Talk:William Kininmonth (meteorologist)

Why (meteorologist) in the title?

Is it really necessary that the title of this article includes "(meteorologist)" after the subject's name (Kininmonth) ? It looks strange, unless there is a more notable William Kininmonth... and even then, a disambiguation page would seem more appropriate. --Childhood's End 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why (meteorologist) in the title?

Well, if you'd done a search on that name you would have turned up "Sir William Kininmonth (architect)"! Good enough reason to tag them both I reckon.

05:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Doorrag

References

• Meteorologists and climate scientists are not the same. Which is Kininmonth? He could be both, but there are no references for either. Also, the article says that Kininmonth headed up the Australian National Climate Centre, which doesn't seem to have a website. Does anyone have a reference for this fact? --naught101 (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Climate scientist" description

Since Mr. Kininmonth has a Master of Science degree, it is clear that he has some scientific training. It is less clear that he can be fairly described as a "climate scientist." First of all, over 2,000 scientists worked as contributors or peer reviewers on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which Kininmonth purports to debunk. Almost all (if not all) of them would have had Ph.D training, which suggests a real asymmetry in their qualifications. More importantly, though, Mr. Kininmonth seems never to have published an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal on climate science. So, although he has served as some sort of advisor for Australian delegations to climate negotiations, and so on, I see no reason to describe him as a climate scientist. I have a Bachelor's Degree in political science. Does that make me a political scientist? I think not. If I was publishing peer-reviewed articles in recognized political science journals, that would be a different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.168.112 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You will have to adhere to WP:BLP and WP:V if text like that is going into the article. In specific you will have to find reliable sources in accordance with weight in the literature that make these specific comments about/on WK. I've reverted per WP:BLP --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SourceWatch a seriouse source?

Is this leftist smear machine really serious source?!--88.91.29.41 (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Political and organisational affiliations

I have tagged this section as it is a gross violation of wp:npov I a msurprised at kim for reverting it back in, Kim can you either rewrite it so it is not such a hideous attack or shall i remove it again? mark nutley (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Publications on global warming

Tagged as undue, currently there is more crit about the book than the book itself mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Removed the following for the obvious reasons, Sourcewatch, actually a link to this guys address and phone number. The age, is already used as a ref, his book launch address no idea why that is in there, it should be in the section about the book as a ref? and another link to the age of an article written by Kininmonth, i shall move that into the article. Any objections? mark nutley (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)