Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-01/Realclimate

This is shaping up fine. Can you spot the one thing that all the "crit" folk have in common (hint: it is colour related). And then then "other side"? Now try edit count, reputation, anything really. Well, need I say more?

Probably not, but I'll point out that former contributor to RealClimate, has agreed to back out of editing the article is baseless William M. Connolley (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should get User:MastCell back on this?


 * From your talk page:


 * "Hi William. Since you're a participant at RealClimate (the website), I'd like to ask you not to edit RealClimate (the Wikipedia article). I know you only do so sparingly (at least that's what I see from a glance through the last 500 edits there), but given the perception of conflict of interest which is generated, it would probably be best to restrict yourself to only uncontroversial edits or reversion of obvious vandalism. Your input would continue to be welcome at the talk page, and to be honest I think there are plenty of active editors watching the article, so I think in the end it will be a fine for the encyclopedia and, probably, one less headache for you to step back from the article itself. MastCell Talk 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't you see the "goodbye" post I posted on LVA's talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no (it's not on my watchlist), but I'll look now. MastCell Talk 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"


 * Sounds like you were backing off. Or what was that "goodbye" about? BTW, is your comment here intended to flame those you disagree with? Doesn't sound like you are interested in being objective here. (LVAustrian (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC))


 * I was referring to the one called "goodbye": to be specific, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that/. I've patched up your indentation and spelling a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, so as a FORMER participant at RealClimate you intend to keep editing RealClimate. I guess there is nothing we can do about that. But were you trying to flame critics in your first comment? (LVAustrian (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

Criticism
I noticed on the discussion page of RealClimate that quotes from other individuals criticizing realclimate lead to an edit war and a debate on inclusion. Some of the same people were present back then fighting against inclusion on the same grounds - the critics weren't reliable sources. Can anyone find how that dispute was settled? I'm wondering if there was a decision to include the critics but the current horde protecting the page later reverted those changes.(Meltwaternord (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

Facts...
...just to spare you any further embarrassment: Michaels is not "one of the authors of the 2007 IPCC report", no matter how much Cato would like to claim it. The contributors are available in the reports, and while Michaels is listed twice, it's only in the reviewer sections of the WG1 and WG3 reports, not as an author. That should imply something about the reliability of Cato....I just don't seem to be able to put my finger to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I contacted Dr. Michaels via email. He told me he was invited as a reviewer (he will tell might tell you who invited him, if you ask nicely). He also contributed over 100 typed pages of edits on AR4. He contributed to (aka was one of the writers) "extratropical storms" on AR2.(LVAustrian (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC))


 * So he confirms that he was not an IPCC 2007 author. Review comments do not make you an author. Yes, he is listed a s contributing author in the 1995 WG1 report. But 1995!=2007. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Still reaching to make nothing into something? He was an author of the 1995 IPCC report and a reviewer of the 2007 report. Either way he contributed to both.(LVAustrian (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC))