your standard for OR is used, basically nothing can be put in the article other than a direct quote, which is, quite frankly, unrealistic.


 * And yes, for each of the people above (except Anastasios Tsonis) there is a reliable source indicating that the individual is not a denialist. Some are media coverage, while others are the individual's home page.  I haven't a clue whether the individuals in question directly contacted Solomon. Smptq (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "And yes, for each of the people above (except Anastasios Tsonis) there is a reliable source indicating that the individual is not a denialist." - That is not what I asked nor is it relevant to a claim that they "challenged Solomon's interpretation of their views." Whether these people are, or are not, denialists has no bearing on an article which is about the book when those other articles are NOT part of the book.  Solomon has written about a great many things.  Should we be including criticism of those things as well?


 * "If your standard for OR is used, basically nothing can be put in the article other than a direct quote, which is, quite frankly, unrealistic." - I am not requiring direct quotes, but references that back up the substance of the text would be appropriate, no? For example, are you going to let me insert something like "Lawrence Solomon is recognized as the greatest champion of all the global warming skeptics." without a reference?  I don't think so.  The material has to have a basis drawn from a WP:RS, especially for contentious claims like people are, or aren't, scientists, such and such challenged what Solomon wrote, etc.  This seems to be basic wikipolicy, or am I missing something? --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When somebody publishes a book based on a series, but makes a major change (in this case, leaving out a whole batch of people who weren't actually climate change deniers) it is relevant to a discussion of the book. I don't propose to include a discussion of work by Solomon other than the series on which the book is based, your suggestion of this is a strawman.  You're also substantially exaggerating OR.  For each of these people who is in the series (we can link to the article) we can show that their position is not a denialist one (link to news article, retraction, or home page, as appropriate).  We've also got the book, and the tools to search it, showing that they're not there.  IMHO, you're going overboard because you want to suppress a fact with which you find inconvenient. Smptq (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the series, create an article about the series. It seems blatantly obvious that including material which is not related to the book shouldn't be included in the article about the book.  If you think I am exaggerating WP:OR then point me to the part that sanctions the synthesis of material from multiple sources as you are proposing to do here.  --GoRight (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, let me quote the opening paragraph:
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
 * Emphasis is mine. I think the last sentence pretty much covers it. --GoRight (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that essentially any discussion of the book is, of necessity, synthesis. I think your interpretation is pretty clearly over-strict, particularly since I haven't, at this point, actually added the material in question to the article. Smptq (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, I was just trying to save you some time. If you prefer to have this discussion after investing a lot of effort then that is OK with me.  But I'll tell you up front that including material or even synthesized material about people who are not even mentioned in the book will pretty clearly violate the "provide information directly related to the topic of the article" part of that policy, even WITH WP:RS.  --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the book is based on the series, and mentioning the series is (clearly on topic) and there is a very glaring difference between the two in terms of what is covered, mentioning that difference is very clearly going to be on topic. Smptq (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is NOT based on the series, it is based on a subset of the series ... specifically the subset that he chose to include. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent @Smptq) I disagree. It would be like articles about the Harry Potter movies talk about stuff that was in the books that didn't make it into the movies. To me, it seems a pretty cut-and-dried violation of both WP:OR and relevance.

J. Langton (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am most definitely NOT considering a whole section on the people who weren't included in the book. I'm thinking of something more along the lines of "The book is based on the articles from this series whose subjects have not subsequently made statements to the effect that they believe humans have caused the earth to warm, and questions the consensus that the 'science is settled'."  This doesn't do appreciably more synthesis than we already have, and is pretty clearly on topic. Smptq (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be an inaccurate statement.
 * The book is based on a subset of the articles, specifically the set of people he chose to include for whatever reason he chose to include them, and not the entire set of articles.
 * While it was probably a simple misstatement on your part, "subsequently" would be irrelevant because he wrote the articles based on what people had said prior to the articles in question, not after.
 * To make any assessment related to the people who who not included in the book requires you to review a large body of material and draw a conclusion that has not been published in a WP:RS by a 3rd party.  That's WP:OR.
 * Summarizing and paraphrasing are not synthesizing. The other material here is simply recounting material already published in other WP:RS.  You are not recounting anything here, you are synthesizing it on your own.
 * Any assessment of whether these other people did, or did not, meet Solomon's definition of "denier" must be made relative to Solomon's definition "denier".
 * --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"...Even though some of them are not scientists..."
In this book, Solomon highlights the views of a few people who disagree with the scientific opinion on climate change, who he calls “The Deniers”.

The book profiles and presents the arguments of these people he calls "renowned scientists", even though several of them are not scientists, against what Solomon defines as the “alarmist” view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the IPCC and the mainstream media.

Thess sentences strikes me as suboptimal. Unqualified repetition of Solomon's claim of scientific renown is probably not a good idea on WP:NPOV grounds, but WMC's assertion that "several of them are not scientists" is at best original research, is not WP:RS, and doesn't really follow WP:NPOV either, in my opinion.

Also, it's longer than it needs to be.

May I suggest something along the lines of the following?

In this book, Solomon draws attention to a number of scientists whom he considers to have advanced arguments against what he defines as the “alarmist” view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the IPCC and the mainstream media.

I'll leave this up here for comment for a bit before I edit anything on the main page.

J. Langton (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would find this acceptable, however I would think it appropriate to capture some of the ideas from the quotes provided below as well. --GoRight (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The structure of the paragraph you provided is very constructive and NPOV. In order to be more faithful to the book's text, and avoid any biased either way, or WP:OR, as Mr. Connolley pointed out above, let me quote two key ideas from Chapter 1 of the book that might be helpful and clarify to those editors who did not read the book, both for the leading and the other issue being discussed:

Finally, I do not want to make lots of quotations, but for the record, some of the scientists profiled in the book said they fully believe in the man-made global warming, just they do not believe in the pessimistic scenarios or the policies that must be followed. Others think the CO2 is not the only factor, and of course, others are just skeptical as labeled in the on-going public debate. Mariordo (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good quotes. At least one of those, if not both, should be included in the article IMHO, although I agree that a lot of quotes would be inappropriate.  --GoRight (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to explain what my edit was all about: I saw that the lead talked about "scientists" but later on it was said that not all were scientists, that Solomon just calls all of them "renowned scientists". Whatever we write, it must be consistent. So, either we write that they are scientists, but then we should not later on say that some aren't, or we call them, say, "people" and then write that Solomon calls them "renowned scientists".

Also, I linked to the wiki article on the scientific consensus on global warming, because this is officially the so-called "consensus" on climate change. But the book actually questions the "alarmist view", so we also need to write that they are not the same thing, but that the book doesn't distinguish between the two. E.g., we cannot write that the book takes issue with the alarmist view by Al Gore, the IPCC etc. because that supposes that they indeed take an alarmist view. We must then instead write that the book says that they take an alarmist view. Count Iblis (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Count Iblis point of view, we have to keep in mind and write "the book" or "Solomon" said ... However, I think it is important to work a leading together to avoid unilateral edits and edit wars. Given all the discussion, does someone want to take a shot at proposing a new lead here? (Because English is my second language I rather pass!)-Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the current version is reasonably WP:NPOV but I prefer J. Langton's version of the summary. From the quotes above Solomon clearly refers to the people he highlights as "scientists" and not necessarily "renowned scientists".  So, how about this:


 *  The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud  is a book by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian writer and columnist for the National Post newspaper based in Ontario. In the book Solomon draws attention to a number of scientists whom he considers to have advanced arguments against what he defines as the “alarmist” view of global warming as articulated by the collective works of Al Gore, the IPCC, and most of the mainstream media.


 * I strongly object to including language which asserts that the people he includes are not scientists, especially without any WP:RS to back it up. --GoRight (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, as I remember, Solomon used the concept of "renowned" several times throughout the book (it is key to his argument), and some actually are, like Freeman Dyson, others are not, but just look at the title, that is why "claims" must accompany "renowned". Also, consider the discussion below: "alarmist" vs "doomsayer". I am only strongly opposed to include "some are not scientists" without proper RS (see above), and even if you were to accept WC count, most are scientists indeed, but this is irrelevant, either way it would be OR. - Mariordo (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version is basically pretty fair, although the wording is a bit infelicitous. Also, the following sentence is a bit problematic: "Solomon argues that even though most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is real, he highlights the views of those scientists who dissent, the so called “The Deniers”."  I'd object on the grounds that not all of the scientists profiled disagree with the occurrence of AGW itself, rather questioning some of the results of AGW.  (I'm thinking the hurricane guy -- Landsea, I think -- as an example of this.)


 * Having not heard any strong objections to my proposed wording, I'm gonna go ahead and make the change, although I'd certainly be interested in pursuing further improvement. J. Langton (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I almost entirely agree with the text as edited by J. Langton, it is very NPOV. The only idea that I think is missing (see the quotations of the book) is that many/some do not accept that the science is settled, to be fair, this has to be reflected without losing the NPOV already in this edit.Mariordo (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wont add this for fear that it will cause some editors to knee-jerk reject it, but how about adding one additional sentence along the lines of:
 * While most of the scientists discussed agree that global warming is occurring, they disagree that "the science is settled" on whether the warming is primarily caused by human sources and the extent to which it will be catastrophic.
 * --GoRight (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree to keep the leading as it is today, while we discuss here minor changes. I suggest the changes marked with bold to your proposal:
 * While most of the scientists profiled agree that global warming is occurring, they disagree with the consensus scientific opinion on climate change that "the science is settled", mainly regarding the causes of the observed warming and the extent to which it will be catastrophic.
 * I think is proper NPOV to use the term scientific opinion on climate change that Mr. Conolley introduced in an early edit, but the word "consensus" preceding it reflects what the book actually says; and second, I believe we should leave more open the issue regarding the causes, because if I remember correctly, some of the individuals profile think it is man-made but the consequences are mild, others think they are man-made and overlapping with natural causes, or such Roger Revelle, it is driven by man-made CO2 emissions but the consequences are unknown, or simply, as Freeman Dyson thinks, the climate models are flawed and the whole theory is wrong. Mariordo (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be someone disagreeing with the claim that those profiled in the books are scientists. As was discussed when this came up earlier, this is WP:OR. They are scientists according to Solomon's book, and while that might not be a neutral source, it's sufficient until such time as a reliable source calls their scientific credentials into question. J. Langton (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're totally missing my point. I'm saying that NOT ALL of them are scientists, so to lump them all together is false. I've not removed anything regarding "scientific opinions", and have only edited where it's more correct to put it the way I have. CSHunt68 (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68


 * I understand your point entirely. I just think it's incorrect.  The book claims that the individuals profiled are ALL scientists (and mathematicians would fall under this rubric as well, unless you're splitting hairs).  The book backs up this contention with CVs.  Any claim to the contrary must be properly sourced, or else it's original research.


 * On a separate note, you've now reverted two different editors in a very short space of time, in contravention of and without reference to a consensus (albeit not a unanimous consensus) that was developed over a fairly long period here in the talk pages. While I'm certain that your intentions are good, your style is somewhat inadvisable, particularly given the hot button nature of the topic.


 * I'm going to let the edits stand for now, pending further opportunity for discussion here. Once again, you need to explain why your position that some of the people in the book are not scientists is anything other than POV original research, preferably by providing references.  Alternatively, there might be other justifications for your edits -- perhaps the English flows better, for example.


 * J. Langton (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If its the books claim - then attribute it as the books claim, instead of blindly accepting it. As CSHunt68 pointed out (Wegman is not a scientist), the claim is effectively wrong, so its not harmless just to let it stand. We are not writing articles on the premise of the subjects - but instead from the premise of an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your saying that Edward Wegman is not a scientists is your WP:OR. As discussed above, the concept of scientist is very ample. Is there a board certifying how is a scientific and who is not? How many scientists do research without statistics? The relevant point was that Solomon said they are renowned, and that was properly taken care of. Also, let`s assume somehow one of them does not have enough background in science, so, if t 29 are and one is not, the group becomes just individuals. And by the way, I hope you do call CSHunt68 attention for his 3Rs, and he keeps resisting discussion his point here first.--Mariordo (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, your entirely right that on the face its WP:OR, although i would point out that he isn't - a mathematician is not a scientist by the definition of the word. But that doesn't mean that we as editors, shouldn't think. To state uncritically that the books is correct - is POV. And that is whats done, by blindly accepting the books word. They are scientists according to the book/Lawrence Solomon, just as they are only deniers according to the book/LS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, according to Wikipedia, mathematicians are scientists. (See the section "Types of Scientists".)  In any case, arguing about whether or not the people in the book are scientists or not due to the fact that a statistics expert crept in there is, to be blunt, pointless hair-splitting.  It's also woth pointing out that Wegman is a member of the AAAS, the AGU, and has worked as an organizer for a number of scientific (not purely mathematical) conferences, according to his resume.  Furthermore, nobody is "blindly" accepting the word of the book; the assumption is simply that the CVs of each scientist that Solomon included are factually accurate, which is a fair assumption until someone shows otherwise.  In any case, if their scientific credentials have been questioned in a reliable source -- and there's no reason to expect that they wouldn't be if those credentials were open to question -- then by all means we should include that criticism in the article.  If that criticism has not been made in a reliable source, than any attempt to imply this criticism is tantamount to OR designed to advance a particular POV.


 * Incidentally, can we have a moratorium on reverts (on both sides!) for, say, the next 36 hours, until we have a chance to resolve the issue on the talk page? This is starting to degenerate into a multi-user edit war that doesn't really do anyone any good. J. Langton (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First Kim, I will not fall for another reverse, and I hope we can reach a consensus with arguments not with passion nor OR, nor by edit waring. So by the logic of your assertion above, Freeman Dyson or William M. Connolley are not a scientists, do you know that they both first graduated as mathematicians? For a serious discussion of what is a scientists you need more than assertions and personal opinions, it will be nice if editors do some research on the subject before shooting their OR and biased opinions. In order to solve this issue, you need to know the history of science. I will provide some background for this discussion to try to turn this into a serious debate, and to show, that the definition of scientist is not a rigid concept as you think, nor it can be.
 * Of course the example is related to Global Warming, and the question is: can Guy Stewart Callendar be considered a scientist or was he just an engineer? I will base my case on the book by Spencer R. Weart "The Discovery of Global Warming" ISBN 0-674-01637-8. You can skim through it here just to check my quotations. Disclosure: The author confesses up front he belong to the man-made global warming camp, and by the way, I do recommend it for everybody to read it, regardless of your side on the GW debate. All bold in the quotations are mine
 * The author opens by explaining "...This book is a history of how scientists came to image such things: the history of the science of climate change..." (page vii pbk. edition, 2004). Then, recounting how people and the press in the 1930s talked about the hard weather of the time, and how nobody worried about the change, meteorologists included. Then, now I quote: "One man challenged the consensus of the experts. In 1938 Guy Stewart Callendar had the audacity to stand before the Royal Meteorological Society in London to talk about climate. Callender was out of place, for he was no professional meteorologist, not even a scientist, but an engineer who worked on steam power. He had an amateur interest in climate and had spent many hours of spare time putting together weather statistics as a hobby. He had confirmed (more thoroughly than anyone else) that the numbers indeed show global warming. Now Callender told the meteorologists he knew what was responsible. It was us, human industry. Everywhere we burned fossil fuels we emitted millions of tons of carbon dioxide gas (CO2), and that was changing climate" then the author quotes the following peer-reviewed paper: G.S. Callendar, "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate," Quaterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 64 (1938): 223-240. And as cited here in Wiki "Callendar published 10 major scientific articles, and 25 shorter ones, between 1938 and 1964 on global warming, infra-red radiation and anthropogenic carbon dioxide."
 * The on p. 30 I quote "Revelle and Suess, like Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, and everyone else who up till then had made a contribution toward the discovery of global warming, had taken up the question as a side issue. They saw in it a chance for a few publications, a detour from their main professional work, to which they soon returned...."
 * And finally, if we were doing an article on Weart book, would you also change "...a history of how scientists came to image..." for "a history of how some individuals came to image.." just because of Callender? I think your revert edit reflects a value judgment you are doing, that is why is OR. Also remember you are talking about living people, and by Wiki policy we must take a conservative position, so be careful when you are asserting someone is not a scientist. --Mariordo (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Since J. Langton and I were editing almost simultanously, I do recommend Kim to read the same article on the section Scientists versus Engineers, regarding the existence of plenty of instances where significant accomplishments are made in both fields by the same individual. I also support J. Langton proposal for a moratorium, and since KimDabelsteinPetersen did the last reversing without fully waiting for the answer of other collaborating editors, I kindly request you revert yourself, and we all stop editing on that issue until it is fully discussed here. --Mariordo (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Try to be more concise, i've only scanned the first part. Yes WMC is not a scientist (by his own words) anymore - he was a scientist previously, because of his area of study - not his education.
 * But all of that is rather mute. LS calls them scientists, so state that LS defines them as scientists, i have nothing against that. We have no reason to trust LS, just as we haven't got much reason to distrust him, but we can't just accept what is written in his book, which is arguably a book intended to be controversial. My Point: Do not state "scientist" as fact - but instead attribute inline where the definition comes from. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All of this tendentious edit warring and I am STILL waiting for a response, any response, to one of the most basic questions at hand here. I shall repeat my request here (taken from the Lawrence Solomon talk page):

So, as far as I am concerned, unless and until those making the claim provide a satisfactory response to this basic point there is no further need for discussion. Their position is WP:OR and nothing more. Solomon backed up his claim with references in the form of CVs, they have provided none. --GoRight (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, illustrate for us who in the book does not fall under one of these categories, Scientist, or one of these fields, Fields_of_science.  Are we expected to ignore all of history and rewrite foundational works and fields of science just because you have some irrational need to push your POV into this article or abhor Lawrence Solomon?  Your position is completely absurd, totally without foundation, and why anyone feels the need to entertain your peurile attempts to discredit honorable people is baffling to me.  Please.  Please.  Put up one single shred of evidence to justify your position beyond your own personal opinions.  --GoRight (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with personal opinion, or the definition of scientist, you are barking up the wrong tree. We can't just take the books word for it, especially not since it is written to be a provocative (title) and controversial item in the debate. It is LS's claim that they are scientists - so write it up as such - or use the neutral language that was proposed by CSHunt68. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim that some in the book are not scientists. Name them.  --GoRight (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We aren't taking the books word for anything, nor Solomon's. We are taking the credentials listed in the CVs word for it.  If you have WP:RS to show that these CVs are inaccurate in some way then please provide it here for consideration, until then you are barking up the wrong tree.  I notice that once again you fail to provide an substance to back up your claims.  --GoRight (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The credentials in the book, have exactly the same reliability as the rest of the information in the book. I'm going to repeat this once more: We cannot just take the book's word as fact. Either write things up, so that its clear who makes the definition (the book/solomon) or write it in a neutral tone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, right now the book has more credibility than you. It provides references, you do not.  Name those who are not scientists.  --GoRight (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you need to be uncivil? Or can you actually argue the case for its merits? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you think I was being uncivil. My intent was to state a simple fact: providing references is more credible than providing none.  Thus far the book has provided references and you have provided none.  These are easily verifiable facts.  Name those who are not scientists.  --GoRight (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that the book can be taken as fact, until the opposite is proven, is the trouble here. This book was not written to be factual, but rather as a provocative (see "denier" term) addition to the debate. It represents the opinion of LS, and his interpretation/description of what a scientist is, what constitutes consensus, alarmism etc. That is the point - not whether we can "prove" someone is a scientist or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The book certainly was written to be factual, in the sense of being an accurate representation of the views of the scientists profiled. It may not have been written to be balanced, but that is hardly the criterion for inclusion here.  If the book contains errors -- and I'm sure that it does -- you need to provide a reliable source to document those errors.  If its description of the individuals it highlights as "scientists" is erroneous, then WP:RS and WP:OR demand that you document this error by referring to another source.  I agree that the book would not be an appropriate source for the scientific issues surrounding AGW, since the criterion there is publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  That clearly isn't what's at issue here; the issue is what justification you have for rejecting the book's claim that it's profiling scientists.  You're rejecting that claim without any evidentiary justification for doing so, and that is indicative of POV. J. Langton (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that the book was written to be an "accurate representation of the views scientists profiled". Case in point: the scientists would have been interviewed or at least provided with a pre-copy of the articles/profiles. And since we do know that at least one of the profiled scientists strongly opposes the description in the article (at least) - we can't even assume that its even a reasonably accurate representation. The next is opinion: If you ask Tol, Nordhaus or Von Storch if their profiles where accurate - you are not going to hear a yes.
 * But all that aside - i'm not addressing errors or saying that errors should be pointed out in the article. What i am saying is that claims in the book (such as "renowned", "scientists" ...) must be pointed out in the article as the books description. The edit of CSHunt68 did exactly that, and did it in a very neutral and non-POV way. And that is the way that it should be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This makes it quite clear that your position is based on your personal opinion of Lawrence Solomon as a journalist and a writer. You are, in effect, asserting that he is a liar and that his claims are false and that he cannot be trusted.  The credibility of your claim can be easily assessed if you would only name those who are not scientists.  --GoRight (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And once again, you might fare better if you'd actually try to understand the argument - instead of assuming. It doesn't matter what yours or my assumption of the veracity LS's claims are. We have to address it as any source. And that means not making assumptions of the veracity of the claims made in the source. And try to put the strawman away (who are not...), since i've already told you it doesn't matter. And i'd rather appreciate it if you do not try to act as a mindreader by stating what my opinions are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand your argument and the motivation for it perfectly well. I just think that they lack any merit in this case.  See WP:LEGS and WP:STICK.  Given that this entire article is about a book written by Lawrence Solomon and is dedicated to describing the book and its contents, I believe that the context is such that the reader will clearly understand that any references to "scientist" are implicitly scoped to the opinions of the book's author, even if not explicitly scoped as such.  Constantly repeating "in Solomon's opinion" everywhere throughout the article would clearly be silly.


 * More to the point, you have not even demonstrated that Solomon's opinion on the topic at hand deviates from the mainstream view. The references cited above regarding the widely recognized categories of scientists clearly show that Solomon's use of the term is decidedly mainstream.  So if Solomon's opinion doesn't deviate from the mainstream definition there is no particular need to explicitly scope the term "scientist" to being Solomon's definition since the two are clearly indistinguishable.  On the other hand, explicitly scoping it as such would clearly leave the impression that Solomon's opinion does somehow deviate from the mainstream view thus creating a WP:NPOV problem, in other words it constitutes a POV push on your part.  Of course this entire analysis is WP:OR.  As J. Langton correctly points out, if you want to insert material that claims, or even suggests, that Solomon's use of the word "scientist" is outside of the mainstream view, WP:V and WP:OR demand that you provide references to support that claim.  Per WP:V the burden of proof is on you to support your claim.  --GoRight (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry? But the burden of evidence that the book is factual, actually lies on you, not the other way around. If i was to claim that the book was non-factual, then it would be my burden.... But i am doing neither. I am pointing out that we describe things here neutrally and without taking a stand as to whether or not it is true. Can you explain to me what is not neutral in CSHunt68's version? And try not to make assumptions, and state things that i haven't argued. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking a stand other than we have a consensus version of the language. You are the one that seeks a change to that.  Can you explain how the current version is not neutral without WP:OR?  I have shown that the current version is consistent with a neutral and mainstream definition of the word.  You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.  CSHunt68's version is not neutral because it is a POV attempt to unfairly diminish the stature of those that were profiled and as such I could argue WP:BLP problems and WP:UNDUE problems just to name two, and it does so without showing any evidence to justify such an action.  At this point I am done with your WP:IDHT on this topic.  --GoRight (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my language stands perfectly well, and is as NPOV as it gets. Frankly, if you're going to consider a mathematician "a scientist", I guess I have no argument with his statement, though I see NOWHERE in the book (and I have a copy right here) that claims that EVERYONE he's interviewed is a scientist - which is my main beef. Considering mathematics a science seems unnecessarily broad, IMHO. By that definition, I'm a scientist when I fix someone's computer (hypothesis, test, conclusion). CSHunt68 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, well, that's more engineering! I can see how it's a gray area.  However, in Wegman's case, the nature of his work in areas of scientific import (including but not limited to his statistical analysis of Mann's "Hockey Stick") is compelling.  Also, when the title of a book includes "The World-Renowned Scientists Who...", I think it's reasonable to conclude that those inside are indeed scientists, unless a published source contradicts it.  (The claim of renown is more subjective, and so I don't argue that we should uncritically accept it.) J. Langton (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (@CSHunt68) Please answer the following questions:
 * Is the following source, Scientist, a neutral (to this discussion) list of the types of scientists?
 * Do mathematicians (which obviously includes statisticians), economists, and yes even computer scientists appear in that list or do they not?
 * I have provided a clearly mainstream and neutral source for my definition of "scientist" as it applies in this context. I am still waiting for those who oppose the use of this term to provide any such definition to support their claims.  --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "Alarmist"
From what I can tell, Solomon doesn't actually use the word "alarmist" himself in the book, let alone define an "alarmist view". Instead, he quotes others using the word "alarmist" and doesn't seem to give a definition.

As such, it is probably a mistake to say that "The book profiles and presents the arguments of these individuals he calls "renowned scientists," against what Solomon defines as the "alarmist" view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the IPCC and the mainstream media." unless we can find a citation where Solomon himself describes the book that way.

Smptq (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't read the book doing lots of WP:OR, I did my homework before creating the article. This is the last time I quote from the book. I will be right back with the quotes. -Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken as to whether I read the book. In any case, I've done a search on the words "alarm" and "alarmist" and reread those pages.  I await your quote.  Smptq (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are right, sorry. My mistake. The exact term alarmist is used six times in the book (see Amazon Look inside tool. The word Solomon uses more often is "doomsayer" used 26 times. I think I used "alarmist" because I found "doomsayer" very strong. He also uses a lot the term the "science is settled" side or camp (13 times). On page 7, already quoted above there is an example, and here it goes another one, with "catastrophic":




 * and here it goes the quote regarding Al Gore and the UN, to set the record straight:




 * Please, I think it is unfair some editor did not read the book and keep asking question, the Amazon tool I suggested helps, but you will be reading out of context. I will not do further quoting, read the book to level the playfield Mariordo (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care if we use "Alarmist" or "Doomsayer", although I agree that "Doomsayer" is a bit strong, but we need to use something distinct from the "consensus view" because that is not what he is using. He also includes the notion that the change would be "catastrophic" which aligns well with the "Alarmist" and "Doomsayer" labels.  --GoRight (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that "Doomsayer" is very strong, though it is definitely not ok to substitute another word and imply that it is Solomon's. Smptq (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have the following quote from the very beginning of the book where Solomon is explaining the context of his position and that of the scientists who will be highlighted in coming chapters:




 * Emphasis in the original. Both "Alarmist" and "Doomsayer" seem very pointy to me.  Here he uses the term "doomsday view" which shifts the focus from those making to the charge to the effect of the charge, thus making it less pointy, and also accurately captures the standard against which he, and those he highlights, are arguing.  That standard includes the view that the warming will be catastrophic.  I would propose that we change "alarmist view" to "doomsday view" for these reasons.  Thoughts?  --GoRight (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take into consideration, as already discussed above in this section, that the word most used by the persons profiled is "alarmist", so, to me, the saying of the scientists profiled have more weight than Solomon's, as he depends completely on the arguments advanced by these individuals, and he did with lots of quoting. Alternatively, because it is the lead, we could use a word that reflect the same meaning without quotes, such as "the exaggerated", or "overblown", or "pessimistic" or other similar wording, but avoiding strong terms. Later on in the article the words "alarmist" and/or "catastrophic" can be used with quotes. However, I proposed we put this discussion on hold until we finish the discussion above regarding the idea of "settle science" in the lead, not. We are having at least three discussions at the same time, and not everybody has the same availability or has other priorities editing Wiki. Mariordo (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong preference either way. I was simply offering up an alternative for those who expressed concerns over "alarmist" above.  --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing: an endemic problem
I see that even personally talking to Benny Peiser to clarify his views is not good enough for Wikipedia. If a consensus of Wikipedians thinks Peiser conceded a point, then the article must say so. Even if published author Lawrence Solomon is told via email by Peiser that Wikipedia had misrepresented his views. 

See also WP:POV pushing, which ironically barely saved deletion and currently redirects to User:Ed Poor/POV pushing.

Censorship of opposing viewpoints, simply because you - Wikipedia contributor - disagree with the view expressed, violates the NPOV policy which Jimbo and Larry had in place when I joined way back in 2001. When I've tried to put back information which was "deleted on the grounds that it advances a point of view" (a deletion which is forbidden by arbcom decree), I was told that such edits are "tendentious".

We can't be neutral on a topic which is controversial, if we don't describe all important aspects of the controversy. In the Oreskes case, there was a dispute over the number of science journal articles which support or oppose the anthropogenic global warming theory. It would be a service to our readers to know two things:
 * 1) There is a dispute over how many scientists hold various views on global warming
 * 2) Peiser disagrees with Oreskes about her literature search

Here is some policy, copied from Policypedia/NPOV:


 * It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
 * Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
 * Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.

Those Wikipedians who agree that our articles should not take sides in political, religious or scientific controversies will surely join me in objecting to any censorship of opposing views in these matters. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your your message, but there is a discussion going on (see section "Scientific Criticism Section" above) regarding the text you edited, but you ignored it and deleted the text. I did a partial rv, and as a temporary action divided the issues and changed the headings. I had already suggested such heading change (see above) because I agreed and you are right, the piece is not part of the scientific criticism, but I also asked for a hold until the weekend to try to find a better source, otherwise, the text will be deleted. Can we wait until then? Sorry for the rv, and hope this temporary change keeps the NPOV while a decision is made for deletition. Mariordo (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I also agree with the deletion at the appropriate juncture. I forget what's been mentioned already, but the three salient points as I see them are:


 * The post in question wasn't written by McI, but a less-notable co-author on the blog.
 * The criticism appeared to have been directed at the newspaper series, rather than the book itself. Arguably, it's applicable to the book as well, but if one is going to take a hard line on WP:SYNTH, as I think is advisable, then it should be excluded on those grounds.
 * It's not a criticism of the science.


 * Any one of those points in and of itself is perhaps not completely damning (although the last one does indicate that 'Scientific Criticism isn't the ideal section for it). All three taken together, however, indicate to me that straight-up deletion is the best option.  J. Langton (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you decided to continue that discussion here and not above, let me remind that the McIntyre's material is no longer under "Scientific criticism", and I will repeat my arguments for reworking the text if a suitable ref is found:
 * Regarding the question about McIntyre authorship. Even though the post is signed by John A, the Climate Audit site is McIntyre's, as clearly stated there in the left upper corner under the site's title: "by Steve McIntyre". Second, the comment after the list is written in the first person, I quote: "The series name “The Deniers” is a disgraceful perjorative and insulting label given by people who have no shame. I have protested to Solomon about this use of the term to no avail." Clearly, it was not John A. who complained. So it is quite reasonable to assume that comment (not the list) was written by McIntyre himself. Regarding the second issue, clearly as per the quote, you are right, and I do think a rework of the phrase is justified, to reflect what McIntyre actually said, what I wrote today is not enough.
 * Now, regarding whether the section belongs to the article, I think it does for two reasons. First, it helps to keep a NPOV, and second and most important, the book was not written out-of-the-blue, it is based on the newspaper series, and Solomon mentions this fact several times throughout the book (for example see the two quotes of pp. 7 and 8 above). The quote in page 8 is a confirmation by Solomon himself that "Many of the scientists in this book hate the term and deny it applies to them." I do think the section's title was wrong, so I did an temporary fix (temporaty if you give time to find a RS), that reflects its content is just background to the book. The full stand alone "Scientific Criticism" section regarding the book will be created when specific critics from the book are published by any RS. I spent a couple of hours searching at Google and only found comments on blogs.


 * Obviously if a majority decides it is that urgent to delete and you guys can not wait until next Sunday as I requested, go ahead, I will not rv nor complain. I only request you take a quick vote (wait or speedy delete/rv) before you carry on. Mariordo (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not particularly urgent, I don't think. As I say, my vote is for a delete, but I'm happy to continue discussing it here for as long as people want to.  I'm still not sure why you think the quote comes from McI.  The post in question had "John A." as the author, and I think it would be very atypical if that meant anything other than him writing the entire post.  Had the complaint come from McI, it would've been presented as a quotation from McI in John A.'s post.


 * The quote from page 8 of the book ("Many... hate the term...") is, I think, pretty relevant, and if WMC et al. are amenable I think that it would be preferable to using the (not?)McI reference. J. Langton (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well taken! The source is not valid, so I will reverse my temporary edit regarding McInytre. Later on I will do a short edit about the content of page 8. Mariordo (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why The Deniers?
GoRight: I think that only the second quote (p. 8) is strictly relevant for this section, as discussed above by J. Langton and me. The other quote is pushing the envelop a bit. Probably belongs to the Overview section, because it makes very clear the book (Solomon's) objective and scope. However, I do not think we should put lots of quotations. Think about it. Mariordo (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not adamant about keeping the quotes, but I think letting Solomon speak for himself in a couple of areas will avoid a whole lot of bickering:
 * Answering the question of why he chose such a title. (The section we are discussing)
 * I think that the first quote is important to provide the required context for the second quote so that the reader will even understand why Solomon is asking the reader (of the book) to assess the credentials of those labeling scientists as "The Deniers". Without the first quote I think the second quote seems completely disconnected from any context.  This may just be my opinion, I am open to comments.
 * Why are you concerned about the first quote? It seems to me that the most WP:NPOV we can use in this case is a direct quote.  If we summarize we open the door to mischaracterizations, intentional or not.
 * Making clear the criteria that Solomon includes in his definition of "Denier". (A yet to be created section)
 * I would likewise seek to use a quotation from Solomon to explain this. Using a quote will avoid the bickering that will otherwise ensue.
 * Beyond that I don't anticipate wanting to use any more quotes. I think that these are two important aspects of the book that we need to convey to the reader of this article.  These points are central to why he wrote the book and how he set about it.  This all goes directly to having our readers assess Solomon's credentials and conduct in all of this.
 * I am anticipating fleshing this article out a bit beyond a simple overview and a couple of book reviews. Are others assuming the article is close to finished at this point?  If so then these sections I am proposing wouldn't remain.  --GoRight (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If your concern is that the first quote contains the "doomsayer" reference, we might be able to shorten it to just:
 * Would that help at all? --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that help at all? --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the meantime let's keep it as it is. I rather wait for other opinions.
 * Regarding the future development of the article I think because it is a truly controversial book I would not risk writing the typical comprehensive synopsis, I foresee a potential for quite an edit war, expecting many editors who did not actually read the book, so requiring too many quotes to achieve NPOV. To avoid such waste of time, I think the more concise the article the better, that is why I did an overview section instead of a synopsis. However, I do think it is important to add more book reviews and develop a scientific criticism section if such material is published by RS and maintaining a NPOV balance. In the original search I found some more reviews, but so far the book is clearly praised only by the skeptical camp, and many are just repeating what the book jacket says, so among them I decided to limit to the more known sources. To maintain NPOV I suggest keeping an even number of reviews for each side, regardless of which side publish more reviews. I am keeping an eye for such new and suitable material.- Mariordo (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Move?
What are people's thoughts on moving this page to The Deniers? Consider that there's nothing there but a redirect, the current title is excessively long, and it's commonly referred to as "The Deniers". Oren0 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be nice to have a shorter title. Even copy/paste is difficult with this one!  :)  But I am willing to defer to the article's original creator on this point. --GoRight (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The same issue was raised above but the discussion did not catch on other editor. When I created the article I had doubts on whether to use a a shorter title, and I actually cut it a bit (see the complete title in the infobox). But searching Wiki I found that for example "Cool it" also kept the whole thing (Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming), and in fact it was redirected from the short title. Also, when doing the search for this article, the term deniers alone gives many hits related to the holocaust, so I did preferred to avoid confusion. I propose we keep the discussion open for some time (min 5 days) to wait for other opinions on this matter. If there is consensus for a short version, then I will go with "The Deniers (book)" to avoid confusion with "Holocaust deniers", and keep the whole thing only in the infobox. It would also make it easier to do the move. By the way, does Wiki have a specific recommendation in cases like this?- Mariordo (talk)
 * The guiding principle is Naming conventions. We should wait a few more days and move the page if nobody objects. Oren0 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point above about keeping it differentiated from the holocaust deniers. Note that this is one of the reasons that people object to the term, it is an obvious attempt to draw parallels between the two in terms of their mainstream status and the despicable nature of their denying what happened or is happening.  It is a pejorative and an ad hominem attack used by the GW proponents.  So, "The Deniers (book)" seems appropriate if/when the move happens.  --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Naming it The Deniers (book) and having The Deniers redirect to that violates the naming conventions. If it's a bad name, Solomon shouldn't have chosen that name for the book.  As it stands, The Deniers is the common name. Oren0 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Googling "The Deniers" comes up with the book (at Amazon) as the first link, so it seems like a pretty safe move. Also with the book's cover as it is.  I don't think many users will search Wiki for The Deniers looking for something other than the book, so to me adding (book) to the title seems unnecessary.  Jason Patton (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Moved per consensus here. Oren0 (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Revelle edit and NPOV
This is a copy of what I wrote in User talk:Heart of a Lion:
 * Hi there and welcome to Wiki. Regarding your edits and my two reverts to your edits on the article The Deniers let me explain you that this article content is polemic and that's why the talk page is tagged with a label warning that "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Therefore, I request you discuss first in the Talk:The Deniers any issue you might have before editing. Just take a peek to all the discussion that has been going on. This is the reason for my rv. Also, I want to clarified I made a mistake regarding Roger Revelle, because the following text I did post it in the Lawrence Solomon Talk page article, not in the Deniers as I wrote in the rv. The text reads: "Roger Revelle was not a GW skeptic, just had a caution position because of the uncertaintes (circa 1990, when the climate models were much less developed than today)." If you read the book it is clear that he died before the current controversy took place, and because of the controversy between Singer and Al Gore regarding Revelle, his family even published a clarification, quoted in the book, making clear that for him man-made global warming was real but was cautions about the course of action to be followed at that time and believed it was necessary to wait some time. So it would not be fair nor NPOV not to make the caveat I did regarding his caution position. I kindly request you go to the Talk Page to present your case of why you think that this clarification is violating NPOV. I will copy this edit in The Deniers Talk page too. --Mariordo (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "caution position" mean? I am not familiar with this grammatical construct. Heart of a Lion (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is rubbish. I think the intended phrase is "cautious position". --BozMo talk 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the edit. Can anyone with the book give a better quote about Revelle's position as stated by Solomon?  It seems from Revelle's Wikipedia page that he fits in with the "mainstream position," which if that is the case, would be a better term than "cautious position." Since his caution has to do with implementation of mitigation solutions, he's not a "denier" in the same sense as those who do not agree with the mainstream science, so I don't know if there is a concise label you can put on him. Jason Patton (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it was just my grammar mistake, thanks for the correction. I will put a quote here for any of you to do the edit (as soon as I go back home, in a couple of days, the book is not with me). Also you have to take into consideration that the uncertainties and the debate was quite different in the early nineties, that's why it is difficult to express that in a few words.--Mariordo (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Book content regarding Roger Revelle(on Chapter 13 pp. 192-199) Solomon opens Revelle profile by explaining why he is considered "the grandfather of the greenhouse effect", then he argues that "...although Dr. Revelle recognized potential harm from global warming, he also saw potential benefits and was by no means alarmed, as indicated in this 1984 interview in Omni maganize:". The following is a summary of the quotation from this interview presented in the book:
 * Q: What will the warming of the Earth mean to us?
 * A: There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants...you get more plan growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.
 * Q: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?
 * A: People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes...
 * Then Solomon goes to transcribe a letter to Congressman Jim Bates (1988-07-14): ...Revelle was still urging caution: "...My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, both in positive and negative ways." Then he mentions a letter from July 18 to Senator Tim Wirth: "We should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. ...we had better wait another ten years, before making confident predictions."
 * Then the polemic part. Solomon recounts the 1991 article for the Cosmos:A Journal of Emerging Issues, written with Chauncy Starr and Fred Singer, entitled "What To Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap". He quotes from the article: "Drastic, precipitous, and especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere..."
 * Revelle died three months after this publication, and when Al Gore run for vice president in the 1992 election, the controversy began. Solomon says Gore counterattacked claiming that Revelle had become senile before his death and Singer had duped him into coauthoring the article. Justing Lancaster was the vehicle for such claims, but Singer sued him and ultimately Lancaster settled the case, offering a complete retraction.
 * The book also includes a text box with a partial quotation from Revelle's daughter and other family members letter criticizing George Will for implying that Revelle came to doubt the existence of global warming. Published in The Washington Post on 1992-09-13, key parts read:
 * ...-our father and the "father" of the greenhouse effect-remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death...he wrote: "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.
 * When Revelle inveighed against "drastic" action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense-measures that would cost trillion of dollars. Up until his death, he though that extreme measure were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate...
 * Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage "look before you leap," but he never said "sit on your hands..."
 * Then Solomon closes saying, I quote: "Revelle is the most famous case of a one-time environmental hero being tossed over the side when he became inconvenient, but hardly the only one."
 * I hope this summary helps to understand that in order to keep a NPOV we need to reflect from the book content that Revelle's position was quite different from, let's say, Freeman Dyson or Antonio Zichichi, and also within a different context (climate models were not as mature as today or five years ago), therefore, I did listed him at the end (not in order of apperance) to be able to make this difference by writing "and the cautious position of the late Roger Revelle." Other wording might be OK, but my opinion is that for the sake of fairness and NPOV, the "cautious" adjective is fully justified in this case, and absolutely not OR, it is 100% based on the book itself.--Mariordo (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this summary, Mariordo. While the term "cautious" does describe part of his position, I'm not sure it does it justice by itself when compared to the positions of the other people Solomon includes in the book.  But to accurately describe his position and the context in which Solomon is using it is hard to do without singling him out completely.  You almost need an entire summary, like Mariordo's, to really flesh out what is meant by "cautious position" in the lead!  Yet singling out Revelle would be giving him too much weight and also might give the casual reader the idea that his inclusion in the book is controversial (which it is not, at least not yet).  My grammar/thesaurus fails me right now, but maybe something like "cautious mitigation position of the late Roger Revelle" might work, as it gives a better idea of what he's actually cautious about. Jason Patton (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus on "settled science."
This sentence here is problematic:

"The book is based on these series of articles, and questions the consensus that the 'science is settled'." (Emphasis mine.)

The "consensus" position is that the Earth has undergone significant warming over the last century, and that this warming is primarily caused by emission of carbon dioxide due to human activities. This is a very different claim than saying that the "science is settled," which is manifestly untrue. For instance, consider the large uncertainties in the predictions of 21-st century warming seen in the IPCC summary, which, if I remember correctly, also highlights other areas needing further study, such as improving the models' performance in regional prediction. If the science were settled, climate modeling would not be such a vital field at the moment -- why would you study science that's already been figured out?

I would suggest the following replacement:

"The book is based on these series of articles, and questions the assertion that the “science is settled” by highlighting the uncertainties still inherent in the consensus theory..."

I'm going to go ahead and make this change; please don't revert without discussing here first.

J. Langton (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edited for more clarity and succintness. J. Langton (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC))


 * TSIS is just a slogan. But your view improperly suggests that the book is a reasoned impassionate discourse exploring the science. Its isn't. Its highly biased polemic. I've had a go at re-wording William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reworded your incorrectly spelled attempt because you would, presumably, be the first in line to distinguish the "scientific" view from the "alarmist", or doomsayer, view which explicitly asserts that the warming will be catastrophic, and which is the view that Solomon specifically addresses. Although we may also want to re-add the primary point made by J. Langton since one of the things Solomon specifically addresses with the book:




 * is what J. Langton was addressing. --GoRight (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Inadvertently or not, the last edits deleted a key aspect, repeated all over the book, as proposed by J. Langton above, and clearly illustrated by the quote posted by GoRight: and questions the assertion that the “science is settled” by highlighting the uncertainties still inherent in the consensus theory...", so I will restore this concept in this improve writing.--Mariordo (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of The Great Global Warming Swindle
I thought this reversion was pretty clear cut, but apparently not. Here goes. The inclusion of this is textbook synthesis. There is no mention in the currently sourced sentence about the subject of this page at all. So we have sources that certain scientists were in this book, and sources that some were in TGGWS. There is no reason for the film to be mentioned unless we have sources that link the two. The only reason TGGWS is currently mentioned is to disparage the book by mentioning the completely unrelated issue of distortions in the film. There are lots of synthesis claims I can make about ~5 of the 20 individuals here: I'm sure at least that many signed the Oregon Petition or were among the sixty scientists. But without sources saying that these things are related, they don't merit mention. Oren0 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oren0, I did write that background paragraph, but before entering into more details or justifications, I do suggest you read pages 146 and 147 of the book (to level the playing field), given that The Deniers indeed has an explicit mention to the TGGWS, particularly to Friis-Christensen and his participation in the TGGWS. I think your comment is based on the wrong assumption. Check it out, and then we can come back on this issue.--Mariordo (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Solanki's article
KDP has removed an article from my overview of the newspaper series. He states that his reason for removing this material is that "we know it is wrong." The material in question was:

Could you please provide a more thorough explanation of what you mean by "we know it is wrong", how this revelation came to be, and why such a revelation warrants removal in this case?

My reading of WP:V is that the standard is "not truth but verifiability". Obviously the article is WP:V since I have provided a reference for it, and clearly Solar variation is one of the more promising of the alternate theories which explain the current warming trend as being a natural phenomenon. As such it is a prime example of how the "science is not settled" and that there is still substantive debate which was one of the primary contentions of the series. Whether it is correct or not doesn't really matter in that context.

--GoRight (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a bad example, because you and i both know that Solanki has publicly stated that its a misrepresentation of his views:


 * Why not pick another example - which isn't a misrepresentation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be preferable to leave the Solanki stuff in, but include his rebuttal? J. Langton (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (As a disclaimer, I should add that I haven't been following the article closely, so this suggestion may not make sense. Feel free to ignore it if it's a dumb idea. J. Langton (talk))


 * I had forgotten that Solanki had complained. I avoided Weiss specifically for this reason.  Let me think about this.  The summary seems fine as it is for now.


 * I'll review the articles (I haven't read them all) to see if there is anything else related to solar variation (which seems an important topic to include), but not necessarily a must have I guess. And just for the record, complaining that the article is "misleading because he objects to being labeled a denier" does not equate to the article is "a misrepresentation of his findings".  As Solomon himself points out in the book, many of the people profiled object to the label.  Solanki is apparently one of them.  He objects so strongly that the fact that Solomon specifically states




 * doesn't seem to matter to him. This is a completely accurate account as far as I can tell.  --GoRight (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are reading the best possible explanation into Solanki's comment. But if you'd actually read Solanki's papers on the Sun and climate change, you would know that even that quotation is wrong. (Solanki & Krivova 2003 for instance). The base thing here is that i'm not pushing for an inclusion of Solanki's comment. But am simply saying that you should not include that particular article as an example (since we know that Solanki disagree's). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree to some level which is why I am not arguing for inclusion out of the gate. Like I said, I avoided Weiss for the same reason.  --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague terminology
The article is littered with so many backpedalling phrases that it's almost impossible to figure out what the author's book is about:
 * whom he considers to have
 * what he defines as
 * which he believes is claimed by

Then there's a rebuttal:
 * Solomon's "deniers" don't actually deny climate change.

So what is he talking about? What (or who) is a denier? And what are they denying?

Perhaps the key is in the full subtitle:
 * world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud and those who are too fearful to do so.

Is the author claiming that the global warming issue has been dominated by hysteria? That scientists who speak out (or write) against the mainstream view have been subject to political persecution? That mainstream pronouncements on global warming are frequently fraudulent?

Is the author claiming that a significant number of scientists would also publish or speak up, but that a sort of 'climate of fear' makes them too scared to do so? Note that the late Michael Crichton wrote a political novel called, "State of Fear". --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the authors claim is indeed somesuch as world-renowned scientists who stood up against.... Of course, he may make this claim (he has) and wiki should report it. Unfortunately, examination of those quoted makes it clear that (a) some of them aren't scientists (b) of those who are, most are not world-renowned (c) the most renowned, and may of the others, don't even agree with him, and in fact support the std GHG theory. The skeptics, alas, won't let wiki point out the obvious, so we end up with the bizarre circumlocutions William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if some of the authors aren't scientists, our article should certainly say so. Perhaps we could then characterize his book as describing "scientists and others" who oppose the main stream of scientific opinion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is a matter of Wiki policy, our points of view are just WP:OR, so skeptcs or not, that is how an enciclopedic article is written, as you correctly said, we are limited to report the author claims. Of course if a WP:RS presents a critical view or one backing Uncle Ed view, that is a different story. From time to time I do Google for such views, as I think the book review section is still unbalance, but nothing has appeared yet.--Mariordo (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I offer a view here? If so, please tell me what it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reputable and "science is settled"
This article is about the book and the author's intent in writing it. As such it should reflect what the author actually says and not the personal views and opinions of the wikipedia authors. Solomon set out to find reputable scientists. That was his intent in writing the series and the book. Whether you agree that he was successful or not is irrelevant.

On the "science is settled" there is no doubt that advocates of the consensus theory make that claim that "the science is settled". Please note that "advocates of the consensus theory" does NOT equate to "all climate scientists" or even "climate scientists." Al Gore is clearly a prominent "advocate of the consensus theory" and I have provided a legitimate reference to demonstrate that he does, in fact, claim that "the science is settled."

I would ask that you leave the edits alone. They are not particularly pointy in any way and they DO represent the views and intent of the author in the writing of the book. --GoRight (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Solomon set out to find reputable scientists - how do you know? can you read his mind? On the "science is settled" there is no doubt that advocates of the consensus theory make that claim that "the science is settled" - on the contrary, there is doubt. I doubt it. Do you expect to convince by bald assertion? Your quote is not from Gore William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * how do you know? can you read his mind? - No, but I can read what he has written on the topic:




 * Choosing "high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments" to "demonstrate credibility" seems to be fairly summarized as "reputable" to me. But if you disagree we can use his exact words instead, unless you have an objection to our including the author's stated intent when he set out to write the articles?


 * on the contrary, there is doubt - Interesting. Have you suddenly become a skeptic?  I hear that may be the case.  Welcome aboard!  :)


 * Just to be clear here, are you asserting that the set of people who are "advocates of the consensus theory" and who "make the claim that the 'science is settled'" is actually the empty set? Again, bearing in mind that "advocates" does not equate to "scientists".


 * Do you expect to convince by bald assertion? - No, not really. I honestly thought that the point was self-evident given the statements one reads in the media on the topic.  If you want more substantiation of this basic point, then fine.


 * Your quote is not from Gore - Why, because the reference I provided didn't use quotes? I guess that is a fair point.  Let me provide a few others.


 * They call this a consensus?:




 * [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84421 Global warming dissenters dash scientific 'consensus']:




 * Global-warming science meltdown:




 * There, three media sources that clearly attribute that direct quote to Al Gore (among others). I assume that you will accept Al Gore as an "advocate of the consensus theory", or am I wrong on that point?


 * I am also aware of your user space page on the topic here because a Google Search for "al gore science is settled" has that page at the very top, which is ironic since the page has been deleted from article space.


 * (Aside: I personally don't care if the page exists because I find it useful, but you might want to consider the fact that a decision was made to delete it from article space and so having Google bring people directly into your user space may be confusing to visitors? Except for the first line it looks for all the world like a real article.  I assume the whole Google thing is accidental.)


 * Based on that page I assume you will now claim that there are no WP:RS (even though I just provided three) to substantiate that Gore actually said this. Even if I were to accept that premise, however, I would still argue that in the media this statement is widely attributed to him.  So even if he hasn't uttered these exact words he clearly has expressed the operative sentiment.  Given the use of summary style in this article, our summarizing his position (and that of other, but not necessarily all, advocates of the consensus theory) as the "science is settled" is not unreasonable.  I guess in this case if you object to the use of quotes in the article they could be removed and/or we could qualify advocates with the word some.


 * --GoRight (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also doubt if Gore has said "the science is settled". And your 3 references do not actually convince ... The first is a claim of a quote, from an Op-Ed by Solomon, that i can't find the Origin of. The 2nd (not a WP:RS) and 3rd reference (another Op-Ed), use it as a rhetorical means - and do not attribute the quote directly. Sorry. The User-space article that you reference, gets even more amusing - since it actually states the exact opposite position as yours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recognized that the user space article was an argument against my position. I only mentioned it because I wanted to convey that I understood the source of WMCs "doubt".  --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough when taking the "quote" from Gore as stated by Solomon and inserting into a Google query, we get very few results - most of them referring to Solomon. And none of them reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I have emailed him to query on the source of the quote.  We'll see if he responds.  --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GR has, as usual, failed to find a single quote from Gore, since there isn't one. As to Solomon set out to find reputable scientists, it seems you can't read his mind either, which is why its OK to use Solomon says he set out to find reputable scientists instead, because judging by his numerous misrepresetnations we can't take his word for it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For now. But with a little luck on my part we may end up with a resolution similar to how this turned out.  :)


 * "which is why its OK to use" - Did you actually mean to have a "not" in there somewhere? I will assume so.


 * "judging by his numerous misrepresetnations we can't take his word for it" - This might be an argument on other GW pages, but given this is an article about his book it seems perfectly reasonable to state (or paraphrase) what he actually said.


 * By doing so we are not taking his word for it in the sense that we are validating whether he was successful in his attempt, we are merely reporting what a WP:RS actually says. And regardless of what you think of the man, you can't honestly argue that he is not a reliable source on what he was thinking and you can't honestly even call where he said it a self-published source.  It was published in a national newspaper.


 * To take what he said and make our own judgement about its validity is clearly WP:OR. Do you not agree?  --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by TS
I've turned the "Reviews" section into a series of sentences, rather than the weird book-blurb format that was originally chosen. I've identified the reviewers, none of whom seem to be science journalists--the article badly needs proper views by real scientists or proper, experienced science journalists.

I've removed one entire section, "Why the Deniers?", that seemed to be pure promotional fluff. Perhaps the extensive quote could be precised and used to describe Solomon's expressed motivations. --TS 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sales data from the overview section. All seemed to refer to the Amazon rankings, which are fine for spotting which books are selling on Amazon but unfortunately are not verifiable.  They change periodically and (at least using the URLs given) it is not possible to check whether the sales rank reached a given level.  Perhaps more reliable figures are available elsewhere on Amazon, or (hopefully) within the broader book market. --TS 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And so the edit warring begins. What, exactly, is promotional about the "Why the Deniers?" section? As the section make very clear many people are curious as to why he chose to use that term when many of the people he writes about object to having the term applied to them. The only purpose of this section, which has been in the article for a long time and has not been the subject of controversy until now, is to answer that question in the Author's own words. --GoRight (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hadn't seen your comment below before I posted this. Let's discuss it below.  --GoRight (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead
Some changes were made to the lead today and yesterday.

Before:


 * In this book, based on a series of columns titled "The Deniers", Solomon draws attention to a number of scientists and other individuals whom he considers to have advanced arguments against what he defines as the "alarmist" view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the mainstream media and other organizations and individuals. At least two of the scientists Solomon has written about have complained about his representation of their position.

After:


 * In this book, based on a series of columns titled "The Deniers", Solomon draws attention to a number of scientists and other individuals who have advanced arguments against the "alarmist" view of global warming, as presented by Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the mainstream media and other organizations and individuals. Two of the scientists Solomon has written about have complained about his representation of their position.

Qualifiers have been removed. Some scientists have complained that they have been misrepresented. The term "alarmist" should be correctly attributed to Solomon. I have reverted for now but we should perhaps discuss how best to convey the information. --TS 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced
The article has had an "unbalanced" tag since January 2013. Unless somebody can be more specific about the problem, I intend to remove this tag. Biscuittin (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)