Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster

tags
Within two minutes of my creating this page a "notable" banner appeared at the top. This seems a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to include graphs in the article but don't have the technical know how to do this -- hence the banner at the top and a request for help in this connection from other editors. Cheers,Jprw (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

wikilinking
has been removed for noe..will give editor a few days to fix this!! Hello we need to wiki link this article to other articles ..by aading this tile to see also sections in related articles..I will start!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Update ok i have wikilinked a bit see here...will will have to do some more..PS nice article!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs work
This article needs to carefully seperate out Bookers very "skeptical" views of climate change from the scientific view thereof, which are very different. I have no objection to the article saying "Booker says " but simply "" isn't acceptable. I've fixed up some of those.

As to Moscow July 2004: this isn't a garbled ref to World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, is it?

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would appear not -- this is how Booker describes it:

"The Russians decided to stage a high-level international seminar in Moscow on 7 and 8 July 2004, chaired by Putin's chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov." (Booker, page 114). King apparently appealed to the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (who was also in Moscow at the time on different business) about the make up of the scientists who had been invited (among them Nils-Axel Morber and Reiter). Best, Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, we have chronology problems. Chapter 6 "culminates" in Dimmock et al ("The controversy included in a court action in the UK.") but chapter 7 includes TGGWS. Dimmock et al was *about* TGGWS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Dimmock et al seems specifically to be connected with the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in English state schools Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be less "skeptical' however...is a book with a very specific views..we cant loss that fact when neutralizing the article..but what your doing is just perfect i think..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * POV tag removed ..this is the 5th different tag this article has seen in 5 days.There is going to be a big problem with POV dew to the  fact its a POV book ..so we need to balance it all out ..wont be easy...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a real problem with the use of primary sources - about 80% of the "readable text" is cited to the book itself. The second problem is formatting - is there any reason why the chapter titles are bolded, or why the paragraphs start with "Chapter x: Name of chapter"? Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I would hope that eventually other sections would be added and expanded to balance out the synopsis. As for formatting, I'm sure that there may be better alternatives available. Best, Jprw (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right on that point (other sections needed) however if your hoping not to see those tags again ..you need to even out the bias tone !! now i see that is hard to do seeing the fact its a book dealing with basically one side of a subject...but even the author must  "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit!...PS i have no clue about the subject in question i am just here because you asked for help (editors help desk) with all those tags.. We have taken care of most ...we need to link this up more and try to neutralizes it a bit more..or people will places those tags back!! And if your done using {citing} all those quotes We should remove them...... Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit"
 * I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing starting?
I just reverted some edits that replace "asserts" with "describes". I don't think these are acceptable - Bookers version of reality isn't the real one, and this page should not say it is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But can we on occasion compromise, e.g.,

"In this chapter the author asserts the increasing involvement in the global warming debate of the politician Al Gore"

just sounds like bad English. Surely "outlines" could be used here instead of "asserts"? I agree that a "according to Booker" type tone needs to be struck. Also, isn't language like "Bookers version of reality isn't the real one" inappropriate for Wikipedia? It makes him sound like a lunatic.Jprw (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Err, well you said it, not me :-). This shouldn't be a place to re-fight the old wars. Essentially the tone of wiki's coverage of the *science* of GW is set by global warming. This article shouldn't say anything that contradicts what is there. But it can say that Booker contradicts what is there; or rather, it can report Booker saying things that contradicts what is there William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like a promotion/index rather than an article
Unfortunately that is the case. Most of the article is dedicated to uncritical description of each section and chapter. Why dedicate this much space for it? Where is the critical review of the claims? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article too incomplete to be encyclopedic
I have just added the {one source} template to the article. It is an encyclopedia article about a book, but at the moment is little more than a synopsis of the book. It does not even aspire to being a book review, far less an encyclopedia article about the book. Of the 34 references cited, all but 7 reference the text of the book itself. To become encyclopedic, this article needs to explain the historical context of the book's publication and writing, it needs to give evidence of how the book was received and reviewed on publication, and it needs to give some indication of the effects the book has had on the world following its publication. If these matters are so trivial that they cannot be adequately sourced, then I would propose that the book itself is of such marginal importance in the wider world that it does not deserve its own article, when set alongside all the other political and opinionated pulp that is published monthly in the world. That would lead us to AfD, rather than trying to expand and balance the coverage of this product. --Nigelj (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of synopsis
I've removed the synopsis, which was extensive and seemed to rely almost completely if not exclusively on somebody's personal reading of the book or promotional material for it, a primary source. Please rewrite from reliable secondary (ie: third party) sources, so as to highlight the major points of the synopsis as determined by those sources. --TS 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've acknowledged above that the synopsis is out of balance with the rest of the article -- but that shouldn't be a reason to remove it entirely. Rather, the synopsis should be edited and a criticism/origins section should be added later (the article is after all very young). Why should one editor have the authority to remove so much material without discussion? I am going to reinistate the synopsis based on this. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Put it back if you can justify doing so. Personally I'd say that such a substantial synopsis, dwarfing as it does whatever we do know about the book from reliable third-party sources, is to be deferred until firstly, the other sections of the article have been filled out, and secondly, we can do the synopsis properly from such secondary sources as are available. --TS 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I based the layout of the synopsis on this. I would more than welcome other editors reworking the synopsis though I believe my rendering of it is fair. And in time any contentious point mentioned in the synopsis can be addressed in a criticism section. William Connelley has already gone through it three times -- I think -- which is a start. Jprw (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, your chosen model is absolutely horrid, especially in view of the extensive study and critique of Marx's prominent and influential work in the past century or so. But at least I can see why the synopsis of this article is such a mess. --TS 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely it should be possible to compile a synopsis from the reviews? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. To produce an exhaustive item-by-item account is not sensible.  We should follow what the reviewers found worthy of comment. --TS 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But I should mention that this is how I envisaged the synopsis looking eventually, with the help, of course, of other editors. At some point I intend to reinstate a synopsis that is more along these lines. I also think that, rather than other editors summarily hacking out without discussion what synopsis there was, it might have been better to mould it gradually into something more appropriate for a Wikipedia entry.Jprw (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Synposis should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as  being complicated." following the guide here WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article would be on target. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the guide, the synopsis is separate from reviews and criticism. The two sections should complement each other, however I believe the synopsis can be restored with faith that multiple editors will make it appropriate and relevant to the sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seem the article on The God Delusion before and was surprised to see that, despite my dread and foreboding, it wasn't the sprawling mess I expected. I think you could do worse than to aim for a summary like that, though I think any reasonably intelligent person could summarize Dawkins' work in 250 words or so. To show you that it can be done (and obviously this would need more work):


 * Dawkins examines several definitions of the term "God" and concludes that only the weakest, vaguest definitions are plausible within the context of what is now known about the universe. The fundamental argument for a creator--the argument from design--is dismissed by appeal to evolution.  Dawkins contrasts the elegance of Darwin's solution with the existential problems of an intelligent creator: if intelligence demands a creator, where did the creator's intelligence come from?  Dawkins also examines the argument that God is needed in order to impose morality on humans, and he mounts a humanist argument for morality.  Finally, Dawkins argues for a positive conception of atheism, conceived as the freeing of humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought.

I make that about 120 words. It's a start. We could easily do something similar with Booker. The advantage of a brief synopsis (and I hate having to point this out) is that it will be read and understood by many more people than a long one. --TS 04:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting Dawkins genius aside (smile) ... I suspect we could take the existing synopsis, remove the chapter references and bring out the essence of Booker's genius. Seems the "five" error he investigated are most significant toward "freeing of  humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought." (chuckle)  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have only just seen the above conversation -- I was busy on the IPCC talk page. Very glad to see that things are more genteel over here)) Zula Papa 5 well done on finding this I was actually going to try and get help on writing a synopsis (before posting the "slab of words" referred to by TS above) the link is excellent and gives us a clear guideline for what it acceptable from a WP point of view for a non-fiction book article. My original synopsis was about 1400 words -- how about I try to cut it in half, post it again, and we take it from there? TGD could still serve as a rough comparison – e.g., perhaps a summary of the three parts. Jprw (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restored with faith
Restored it with good faith in source and editors. Included a tag so editors may contribute and collaborate with the existing sourced text by adding new sources. Any specific verification issues can be removed. Perhaps even condense as suggested above. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus for this? It's my impression that this massive and disproportionate synopsis has not been missed. --TS 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assumed consent that editors were here to work on content with sources. Go ahead an work on it with sufficient sources.  Removing was too much.  I agree, it can be improved with faith.   Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's too big to be manageable. Really we'd be better off starting from scratch and writing something brief from the commentaries available. --TS 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that huge slab of words with a very brief summary sourced from the review in The Observer by expert science writer and former Nature editor, Philip Ball. --TS 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's another start. Does't seem to help the reader see into the book. Kinda of lowers the article quality IMO.  Thanks for contributing, wish I could believe it was in Wikipedia's best interests, but that's my issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole
I've removed an external link to a piece by James Delingpole in The Spectator. I think we may want to use that article to flesh out the book's very positive reception in what remains of the British traditional intellectual conservative tradition. I don't think we need worry that it's the second piece hosted by The Spectator--the mag has a proud history of intellectual contrarianism that few other publications anywhere can rival. This is Booker's intellectual background and the voice of his primary audience. --Tasty monster 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should make it plain that I, Tasty monster, am Tony Sidaway down the pub with a cellphone. --Tasty monster 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5482258/you-know-it-makes-sense.thtml

Finally added a bit of it to the end of the intro. Jprw (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
I have restored a perfectly fair summary of the book which was deleted. Peterlewis (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restoration
The synopsis, which now may well have gone through as many rewrites as the script to The Godfather Part III, has been restored. It's almost half the size of what it was, which brings it into line with this. Thanks to Zulu Papa 5 for retrieving the original one from the system.

Hopefully this time other editors will focus on tweaking/moulding it and not just removing it completely. Jprw (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article reviewers
I have personally asked Dave souza, Cla68, Mark Nutley, Peterlewis, Viriditas, and KimDabelsteinPetersen to look at the article to see if in their opinion it should qualify as a good article, just to get the ball rolling on this process. Of course, other editors can and would indeed be very welcome to make their views known as well (please follow the link at the top of this page). Jprw (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job, everything looks ok to me, but i am curios as to why in see also the hockey stick illusion is in italics but not the other links? It looks a bit out of place the way it currently is. But other than that one small gripe, top job mate mark nutley (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should really have a look at some of the existing GAs in this category. If I were to review it (which I shouldn't), it would be an obvious quick-fail. If you look at the Good Article criteria (see WP:WIAGA):

In addition to that, the nom lacks a subtopic. That needs fixing (see the error message in the banner at the top of the page). Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): The writing needs improvement, especially in the synopsis. The sentences are overly long, they're hard to follow. In addition, the synopsis is not a synopsis, more a blow-by-blow. It should cover what the article is about, not x happened, then y happened, then z happened. The body of the article is also just not there. There's a synopsis, there's a reception, but there's no real discussion of the book.
 * b (MoS): The bolded section titles - are questionably MOS-compliant. The use of American English spelling in a book by a British author published in the UK is also a problem. Actually, I think the article included both AE ("skepticism") and BE ("criticised"), so that's a real problem.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * b (citations to reliable sources): much of the article (695/1584 words "readable prose") is sourced to the book itself, which seems like excessive use of primary sources.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Not even kinda. While major reviews are mentioned, they are simply mentioned. They are not used to construct the article. There's also an inherent problem with trying to write an article about a book that's only been out a few months.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: This links back to 3a. The book isn't discussed, its case is simply presented (via the primary source, the book itself) and the reception is provided. Its content is highly contentious, but that's not at all obvious to the reader.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * In my opinion you are mistaken: language is fine and your critical comments mistaken. I have peer-reviewed many books and articles in learned journals and elsewhere and find the current article very fair in presenting both Booker's strongt arguments and the criticism. Peterlewis (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Leach review
I think WP:UNDUE might come into play here. The text of Leach's review includes some... novel... views, like "But in the Seventies environmentalism joined forces with the continuing backroom campaign of international bureaucrats for world government." and "The collapse of Soviet Communism brought a fresh ally. The Left found in global warming an appealing new anti-capitalist cause, and when EU governments and US Democrats adopted ‘fighting climate change’ as their badge of environmentalist solidarity, an unstoppable coalition of forces had assembled, able to silence dissent and seduce or cow the media on a scale hitherto seen only in ideological or religious regimes." I respectfully suggest that this is off the chart when it comes to a reality check, and should not be treated as a source in the reasonable range. It is being given undue weight just by being included. I would also suggest that this article cannot reach GA when the book is so new, as peer-reviewed reviews are not yet out. This is creating a problem with the "reception" section, which appears unduly weighted to critics with like-minded views - who by Booker's own argument do not represent the majority of critical views on this subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seitz
I took out:


 * The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report – the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate – were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question has accepted the supposedly final text". 

This isn't even close to balanced. The overall scientific reaction to the SAR was positive acceptance. The above must as a bare minimum be prefaced by something along the lines of "Despite the overwhelming positive acceptance of the SAR, the book chooses to highlight the one negative report by..." or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it -- it's a crucial piece of criticism. And is commentary along the lines of "Despite the fact that..." appropriate in a synopsis? Jprw (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree, and I think this pushes an already badly biased article ove the edge, so I've added the POV template. What does "it's a crucial piece of criticism" mean? That you consider it so? that Booker considers it so? Do you feel any need at all for this article to reflect rality? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a crucial part of the synopsis, or the gist of what the book is about (IPCC reports this, subsequently criticised by x person, etc.) As it currently stands, the synopsis is merely outlining what Booker says in the book. It's for other people to make up their minds about what he says, and for other sections to deal with commentary, criticism, etc. That would appear to be within the guidelines set out here Jprw (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that won't do at all. The section says (and this is typical of other problems with the article), very baldly The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that.... Either that statement (and quite a few others) needs to be very clearly prefixed with "Booker says this, altough it is quite misleading) or there should be some general statement ni the intro making clear that this is a deeply partisan view William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that Frederick Seitz criticised SAR? If there is, then I agree that "According to Booker, Seitz criticised, etc." may be better. I also see no problem in using Booker alleges/claims/asserts hedgers. It may well be the case that the article needs more of them. Jprw (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But is that good enough? We're not quoting every word of the book here. Who is asserting that *this* is a critical part of the synopsis? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adressed the POV issue in the Seitz statement by attribution to Booker's writing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't address the problem. If you read what I've written above, you'll see "and this is typical of other problems with the article". There are others. Please restore the POV tag that you've incorrectly removed. In the book, Booker chronologically charts the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe is another example. This sentence is somewhat incoherent, but the most obvious interpretation - that Booker chronologically charts the history - in unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have detagged-n-run, so I've done what you should have and re-inserted the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * that Booker chronologically charts the history Would you actually explain why you think this is unacceptable? mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly: because this is a bald statement that he actually does so. Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, i read the book, have you? cos if you have not then how can you comment on it? mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kinda beside the point, isn't it? The statement assumes that he does chart it accurately. Something like that needs to be supported by secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, i read the book - that wasn't the question. The question was, Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? and you've evaded that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

have put "attempts to" in front of it as a compromise. Jprw (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We're not there yet. (1) to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies,; (2) Booker also describes how The Real Global Warming Disaster became a necessary continuation; (3) Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years[7] showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have consistently fluctuated and how when they again began to rise in the 1970s, scientists such as Paul Ehrlich began - actually that last is more incoherent than POV - how can a graph show what PE began? But attributing the scientific response to PE is wrong/POV William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've numbered the points, since it wasn't clear that they were separate) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And I was too swift with my thanks. Whilst "attempts" was no doubt well-intended, it doesn't really help: all you've done is replace one problem with another: what evidence is there that Booker is trying to tell the truth? I very much doubt that he is. An alternative, quite plausible, hypothesis, is that this is propaganda William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review process
Well, the review process was instructive, as were the comments regarding how to improve the article. I had no idea that it was wrong to approach individual editors to comment (as I explained above it was to "get the ball rolling" – naivety on my part, I'm afraid). I also think that Pyrotec's choice of language here ("This review looks very much like a "favour" being granted to the article's nominator by a co-conspirator") is very regrettable – perhaps he would like to retract it, look again at the six editors I asked to review the article (I chose a cross-section of editors experienced in CC pages but who had not made a contribution here – also explained above), and admit that he jumped to conclusions. Another example of why good faith is so important. Anyway in future, I'll just make a general post on the talk page about GA nominations. From the comments re: the article itself it's clear that the article needs work in certain areas. Specifically:
 * MOS issues, esp. with regard to the synopsis
 * Restructuring of criticism section and dealing with "stubby paragraphs"
 * Consistency in spelling
 * Overlong sentences in synopsis (although Guetterda's criticism "the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form" may be misplaced as the book is a chronological account of this subject)
 * Delingpole's review quoted in the lead but not the main body
 * Further critical review needed/possible problems with tone
 * Needs more images
 * More than one editor pointed out that it may be too early to submit the book for review -- a very good point. Perhaps we should give it another six months.

That should be enough to be getting along with)) I don't regard the rejection as a setback, but merely a blip on the road to getting The Real Global Warming Disaster to GA status one day, in strict compliance with WP guidelines, though I still have reservations about how wise it was to choose a book from this subject area. Anyway it is a terrific learning experience. Thanks to all who shared their opinions. Jprw (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm more than happy to accept your explanation that it was naivety on your part and not anything else. Please note that, in a GAN review the Reviewer (there is only one and that is the editor who opens/creates the GA1 page) gets the final say, but anyone can contribute; and since that is not me I should not have failed it (well I broke the rules). Good faith applies on both side, I'm happy to acknowledge that it would have been better to leave a note on your talkpage before taking it to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, but as you are not prepared to accept good faith on my part I'm not withdrawing any comments. But I do wish you well with the article. I've been reading Christopher Booker for years in the Telegraph and I consider that he makes some very valid points. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation, accepted in good faith. As I said, it's been quite a learning experience. Actually, I now understand that it is probably just too premature for the article to be considered. Jprw (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Socks
I take it that Kenoshay and Fleurdalis are socks -- does anyone know how to protect the page? Jprw (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as the level of activity is this low, the cost of semi-protecting the article (in terms of lost improvements) probably outweighs the damage. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute
I am having diffculting comprehending where the POV dispute is in this article. Best I can tell, any real issues can be quickly mopped up with active and appropriate edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mop Number 1 - Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you considered reading the sections above? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the first paragraph of the lead shows some of the problems: The Real Global Warming Disaster (subtitle Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?) is a 2009 book by English journalist and author Christopher Booker that examines, So far, so good, though I'm not sure it's in keeping with the MOS to subtitle) from the point of view of climate change scepticism, misleading link; something like this or this would be less problematic, since we aren't talking about actual skepticism here the subject of man-made global warming. Looks OK In the book, Booker attempts to chronologically chart the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe. ''There are a lot of problems here. What does "attempts to...chart" mean - that he tried, but the records aren't there to chart the history? And the assertion that Booker calls this "the brink of catastrophe" contradicts the end of this very paragraph.'' He interweaves the science of the subject with that of its political consequences to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies, the scientific evidence for global warming is also, in his opinion, becoming increasingly challenged. This is problematic because, at the very least, it contradicts what Bell says in his review Booker questions whether global warming is supported by the world's climate scientists, ''This is problematic wording, since it presents something that's obviously incorrect without adequate context. Clear POV problem'' and consistently criticises how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents evidence and data, citing in particular its reliance on potentially inaccurate global climate models to make future temperature projections. Again, we have the problem - the average reader could easily get the impression that the underlying premises here are accurate Booker surmises at the end of the book that "it begins to look very possible that the nightmare vision of our planet being doomed" may be imaginary, and that, if so, "it will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made". Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made an initial attempt to rewrite the introduction which I hope will deal with the majority of the issues raised by WMC and Guettarda above. Jprw (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  Booker attempts to chronologically chart - I agree, this is a problem. I don't think he does make the attempt William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1000 / 11,000
Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years[7] showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have... is odd. If all Booker is doing is talking about the last 1kyr, why doesn't he just show the last 1kyr? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted it accordingly. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Err yes you have but I'm not sure it is satisfactory. Now the graph shows 1000 years. Is it the same graph? If so, either the current text or the previous text is wrong. Which? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to pick up on this -- it is indeed 11,000 years, not sure how the 1,000 crept in. A mistake of almost IPCC-like proportions)) The graph is based on proxy studies from G. Bond, et al, and CO2 levels based on Parrenin et al. If it exists in Wikicommons I would like to include it as one of the criticisms that came out during the GA nomination process was that the article needs more diagrams and pictures. Jprw (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar
Sooo... evidence emerging to the contrary: that the earth had in fact begun to cool, and how this may have been as a result of solar variation. But then there is a picture of Svensmark, and the assertion of a connection between solar and warming. So what exactly does Booker claim? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me at the moment but will double check later to make sure there is no contradiction here. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you could work that much out. That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects. It has so many clauses and sub-clauses that when the next sentence begins, "The theory was...", I imagine most readers would have no idea which theory we might be talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What other theory could it possibly be? And re: "That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects". Yes, but all working together quite harmoniously -- where is there confusion? (I have however tweaked it a little by adding "perhaps"). But these are copy editing issues -- why not make these changes yourself, or at least suggest constructive alternatives on this page? Jprw (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What other theory could it possibly be? - this worries me, because it suggests we're getting your paraphrase of something you may not fully understand William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"the earth had in fact begun to cool, perhaps as a result of solar variation" this is the "theory" in question. If it is wrong, can you suggest an alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that the "solar variation" theory of climate isn't really coherent; whilst I'd be happy for the article to say that I'm not really going to try and push it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Svensmark wording
I've changed it to "Henrik Svensmark, who carried out controversial research into a link between solar and temperature trends". Hopefully this will deal with any consistency/accuracy issues. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance?
This edit reverted to misrepresenting sources in the lead, presenting an impression of praise from a review and an article that strongly criticise the book, and then presenting a columnist's view as though it's the view of the magazine concerned. There are further possible ways of doing this, for example using the Spectator's review, but the point remains that the book was criticised and the lead should show that balance. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You two need to stop edit warring and work towards some compromise wording. Cla68 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a compromise can be reached, as has been the case for this article in the past. My main concern at the moment is that cramming the lead with every negative response and flaw to the book is not balanced. Jprw (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There appear to be very few reviews of the book, and it's misrepresentation of the source to pretend that Philip Ball's review in in The Observer is uncritical. Extracting his sarcastic comment about it being "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" without showing the context is the sort of spin expected of billboards for dud theatre shows, and wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ball has the credentials to express the clear majority view on the science of the subject, which should be shown in the lead and elsewhere in the article to comply with WP:WEIGHT and at present is sorely lacking in this article. James Delingpole is noted for expressing fringe views in his columns and blogs, and The Spectator is a political magazine not noted for neutrality. It would be more appropriate to represent that magazine's views by its review, which appears similarly opposed to the scientific mainstream. The Independent's item is not a review, but a news piece about the misattribution of the opening "quote" in the book. Since it's a significant part of this article it's something to note in the lead, and not something to misuse to claim that the book is a definitive "manual". Cramming the lead with misrepresentations of sources is unbalanced, as is pretending that it has been well received by mainstream expert sources. . . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. There are plenty of reviews of the book, mainly from conservative publications, which, it could be argued, are underrepresented in the lead.

2. There is no pretence that Ball's review is not critical -- the criticism is presented at length in the criticism section. I also don't see why you think "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" is sarcastic. It seems to be a fair general description that fits well into the lead. (Ball repeats the wording twice in his review).

3. “at present is sorely lacking in this article”. Where and how do you think this could be addressed?

4. Delingpole's review in The Spectator could be changed for “generally positive reception”-type description in the conservative media.

I think that to restore balance (it would be obvious to any neutral person reading the intro now that it was written by someone with clear antipathy towards the author and the subject) the "bunk" wording should be replaced with "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" description.

I also think that WMC’s “purported” is inferior to “attempts”.Jprw (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Got more from reliable sources? Not sure what you mean by conservative, but the four other reviews cited are by journalists with no scientific credentials, unlike Philip Ball. Since the book's making claims about science, due weight has to be given to the mainstream scientific view of the book and of its subject, which Ball ably represents.
 * 2. There should be no pretence in the lead that Ball is uncritical, and quoting the "manual" bit out of context gives a false impression. Ball doesn't repeat the wording twice in his review, there's a subhead which in UK practice is written by the subeditor, who also repeated the "bunk" description.
 * 3. The other points that Ball makes can be added, and in the synopsis care needs to be taken to be clearer that Booker's anti-majority views aren't generally supported. Since the synopsis is cited entirely to the book, this is obviously difficult. Language like "describes how" implies the truth of Booker's presentation, when we have only his word for it. Out of interest, how does "a graph" (whose?) show how "scientists such as Paul Ehrlich began to postulate"? Needs splitting, and presenting as Booker's statements.
 * 4 Once again, "conservative media" seems a misnomer, and it seems to be some conservative organs and some other papers. Welcomed by some journalists seems more accurate.
 * The intro should give due weight to majority expert views and not endorse the book's claims which seems to be what you're getting at. Any neutral person should recognise that. As for "purported", the phrase "is claimed" might work better. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

I still don't see why including "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" in the lead is a problem. These are Ball’s words, it is a good general description, and is presumably an obvious and immediate black mark against the book in the scientific community -- it seems to fulfill the function of expressing criticism and after rereading the review I do not see the way Ball wrote it as being sarcastic. Because of its general nature it seems to belong in the lead and “the bunk” and more detailed criticism in the criticism section.

Re: No. 3, the synopsis is based on this and I think an agreement had been reached that it was important to make clear that these were Booker's views (In chapter 3 he claims, etc. etc.). I agree that the wording re: graph at the beginning of the synopsis does not work well and perhaps should be removed and replaced with general background description.

Re: 4: all the positive reviews do seem to be coming from journalists writing for conservative newspapers.

Afterthought: (still trying to reach a compromise) A completely different wording in the lead, along the lines of:

"The claims made in the book were dismissed by Phillip Ball, and the book was praised by environmentalist Sir John Lister-Kaye as being an "important, brave book making and explaining many valid points""

Perhaps… Jprw (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, your afterthought looks like a better approach.
 * On the details, Re. 4: the The Herald (Glasgow) is clearly not a conservative newspaper, and describes our conservatives as "a toxic brand" ;-) . Oddly enough, Brian Morton's review there starts from a position more extreme than Booker's, and we should note his view that "though Booker lands effective jabs, the book glances off the real issue". It appears that The Irish Times isn't particularly conservative, either. However, the writers praising the book are columnists and some are very conservative indeed, the exception apparently being Sir John Lister-Kaye.
 * So, returning to your proposal, I'd suggest:
 * The claims made in the book were strongly dismissed by science writer Philip Ball, but the book was praised by several columnists. The conservationist Sir John Lister-Kaye was dubious about the credibility of some of the claims in the book, but described it as important and brave, "making and explaining many valid points".
 * You may prefer environmentalist as a description of Sir John, the conservation aspect is given more emphasis in his bio. In my view the issue of the careless misattribution of the quote opening the book merits a brief mention in the lead, suggest:
 * The book opens with a misquotation commonly used by sceptics, Brooker acknowledged the error and said he had been misled.
 * Hope that's the suitable, dave souza, talk 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks, look like we may have made a breakthrough. I'll try to cobble together a reworded end to the lead sometime in the next 48 hours. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis
Flipping through the book, I find myself rather curious as to why the synopsis includes some things, while omits others. For example, while Booker titles the section Three men who would help to change history, the synopsis only mentions two of them (Strong and Bolin). While the book goes all conspiracy theory on carbon trading and "world government", there is no mention of this in the synopsis. Is there a reason for leaving this out? Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Booker covers a lot of ground in the book and it was very difficult to write a synopsis within the space constraints indicated here. I tried to include the most salient points/themes but may well have not succeeded. If there are any editors who have read the book and who would like to try and improve/edit the synopsis please go for it. Maybe it should be increased, and a discussion had on this page of "the synopis should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as being complicated" guideline from here. Jprw (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fabricated Houghton quotation
I'm wondering if all the detail in this section that is not directly Real Global Warming Disaster-related would be better off in Houghton's article. Jprw (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It all seems relevant to me - useful relevant background, just what an encyclopedia gives. It's not as if it's a long section. --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the New Scientist article mention The Real Global Warming Disaster? (I can't read the whole article). If not, it would appear to be a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research?
There appears to be a mini-edit war going on between KDP, WMC and CB. I don't know who CB is, but they appear to be right. The claim that Ball was "very critical" appears to be WP:OR. Where exactly does the cited reference state that Ball is "very critical"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note here: CB is a suspected scibaby sock, it is entirely possible that he isn't - but please see WP:GS/CC/RE, as well as the relevant SPI. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He might be, or he might not be. Either way, there seems o be WP:OR in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK, you seem very coy about who CB is: CB is the wittily named Caring Butz – oh look, "This account is a sock puppet of Scibaby and has been blocked indefinitely", as has The Last Methane Bender. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If your assessment is correct, then the only way forward for you is to submit an AfD. Since everything in the article would then be WP:OR. I fail to see even a single paragraph that wouldn't be such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? That doesn't even make sense.  We have plenty of articles that don't include WP:OR.  Please see our featured and good articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes a lot of sense - please check this article, go through each and every paragraph - and strike every sentence that doesn't follow your requirements for this source. You will be left with only quotes - and hardly any content. Which means that we can't establish notability or any of the other requirements for the existence of the article. I'm going to bed now - since it is very early morning, and i've been up all night - perhaps when i return, i will see things with different eyes - though i doubt it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait. So you're arguing that if other parts of this article contain WP:OR, that makes the rest of the article OK to violate WP:OR?  OK, I'm going to bed now.  Have a good night.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing OR about "very critical" as a reasonable summary of Ball: calling Booker's book "bunk"; saying that he engages in "faulty science and procedural misdemeanour"; and observing that Booker's "aim is simply to sling enough mud and to hell with consistency" (that is just a selection of Ball's measured criticism). I still think this WP article lets Booker off the hook in terms of the balance of expert opinion about the quality of the book; to suggest there is some problem with describing Ball as "very critical" is laughable. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, see also various discussions here on talk. If this is WP:OR, then we must stop using reviews (and lots of other things) entirely - since it would then be impossible to summarize them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article seems to be drawing a conclusion not explicitly stated (or even implied) by the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? How is "very critical" not implied by, for example, the selection of quotes of Ball above ("bunk" etc)?? 03:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - maybe i'm just tired. But it seems to me that your assessment runs contrary to actual editing practice - if we cannot summarize - then (as i stated above) most/all of the article has to go. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be your standard practice to include WP:OR but it's certainly not mine.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quest, you are being disingenuous at best. That was not what Kim said and that should be obvious. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone: How do you know that I am being disingenuous? To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that I've ever interacted with you before.  Anyway, I'm going to bed now.  Have a good night.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that this is an OR matter, but there is a matter of NPOV to consider. While I think that either Caring Butz' or the existing version of the article are acceptable, I talked the matter over with a FAC reviewer. They pointed me towards Neutral point of view and Neutral point of view, which they say would support the usage of the more neutral "described as" rather than adding the clause about very critical. I tend to think it doesn't matter either way (especially when the quotes immediately follow), but it is up to you guys to decide which version to use. NW ( Talk ) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, a compromise on the wording here appears to be fairly easy. Just say something like, "In his review, Ball stated..." and then follow it with a few dramatic quotes from Ball's review.  Then the reader can decide on their own what Ball thinks of this book. There is no reason to argue over this. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a compromise of not working on this article for a while? The "very critical" phrase was a compromise reached in full discussion on this talk page, because some editors didn't like the simple quote of what Ball thinks of the book – "bunk" . . . dave souza, talk 06:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the review, it was very critical. There is no OR here just a statement of fact mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's not WP:OR then simply show us where exactly the cited reference states that Ball is "very critical". Furthermore, Ball's opinion appears to be a minority viewpoint about this book. Why are we giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is why ball is in there, you gotta have balance man. If saying Ball`s bit is OR then so are the following, Writing in The Herald, Brian Morton was largely sympathetic to A very positive review by Henry Kelly in The Irish Times I admin there is a bit to much balls, it maybe could be trimmed a little but i really see no OR, just statements of fact. mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ball's opinion looks mainstream to me. Why do you think otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC: Because it's the only one (assuming our article is correct). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Different use of the word mainstream I think. We're running into the in-universe problems again, and weight on quality competent sources William M. Connolley (talk)
 * It appears that what you're saying is that because only a limited number of sources take position A, we cannot publish position A - because the majority (or vast majority) of sources take position B. Is that, give or take, correct? That you feel articles should not represent all viewpoints published in reliable sources, but rather only the most common viewpoint published in reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC: WP:NPOV is the correct policy to follow here, not WP:SPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite: Weight should based on reliable sources. Unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, Ball's appears to be a minority viewpoint.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that significant (and I think we can agree that Dr. Ball is significant) minority viewpoints should be removed from articles? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm an inclusionist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What undue weight is being provided Ball's opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarify: "threat to Earth" would more correctly be "threat to current human civilization", see Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Earth would exist without life on it.
Clarify: "threat to Earth" would more correctly be "threat to current human civilization", see Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Earth would exist without life on it. 99.39.185.226 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA comments
I've incorporated most of GregJackP's comments, but didn't know what he meant by "Citation is missing from first quote in lede, and citation #1 is in the middle of a quote - it should be at the end of the quote" in 1b. Also, "2b. Reference 5 is a dead link" -- it doesn't seem to be, perhaps he got the wrong reference? Anyway thanks to GregJackP for finally getting the GA process going. Jprw (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake on 1st quote - it's there now. Cite #2 is in the middle of a quote, I went ahead and moved it to the end.  Ref #5 seems to be working now - sometimes that just happens.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag
I have removed the NPOV tag as ScienceApologist (talk) did not state any grounds for the tag. The article is about a book, and is not an article about climate change science, so the matters that he is raising in his misguided reassessment do not apply, as neither WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE apply to the article on the book. If there are specific examples of POV that need to be addressed, then they need to be listed so they can be addressed. GregJackP  Boomer!   08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg, considering your strong, and some might say biased opinion on this topic based on your past contributions, you should have recused yourself from reviewing it, and in the interest of neutrality, you should have asked someone you respect but disagree with on this topic to join you in a shared review. It's one thing for someone to have an interest in a topic, or a passion for a topic, but it's quite another when an editor has a history of favoring a singular POV on the topic.  Please don't make me pull out the dozens of quotes you've made on this topic showing that you shouldn't be within several light years of reviewing this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, considering your POV position on the issue, perhaps you should recuse yourself from commenting on CC articles. I am one of few that am trying to bring this area back into NPOV and the standards that the rest of Wikipedia meet.  Or, perhaps you ask WMC to respect COI and stay away from articles where he is involved.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did state grounds . I don't care if it's removed, just following recommendations of GAR. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's reassessment
I have two main problems with ScienceApologist's reassessment:

1. His assertion "In particular, the sources from the most reliable reviewers, those being ones with scientific credentials, are given short-shrift and the reviews by denialists and, frankly, charlatans are given equal weight in defiance of Wikipedia policy".


 * Actually, Philip Ball's review is given pride of place in the lead, and is quoted extensively in the criticism section and further, lengthy quotes from it are given in the footnotes.
 * Who are these denialists and charlatans? How does ScienceApologist know they are denialists and charlatans? They are labelled as "columnists" in the lead to indicate that they are non-science writers, and not one of their reviews is quoted as extensively as Ball's. Therefore, the statement "The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book" looks very inaccurate.

2. The amount of space covering the book's contents (i.e., the synopsis) is within the guidelines recommended [here].

I've also had a look at the The CIA and September 11 (book) article and I'm not sure it is helpful to use it as a comparison.

Jprw (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just promoted the Ball review to the top of the critical reception section, to give it further prominence within the article. Jprw (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's put it this way, Jprw, we should at least go with people who have degrees in science or history as the most reliable reviewers. This is not done in this article since we spend a whole lot more space on the reviews of people who are not scientists nor historians. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on who reviews the book. There is no rule saying those without degree`s can`t review a book is there? mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the rub. We can't make people review a book, but when someone reviews a book that doesn't have the qualifications to discuss its content, it's inappropriate for us to weight it heavily. For example, Petr Beckmann wrote a rather famous book called Einstein Plus 2 about his personal claim that he disproved relativity. It received very little in the way of review from physicists but was praised up-and-down by a number of Objectivists who wrote glowing reviews that are essentially reliable sources for their opinion, but certainly not scientifically reliable. If we were writing an article on that book, it would be irresponsible to give equal weight to the amateurs and non-scientists who gave rave reviews to the book even though there is a dearth of reviews from experts. That's the major reason we have both WP:FRINGE and WP:UW. These issues must be dealt with appropriately if Wikipedia is to remain neutral. Otherwise, we'll get articles which are slanted through the accidents of obscurity. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The book received considerable attention in the popular media (unfortunately it wasn't reviewed by The New Scientist – it would have been nice, but there you go) and all the article is doing is reflecting this. Perhaps that aspect can be pared down though. I still maintain that SA's assertion "The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book" is very inaccurate. Will SA concede that the Ball review is in fact given prominence within the article? Jprw (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Ball is in the lead, but if you just simply measure how much of the article is devoted to the opinions of global warming denialist supporters and how much is devoted to the opinions of scientists, you might begin to see why I'm saying that there is a short-shrift problem here. The considerable attention in the "popular media" may make the book notable and, conceivably, could be a good starting point to write about the book instead of focusing on content which is only sourced to the primary source itself. Also, as an aside, I'm not a particularly big fan of New Scientist either since their editorial policy gives rather wide latitude to assertions that not backed-up with evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are perverting the good article criteria and process.  You can only arrive at your conclusion by making value judgments about the underlying content of the book, and that is not your place.  Good Article Review is not peer review of the underlying science.  Please step back and let a neutral uninvolved person reassess if it is to be reassessed.  Minor4th  20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have made myself clear as to what the neutrality issues are with this article. Your choice is to either: a) fix the problems or b) go through dispute resolution. Shooting the messenger will not help matters. I'm as uninvolved and as neutral as you're gonna get (see this for how we need to all acknowledge that we come to Wikipedia with preconceptions, but that this fact alone does not make it impossible to be neutral editors). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SA you say I'm as uninvolved and as neutral as you're gonna get this is however obviously false given your previous statement the opinions of global warming denialist supporters you are neither neutral or uninvolved and you certainly show your POV with that statement mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was writing a bit off-the-cuff, as it were. A better phrasing might have been "I'm as uninvolved and neutral as I need to be." The standards by which GA reviewers are judged is made pretty clear at WP:GA. Sure, I have personal opinions about the lack of intellectual honesty, capacity, and rigor exhibited by global warming denialists, but that does not make me an inappropriate reviewer. The point is, really, that people who have (even strong) opinions on a topic can still be neutral evaluators of whether an article on a topic is neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that you think anyone is a global warming denialist supporter shows you not only have strong feelings but that you are unable to write from a NPOV perspective. If you could you would not have written that to begin with. mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? According to what policy are you making this judgment? I can't find anything in WP:NPOV that indicates that if someone thinks anyone is a "global warming denialist supporter" that they are unable to write from a NPOV perspective. Also, this isn't about writing, it's about reviewing, but maybe you meant to say that you believe anyone who thinks that anyone is global warming denialist supporter should be banned from doing anything on Wikipedia. Is that what you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SA: Given that you are involved in an ArbCom case about this very topic, I think you should recuse yourself from doing a GA review. I recommend that someone uninvolved in the CC articles do this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a named party in the arbcom case, and neither is anyone else. You can take that in two ways: either everyone is qualified to do a GA review or no one is. I respect your opinion, but refuse to recuse myself as I believe there is no rational basis for such a recusal. It's also curious that you did not ask GregJackP to do the same. Do you have a rationale for that? I'm just curious. Me? I believe that it was great that GregJackP did a GA-assessment. I just disagree with his determination of one criterion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SA: The reason why you are not a named party in the case was because there was no formal list of parties to the case per the ArbCom clerk, Amorymeltzer. In any case, I didn't say that you were a named party, I said that you were involved in the ArbCom case. As evidence, I submit the following: Please let me know if you want more diffs, because I can supply them if requested.  As for GregJackP, I'm not aware of him doing a GA review.  I got the impression that he was responding to the GA review.  But if not, then he should recuse himself as well.  SA: Will you please recuse yourself?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do outside observers never comment on arbcom cases? I will not recuse myself since I don't think anyone needs to recuse. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally i think anyone who will use forum posts, twitter and SPS should not be reviewing an article anyway, nor someone who deliberately misrepresents sources. It is obvious SA is not capable of putting his obvious POV aside on an article like this mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Were is the PA? What written above is actually wrong? mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to the contributor is bad practice. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be bad practice but it is not a PA. Again, which part of what i wrote was wrong? This is why you should not try and review this article, you are incapable of being neutral mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA in a nutshell: "This page in a nutshell: Comment on the content, not on the contributor." ScienceApologist (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets try this again, Personally i think anyone who will use forum posts, twitter and SPS should not be reviewing an article anyway, nor someone who deliberately misrepresents sources. It is obvious SA is not capable of putting his obvious POV aside on an article like this that is commenting on content. You know the content you inserted into an article using forum posts and SPS. For blp information. That is commenting on content not contributor. As for commenting on your POV that really can`t be helped as it needs to be said with regards to what you are doing here, which funnily enough is a content issue. So looks like i was commenting on content after all, would you actually care to respond to the points raised? mark nutley (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've been clear. You are commenting on me personally rather than the substance of my arguments. Please stop trying to pick fights. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is out of SA's hands now. It is subject to community review now because of the disputes with SA as a reviewer. Please follow the link in the section below. That is the appropriate place to comment on the good article review. Minor4th</b> </b> 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My individual assessment must be dealt with in that as well. I note that this meta-discussion has prevented any discussion of the actual issues. This is a shame. I will ask at WT:GA whether it is appropriate since my concerns were not raised whether to default to delist. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a second. I guess I haven't followed this issue close enough.  Am I to understand that GregJackP performed the GA review?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh jeez. I'm not familiar enough with WP:GA process, but that seems like a bad idea.  GJP and SA: If you guys are so keen to do GA reviews, there are plenty listed here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw some issues here and my understanding of the GA process has always been that anyone is allowed to review a work. I don't think this article should yet be listed as a GA. That is why I was trying to explain my objections. I haven't done anything yet except explain my objections because I don't think my objections are intractable, and don't see any reason why this article can't be brought to GA-status. If you would remove the GA listing and set it up for a third-party reassessment, I'd be fine with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not being delisted as a GA while it's being reassessed. See below, it is already listed for community reassessment which in effect supplants your individual reassessment. Of course you're aware of this since you commented on the community reassessment. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Community reassessment

 * ''This discussion is transcluded from Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1. The edit link for this section CANNOT be used to add comments to the reassessment, you will need to use this link.


 * end transclusion

I have requested a community reassessment because of the dispute over SA's criteria for reassessing the GAN/GAR. Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1. I don't know if the community reassessment page is automatically transcluded or not, and I don't know how to do it manually if that's what needs to be done. I would appreciate a more technically skilled editor to do that if necessary. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I transcluded it above. It's not appearing with the "this is transcluded" tagging though. (I added some by hand) You may want to remove your blockquote as it should be visible above. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes incorporated after community reassessment
I've incorporated nearly all of the suggestions made by Zscout370 and Geometry guy which were insightful and constructive.These include:
 * Lopping off the bullet points at the end of the synopsis (made it look over extended) and briefly summarising the epilogue in its place;
 * Changing some wording in the lead and the synopsis;
 * Losing the Peter Hitchens review;
 * Losing the photo of Copenhagen.

Hopefully we are now left with just a few tweaks to be made and that should be it for the major surgery. Jprw (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception
Is Philip Ball really the only knowledgeable person who read that thing and lived to talk about it? Leach and Delingpole are deniers; Morton, Kelly and Lister-Kaye are not known for scientific expertise either. I don't think that reception section should stand, slanted toward the fringe as it is. --Hob Gadling (talk)


 * Hmm, I concur - but how to deal with it? They're all notable denialists - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Morton, Kelly and Lister-Kaye too? Their articles say nothing about it, as far as they have articles.
 * How about switching the order? First the deniers, then Philip Ball, with emphasis on his scientist status? I'll try it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can drop one or two of the others. We don't want too many fringe opinions. We should keep Leach and Delingpole. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this is all UK, it's hard to avoid Delingpole as an opinion-haver. Though he can and should probably be qualified as a fellow denialist - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added that he "wrote a denialist book himself". I also deleted and paraphrased unnecessary quotes, without removing any of the people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)