Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Steven Milloy

There is no problem with Stephen Milloy for this quote. He is at least as credible as Laurie David who is being prominantly discussed in this section and has been quoted on her opinions. Regardless, he is undeniably a recognizable figure in the public debate over GW who is notable enough to have his own BLP AND his educational credentials appear to exceed those of Laurie David is already quoted in the article. Even more amazingly he is arguing that AIT SHOULD be shown in schools so why object? Isn't that what this section is all about in the first place, NSTA distributing AIT to science teachers? Bottom line, his quote is not about the science involved but the politics of pushing a POV into the schools. He is certainly qualified to do that and in the realm of the political debate over GW he is an expert. He argues against pushing a specific POV, where do you stand on that issue?

--GoRight 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LD has an obvious connection with the film. Milloy is an author of trash with no credibility William M. Connolley 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Trash? No credibility? Let's not mudling here. He's obviously reliable enough to quote in regards to the politics of this film. Do you have a good reason why his political opinion wouldn't be critical or relevant? Oren0 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
What does Let's not mudling mean? I don't regard Milloy as reliable to quote for anything William M. Connolley 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
So suddenly having direct knowledge of something is important to you? That's a laugh given that RC and LD are both maligning NSTA on topics of which they have no direct knowledge (i.e. the funding arrangments for the ConocoPhilips funding for the Wheeler produced film as well as the Exxon funding somehow influencing ). I detect some pot calling the kettle black here. I am curious as to why you did not weigh in with a similar position when Gmb92 and I were discussing this very point above, would you care to weigh in now? --GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
David and the NSTA spokespersons are central to the topic, which describes a dispute between the two. Whether or not one agrees with them or find them reliable is irrelevant. If Milloy was an NSTA spokesperson, by all means, his arguments would need to be included. Do you understand this distinction? Gmb92 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If we lowered the standards to include Milloy's opinion, we could include about a million other opinions. He's not relevant to the section (unlike David or the NSTA spokespersons) nor is he remotely an authority to comment on it. Gmb92 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, RC is not any more relevant to this section Milloy so perhaps we should remove their commentary as well by the same logic? I would be fine with eliminating the RC sentence, the AAAS sentence, and the Milloy sentence. If I have to choose between the AAAS quote and the Milloy quoute because of complaints about undue weight I favor the Milloy quote because it is more directly about the issue at the heart of this discussion AND it has the advantage of not requiring a subscription to read (something that I believe you complained about above).
Even so, we are not lowering any standards by including Milloy because he is probably a more of an expert regarding the politics of the GW debate than anyone at RC is. Many of you will have argued that all he does is the political side of things, whereas the RC folks are on the science side, right? You don't get to have it both ways where you claim RC is credible but anyone you don't like is not. I looked it up in the dictionary and it didn't have anything in the definition of "credible" about having to agree with you. This IS a criticism section after all.
--GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
...on which he has established a pattern of calculated deception; e.g., a "survey" that some of us recently received.[1][2] Raymond Arritt 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I meant "mudsling" I swear that 'S' was there before. Anyway, the quote isn't about the science, it's about the politics of showing it in schools. Again, he's qualified to state is opinion. As for "we could include a million other opinions," our goal is to represent a sample of what's being said in reliable sources. I don't believe the current article does that and I don't see how including one more negative opinion is undue weight. Oren0 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree that Milloy has any credibility at all on anything remotely related to global warming, including the politics. If you want a credible commentator on the politics of GW you should cite someone like Roger Pielke Jr. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Well let me just try the William Connolley approach and see if it works any better for me. junscience.com is accepted as credible is other similar articles.  :-) --GoRight 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What articles are those? We should fix them post-haste. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. --GoRight 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So your contention that Steven Milloy, who has no expertise whatsoever in any topic related to global warming, is just as credible as the scientists on RealClimate? That's an interesting perspective. Raymond Arritt 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My contention is that he is every bit as much an expert regarding the politics of the debate as the RC folks are regarding the science of the debate. This page is not only about the science, it is also about all aspects of the film including the political ones. You don't get to veto him simply because you don't like him. --GoRight 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Read my response six up. There are plenty of people who qualify as "an expert regarding the politics of the debate," but Milloy isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to hold, but luckily your opinion is not policy on this site. You have thus far failed to present anything which would disqualify Milloy's quote. As I said, the fact that you don't like him is not a disqualifying factor.
As far as I and apparently others are concerned Miloy is sufficiently qualified to comment on the political aspects of the NSTA decision and his quote should stand.
Is this discussion actually going anywhere or do you all intend to simply stonewall this issue in the commentary and keep reverting my edit?
--GoRight 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Milloy claimed the film, a documentary on a scientific topic, was "biased" and recommended 2 other films (one "The Great Global Warming Swindle") which he praises. What would qualify him to make scientific assessments of the film? Qualified opinions from scientists who have published in the fields in question are of the highest reliability. Milloy doesn't qualify. When searching for an alternative source, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Milloy could take note of that too. Gmb92 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
As the high court case demonstrates and you all have argued, the decision in that case was that the film was politically biased, not scientifically so although others would disagree. Now you want to limit the discussion to scientific opinions only? I have not argued that Milloy's comment is relevant because of his scientific opinion but rather because of his political ones. Apparently the high court agreed with him that the film IS biased politically speaking and all Milloy is pointing out is that now there is a counter balancing film from a political perspective and that both films should be shown. You only object because you are trying to force your opinions and viewpoints on everyone else, or at least that is how it looks to me.
--GoRight 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Milloy is just as qualified to comment on the politics as is Paris Hilton, or some guy down the pub. Again, there are people who have done meaningful work on the politics of GW, but Milloy isn't one of them. He's simply someone with a highly partisan view of the issue. You're not helping your case by calling on Milloy as one of your witnesses; why not choose someone credible and qualified? Raymond Arritt 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we cannot agree on how to handle third party material in this section I suggest that we simply keep the section trimmed down to direct commentary from the parties directly involved. The RealClimate reference didn't add anything new beyond what LD claims so it is redundant and as such is undue weight. This is at least a fair position which keeps the POV pushing out of it from either side, agreed? --GoRight 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The commentary is from experts on the film's topic. It certainly is different from the LD statements. Gmb92 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
But the quotes they provide have nothing to do with the film's topic. So those credentials are irrelevant to the allegations that they are making. LD already makes the points that are even relevant to the dispute in question, namely the ExxonMobil link and the ConocoPhilips link. Adding a reference from RC is just WP:UNDUE and WP:RS since they have nothing that makes them credible to comment on the ExxonMobil's influence over NSTA. Their comment is 100% pure speculation. --GoRight 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The RC critique first expresses disapproval about the NSTA decision on the film distribution. This is based in part on a general approval of the film as presenting the science accurately. Second, they note that the NSTA has a paltry sum of good material on the topic. Both of these opinions are particularly qualified by their expertise, which makes them a good RS. Gmb92 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't quote Milloy. I agree he is highly partisan and not a climate scientist but then so is George Monbiot, and we quote him on numerous GW-related articles including TGGWS. Iceage77 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the above discussion he can't be included because some people on this talk page don't like him. That really isn't valid reasons not to include the quote but thats all I can glean from the above discussion. It was stated several times that his quote should be included as part of the political commentary on the film but the editors against including it only give the reason that he is not an expert on global warming. Since the stated reason was given that the quote speaks to the the political commentary on the film but the people opposed to adding the quote only give the reason I mentioned above (not sure how him not being a scientist makes him unreliable for political commentary purposes) I can only assume that they're not really reading the reasoning that is being given and are just against having the quote in the article because of dislike of the quoted person and any information that does not fit there preconceived notions. What else could possibly be assumed when the arguments given not to include the information have nothing to do with the reasons given for including it. Can anyone else honestly come to any other conclusion after reading the exchanges above? Smells like censorship to me (and censorship smells like the cargo hold of a cattle ship crossing the equator at noon.) Elhector 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We don't include Milloy, because he isn't particularly relevant. When including critique and praise, we get a choice between various different opinions, and have to choose according to weight. In this particular instance Milloy's view is irrelevant (according to weight). On other issues: the critique of AIT is well-represented in accordance with its relative weight, and people like Lindzen are more representative of that view. That aside - i'd rather choose Carter over Gray, since Carter has a bit of relevance (being expert witness on the Dimmock case) whereas Gray has (afaics) no relevance at all. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect:
  1. Please read the commentary above rather than making us repeat every argument for you personally.
  2. Why do you personally get to decide who and what is relevant. Your position is clear. This is a criticism section, so should not the skeptics decide what is relevant here?
  3. Milloy is relevant because he is a recognized expert on the political aspects of the GW debate, and because he is a regular contributor on Fox News. You clearly know who he is, what he stands for, and where he says it. That makes him relevant.
  4. You keep claim undue weight but you have never presented any rationale for why his quote would be undue weight.
  5. I have proposed to remove one of my additions which (a) requires a subscription to access which was complained about previous by the AGW proponents here, (b) the quote included therefrom is basically just a reiteration of the LD view and is therefore redundant (which actually IS undue weight strictly speaking), and (c) by removing it I presumably address your undue weight complaint.
  6. I have made this point numerous times in a variety of ways and you still have not addressed it in any meaningful way.
  7. I disagree that the political aspects of the criticism are represented at all. The scientific contributors have managed to completely monopolize this page to the exclusion of the political aspects. Including Milloy would correct this shortcoming.
  8. Lindzen is fine as a counterpoint from a scientific perspective, but the criticism of AIT comes from more than just the scientific community.
  9. Gray represents a faction within the scientific community that is also not represented here at all, namely those who find the whole issue to be ridiculous. You simply find his commentary uncomfortable but this is not a valid reason for excluding his viewpoint, although there are those who wish to censor his commentary here while seeking to simultaneously heap criticism on him in his BLP using anonymously posted sources.
  10. I see no reason that there should be a criteria for inclusion in this article that the commenter has some direct relationship to the film as you suggest. The film is clearly controversial. It affects us all and all of our voices should be included not simple some arbitrarily defined subset that is created to censor the uncomfortable commentary which is part of this debate.
--GoRight 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. With all due respect - i have.
  2. No.
  3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?
  4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight.
  5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go.
  6. Apparently people do not agree.
  7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?
  8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight).
  9. That Gray "represents a faction" is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this.
  10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S.
--Kim D. Petersen 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"1. With all due respect - i have." With all due respect, forgive my confusion on this point because it was not apparent from your original post.
"2. No." Why not?
Because "so should not the skeptics decide what is relevant here?" is ruled out per wikipedia rules. This once more is a misunderstanding of what weight and npov is about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?" Yes. Fox News. On their network.
He is a commentator on Fox. That doesn't make one an "expert" - when was the last time he was called before congress to testimony on this? (Carter, Lindzen, Pielke etc. all have been recently). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And is being called before congress what determines if one is an expert? Lots of people testify before congress. Lots of people don't. This is not relevant to whether or not one is an expert. And, for that matter, what is your definition of "expert" here? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight." With all due respect, I have.
And again - it doesn't appear so. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
On NPOV: Milloy's opinion in this case basically argues that all points of view should be expressed in a political and educational context. In essence, he is advocating WP:NPOV in the NSTA case. It is ironic that you are seeking to use that very same notion against him. Your comment amounts to saying the WP:NPOV is being given too much weight in this article. Is this what you really mean to say? I would add that the high court case demonstrates that AIT is politically biased, thus showing that Milloy's concerns were well founded.
What Milloy argues is Milloys opinion. Its the relevancy of his opinion that is under question (and his reliability). Second - the high court decision clearly has no intersection with Milloy's opinion - since Milloy is arguing the "fraud" side - whereas the court considered "'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". So that one is a straw-man. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The high court decision found the film to be politically biased, I quote from the currently agreed text with the article: "that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme". The opinion that we are discussing here, of course, is directly related to the pushing of political agendas into school programs. How can that not be overlap? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
On WEIGHT: Polls have shown that as much as 15% of the US population don't believe that GW is happening. That is not an insignificant segement of our society. Given that Milloy, in your assessment anyway, is an average person who doesn't believe that GW is real he will serve satisfactorily as a prominent representative of that group. I would argue that the views of this 15% of the US population have not been adequately represented on this page. Ergo, the existing page has the WP:WEIGHT problem, not this single quote.
You may want to learn how to read poll's - because 85-88% "say global warming is probably happening" - does not mean that the rest is in the other camp. Sorry. How many are undecided? And second: if 15% had been a realistic figure (again for the U.S - not internationally - which Wikipedia represents) - Then we can firmly conclude that the criticism section is currently leaning too much to the sceptical side. (try calculating up the column space please). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps you should brush up on reading the English language: "as much as 15% of the US population". I clearly acknowledge with this wording that 15% us an upper bound. Regardless the exact percentage is irrelevant. The point is that it is not the 1 or 2% that you imply with "fringe". And who says I don't get to claim the undecideds? Are not the undecideds the very definition of the people who are being skeptical? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go." I only offered to remove AAAS because you repeatedly claimed WP:WEIGHT with no discussion or commentary on this page as is customary, thus leading to a misconception on my part as to the nature of your complaint. I accept your point concerning this not being a market place and hereby rescind my good faith offer of compromise. I will be happy to keep the AAAS quote as I believe that it adds value. The issue still remains regarding the inclusion of Milloy's quote.
Read the above. And you may want to read Stephan's reversion comments - they pretty much sum it up. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"6. Apparently people do not agree." Who? Where? This is the first place you have given any explanation.
Sorry - but being silent doesn't mean that you agree or disagree. But we can conclude from the reversions that people apparently do not agree. Thats quite obvious. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
ME: "I have made this [the WP:WEIGHT] point numerous times in a variety of ways and you still have not addressed it in any meaningful way.", YOU: "Apparently people do not agree." My conclusion: you are saying that people don't agree that you have not addressed the point in any meaningful way. My original point was that you were reverting and claiming WP:WEIGHT but never explaining your rationale for the charge here, as is customary. I apologize if I was unclear on this point. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?" Sure, he is saying that the science presented is biased, an assessment justified by his credentials.
Sorry. But we have an abundance of scientific experts with equal or better credentials than Lindzen, and every scientific organization, who disagree with him. And strangely enough... Every time Lindzen has been on an expert commitee to judge on this issue - its gone the other way.... (IPCC, NAS panel on IPCC etc.). I think i'll chalk Lindzen's comments down to politics (just as i do Hansen's on the other side). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, you are entitled to your opinion. As am I. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight)." When you say "minority viewpoint" using Lindzen as an example we are obviously talking about the scientific minority with respect to the alleged scientific consensus on GW. What about the 15% of the general public? Where are they represented?
As said - your 15% is invented. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As responded, no it wasn't, your international argument not withstanding. Even so, I would argue that if we have valid commentary to include here on the "anti-" side by your WP:WEIGHT argument that should be plenty of counter balancing content that you could add to keep the weighting to your liking, should there not? I am not arguing to vastly expand this article but but using WP:WEIGHT to keep valid content out simply because the counterbalancing content is not in the article is silly. Using that logic the majority view in any debate could simply post a "we're right because" statement and keep any minority material out using WP:WEIGHT.
I'll keep my comments to this: No this is not a "contest" on who can bring the most material to this article, representing a specific view. Its a work towards a balanced and well-rounded article. This might be worth remembering. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is a fair point. I agree. --GoRight 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"9. That Gray 'represents a faction' is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this." Fair enough, I stand corrected.
Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S." Well if you believe that you are here arguing about the subject of the film I would respectfully direct you to Global Warming as a place more suitable for your commentary. The topic of this article is the film and things people have said about it. As such the views of everyone have merit, not just the scientific community.
The general comments about this film have been overwhelmingly positive. If we take all the comments - and strike out the policy comments from both sides - we are still left with overwhelmingly positive comments. The international reception has also been overwhelmingly positive. I fail to see the "controversy" as much other than a loud minority. Otherwise you may want to present this controversy better - preferably on these pages, under a new section. So far i haven't been impressed. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"I fail to see the "controversy" as much other than a loud minority." As would anyone on the side of the alleged scientific consensus. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "alleged" about the consensus. Unless you believe that all statements from the scientific academies are frauds. (at least to their members). But at least this particular statement, makes your viewpoint quite clear. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's a scientific consensus, I wouldn't necessarily translate that into a political or societal one though. You've been using the "fringe" pointy stick so I was just mildly jabbing back. My actual position is more moderated than you may think given our interactions thus far. I agree with Elhector's comment below for the most part. I do think that these GW pages are skewed towards the GW side of things though, which is all I am trying to address. I understand that you feel the opposite is true. Sign the poll below, please. --GoRight 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For once you and I agree on something :-). There is a "scientific consensus" on AGW. A majority of scientists agree on AGW. I'll give you that one. I think a lot of disagreement is coming from how big the actual minority is. Also, I think some of us (me included) can remember when there has been a long standing scientific consensus on something and then we all find out the scientific consensus was flat out wrong the whole time. This has happened often I think it's very dangerous to forget this. There was a scientific consensus on global cooling way back when. Turned out that was flat out wrong. Now some of the scientists that were part of that consensus are telling us something completely different. You see where some of us have an issue? That's why I don't put much credence in a scientific consensus on anything anymore. I prefer to make my decisions on the actual information in the studies and the data. I may be skeptical of AGW, but that doesn't mean I don't admit it's a possibility. In my mind though at least, from reading countless amounts of studies and looking at the data there are still far to many unanswered questions and way to little data available to endorse the theory. That's the definition of skepticism. Elhector 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Elhector - at least get things right. Afaik there has only been one great consensus that has been overturned in the last century - and that was on plate tectonics. (everything else is on a small scale). Global cooling was not a scientific consensus - you should at least read up on what you claim. Einstein didn't turn a consensus - he improved on the current theory and so on. --Kim D. Petersen 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
--GoRight 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that GoRight has done more than a sufficient job above pointing out that this is not the case and is not a valid argument and seems to be more of an opinion of some editors here. Also, I see that the Weight argument is thrown around here a lot as a reason to keep things out of this article. How exactly is "weight" decided? Elhector 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all - i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant. There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not its reliable, which is definitely not the same thing. NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit). Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict .. He is not a scientific expert on the conflict .. what exactly is he? (as others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.). --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, with all due respect:
  1. "i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant." See above. In short he is relevant simply by being a recognizable figure within the political side of the debate. How else is it that you even know who he is enough to argue against him so strenuously?
  2. "NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit)." RC is no more relevant by your criteria than is Milloy, as I have said so before. If you criteria is that com mentors be directly associated with the NSTA conflict the RC fails that test undeniably. If you open the criteria up to include RC as a third party observer from a scientific perspective then I claim the right to similarly open up the criteria to also include a third party observer from the political perspective and I choose Milloy for the reasons stated above.
  3. "Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict ..." He is most certainly a political party to the conflict in the same sense that RC is a scientific party to the conflict. This article is not only about the underlying science. It is about all aspects of the film as well as all aspects of society who hold views on it.
  4. "others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.)." As has been noted Roger Pielke Jr. has been strenuously argued to NOT even be a skeptic by a prominent member of the pro-AGW contingent here. You are asking me to forego one of the most visible figures on the skeptics side of the issue in favor of someone you consider to be on pro-AGW side of the debate. That clearly skews the perspective which is exactly why I believe he is being suggested. While Roger is a fine source for many things, a representative of the political side of the skeptics he is not. Once again, this article is not only about the scientists and what the scientists think. There is a political aspect to the entire debate which should be reflected here.
--GoRight 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. I know Milloy because i've edited these pages (and others) - i doubt if he is much known outside of the U.S. (i certainly had no idea who he was before starting to look into the U.S debate).
  2. Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable. In this case Milloy is a random character who's opinion you seem to want to hear - but i've yet to see any reasons for it being relevant. Milloy is not a relevant political commentator - Pielke Jr. might be.
  3. No Milloy is not a political side to this. He is a commentator (and someone rather uninteresting from an international point of view). Afaics he represents the U.S fringe opinion. On the other hand RC represents a view from a relevant scientific perspective - they are very much able to assess the scientific parts in the controversy. What expertise does Milloy bring to this?
  4. undue weight - we do not just include opinion, because it comes from an "anti-" side. It has to be a notable opinion.
--Kim D. Petersen 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As a side-note - you seem to be of the opinion that all views should be represented equally. But that particular view is against wikipedia policy. See: WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --Kim D. Petersen 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT has been addressed above. Let me address WP:FRINGE here. Steven Milloy is not a publishing climate scientist, nor does he have to be to have his quote regarding AIT included on this article. He is proposing no new GW theory so WP:FRINGE is wholly inapplicable to him in general, as well as this quote specifically as the quote itself has nothing to do with a fringe theory.
"Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable." This is true as a general statement but in this instance it is not applicable. Steven Milloy is a well recognized political commentator who specializes in the area of science, including climate science. It is his specialization in this respect that makes his opinion notable, exactly the same as you would argue RC should be considered notable among scientists because of their specialization in climate science. There is no difference between these two cases, only a difference between the scientific and the political aspects. "What expertise does Milloy bring to this?" a well documented history of involvement in the GW debate as a commentator.
Now let us consider the role of commentator, which I sense you mean to use as a pejorative. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance. Independent observers who provide summary information regarding a given issue have long been a respected part of society. What are news reporters if not commentators to some degree? Editors of news organizations to an even larger degree. Even in the case we are discussing what is the role of RC here? Commentators, nothing more. You wish to have them included because they are the commentators that you trust. You wish to reject Milloy simply because he is a commentator that you disagree with. NPOV would suggest let both sides be heard.
You question of notability caused me to consider how we might go about quantifying the notability of someone like Steven Milloy. The goal being to move from the subjective realm to a more objective one. Since you seem to be arguing from the mindset of the scientific sub-culture, let me try and approach things from that perspective. Correct me if I am wrong here, but a common way to rate the notability of a particular scientific paper, and in turn a particular author, is to track the number of times that the paper, or all of an author's papers, are referenced by others. It occurred to me that we might be able to construct a crude analogue to this technique to help put things in perspective. I conducted a quick experiment (which you can all play along and verify if you wish) by entering the following search terms into Google: "junkscience.com", "realclimate.org", "Steven Milloy", "Steven J Milloy", "Gavin Schmidt", "Michael E Mann", and just for fun "James E Hansen". Here are the results that I obtained:
"junkscience.com" - about 336,000 hits
"realclimate.org" - about 184,000 hits
"Steven Milloy" - about 76,000 hits
"Steven J Milloy" - about 16,000 hits
"Gavin Schmidt" - about 53,400 hits
"Michael E Mann" - about 12,300 hits
"James E Hansen" - about 75,500 hits
See WP:GOOGLE -please.
And if you really have to do such things - at least be more creative:
"Realclimate" - about 817,000 hits.
""James Hansen" +NASA" - about 219,000 hits
And why not use climate as a keyword as well?
"Milloy +climate" - about 97,300 hits (not really much is it?)
"Hansen +climate +NASA" about 555,000 hits. (whoa)
"Mann +climate" about 1,680,000 hits. (even more whoa)
Using Google as an argument (even when invalid) - requires that you actually try not to bias your searches. (the inclusion of the forced NASA for instance makes the Hansen part be realistic - and using Realclimate without .org is rather obvious methinks). [try searching junkscience.org for articles on "global warming" or "climate" - its rather limited] --Kim D. Petersen 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand this point. I was not trying to skew the numbers unfairly and I wasn't looking to get into a war about Google searchs. I was simply keeping things simple. The point here is that the order of magnitude (i.e. thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc) is roughly comparable, not off by a factor of 100 or more as your fringe claim suggests it should be. I clearly couched my point with the appropriate and fairly stated caveats, did I not? I never claimed it was proof of anything, just a simple and admittedly crude measure. Just like WP:GOOGLE states, and I was already aware of it.
I quote from the introductory paragraph: "Search engines allow users to examine web pages on the Internet, which in turn allows checking of when and how certain expressions are used. This is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things (including articles)." I am also aware of the caveats listed in the notability section as well. I don't believe my characterization of things was out of line with that section, was it?
Here are a few more just for comparison sake:
JunkScience - about 533,000 hits
JunkScience.com OR JunkScience.org - about 334,000 hits
RealClimate.com OR RealClimate.org - about 188,000 hits
Jones +climate - about 2,150,000 hits (This Jones guy is showing everyone up!)
Smith +climate - about 5,810,000 hits (Well, except for her.)
(The point of the Smith and Jones queries being to point out this these particular searches are more likely to tell you about how common the last name is than about the person in question, but most of you already knew that I am sure. You would probably find a similar distribution in a phone book.)
That is correct - but then noone made such silly queries. The NASA keyword ensured that we really did get only the pages on Jim Hansen (as you can verify by spot-clicking on the result pages with Google (for instance every 10th)). Doing the same for Mann (which isn't a common last name) we get very little false positives - its not surprising that Mann is mentioned so often though. He has been the focus of quite a lot of debate. Putting .org on Realclimate is something most people do not (and realclimate doesn't coincide with any common usage) - unfortunately we can't do the same for Junkscience as that word is used without Milloy in context. --Kim D. Petersen 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with your Hansen search. I agree that it should be reasonably accurate since NASA is, as you point out, a reasonable disambiguating feature for him. We should not that this does limit his hits (somewhat) unfairly since there may be pages which discuss him but don't mention NASA. Given the reliability of the association with NASA, however, I would agree that this is more fair to him than using his middle initial.
Mann has no comparable feature that I am aware of, however, which is why I resorted to including his middle initial which I agree is probably too restrictive but it was the easiest option in my first pass. Note that I treated Hansen, Mann, and Milloy equally in this respect by also including the search with Milloy and his middle initial as well. Again, I am not trying to be devious here, nor do I think that we should put a whole lot of weight on this data but still it is better than no data at all when viewed in context as we are doing here. --GoRight 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
GoRight +climate - about 990 hits (for comparison to us common folk)
GoRight - about 21,700 hits (this one surprised me, mostly blog entries I assume)
Just FYI I think that your "+" signs are unnecessary since neither "NASA" nor "climate" seem to be common words stripped by Google by default. I included them in my searches only because I wanted to avoid any discussion of whether they really matter. --GoRight 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I am not claiming that these numbers are particularly accurate but I have no reason to believe that they have been particularly skewed relatively speaking either. The inclusion of the middle initial was required for Mann and Hansen because there are a lot of other Michael Manns and James Hansen's out there. So their numbers should be considered lower estimates comparatively speaking. Knock yourself out to see if the "Steven Milloy" query sans the initial contains a lot of false hits. It doesn't appear so to me but I have not done an exhaustive search.
This seems to suggest that Steven Milloy's "Google Notability Factor" is comparable to those of the other persons involved. I see no reason why his opinion should be considered any less significant than the ones already included in the article given the RC reference. --GoRight 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A few more:
"junkscience.com" "climate change" - 20,500
"National Enquirer " "climate change" - 32,800
"steven milloy" "climate change" - 18,400
"michael moore" "climate change" - 356,000
"paris hilton" "climate change" - 811,000
Notable? Hardly. Reliable? Certainly not. Of course, the Google method is a lousy way to approach this issue. Milloy has a fringe unqualified view that is constantly refuted in scientific circles (and outside for that matter). He's about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Gmb92 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I can see that it is going to be necessary to put together a separate section to discuss how to interpret these results as it may not be obvious to most readers. In the case of the Michael Moore and Paris Hilton searches what you are seeing is a "celebrity" effect. For example, the Paris Hilton query returns what amounts to the intersection between the set of pages which contain the exact phrase "Paris Hilton' and the exact phrase 'climate change'. Both of these terms are likely to have a large number of hits due to (a) the celebrity status of Paris Hilton (something not relevant in the case of Steven Milloy or Gavin Schmidt, for example), and (b) advertising for all things related to "climate change" and the level of discussion on this issue in all segments of society. Thus introducing either of these terms into the search space artificially introduces an increased number of "false hits" in the sense of returning pages that we consider erroneous. This is why I did not introduce this type of term into my original queries as it serves no useful purpose in this case other than to obscure the results we are actually after. A few more queries to substantiate this point:
about 18,100,000 for "Paris Hilton"
about 98,500,000 for "climate change"
The intersection of "Paris Hilton" and "climate change" is large simply because both sets are large in comparison to the order of magnitude seen in the searches already discussed. Many of these hits will be due to sites discussing Paris Hilton that have ads for some "Climate Change" related products, services, or other sites. It will also contain a large number of blog or forum hits wherein one thread is discussing Paris Hilton and another happens to mention Climate Change. These are clearly recognizable and understood biases that we should properly take into account when we interpret these results.
If we compare the order of magnitude of the "Paris Hilton" count (roughly 20,000,000) to the order of magnitude of the "Gavin Schmidt" count (roughly 50,000) it suggests that Paris Hilton is roughly (20,000,000 / 50,000) = 400 times more talked about than Gavin Schmidt. We then have to ask, is that result surprising? I would argue no, it isn't. All this means is that Paris Hilton's celebrity status is likely a factor in the results we are observing and therefore we should consider those results suspect for our purposes. None of this casts doubt on the validity of the previously mentioned results, it only demonstrates the need to be cognizant of potential and likely sources of bias such as celebrity status. So the question in this context is, to what extent do our previous searches suffer from a similar bias? I would argue that they don't.
I will try to add a section later today or tomorrow. --GoRight 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL: I have an exchange with MastCell on my user page related to my behavior here and elsewhere. Feel free to weigh in if you are so inclined. --GoRight 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to drive this to a bottom line decision, if possible. The Steven Milloy quote has met all of the wikipedia criteria for being allowed in as far as I can tell. The discussion above covers the details thereof. The text itself should not be considered all that controversial as it actually endorses the showing of AIT in schools (albeit along with other counter balancing presentations) which is exactly what the film's producers wanted in the first place.

Who still objects to including it and why?

--GoRight 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I still object. I imagine others who have commented recently still do too. Several reasons have been described above. Milloy is not a reliable source. Gmb92 07:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again and again, GR asserts that Milloy is a recognised expert on the politics. Again and again, people point out that this isn't true. And so we continue. Dull William M. Connolley 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The policies WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are being cited as the reason to not include this. It has been pointed out already quite thoroughly that these policies are being misapplied here. These policies are being used in Wikilawyering in order to keep the info out. Enforcing these policies in the way they are being used here is a detriment to the article and Wikipedia in general and should therefore be set aside in this situation per WP:IGNORE. Especially when the criteria being applied here to Milloy is not being applied equally to others in the article. No Wikipedia policy is to be used to block good and useful information from being included in an article, especially when said information is well and reliably sourced, comes from a person that is more then qualified to comment on the issue at hand, and is relevant to the topics discussed in the article. GoRight's arguments above have more then demonstrated this. Elhector 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Steven Milloy is a crank and a paid shill, despite the trouble you and GoRight seem to accepting this. He doesn't belong in the article. The fact that others have - correctly - kept him out out of this article per our prohibition on fringe theories and crackpottery is not wikilawyering. Raul654 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that terms like "crank and a paid shill" are not in line with having a civil dialog. --GoRight 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Milloy is a mainstream commentator for Fox News. There is no evidence for the assertion that he is a fringe theorist. Iceage77 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And as such "commentator" he has as little relevance here, as Bill Geist or Ben Stein. And since there is very little backing (read: nothing) to propose that Milloy has more than a minority view on things - he would be presented outside of weight. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the published opinion of a political commentator be relevant in a political matter? Being in the "minority view" doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned, especially in the context of a criticism section. And please show me some "backing" to propose that Milloy represents a minority view at all (his view on showing AIT in schools, not his view on AGW in general). Is there some survey that says most people or most political commentators support showing AIT in schools without discussing opposing views? Oren0 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal of showing a debunked deceptive propaganda piece like GGWS to children is more appalling than preferring not to show AIT, which, aside from a few details that deviate from the mainstream, is broadly an accurate representation of the science. Milloy represents a fringe view. Even minority views need to adhere to WP:UNDUE. Minority views also must be reliable. Gmb92 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Milloy also comments specifically on science issues. And of course we now have a whole section devoted to one fringe view (PETA). Iceage77 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The PETA section is presented totally out of weight. And i agree that that one is fringe. But discuss that in another section - please. I for one, will vote for deletion, or at least a drastical reduction to a simple mention. --Kim D. Petersen 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well the "crank and a paid shill" argument is getting old. That seems to be default argument against including anything in this article once all other arguments against something have been put to rest. What is your definition of "crank and paid shill"? One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" and thats why the argument doesn't hold water. That is a ad hominem attack and as such has no meaning or bearing on this debate. Also I would like to point out that there is a large difference between an minority view and a finge view and I believe you fail to see the difference between the two. In respect to AGW for example the belief against it is not a fringe belief, it's a minority belief. The Milloy comment does not deal with AGW specifically though, all it argues is that all points of views should be represented. The idea of representing all POVs in education is not a fringe belief at all. Elhector 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
He's a crank because he's been wrong about basically everything he's ever said. He's a paid shill because he takes money from large corporations like ExxonMobile and R.J. Reynolds (with an interest in muddying the scientific debate) and then proceeds to advocate positions in the interests of those paying him.
One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" - no, one could not. Most experts (including all of the reputable ones) do not take many from large corporations like Exxon and then advocate their position. And reputable experts are not dead wrong every time they say something.
And if (as you say) excluding people who take money from Exxon and are wrong all the time excludes all of the contrarians, then I suppose that says something very fundmenetal about the contarian arguments being presented (and the people presenting them). Raul654 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Because no one on the pro-AGW side has a financial interest in it, right? There's no such thing as needing research grants, an environmental lobby, etc. And you'll have to explain to us how an opinion about showing a movie in schools could be wrong. Oren0 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Raul, you honestly believe that no private citizen or private company has ever given money to a group who performed a study that concluded in a pro-AGW opinion or stance? Elhector 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the old canard about the secret underground pro-global warming conspiracy among scientists, environmentalists, and the ever-powerful solar power industry to get money. Raul654 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes - lets drop activists and lobbyists from the pro-AGW side as well. Oh... wait ... there are none? (Nb: if you can substantiate that research grants only get payed to say specific things - then you "might" have had a pointe - but then they don't). We could of course drop LD and the NSTA issue completely - because i see your point LD is an activist - so she shouldn't be mentioned.... but that would make the whole issue dissappear ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If we do that then the whole article has to disappear because Al Gore himself is an activist :-P (This was meant as a joke to lighten things up, not trying to start an argument.) Elhector 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying there's some massive conspiracy, but if you don't think there's serious money in the environmental industry you're kidding yourself. All I'm pointing out is that money cuts both ways and saying someone should be excluded because they supposedly are being paid by big oil isn't an argument that holds any water in regards to any WP policy I'm aware of. Every time anyone asks why Milloy's political opinion on a political matter is supposedly not relevant, the only response is name-calling. I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this, maybe it's time for WP:RFC? Oren0 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite frankly - once there is hard pressure to include radical environmental activists, as a realistic (and non-fringe) side in this issue - you can count on me being on the stockade with you. But look at it realistically please. Milloy is a radical "anti-" side - the other radical side is not represented. (And shouldn't be). --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Radical? In what way? Milloy provides commentary on the very same peer reviewed articles that you rely on. His commentary is backed up using scientific papers considered legitimate research within the scientific community. So if that's radical, then the is not represented should be replaced with IPCC assessments.

Steven Milloy and being WP:FRINGE

The argument against including Milloy's quote, as I understand it, can be summarized as "Steven Milloy's opinions are WP:FRINGE and as such they are WP:UNDUE."

On the issue of being WP:FRINGE I have pointed out that (a) Milloy is not presenting his own alternative theory so WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case, (b) based on polling data his views can be considered consistent with as much as (i.e. an upper bound) 15% of the US population (assuming that you accept that anyone who is undecided is being "skeptical"), and (c) that his commentary is basically just responding to the same peer-reviewed papers that are relied upon by the IPCC and others who believe that AGW is real in order to question the conclusions being reached when those papers are taken in aggregate.

While I have seen lots of charges of his being WP:FRINGE I have seen very little counter evidence of this fact. Please present a case for how Steven Milloy's opinions and statements should be considered [[WP:FRINGE]. Specifically, please identify the fringe scientific theory that he is supposedly advocating as well as substantiate that this theory (or theories) are NOT also being advanced by scientific papers being published in peer reviewed journals.

So, for example, one such alternative theory is that Solar Forcing is the source of the current warming trend. I would argue that (a) legitimate scientific papers have been published on this topic, and (b) there are recognized experts who are still advocating this position. Therefore I would argue that this is NOT an example of a WP:FRINGE theory. Other similar examples will apply.

--GoRight 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the U.S. population (including a plurality of Harvard graduates) believe that seasons are caused by Earth being closer to the sun during summertime. But that would be a decidedly WP:FRINGE view in the context of science, and it's Milloy's commentary on the science that we're discussing here. Raymond Arritt 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt your example is accurate. Can you substantiate it? Even so, it says nothing about nor provides any direct commentary on the actual assertions or theories being promoted by Steven Milloy. As you say, it is Steven Milloy's commentary on science that we're discussing, not that of the US population or Harvard graduates. Do you have some evidence that Steven Milloy believes that the seasons occur for the reason you have stated? That would be relevant here. --GoRight 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You're dodging and weaving. Previously you gave an example of something accepted by "15% of the US population", and now you're saying that views of the US population aren't relevant as an example. Make up your mind. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The 15% demonstrates that a significant percentage are at least skeptical on AGW. Steven Milloy can be argued to be expressing the basis for their skepticism on AGW. This does not imply that he expresses every single skeptical argument out there, nor does it imply that he expresses any unrelated views such as the one that you raise. What the US population does or does not believe regarding the changing of the seasons is irrelevant to what Steven Milloy is saying about AGW, or the changing of the seasons for that matter.
Your direct charge is that Steven Milloy is expressing WP:FRINGE theories. OK, so what are those theories and where is he expressing them so that we can verify the accuracy of your claim? --GoRight 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This page has plenty for you to choose from. The specious crap about saturation of radiation bands is especially entertaining. Raymond Arritt 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not the one making the claim. You are. Choose as you wish. I suppose a clarification is in order here. For Milloy to be WP:FRINGE (overall) the vast majority of what he expresses has to be WP:FRINGE not just cherry picked bits and pieces. Even then, we can still look at his individual quotes on individual theories independently. So even if you can find something that is considered WP:FRINGE that does not disqualify any commentary that he makes relative to alternative theories such as the Solar Forcing example. I would agree that cherry picked examples where the underlying references could be argued to be WP:FRINGE should not be quoted. I assume that you are not suggesting that even the most renowned climate scientists have never ever made a mistake, such as Mann and his original stats for the hockey stick? --GoRight 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I went through the page you provided and pulled out any references to third party materials. In this article he is providing commentary about and related to the following third party sources:
  1. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html
  2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
  3. http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/control_tseries.pdf
  4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
  5. Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
  6. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm
  7. http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif
  8. http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
  9. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
  10. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltdayac7998_5.2
  11. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.00N.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
  12. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html
  13. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
  14. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/Hansen_etal_1.html
  15. http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=4697
  16. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/updates1.shtml
  17. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31073
  18. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
  19. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#means
  20. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtem?dat=BLEND&mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1880&eye1=2005&graph=Lineplot&mon2=0&eye2=0&bye2=0&mon3=0&ye=0&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&param=Temperature&non=0&klu=1&proce=80&puzo=0&nzi=99&ts=6&sbeX=-180.0&sbeY=90.0&senX=180.0&senY=-90.0
  21. http://eande.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/LAIsland/
  22. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
  23. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm
Which of these materials that he is discussing would be considered WP:FRINGE within the wider scientific community? --GoRight 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I can cite non-fringe sources for fringe opinions - this is, in fact, a favourite game among many pseudo-scientists. Sources rarely defend themselves against misuse.[3] Thus, your argument is bogus. --Stephan Schulz 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. So please highlight where he is misquoting these sources and how those misquotes constitute being WP:FRINGE. Should I assume from your statement that you concede that these sources are not WP:FRINGE? --GoRight 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've only commented on the quality of your argument, not the quality of your assumptions so far. I'm going to dinner now ;-). --Stephan Schulz 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Does Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) really say that WV is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect - methinks not. But JS claims it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, but speculation is not proof. The burden of proof rests with you. If you think that he is so stupid as to bald face lie about something like that then prove it. --GoRight 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Since i'm answering your speculation. I don't have anything to prove. But our resident climate scientist Arritt, has already told you of at least one bald "lie" on that particular page. There are several others. Whether or not these are referenced - or just Milloys invention - is rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen 23:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to go on... This particular page is a rather good example of why people here consider Milloy an unreliable source for information on climate change. (Hint: the 95% claim is 100% wrong. And shows one of two things, either Milloy is deliberately lying or he is incompetant to comment on the scientific merit of the 3 movies) --Kim D. Petersen 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but your response continues to be long on bluster and short on evidence to prove your charge. Your saying that something is so does not make it so. If the research he quotes is WP:FRINGE, make your case. If he is misquoting the research, show where and demonstrate how that makes his commentary WP:FRINGE. This should be a simple matter if he is as WP:FRINGE as you make him out to be, correct? --GoRight 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You could of course try to pick up a book on radiative transfer, check out Wikipedia's pages on Greenhouse gases, or perhaps read Ramanathan&Coakley[4] or even try this Google search [5] or you might even visit this or this - or you can of course check the IPCC report - or even check realclimate or another realclimate one.... But then i guess not. --Kim D. Petersen 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Given your attempts thus far I can understand why you might want me to make your case for you, but with all due respect that is your job. Please explain how any of these sources demonstrate either that Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) is itself a WP:FRINGE theory, or that Steven Milloy misquoted Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) in such a way as to create a WP:FRINGE theory. That is the task before you if you wish to prove your claim that Milloy is WP:FRINGE (on this single point).
Lets assume for a moment that F&R are inaccurate and cite the 95% number (unfortunatly its not available online - i'd hoped Raymond might have had it in easy access) - something which is entirely out-of-accord with the rest of the literature. Then we are still left with Milloy citing something that he either knows is wrong - he is deliberately citing a fringe - or he is simply incompetent. In all cases - the reliability of Milloy on this subject receives a substantial hit.
And No - its not my "task" to demonstrate that F&R are fringe. You might prove me wrong - by citing a scientific paper that also goes with the 95% number. Otherwise i've shown enough data, to verify that 80-85% (with clouds) is the recognized total contribution. The ball is actually in your court. --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how things operate in your part of the world, but in my part of the world, and more importantly here on wikipedia, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. You are the one that asserts Milloy is WP:FRINGE, not me. Ergo, it IS your task to substantiate your claim or, just like any posting on wikipedia, it is removed from consideration. If the 95% number was actually stated in F&R but has subsequently been shown to be in error that does not demonstrate that F&R was WP:FRINGE in the first place nor that Steven Milloy is WP:FRINGE simply because he referenced it. Michael Mann once published a famous paper based on faulty statistics, does that mean that I get to claim that Michael Mann is WP:FRINGE? Does this imply that Michael Mann has demonstrated that he is incompetent to comment on climate science? And more to the point, does that allow me to claim that Michael Mann was deliberately lying when he published the paper? --GoRight 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Try going backwards and reading what has been written. Where exactly is it claimed that F&R are fringe? Its very simple: the 95% claim is wrong. I've shown you enough evidence. Either Milloy knows (and is deceiving) or he is incompetent. --Kim D. Petersen 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The most that you can logically claim based on the evidence you have presented is that Milloy is guilty of referencing an out of date figure from a source that you don't claim is WP:FRINGE. You have NOT demonstrated deliberate intent to deceive on his part which would be required to support a charge of his being WP:FRINGE and not WP:RS. You have merely speculated on his intent based on nothing but your personal dislike of the man. You don't seem to be aware that merely repeating your speculations, ad infinitum, does not somehow transform them into actual evidence. Please present some actual evidence of his intent to use this 95% figure to intentionally mislead people, as opposed to being a simple mistake. You may wish to review Occam's razor in this regard. Also, please provide some actual evidence that his quoting the 95% figure consitutes making his position WP:FRINGE. Thus far I have seen none. Even if this is a valid example of his making a mistake with respect to one reference out of 23, that hardly constitutes WP:FRINGE or a violation of WP:RS.
In the case of Mann its very simple: his original statistics were wrong. You are aware that Edward Wegman demonstrated this I am sure. Wegman's Testimony. Either Mann knew (and was deceiving) or he was incompetent. Do you agree? --GoRight 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Some background: Wegman, a statistician, is hired by two ideological skeptic Congressmen (at least one with very strong oil ties) to "validate" a temperature reconstruction. Gee, I wonder how that might turn out. The results of course were not published in any peer-reviewed journal. As this on the whole Milloy discussion demonstrates, on one minority side we have a lot of loud politics with little science. On the other side we have a little politics with a lot of science. Gmb92 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your collective tenacity at continuing to dig your hole deeper on this point is impressive. Let us consider the remaining background which you have left out. First, we have this regarding the Wegman panel:
"Our panel is composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University). This Ad Hoc Panel has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report."
The point being that it was composed of more than just Edward Wegman AND they conducted the work pro bono with no financial interest in the outcome (i.e. they were NOT "hired" by anyone). You wouldn't be trying to intentionally deceive anyone here, would you? Because if you are that would sort of make YOU not WP:RS, right?
If you are concerned about the criticism not being peer reviewed then let us also mention the following from his testimony:
"The critiques have been made by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published in Energy and Environment in 2003 and in Energy and Environment and in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. We refer to these as MM03, MM05a, and MM05b respectively."
Of these, I assume that at least the Geophysical Research Letters is a peer reviewed journal, or am I mistaken? In either event this is the same journal that published one of Mann's own papers so on this point the two sides appear to have been of a comparable level of review. I am confident that you must have been aware of the M&M references beforehand, but since they were directly mentioned in the testimony that I referenced I just can't imagine how you might have forgotten. --GoRight 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you having fun using this talk-page as a soapbox on your personal opinion of the Mann/M&M issues? Could we all please ask you to either take it to Hockey stick controversy or desist? --Kim D. Petersen 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing specific against Mann. As I said elsewhere on this page I personally would not make these specific claims against Mann (i.e. that he should be considered WP:FRINGE because he made a mistake). I am only using him to illustrate how ridiculous your argument is when it is applied to someone who is clearly recognized as being mainstream. This is a legitimate point in this context. ---- GoRight (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You are talking around the issue (what the hell does Wegman/Mann have to do with this?).
The 95% claim is wrong. (as demonstrated) Even if the one paper (from 1993) "might" say so (i still doubt it). Any research on the subject would have found that it was wrong. This claim is central to M's description of WV vs. CO2. So we are left with two conclusions - both of which make Milloy unreliable as a source:
  • He is unaware that its wrong (making him incompetent).
  • He is aware that its wrong (making him a fraud).
--Kim D. Petersen 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Aparantly I am being too subtle here, so let me be more direct. I am using the Wegman/Mann example to apply your exact same logic to someone you no doubt agree with or admire. My purpose is two fold. I would hope this this would illustrate for you the fallacy in your argument, as well as demonstrate to you and everyone else the level of your personal bias against Steven Milloy. By constructing this parallel I put you in a position whereby you either have to (a) agree that Michael Mann was being intentionally deceptive with his original statistics (or was incompetent), (b) retract your argument relative to Steve Milloy, or (c) demonstrate to the world that you are a biased hypocrit (since you would apply the same argument differently to Steven Milloy whom you dislike than you would to Michael Mann whom you presumably like). The choice of which is up to you. (If I were in your position I would choose option "b" but you can decide for yourself.) Does that clear things up for you?
Oh, and I will be happy to oblige you in this every chance you give me the opportunity, so let's try again:
Mann's original statistics were wrong. (as demonstrated) Even if Mann's first papers on the "Hockey Stick Graph" were full of bogus statistics, any research on the subject would have shown that they were wrong. These statistics were central to M's description of the "Hockey Stick Graph". So we are left with two conclusions - both of which make Mann unreliable as a source:
  • He was unaware that his statistics were wrong (making him incompetent).
  • He was aware that his statistics were wrong (making him a fraud).
You obviously believe that your "logic" applies in the case of Steven Milloy. Do you also agree that it applies in the case of Michael Mann? --GoRight 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your opinion on Wegman/Mann. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument.
Confront the issue - instead of diverting attention, please. --Kim D. Petersen 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I am using your argument against you in order to confront the issue. You, on the other hand, are running away from your own argument by refusing to comment on the Wegman/Mann parallel. As such it is clear that you have opted for option (c) above as I suspected you would. Everyone clearly sees this is the case by virtue of your evasion on Mann while still asserting the same logic for Milloy.
The problem is that you are trying to divert the issue, by introducing a completely different discussion - with its own pro/contra arguments. --Kim D. Petersen 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I have already directly confronted your issue above by demonstrating that your argument is essentially an example of a False dilemma fallacy. Another subtlety that appears to have escaped your understanding. In other words, your two choices are not the only two choices that exist. It may simply be that he made an honest mistake. And given that his mistake is, in effect, quoting a single out of date figure from a single reference out of 23 in the article in question when this article is only one among hundreds of others I hardly think that it justifies a charge of incompetence. But if it does then your same argument applies to Michael Mann as well. They are essentially the same in this regard (i.e. they each made a mistake, whoopy). You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "making a single mistake proves total incompetence" which, of course, is completely false on its face. --GoRight 09:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But unfortunately - you argumentation that Milloy is "excused" is not based upon the merits of the case - but by introduction of a completely different discussion. In effect a strawman argument.
The facts here are very simple: If Milloy has any knowledge of the subject at hand - then he knows that the 95% figure is completely (and demonstratably) wrong. So we are left with something very simple - and something which you haven't addressed at all. Did Milloy use the 95% figure out of ignorance? Again: If he is knowledgeable about the subject, then he would know its wrong. Or is it the case that he is trying to deliberately mislead? In both cases, we come to the conclusion that Milloy is unreliable on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope False dilemma. Clear and simple.
On the issue of: If Milloy has any knowledge of the subject at hand - then he knows that the 95% figure is completely (and demonstratably) wrong. I think you should consider taking a logic course or two as this statement does not constitute a valid logical deduction. Your argument is essentially "If person X knows anything about subject Y then person X knows everything about subject Y", which is clearly ridiculous, is false on its face, and is a bar that every known climate expert in the world would fail to meet. [EDIT: As my example using Michael Mann's obviously flawed and incomplete knowledge of statistics clearly illustrates.] Steven Milloy obviously has some knowledge about the 95% number but this does not logically imply that he must know everything about the 95% number (like the fact that there has been follow-on research in that area). --GoRight 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
But unfortunately it is not a false dilemma. We are not talking about some obscure little tid-bid of knowledge that can be excused as either an oversight or by having incomplete information.
What we are talking about is one of the central thesis', in an article on a specific subject, that claims to be authoritative, and well-researched. --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It most certainly IS an example of a false dilemma. Your comment above makes it quite clear that you either fail to understand the central thesis behind the concept of a false dilemma, or you are simply trying to divert attention from it. Your "logic" is a valid example of a false dilemma because it seeks to set out only two possible conclusions when, in fact, there are any number of other equally valid conclusions that can be reached. I have presented a third which is all that is required to demonstrate the point.
I fail to see any additional benefit to be gained from continuing to flog your obviously dead horse in this instance. I therefore choose to leave this thread on the following two points:
  1. Just like with your speculations above, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that merely repeating your flawed "logic", ad infinitum, will somehow magically transform it into a valid piece of deductive reasoning. It will not.
  2. Your position here is rather like that of the shop keeper and your argument rather like that of the parrot in this skit by Monty Python.
---- GoRight (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The Dead Parrot sketch is good - personally i like the Argument sketch better. But of course your style of argumentation is rather more in the style of confuse a cat ;-) ---- Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad to know that you are likewise a Monty Python fan. All pointy sticks and personal jabs aside, we can all at least share in a good laugh. Agreed? ---- GoRight (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if all of these sources prove undeniably that the 95% number is inaccurate that doesn't make your case that Milloy has been inaccurate in his cites or his repesentation thereof in such a way as to be WP:FRINGE. Also note that the Wikipedia article is, by definition, not WP:RS, and I question the RC links as well since they are both anonymous (just for the record). --GoRight 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No in that case we can substantiate that Milloy is either deliberately misleading - or has no clue about what he is doing. --Kim D. Petersen 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated above, this is the equivalent of my claiming that Micahel Mann publishing a paper based on faulty statistics substantiates that he was either being deliberately misleading - or has no clue about what he was doing. Personally I don't make such a claim, but presumably you would be fine with it?
Just to keep this entire discussion in perspective I would remind everyone that we are discussing a single reference out of 23 cited in this article alone which is only a single article out of hundreds. If your entire case for Steven Milloy being WP:FRINGE rests on the fact that in one article he quoted an out of date (not WP:FRINGE) figure of 95% instead of the now accepted 80-85% I would have to say that is a rather weak case to prove your point, especially given the fact that even if that scenario were true it still doesn't prove that Steven Milloy is WP:FRINGE. --GoRight 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that anyone reading the article by Milloy will notice that this in fact is a central claim. (i didn't choose that one randomly :-). Most other completely wrong information is not referenced at all, but this one is. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably more than 15% believe 9/11 was an inside job. Does that mean we should give purveyors of this myth equal or even minority weight? Should we include Rosie O'Donnell's comments on the so-called "political aspects" of the issue, as in a hypothetical opinion that schools should show "counter-balancing" views on 9/11, especially when experts familiar with the details of the issue have broadly refuted the claims? Gmb92 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We are seeking to substantiate the accusation that Milloy is WP:FRINGE. This is not relevant to that discussion. --GoRight 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how anyone can argue that WP:FRINGE applies here. "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." I don't think that any of us would deny that GW skepticism fits this definition. But again, we are not debating whether to include Milloy's scientific opinion here; rather, we are debating whether to include his opinion about showing a movie in schools. I would argue again that being opposed to that isn't WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:FRINGE even apply as we're not discussing a scientific theory. I'm yet to see any reason WP:UNDUE applies either. Do we have some data to indicate that opposing the showing of AIT in schools is even a minority view at all? Oren0 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --GoRight 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this the sum total of your evidence against Milloy or do you have something else to add? If not we should move on to the next step in the dispute resolution process. --GoRight (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Milloy quote

I think we have reached the point where further internal discussion is futile. I would like to assess the sense of the community as to their positions on this issue, so I propose the interested parties (including any lurkers) weigh in on the subject below by simply signing the appropriate section:

Steven Milloy, publisher of the website junkscience.com, noted on Fox News that "The NSTA probably made the correct decision at the time simply because it would be egregiously biased to present just one particular viewpoint about a controversy as heated and important as global warming. Now that the counter-viewpoints are available, however, schools ought to show their students An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle and the Intelligence Squared debate."[1]

All in favor of including the above quote in this article please sign below:

--GoRight 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
--Elhector 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
--Oren0 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to exclude it and do not understand any opposition to it. --Blue Tie 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
--Iceage77 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All opposed to including the above quote in this article please sign below:

All those who think votes like this are fundamentally bogus please sign below:

Raymond Arritt 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
--Kim D. Petersen 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Vsmith 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
William M. Connolley 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Gmb92 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's let this set a couple of days to give people a chance to weigh in. Depending on the outcome we can decide whether to move into mediation or not.

UPDATE: Good idea to make this a separate section. Thanks, whomever. I want to clarify my intent here. Obviously any vote on wikipedia is non-binding. I only want to determine the relative numbers on each side. My reason is that if it was just me, for example, on the include it side I would just drop it as mediation would be silly under those circumstances. If the numbers are more even then I would argue that we may actually be at a legitimate impasse and perhaps mediation might help. --GoRight 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-on Discussion

Wow, the creation of the third section that says "All those who think votes like this are fundamentally bogus please sign below:" really surprises me. Very un-wiki like. I know you guys keep a close watch on this article because I've had content disputes here before but this has gotten really sad now. It speaks much about you're attitudes towards Wikipedia, your belief that you guys own this article, and your inability to remain unbiased. GoRight is simply trying to improve this article and this was the next logical step in the debate. I think with attitudes like this mediation is the only way to get around this now... Elhector 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but this is not the next logical step. The next logical step would be to assess the above discussion, and try to see where opinions lie. And that isn't very difficult. I count a majority that thinks Milloy shouldn't be included - and a fairly active minority who wants to. What is this vote going to change? (and that is why its a rather bogus thing to do). --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that it is unwikilike to be opposed to votes. I also think it is very wikilike to actually have votes. wikipedia is not consistent. Votes are a way to assess positions, but they should not decide the issue. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Elh needs to get out more and read WP:VOTE William M. Connolley 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read WP:VOTE as well as all the other guidelines and I'm very familiar with them. I strongly believe in Wikipedia and it's mission and as such I will often tend to ignore or bend guidelines if I feel they are being used in a harmful way or at a detriment to the project and community. This vote was not to actually decide on the change but just to see where we stand and if mediation is necessary or even worth it. It was a good faith effort on GoRight's part to try and find away around this impasse and I feel the way this was handled as far as adding that 3rd section was very uncivil, in poor taste, and has done nothing to help the situation. Elhector 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
But then noone is saying that the vote wasn't set up in good faith. We're just saying that votes like these are bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have stated my reasons in the UPDATE above. They seem straight forward enough. There is no mystery here. I didn't label this a vote, someone else did. I don't object to calling it a vote but if that bothers you somehow think of it merely as my asking people to declare which side they are on. It is not a true vote because it has no binding power. I just want to have a nice clear delineation of who's where without having to wade through the comments. --GoRight 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Connolley needs to cease personal insults. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


We have probably let this set long enough for anyone interested to weigh in. As we have seen from the comments below:

These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

and as my comments above have clearly shown, my intent with this was merely to conduct a "strawpoll that was to be used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion," something that seems to have been considered acceptable practice on other GW related pages.

As it stands now, the count seems to be 5 in favor, 0 opposed, and 5 abstaining. Does anyone disagree? If not then it appears that we must have reached consensus, correct? If any of those abstaining wish to change their minds now might be a good time to do so as I would like to continue with the dispute resolution process.

I assume that those who indicated that they were in favor of including this quote would like to pursue the matter further. If not please register your disagreement below.

--GoRight (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Abstaining." Nice try. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean that's not what you have done? You section seems to indicate only that you consider this type of vote to be "bogus". Considering the vote to be "bogus" does not indicate disapproval one way or the other. What else am I supposed to think? --GoRight (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments from Those Opposed to Inclusion

I would like to construct here a concise summary of the arguments presented by those who are opposed to including the Steven Milloy quote. I will make a good faith effort to construct such a summary but those who are opposed are encouraged to modify this description in place so that it meets with their collective satisfactions. My purpose is merely to allow any others who become involved to simply be able to read these summaries rather than having to wade through all of the discussion above. Please do not leave signed comments in this section, but instead update the text directly to your liking as you would an article. When the section is complete I will remove this comment.

The opposing side is requested to refrain from modifying this section. --GoRight (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This is just a first pass to pull a representative set of quotes together under the primary points being made. I plan to continue editing this, obviously. Please review the discussion above and add anything that you feel I have missed into the appropriate buckets or even create a whole new bucket if I missed something. The next step would be to either craft these (now) disjointed statements into a coherent summary for each point, or to edit them and allow them to stand on their own. If you have a preference, please state it. My obvious intent is to provide a point for point rebuttal in the section below which comes from the counterpoints to the statements included here. For the purposes of this summary I recommend that we scrub things to remove the invective that occurs in the discussion above.

Point N: Steven Milloy is not WP:RS.

  • Milloy is an author of trash with no credibility William M. Connolley 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't agree that Milloy has any credibility at all on anything remotely related to global warming, including the politics. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ... he has established a pattern of calculated deception; e.g., a "survey" that some of us recently received.[6][7] Raymond Arritt 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • [Steven Milloy is a] recognized expert? By whom? Where? --Kim D. Petersen 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Point N: Steven Milloy is not a participant to the events being discussed.

  • LD has an obvious connection with the film [which Milloy does not]. William M. Connolley 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • David and the NSTA spokespersons are central to the topic, which describes a dispute between the two. ... If Milloy was an NSTA spokesperson, by all means, his arguments would need to be included. ... Gmb92 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Point N: Steven Milloy should be considered WP:FRINGE

  • No Milloy is not a political side to this. He is a commentator (and someone rather uninteresting from an international point of view). Afaics he represents the U.S fringe opinion. On the other hand RC represents a view from a relevant scientific perspective - they are very much able to assess the scientific parts in the controversy. What expertise does Milloy bring to this? --Kim D. Petersen 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This page has plenty for you to choose from. The specious crap about saturation of radiation bands is especially entertaining. Raymond Arritt 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Does Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) really say that WV is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect - methinks not. But JS claims it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since i'm answering your speculation. I don't have anything to prove. But our resident climate scientist Arritt, has already told you of at least one bald "lie" on that particular page. There are several others. Whether or not these are referenced - or just Milloys invention - is rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen 23:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to go on... This particular page is a rather good example of why people here consider Milloy an unreliable source for information on climate change. (Hint: the 95% claim is 100% wrong. And shows one of two things, either Milloy is deliberately lying or he is incompetant to comment on the scientific merit of the 3 movies) --Kim D. Petersen 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You could of course try to pick up a book on radiative transfer, check out Wikipedia's pages on Greenhouse gases, or perhaps read Ramanathan&Coakley[8] or even try this Google search [9] or you might even visit this or this - or you can of course check the IPCC report - or even check realclimate or another realclimate one.... But then i guess not. --Kim D. Petersen 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And No - its not my "task" to demonstrate that F&R are fringe. You might prove me wrong - by citing a scientific paper that also goes with the 95% number. Otherwise i've shown enough data, to verify that 80-85% (with clouds) is the recognized total contribution. The ball is actually in your court. --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Try going backwards and reading what has been written. Where exactly is it claimed that F&R are fringe? Its very simple: the 95% claim is wrong. I've shown you enough evidence. Either Milloy knows (and is deceiving) or he is incompetent. --Kim D. Petersen 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Some background: Wegman, a statistician, is hired by two ideological skeptic Congressmen (at least one with very strong oil ties) to "validate" a temperature reconstruction. Gee, I wonder how that might turn out. The results of course were not published in any peer-reviewed journal. As this on the whole Milloy discussion demonstrates, on one minority side we have a lot of loud politics with little science. On the other side we have a little politics with a lot of science. Gmb92 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are talking around the issue (what the hell does Wegman/Mann have to do with this?).
The 95% claim is wrong. (as demonstrated) Even if the one paper (from 1993) "might" say so (i still doubt it). Any research on the subject would have found that it was wrong. This claim is central to M's description of WV vs. CO2. So we are left with two conclusions - both of which make Milloy unreliable as a source:
  • He is unaware that its wrong (making him incompetent).
  • He is aware that its wrong (making him a fraud).
--Kim D. Petersen 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The facts here are very simple: If Milloy has any knowledge of the subject at hand - then he knows that the 95% figure is completely (and demonstratably) wrong. So we are left with something very simple - and something which you haven't addressed at all. Did Milloy use the 95% figure out of ignorance? Again: If he is knowledgeable about the subject, then he would know its wrong. Or is it the case that he is trying to deliberately mislead? In both cases, we come to the conclusion that Milloy is unreliable on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But unfortunately it is not a false dilemma. We are not talking about some obscure little tid-bid of knowledge that can be excused as either an oversight or by having incomplete information. What we are talking about is one of the central thesis', in an article on a specific subject, that claims to be authoritative, and well-researched. --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Point N: Quoting Steven Milloy at all should be considered WP:UNDUE/WP:WEIGHT

  • This point is implied by his being WP:FRINGE.
  • We don't include Milloy, because he isn't particularly relevant. When including critique and praise, we get a choice between various different opinions, and have to choose according to weight. In this particular instance Milloy's view is irrelevant (according to weight). --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight. --Kim D. Petersen 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • [...] 85-88% "say global warming is probably happening" - does not mean that the rest is in the other camp. Sorry. How many are undecided? And second: if 15% had been a realistic figure (again for the U.S - not internationally - which Wikipedia represents) - Then we can firmly conclude that the criticism section is currently leaning too much to the sceptical side. (try calculating up the column space please). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all - i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant. There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not its reliable, which is definitely not the same thing. NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit). Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict .. He is not a scientific expert on the conflict .. what exactly is he? (as others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.). --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And as such "commentator" he has as little relevance here, as Bill Geist or Ben Stein. And since there is very little backing (read: nothing) to propose that Milloy has more than a minority view on things - he would be presented outside of weight. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Point N: Steven Milloy is not qualified to comment on the science of this film.

  • Milloy claimed the film, a documentary on a scientific topic, was "biased" and recommended 2 other films (one "The Great Global Warming Swindle") which he praises. What would qualify him to make scientific assessments of the film? When searching for an alternative source, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Milloy could take note of that too. Gmb92 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Point N: Steven Milloy is not qualified to comment on the politics of this film.

  • Milloy is just as qualified to comment on the politics as is Paris Hilton, or some guy down the pub. Again, there are people who have done meaningful work on the politics of GW, but Milloy isn't one of them. He's simply someone with a highly partisan view of the issue. You're not helping your case by calling on Milloy as one of your witnesses; why not choose someone credible and qualified? Raymond Arritt 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • He [Steven Milloy] is a commentator on Fox. That doesn't make one an "expert" - when was the last time he was called before congress to testimony on this? (Carter, Lindzen, Pielke etc. all have been recently). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Point N: Steven Milloy is not WP:NOTE, nor is his opinion on this matter.

  • Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable. In this case Milloy is a random character who's opinion you seem to want to hear - but i've yet to see any reasons for it being relevant. Milloy is not a relevant political commentator - Pielke Jr. might be. --Kim D. Petersen 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Include summary and arguments of Google discussion favoring Milloy being not notable.
See WP:GOOGLE -please.
And if you really have to do such things - at least be more creative:
"Realclimate" - about 817,000 hits.
""James Hansen" +NASA" - about 219,000 hits
And why not use climate as a keyword as well?
"Milloy +climate" - about 97,300 hits (not really much is it?)
"Hansen +climate +NASA" about 555,000 hits. (whoa)
"Mann +climate" about 1,680,000 hits. (even more whoa)
Using Google as an argument (even when invalid) - requires that you actually try not to bias your searches. (the inclusion of the forced NASA for instance makes the Hansen part be realistic - and using Realclimate without .org is rather obvious methinks). [try searching junkscience.org for articles on "global warming" or "climate" - its rather limited] --Kim D. Petersen 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A few more:
"junkscience.com" "climate change" - 20,500
"National Enquirer " "climate change" - 32,800
"steven milloy" "climate change" - 18,400
"michael moore" "climate change" - 356,000
"paris hilton" "climate change" - 811,000
Notable? Hardly. Reliable? Certainly not. Of course, the Google method is a lousy way to approach this issue. Milloy has a fringe unqualified view that is constantly refuted in scientific circles (and outside for that matter). He's about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Gmb92 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Rebuttals from Those In Favor of Inclusion

I would like to construct here a concise summary of the rebuttals presented by those who are in favor of including the Steven Milloy quote. I will make a good faith effort to construct such a summary but those who are in favor are encouraged to modify this description in place so that it meets with their collective satisfactions. My purpose is merely to allow any others who become involved to simply be able to read these summaries rather than having to wade through all of the discussion above. Please do not leave signed comments in this section, but instead update the text directly to your liking as you would an article. When the section is complete I will remove this comment.

The opposing side is requested to refrain from modifying this section. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Junk Science: Climate-Controlled Classroom?". Fox News. May 10 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-12.