Talk:Richard Lindzen

ref 29...

Kim Dabelstein Petersen, you have predictably reverted my edit to remove the slander ABC piece you recently linked in the article. Said article states that Lindzen was an "active" "denialist" of the link between smoking and cancer. I stand by my contention that this is gutter journalism you have included, but that much is only my opinion. What is not my opinion is that the article makes slanderous, unproveable claims; it cites no sources, and shows no evidence that the journalist has done actual research. In all likelihood, therefore, the journalist's primary source is indeed this very Wikipedia article. It is clearly false that Lindzen has ever been "active" in promoting no link between smoking and cancer. It is also clearly offensive to be referring to anyone as a "denialist" of anything. Your inclusion of this article is therefore contrary to BLP policy, wrong on a number of levels, is potentially libellous, and should be removed immediately. Can you explain why you believe it should be included and why you reverted my edit? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree I'm wrong to call it gutter journalism, as it's written by a scientist, not a journalist. Perhaps that's the inherent problem here, and perhaps Professor Barry Brook ought to be forgiven for being misinformed by Wikipedia, still regrettably the most likely source of his incorrect information... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Its reliably sourced, the rest is your opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, very well, so I look to the bottom of this Don't be swindled piece of yours to where I might reasonably expect to find your writer's "reliable sources" and I find... I find... um... it's blank, Kim. Blankness. Go on, have a look. Blanky. Then I read word for word again the section that deals with Lindzen -- "...Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are ... Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise). Investigative journalism has revealed that many of the interviewees...". So really, that's it. Did you mean bias or sources? I can find plenty of bias, the bias in the piece is palpable. So I re-read the rest of the article, although I should be working, and I find... na-da, zip. I put it to you, Kim, that it is not reliably sourced, but unsourced, as I said. Don't waste my time. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough WP:RS is about our (ie. WP's) references - not what references the references give. That is something that we leave entirely to the editorial process elsewhere. I'm not going to be dragged into discussing what your or my opinion here is. Read the very first sentence in WP:V please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and one can take in isolation a Wikipedia regulation such as this one to justify just about anything. Somewhere or other in those regulations it says that you ought to avoid using articles that show an obvious bias, you ought to be extra careful when dealing with living people, you ought to avoid gratuitously linking in negative material such as this. Let's take it to the BPL noticeboard... Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I have to say I'm disappointed at the audacity you have to argue for the inclusion of this material. I've seen you rail on the inclusion of op-eds as sources more than any other editor I know (sample: [1] [2] [3] [4]). Even if the op-ed were usable on this page, don't you see a WP:WEIGHT problem here? You're adding a whole section based on a parenthetical statement where he's grouped with another person in an op-ed and one sentence in a Newsweek interview? No way this meets the bar, I'm removing it. Oren0 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to assume good faith? The reference is correctly an Op-Ed, but it is not used as the primary reference, that is the Guterl article, which is not an Op-Ed. Your removal thus seems rather strange, and quite a bit more personal than you may want it to. (you know content not person?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is discussing the ABC op-ed, which you claim to meet WP:RS. Given that it makes potentially disparaging comments in a BLP as an aside, it doesn't meet the bar. I'm also curious how you think the two mentions totaling fewer than 50 words justify a whole top-level section roughly equal in length to the "career" section. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was quite deliberately written so that the Guterl biography was treated as if an Op-Ed (ie. in the form "in X, Y states"). The second reference was used to show that we aren't talking about a single instance (we could have found others). (iirc) Chris Mooney's republican war contains much the same. There may be a weight issue (which i dispute, since Lindzen actually is quite frank on this (and to some extent i agree with him on this particular issue)), i seem to recall a mention in Stern magazine (german) as well. And it is an elephant in the room (search "lindzen passive smoking"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources demonstrating weight, by all means include them and reintroduce the section. All I'm saying is that the sources that were there when I removed the section did not justify the section's inclusion, especially given that the Guterl ref talks about cancer not being linked to smoking at all, rather than passive smoking as the section claimed. Oren0 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian A. Schmidt, well known for sharing the same bias as Petersen in the blogosphere, has reverted Oren0's edit. Revision history says "per KDP's reasoning" although there is no reasoning here, of course, to appeal to; this is an unambiguous violation of Wikipedia policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know I was well known. Anyway, the section should stay, at very least with Guterl but probably with both cites for KDP's reasons. I have read Mooney, and when I can find my copy I'll dig out what it says.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"The section should stay" is not an argument. Please address the facts that the op-ed doesn't meet WP:RS, the Guterl piece doesn't mention passive smoking at all, and that a single sentence in one reliable source is currently propping a section as long as the one on his entire career, flying in the face of WP:UNDUE. Saying "for KDP's reasons" isn't particularly persuasive either since Kim hasn't addressed these points. Oren0 (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your assertion that the Op-Ed doesn't meet WP:RS is wrong, at least you haven't given any rationale except that its an Op-Ed. It cannot be used for main sourcing on BLP info... Correct. But it can be used as a secondary reference. So far your reasoning has been one of weight, which may be correct, but i doubt it, based upon my reading of various references. It would be very good to get a direct quote from Mooney though, i'll ask my library for a copy as well. The Stern reference which i talked about earlier has so far been elusive due to the large amount of results resulting from a google search. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

re: "elephant in the room". Trouble is, Petersen et al. have created the elephant. The elephant is real, don't get me wrong. The trouble is, the source of the internet folklore on Lindzen & smoking is the Wikipedia article in question. It has been shown clearly above in the talk page, i.e. there is no other primary source material to be found after several years, other than the Guterl article. Chris Mooney's book, KDP hasn't read it. I await a verbatim quote from the same text to show that Mooney's source is neither Wikipedia nor Guterl. I don't expect this to be forthcoming. I can only say, it is about time that someone does take legal action against Wikipedia here as the only way Wikipedia can be saved from itself. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I took Petersen's advice and googled "Lindzen passive smoking". Here are my findings:

hit 1) copies material from the Guterl article

hit 2) the Wikipedia article itself on Lindzen

hit 3) a blog discussion on the Philip Morris document shown above to not to be actual evidence.

hit 4) an old copy of the Wikipedia article, copied verbatim to some other wiki...

hit 5) a blog discussion citing Wikipedia as the source of Lindzen's views on smoking...

hit 6) a verbatim copy of the current Wikipedia, copied to another wiki.....

hit 7) greenpeace discussion of Lindzen & the Philip Morris document (see 3 above, inapplicable as evidence).

hit 8) blog discussion that quotes the current Wikipedia article.

hit 9) another article linking Lindzen & smoking via direct quotation of the Guterl article.

hit 10) a random blogger who doesn't give his source (likely source therefore Wikipedia).

Do I need to continue? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your are asserting - not showing. Yes, any Google search will result in a lot of blog postings and wikipedia copies. To claim that the information comes from WP ignores that there are sources using it from before WP had an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Google results are not an argument for inclusion. Besides, the article was less of the form "in X, Lindzen states" and more of the form "Lindzen claims Y" based on an aside in an interview: "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated." This is not substantiated by the source, which doesn't even mention passive smoking. Again, one sentence in one reliable source does not justify this section. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject was longer than sum total of coverage that has been shown in reliable sources? Oren0 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly undue weight is given to this subject. This is the total content from the references about smoking:

Amongst the selected contrarian 'experts' Durkin has rallied to his cause, there are Tim Ball and Patrick Michaels (who also happen to deny that CFCs cause damage to the ozone layer), and Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (who, in earlier incarnations, had been active denialists of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, despite neither having any medical expertise).[5]

Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.[6]

This is what was in the WP article:

Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated. In 2001, Newsweek journalist Fred Guterl reported, after an interview with Lindzen, "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.

The first sentence is referenced to the ABC piece, which only mentions Lindzen in passing. The second sentence is a direct quote from the Newsweek piece that makes it appear it is about Lindzen and smoking. But it's not. That's all there is in the Newsweek article about Lindzen and smoking. -Atmoz (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving my response to Kim above down here because the discussion appears to have forked.

• "I'm sorry but your assertion that the Op-Ed doesn't meet WP:RS is wrong, at least you haven't given any rationale except that its an Op-Ed." Let's play guess who said it: "The referenced article is an Op-Ed, and either requires 'according to <op-ed-writer> ....' or a correct citation." ([7]). And that wasn't even on a BLP, so the requirement is even stronger here. Or how about this one: "Op-Ed's are opinions by individuals, which is printed in some media. They follow most of the SPS guidelines because they are personal opinions. They do rank somewhat above WP:SPS in reliability." ([8]). Given that an SPS cannot be used as a source on a BLP at all, it's hard to argue that this op-ed, especially not qualified with "according to X", would be allowed to make a statement of fact.
• "It cannot be used for main sourcing on BLP info... Correct. But it can be used as a secondary reference." The op-ed is the only source presented thus far that mentions passive smoking. I'd be curious to know what the primary reference is for the sentence "Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, may be overstated" is.
• "So far your reasoning has been one of weight, which may be correct, but i doubt it, based upon my reading of various references." WP:PROVEIT. Alex's cursory googling above hasn't been fruitful in producing sources. Can you do better? If so, please show us the sources. Your assertion that they exist can't be used to include material on the page.

Oren0 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Republican War on Science adds after discussing Lindzen's established scientific credentials: "At the same time, however, Lindzen remains a controversial figure known for his highly contrary bent. A smoker, he has reportedly even questioned how strong the link is between cigarette smoking and lung cancer." Page 93 of the hardcover version, one of three cites to Lindzen in the book. Besides adding to the notability of this aspect of Lindzen, RWOS also indicates why it's important, that Lindzen is of "highly contrary bent".Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, that quote still doesn't mention passive smoking. Second, "questioning" the link between smoking and lung cancer is not at all the same as claiming that the risks may be overstated, as it says nothing of the numerous other health effects of smoking. Oren0 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian, so in other words, Mooney doesn't cite any sources either. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, he just says it's been reported.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alex, secondary sources do not need to cite their sources. Mooneys book is a clear reliable source, and independently notable. So there are now 2 RS' for this +1 Op-Ed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Mooney's book is a RS that Lindzen has been reported to doubt the smoking-cancer link, which isn't quite the same as being a RS for Lindzen doubting the link. However, it does add to notability. And the Newsweek article is enough of a RS. As for weight, I'd guess that overlaps quite a bit with notability - seems like notability should be the threshold for inclusion, and weight determines how much of the article should discuss the issue. I'd agree that this section should be short, but it should still be included.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian, not to labour the point, but this doesn't follow at all. My googling above per KDP's suggestion has demonstrated very clearly what is known as a "feedback loop" -- see WP:BLP -- where Wikipedia itself is the most widely-cited source of the story about Lindzen & smoking, out ranking Guterl by about 2 to 1. If Mooney had done research, he would have cited sources. If he didn't cite a source, it means he probably didn't do any research. Assuming good faith on Mooney's part, it follows that he's most likely using Wikipedia as his source, and possibly using Guterl as his source, and it's highly unlikely he's using any other source (otherwise, he would tell us since his objective is to explain why we shouldn't take Lindzen seriously). Alex Harvey (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're speculating Alex. The Newsweek article isn't hard to find especially for anyone with Nexis access. It seems a plausible source for Mooney, although that's speculation too. What I said is that Mooney demonstrated the fact had been reported (although we knew that already) and further adds to notability. The only issue is weight. And then there's the issue of the tobacco documentation, which I believe is inappropriately excluded from this article.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am speculating nothing. a) Google shows that Wikipedia is by far the most widely cited source of Lindzen's alleged views on the link between smoking & cancer on the internet. b) Mooney's text, which cites no sources at all, is an assertion and it "demonstrates" nothing. We're talking about the ABCs of scholarship here. The only thing this can be said to establish is a question mark over Mooney's diligence as a scholar. c) It follows quite logically that if Mooney doesn't cite his sources, the most likely source of his information is the same as the most widely-cited source, which is Wikipedia. d) The tobacco document? You mean the one that attributes nothing at all to Lindzen other than a statement to the effect that "scientists aren't always right" and completely fails to connect him in any way with anything at all to do with tobacco? e) the Guterl: There is no record of Lindzen's view here at all. Given that it is brought up as an aside in order to show something else about Lindzen's personality, it provides absolutely no evidence of anything. Let it go, this is a Wikipedia-generated feedback loop. A statement by Guterl has been turned into something more than it ever was originally by Wikipedia editors and this has passed into folklore as a new fact that regrettably is being copied into print media. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely original research, and it has nothing to do here. To commnet on these: a) You are basing your opinion on a probe of the blogosphere (which is what Google returns in this case), and thus you get confirmation bias, to get a feel you'd need to be able to subtract blogs, comments etc. b) Mooney is a WP:RS and does not need to cite references, it makes no difference to WP. c) No. It does not (and its original research). d) no opinion e) You are just like in (b) confusing where verification is needed. A WP:RS does not need to state its sources, that is inherent in the RS flag (which is based on editorial prowess of the source).

It is very simple: Mooney and Guterl are reliable sources. And that is the only thing we can use here. Speculation on where/how they got to that - is outside the bounds of WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, in other words you're saying "stuff the truth, WP regulations allow me to include it." Meanwhile, the fact that Wikipedia regards any arbitrary statement in print media, even a statement that fails to cite sources, as by definition reliable, is highly questionable. I suppose it would follow that any "facts" found in L. Ron Hubbard are also reliably sourced.

At any rate, this is all moot as the real issue is of course WEIGHT and it doesn't matter how many of these one-liners you find, you'll never establish weight. You also have ignored the other points that Oren0 has just made; unsurprisingly as they are clearly unanswerable. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hubbard's books are not reliable sources. Thats the difference that matters to wikipedia. Your argument is turning into one of "i don't like it". Oren0's comments are for the most part about the op-ed, and that source is not used to provide the backing, but only as an additional example. Op-Ed's can correctly not be used to back a statement, but only to expand/nuance it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I think we've said all that can be said on this matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

to Lauof Pinch

re: 07:14, 26 June 2009 William M. Connolley m (Reverted edits by Lauof Pinch to last version by Atmoz)

07:04, 26 June 2009 Lauof Pinch (→Industry links: The last part of this sentence was not relevant.)

I think most neutral readers agree that the whole industry links section should go (rather shouldn't have been added in the first place). It is slanderous, and fails WP:WEIGHT. It has been established that Lindzen was paid about $10,000 by the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s for something or other, probably something quite legitimate. No one serious seriously argues this is important in L's biography or intellectual history. Why not argue your case here? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He won't argue his case, because he is a known sock-puppeteer, one of the most presistant WP has ever seen - lookup user Scibaby. (hint: And he/she is most definitively not neutral ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will argue the case, the following line -

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.[26]

is inappropriate in a BLP because it is innuendo. The editor here has presumably attempted to insert guilt by association into Lindzen's history, i.e. it begins with a true statement (that Lindzen has been a member of these "think tanks"), adds in another set of (probably) true statements (that these "think tanks" have accepted money from ExxonMobil & Daimler Chrysler) in order to be suggestive to the casual, careless reader, that Lindzen himself has actually accepted money from ExxonMobil & Daimler Chrysler, for which no evidence is given (and I doubt any will ever be found, because I don't believe it's true). This sentence thus should be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is totally inappropriate to claim that someone's ideas are wrong just because the money comes from one source or another. My understanding is that people have ideas, then find funding sources that share those ideas. If the ideas are wrong, then prove it. But either way, quit attacking the person.

On the other hand, the "data" needs to remain simply because it is used so often. However, the spin needs to be made neutral. It should be clear that the ideas stand or fall on their own and that monetary connections are irrelevant. Perhaps it should be mentioned that ad hominum attacks like this are used only when the claims of a person can not be disproven and that, therefore, his claims are probably correct. Q Science (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but that raises the question, which part is "data" and which part is "spin"? The spin is the selection of facts chosen for the article, and their placement in this "Industry links" section. To remove the spin, I would say the only way this can be done is to move to the lead, and reword simply as "Lindzen has also been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute." The bit about ExxonMobil / Daimler Chrysler can appear in the articles for those institutes. This stuff is relevant only to those who want to impute a conflict of interest to Lindzen by innuendo. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. Let's see what happens. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the connections are irrelevant. Leave the factual info in and let people decide for themselves what they think.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian, let's not let people decide from themselves what they think. Instead, please see WP:PROVEIT. The burden of proof is on you, the editor restoring this negative material, to explain why it is important to mention in Lindzen's article some institute he is (or was?) a part of (for how long? what did he do? anything much? was it a guest speech? I don't know) took money from Exxon. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Per WP:RS the burden is already liftet. You may personally disagree with the Frontline article - but that is personal POV. Now the Frontline article directly connects Lindzen and the money statements, and thus it is not a synthesis, they also apparently consider it relevant to the biographies of the sceptics. There is also no red flags waving about this information, since it is mirrored quite a few other places, including at least one book. Can you explain to me very carefully why this information (despite adhering to all WP guidelines), must be excluded? (hint: the only thing i can see as an argument would be weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is clearly not about whether the source RS (agreed it is) but whether the material should be included. You know the WP policies better than most of us. Instead of reverting and leaving a hint, why not make an argument for WP:WEIGHT. Indeed, why not make the argument against WP:WEIGHT? I think I can do it, but I'm going to pause for a moment. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with weight, is that this really is one of the things that is talked about when talking about Lindzen, even to the extent, that sources just mention it, to dismiss the claims. You know that and i know that. Thus its highly relevant. We may both be of the opinion that Lindzen isn't motivated by being a money-grubber for industry (i certainly am of that conviction that for Lindzen (at least) it is non-sense), but we have to adhere to what sources state, and what the weight is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please get rid of the industry links section. It isn't relevant to the article. 203.217.41.253 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the Lindzen gets refuted section...

Atmoz (talk | contribs) (26,743 bytes) (rv; response by scientists to Lindzen is appropriate for a biography on Lindzen).

Atmoz, yes, I suppose this is correct. But this is a response by random scientists to what exactly? Section is not well written and very biased. The quotes are taken out of context, I have no idea what it is really that they're responding to, and as far as Houghton is concerned, certainly cherry-picked. Houghton, is by and large very respectful towards Lindzen in all statements I've ever seen from him. S.H. Schneider is of course Schneider, and if we insist on including SHS's views, then it will be time to add Lindzen's rather more clever responses. Indeed, perhaps we want the embarrassing Lindzen et al vs Schneider et al debate on Global Cooling from the 70s added, where Schneider can very easily be made to look an idiot. Do you actually want that? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also what is this supposed to mean:

Lindzen's own evidence[32]to the Select Committee was criticised by IPCC author and climate scientist Gavin Schmidt.[35]

Let's get this straight, Lindzen is the more senior scientist here. I don't understand why we care that Gavin Schmidt has criticised Lindzen. Frankly, I doubt that Gavin really would want this stuff here. Again, if you insist on inclusion of this, then I will happily summarise the Intelligence Squared debate and add that. It's widely acknowledged that Lindzen's team defeated Schmidt's team in that debate. Schmidt has said somewhere that it was only because Lindzen was a better debater. I ask again, do we really want to turn this page into a debate? I don't. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete stuff simply because you don't like it. -Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex may be right. Most of, if not all of, this section should be deleted due to a variety of problems. First off, I've removed the RealClimate criticism per WP:BLP, which states that blogs can never be used as sources about a living person unless the material is written by the subject of the article. This one isn't up for debate. Secondly, there is a synthesis problem in the first paragraph. Quoting Lindzen's numbers for climate sensitivity, then citing the IPCC directly, then comparing the estimates and drawing a conclusion is the definition of SYN. Thirdly, the only refs in the section right now are Lindzen's own paper, the IPCC report (which I presume doesn't mention him), and several links to Parliamentary minutes, which are primary sources that cannot be used to make interpretations and certainly don't give any WP:WEIGHT to this section. Pending a revision that fixes these issues and demonstrates that these criticisms have been reported on by secondary sources as required by WP:RS, I'm removing the section. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but thats a basic misunderstanding about BLP. We are talking not about personal information here, but about professional critique. Such does not fall under BLP - i suggest a look through various archives in RS/N, where realclimate has previously come up on such subjects (BLP articles where it is the professional work being discussed) ..... and been confirmed, since it is an RS on that particular subject. --87.104.62.222 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you who has a basic misunderstanding of BLP. Any material that is about a living person and any material that appears on the Wikipedia page of a living person qualifies. What part of "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person" could I possibly be misunderstanding? RealClimate has been determined to be a reliable source on pages such as global warming or climate change controversy, but any determination that it can be used to make claims about a living person is wrong. Oren0 (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's published response to the Schneider attacks can be found in this book review here. He finishes with that lovely Schneider quote where Schneider suggests public dishonesty may in fact be a necessary part of the solution to the global warming problem. So if Schneider's attacks go in, then Lindzen's counter-attacks need to go in as well. Please people, let's just leave the controversy out altogether where it's not required. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Your misunderstanding lies in the "living person" part, here we are discussing the science/professional side of Lindzen.... the science part, none of which is BLP material. (ie. the "any material that appears" is incorrect, the "any material about" is correct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's estimation of climate sensitivity, and water vapor feedback are essential to Lindzen's argument on AGW, so using weight to remove such a section is strange.

As for the SYN... Schneider is the collecting reference for the first part, he connects the M&K with the IPCC, and does the comparison => No SYN (ie. all of it is directly coupled via one source). In the second part Houghton is the collecting reference, and again there is no SYN, since one source does do the connecting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of weight is to weigh things based on the amount of coverage they receive in secondary sources. There are currently zero secondary sources cited in this section, only primary ones. You just can't base a section entirely on primary sourcing, as anyone could choose any random quote from parliamentary minutes and write a section in an article on a myriad of topics. Is there any evidence that these parliamentary proceedings have been deemed relevant or noteworthy by any reliable source? Oren0 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original edit on the 'Views of other scientists' section. I'll try and address the criticisms raised by Oren0 and Alex.

Hi Oren0,

I'm sorry that you found the quality of my writing poor. I think the Wikipedia guidelines you refer to are meant to stop people adding defamatory material on biography pages. I don't think the material I added was defamatory of Lindzen. My intention was to provide a range of views on climate change that the article did not previously have. You argue that my edit was one-sided. In my opinion, I don't think this is fair. I would argue that Lindzen's views on climate change are in the minority, but the views of Schneider, Houghton and Schmidt represent mainstream scientific opinion. I don't agree with your view on the use of blogs or primary sources. I think a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines is that they are there to discourage the citing of low-quality sources. I don't think this concern applies to the sources I citied. I disagree with your point about my edit suffering a synthesis problem. What I wrote about climate sensitivity was based on the reference I gave to Stephen Schneider's submission of evidence to the Australian Parliament.

Hi Alex,

Personally I thought my edit did accurately reflect Sir John's comments, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain where you think I went wrong. When you say that Richard Lindzen is a more senior scientist than Gavin Schmidt, I think this is a somewhat subjective assessment. To me, the issue of seniority isn't very important. What I think matters is Schmidt's expertise in this area, which makes him qualified to comment on Lindzen's interpretation of the science. I think your argument that Lindzen defeated Schmidt in the IQ-squared debate requires substantiation.Enescot (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Enescot, Lindzen is senior to Gavin Schmidt in a number of ways, he's older & thus further into his career; he's made a number of fundamental discoveries & contributions to the science that I don't think can be said of Schmidt (e.g. atmospheric tides, quasi-biennial oscillation); he's a professor at MIT whereas Schmidt hasn't achieved such a prestigious rank or position; he's published some 200 papers, book chapters, so on; he's won numerous awards & prizes & fellowships for his contributions. I don't think there's any subjectiveness in claiming he outranks Schmidt here. On Sir John, a number of problems. Firstly, these were off-the-cuff remarks made to try to dumb things down to non-scientists in the British House of Lords. Are you being fair to either Sir John OR Lindzen by giving them so much weight in this short article? Secondly, if you want to include them, you can't possibly justify denying Lindzen's right of reply here. He has replied to Sir John. The comment you have Sir John making here, "but in terms of global average temperature it is very large, and the impact on the world of that sort of increase, the impact in terms of climate extremes, in terms of heat waves and floods and droughts, is very large, and Lindzen does not know anything about that, does not talk about and does not appreciate what it is, because he likes talking in a negative way about global warming." Lindzen "does not know anything about that"?? That is a ridiculous statement, and I'm sure we have Sir John saying this here in the heat of the moment, not as something he would have written, or would want in print. On the IQ2 debate, well here is Gavin's apology for this. He writes, "The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I’ll link it here once it’s available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull." So Gavin is admitting here that he lost, and say that Lindzen's side were better debaters (alright, maybe he meant L's two colleagues were more entertaining, but it doesn't matter as the point is he concedes he lost the debate). Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Lindzen is senior is neither here nor there. In science it is the results and research here and now that count, you cannot rest on your laurels. And as far as i can tell Schmidts citation index is higher than Lindzens. I'm sorry to say that you still haven't understood reliable sources, or NPOV/WEIGHT. The argument on "who is the better orator" is so far out, its impressive. Do you think that science is determined on who is the better at rhetorical equilibrist? Or who was the most entertaining? Face it: Lindzen's standpoint on the science is a fringe point, and a discussion of such must make that clear - sorry. Final comment: We do not speculate (as editors) on whether or not someone knows something - or what manner of rationale might lie behind their standpoints - what we must (per WP's rules) do, is reflect whatever is in secondary sources about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I do not understand where your comments are coming from but they are missing the points. Do you agree or disagree that Lindzen's replies deserve to be mentioned in this article? If Lindzen's views are fringe how is it that respectable journals (e.g. JGR) are still publishing his papers at this very moment? Are you saying that JGR publishes fringe theories? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe does not mean unscientific. It means that it is a very minor viewpoint as opposed to the mainstream. To be more specific: If 50 sources are calculating the climate sensitivity - Lindzen's would perhaps match the very lowest of these 50, which is significantly far away from the mean. And No. I do not believe that Lindzen's replies should be presented by himself (of course he would disagree), but if you can find a sufficiently reliable refutation from another scientist, it could be inserted according to weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, you're saying that in Lindzen's own biography page, you think it would be consistent with NPOV to hide the fact that Lindzen has responded to criticisms? That's what you just said, am I reading this right?

Meanwhile, your own stated view here that anyone who disagrees with the consensus (on climate sensitivity in this case) is a fringe theorist, by the way, most clearly betrays an extremist bias. If L was a fringe theorist, he would be isolated amongst scientists. Certainly, real fringe theorists are always isolated. He is most obviously not isolated on the climate sensitivity issue (cf. Christy, Spencer, Paltridge, Pielke, many smaller players, look at all L's present coauthors). Look at the 11-author Su et al. 2008 review paper above, and note that the authors thank Lindzen & Rondanelli for their input. Why would they spend so much time discussing this important matter with fringe theorists? Lindzen has a minority view, and it is likewise a minority view to write it off as "fringe" although that is certainly what some scientists want the public to believe. You need to recognise the fact, Kim, that yours is also an extreme view. In the interests of keeping WP neutral, you need to acknowledge that. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And no, on Lindzen's estimate matching the lowest of 50, that's not true either, unless you exclude the views of the real fringe theorists. I mean, Gerlich & Teuchner, Miskolczi, Nicol, and others who are real examples of fringe theorists on climate sensitivity, and have all argued in various ways that the sensitivity to CO2 increases is a nice round 0. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't grasped the difference between fringe and pseudo-science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, my views are deeply embedded within the Scientific opinion on climate change (or the mainstream), sorry. And No, even though it is Lindzen's biography, it is not his soapbox. WP's biographical articles aren't written so that the subject is presented in the best light possible (or the other way around) - they are written so that the description in the article matches the weight of what is found secondary sources as close as possible. (btw. i'm truly sorry to tell you that of the persons you mention to support Lindzen's sensitivity estimate - Spencer is the only one agreeing (with Paltridge a possible). Both Pielke Sr., Christy are within the consensus for their estimations). When you look at publications on climate sensitivity Lindzen's views are fringe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"they are written so that the description in the article matches the weight of what is found secondary sources as close as possible" - I couldn't agree more, which is why I find your argument that a section with zero secondary sources carries any weight to be so perplexing. I'll ask again in case you missed it above: do we have any evidence that any reliable secondary source finds the parliamentary testimony referenced in this section noteworthy? If so, why aren't those sources cited in the article? If not, how is its inclusion justifiable? Oren0 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you have gone to great lengths to see the WP articles present the views of Christy & Pielke as though they are supporters of the consensus; this is of course just false and if I ever have time I'll get back to correct it. Christy is of course one of the co-authors on the (infamous?) Douglass et al. 2007 paper. It is utter nonsense to argue that Christy's estimations fall within consensus. Unless you mean the consensus wide enough to include 1 C? Ditto with Pielke. I just read WP:Fringe, and although the wording is unfortunately ambiguous enough that it can be spun to include your interpretation, it seems pretty clear that the intention is to filter out genuine fringe theorists like Von Daniken & Velikowsky, not views such as Lindzen's that are still being debated in the scientific journals. Yes, your views certainly are deeply embedded in the scientific opinion page, and just about every page on climate change in WP, no dispute on that one. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, can you give some guidance here on what I need to find views of Lindzen's that can be given here in response? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Thanks for explaining about the IQ-squared debate.

Are you being fair to either Sir John OR Lindzen by giving them so much weight in this short article? Secondly, if you want to include them, you can't possibly justify denying Lindzen's right of reply here. He has replied to Sir John.

In my opinion, there's enough room in the article to have this debate on climate change. If you want to add Lindzen's replies to Houghton in the article, I wouldn't have any objection.

"but in terms of global average temperature it is very large, and the impact on the world of that sort of increase, the impact in terms of climate extremes, in terms of heat waves and floods and droughts, is very large, and Lindzen does not know anything about that, does not talk about and does not appreciate what it is, because he likes talking in a negative way about global warming." Lindzen "does not know anything about that"?? That is a ridiculous statement, and I'm sure we have Sir John saying this here in the heat of the moment, not as something he would have written, or would want in print.

I don't agree. I think it is reasonable to assume that Houghton's evidence to the Select Committee genuinely reflects his opinions on Lindzen.

Hi Enescot, I appreciate your intention to contribute to the article in good faith. But there is absolutely no way the statement I highlighted could reflect Houghton's true opinion. Lindzen is a world-renowned expert in atmospheric dynamics. He has written a standard textbook on the subject. To say that he does not know "anything" about the impact of climate extremes in terms of heat waves, floods & droughts is a patently absurd statement and cannot reflect Sir John's true opinion. It would be an overstatement to say that even I know "nothing" about them, and I am not an expert in any of this. It was obviously a heat-of-the-moment overstatement. There is not much point in speculating further as to what Sir John might have really meant.

I am not opposed to the article being expanded and if the statements are reliably sourced then sure some rebuttals as well might appear. But firstly, you'd need to actually read Lindzen himself on what he believes, rather than take say Schneider's or Schmidt's view of it as true, and then that would need to appear in the article. It makes no sense to be refuting Lindzen's views before providing exposition of what those views actually are. If you're interested, I could send you a copy of the Chou & Lindzen 2005 paper that provides the most recent statement from Lindzen on why he believes in a negative feedback whether or not his Iris hypothesis is true. I can be contacted at alexharv074 at gmail dot com. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I agree that explaining Lindzen's theories more fully would improve the article. Thanks for offering Lindzen and Chou's paper, but I have already read some of Lindzen's work, and in my opinion, his arguments aren't convincing. I certainly agree that Lindzen is an expert in the science, but I don't think he's an expert on the impacts, e.g., the impact of more droughts on human welfare. I think this is probably what Houghton was referring to.Enescot (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

Q: do we have any evidence that any reliable secondary source finds the parliamentary testimony referenced in this section noteworthy?

A: I don't have any evidence that secondary sources have used the primary source information I have citied.

Q:If not, how is its inclusion justifiable?

A: I think a lot of people who read this Wikipedia article on Richard Lindzen are probably interested in climate change. Most climate scientists don't accept Lindzen's theories, e.g., negative water vapour feedback, and I think this should be mentioned in the article.Enescot (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being blunt, Wikipedia articles aren't written based on what you or any other Wikipedian thinks our readers are interested in. I could, for example, take one obscure section in the IPCC assessment and write a whole article about it. I could quote the report and cite all of my facts correctly, and that article would still be deleted. Why? Because material on Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources; that's how we determine which of the millions of things discussed in primary sources are worthy of encyclopedic summary. Without evidence that secondary sources have taken notice of these parliamentary quotes, you just can't base an entire section on them. I suggest reading WP:PRIMARY. Oren0 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

I looked at Wikipedia guidelines you referred to and I don't see how they justify you deleting my edit. The guidelines say that secondary sources are preferred, but they don't restrict the use of primary sources.Enescot (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to justify inclusion on a page, material is presented according to the WP:WEIGHT it receives based on coverage in reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources = no weight = no inclusion. I understand that you believe the parliamentary quotes to be interesting but we need evidence that secondary sources have taken notice. Can you imagine what the Wikipedia page of any MP or Senator would look like if anyone could add anything they've ever said in a legislature to their article without having to demonstrate that it was important? Oren0 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the whole thing has just been overtaken by events. Lindzen has just published a new paper:

Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters.

In this paper, Lindzen argues that a sensitivity of 0.5 C is implied in the ERBE data. Thus discussions of the guess he made of 0.2 C several years ago doesn't make much sense in the article any longer. I have an odd feeling that this paper is going to cause a bit of a stir. This is moving beyond Iris into a new argument I believe. It's also the first paper he's put himself down as lead author on since a rather technical, uncontroversial paper on convection in the tropics in 2003, and Iris in 2001. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If the article generates a stir, and if reliable sources report on that stir, I'll be first in line to add the info to this article. Oren0 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

I don't agree that Wikipedia guidelines restrict primary sources from being used without reference to a secondary source. For clarification, I'm referring to the Wikipedia guidelines below:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Enescot (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's response to Schneider

For the record, here is what Lindzen has said in response to Schneider:

Significant Variation?

Surprisingly Schneider spends some five pages remarking on my response to a survey on climactic issues. His discussion is an example of his practice of suggesting that critics are "extreme" and thus incorrect, without actually addressing the issues in question. The survey was prepared in connection with an integrated assessment study by Granger Morgan and David Keith at Carnegie Mellon University. Schneider refers to a particular question as "typical," and notes that my answer differed from that of the other fifteen other "experts." The question was "What equilibrium change in global temperature did one expect from a doubling of CO2?" I had put forward a guesstimate of 0.3oC with a standard deviation of 0.2oC. The rest of the responses clustered around 2oC-3oC with very large standard deviations. Schneider implies that the fact that my response differed from the others discredits my response.

But the question he focuses on was not typical. The authors of the study noted that there were very large differences among the respondents for all the other questions. Further, the authors recognized that the tendency for the responses to the question at issue to cluster around the commonly presented model based value probably represented a herd instinct since the accompanying estimates of large uncertainty suggested that there was little real basis for the specific guess.

Now consider the question in question. A doubling CO2 in the atmosphere results in a two percent perturbation to the atmosphere’s energy balance. But the models used to predict the atmosphere’s response to this perturbation have errors on the order of ten percent in their representation of the energy balance, and these errors involve, among other things, the feedbacks which are crucial to the resulting calculations. Thus the models are of little use in assessing the climatic response to such delicate disturbances. Further, the large responses (corresponding to high sensitivity) of models to the small perturbation that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide crucially depend on positive (or amplifying) feedbacks from processes demonstrably misrepresented by models. Without the model results, one is left with little to suggest that there is significant warming caused by human activities, as opposed to the normal variability intrinsic to the climate system. In addition other studies, based on data, pointed to low sensitivity and negative rather than positive feedbacks. Whence my guesstimate.

Clearly, what dismayed Schneider was not so much my estimate, but my refusal to go along with a large range of uncertainty. Without large uncertainty, one cannot squeeze disaster out of integrated assessments, and hence, for Schneider, vagueness and uncertainty become the sin qua non for scientific credibility. My own feeling is that scientists can be wrong, but they should try to make their predictions definite enough for opponents to disprove. (emphasis added)

So there are a number of important points here; (1) Lindzen says that there was in fact nothing "typical" about the question, and that Schneider is distorting things to exaggerate Lindzen's "extremeness." (2) Lindzen calls the response a "guess." (3) Lindzen has defended the guess on the basis that it is at least specific enough to be falsifiable.

The decision to use a controversial source such as Stephen H. Schneider is not a good one. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Industry Links

If you consider my paraphrasing of the source I provided to be WP:OR then fine, we should simply reintroduce my original edit here. There is no paraphrasing there, merely a recitation of known facts from a WP:RS. The fact that you have used a secondary source does not negate my ability to use a primary one. And my edit clearly illustrates the WP:UNDUE nature of this material. The sources of funding currently being described are clearly cherry picked to give the reader a misleading impression, the fact that you have a secondary source doing the cherry picking for you does not make it any less biased and WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to expanding the list of companies as described above to show a more balanced picture of the funding sources in this case? --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's "misleading". Almost all of the deniers have similar funding and connections, as has been shown repeatedly. If it looks like a duck, etc. ► RATEL ◄ 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i object. (and already have) You are ignoring weight here, secondary sources when talking about Lindzen, and mentioning this - do not give a long list of contributors - but instead limit themselves to the ones that are already mentioned. There is a reason for this, its that the secondary sources only consider these relevant with regards to Lindzen, and that is what we must do as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you are the one ignoring weight here. The fact that the funding sources of the some organizations, not Lindzen himself, is being called into question on this page at all opens that subject up to WP:NPOV policy just like anything else that appears here. You can't prevent a thorough discussion of these sources which is required to provide a WP:NPOV presentation of the known facts. Wiki policy is there to insure WP:NPOV not block it. This much should be obvious.

"(and already have)" - No, you objected to the paraphrased version as being WP:OR. Including a direct list of all corporate contributors as facts drawn directly from a primary source is NOT WP:OR and it directly counters the WP:NPOV problem with the current text. --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote from WP:PRIMARY:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."

Bold emphasis in the original. Itialics are mine.

The italicized section clearly describes my use of the primary source in question and thus my use is obviously within policy on that point. --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But none of the primary sources link Lindzen to that information. Secondary sources do, and they put emphasis on the subselection of funders. What you are trying to do, is to synthesize your own version - thats not what Wikipedia is about. We're here to describe what secondary sources say, and weighting the various aspects of it. In other words: What you are trying to do is classic synthesis. Once more: NPOV is not about presenting things how we feel it is neutral, but to describe how secondary sources present it, with adequate weight put on different aspects (again according to the secondary sources). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"But none of the primary sources link Lindzen to that information." - You keep saying that like if you repeat it enough times it will matter, but it doesn't. Show me where there is a policy supporting that requirement. Once you use a source to open the topic of what funding sources support the organizations Lindzen belongs to that entire topic is subject to WP:NPOV just like anything else, and especially in a BLP. You can't just wave that off because it suits you.

"What you are trying to do, is to synthesize your own version" - Sorry, but repeating this one does not make if true either. Extracting raw facts from a primary source is NOT synthesis. The fact that those facts are pertinent here is established by the sentence you want to have included based on your secondary source. We are not here to endorse the slanderous views of third parties as you argument effectively does. We are here to write a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, something that raw facts are perfectly amenable to but selective attribution is not.

"NPOV is not about presenting things how we feel it is neutral" - Correct, but I am doing none of that I am simply presenting raw facts which are clearly relevant in this context.

So can I assume that you intend to revert the inclusion of the raw facts? --GoRight (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Frontline article actually shows that there are more facts that could be mentioned in the article regarding Lindzen's fees etc (eg charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day). You could also says that "Frontline reports" to justify the current phrasing. Certainly, mentioning all possible supporters of Center for Science Based Public Policy would be *obvious* OR and SYN. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it may be fact, but it isn't pertinent fact. This article is about Lindzen, not about Cato or the other organizations - when we mention Cato et al. It is only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen, when we mention specific funders, it is also only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen. Your inclusion of a list of funders of Cato et al. is relevant for the articles on Cato (et al), but not here. You will need secondary sources to argue for its inclusion, if not then you are A) ignoring weight (which is equivalent to ignoring NPOV) B) doing original research, specifically you are doing a synthesis. And yes, i repeat this, but not because i believe that repetition will suddenly "make it true", but because it is what WP policy states. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim is 100% right on this one. GoRight's version is textbook synthesis. You need a secondary source to bridge the gap between the funding of the think tanks and Lindzen in order for those facts to be considered relevant here per WP:WEIGHT. The only complaint I have is that the current revision lists him as a "member" of Cato and the Marshall Institutes, when the source states him to only be a contributor to those. The only one it says he's ever been a member of is the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which is also the only group alleged to have received funding from DaimlerChrysler. Oren0 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the ref 29 "Lindzen is a [sic] also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org" So 9000 dollars per year for the entire Cato institute. If this is the extent of Lindzen's or Cato's presumed corruption then it proves he's utterly clean. Your smear and innuendo in this regard is quite pathetic. I'm deleting it though I'm under no illusion some misguided ideologue will reinstate it soon enough. Consider this though: If no other climate scientist has accused him of being a shill then why would those who are far less qualified? One day he'll probably be proved right and you guys will find something else to be angst-ridden about......Unbelievably the slander is officially protected. Would this happen in Encyclopedia Britannica? What a joke you are making of Wikipedia!JG17 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable indeed, and you know, the number of editors I watch who try to remove it is really something. If I really had no life I'd one day sit back and actually count the number of times the material has been reinserted by the same very small few. Wikipedia is certainly not a democracy! If only more people would speak up here instead of having your their contributions silently reverted.

More on point, can't a binding argument for its removal be made via WP:WEIGHT? Aside from the fact that there is no unbiased source reporting it (i.e. only ExxonSecrets which is really Greenpeace) there's really not a lot of meat to it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I seem to have deleted it now. I wonder how long that will last. The problem is not even that he might have accepted money for his viewpoint. Scientists are notorious for that. Though unless they change their mind according to who pays them then their opinion is usually regarded as trustworthy. In this respect, it is Schneider who has less credibility since a) he used to promote global cooling before admitting his mistake (said admission is easily found on youtube), b) he openly advocates over-hyping science for advocacy purposes (also easy to find), and c) he likely gets more consultancy money than Lindzen anyway: Or is green advocacy to be presumed intrinsically less corruptible? But the piddling amount involved totally discredits the Cato charge anyway. The consultancy comment may be fair comment if true, though it would be dismissed as hearsay in any court. But would Lindzen not make not more money by advocating AGW? Craig Bohren confirms he lost money by being a skeptic (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34).JG17 (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's short, it's relevant (unlike attacks on Schneider), and it's back in.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Think Tanks

"think tanks" is WP:OR via WP:SYN per KDP's and Oren0's argument above regarding industry links. Unless you have a secondary source to make the bridge to "think tanks" in the context of discussing Lindzen specifically, it is WP:OR and must be removed. The current reference does NOT make such a connection. It only discusses the institutes by name and does NOT refer to them as "think tanks". --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you so much for bringing this up here. Have you recently checked the articles Cato Institute (Cato Institute is a pro-free market, libertarian think tank) and George C. Marshall Institute (George C. Marshall Institute is a conservative think tank)? As far as I can see, no one on the corresponding talk pages of the two articles has ever contested the fact that these organizations are think tanks. If you think they are not, I suggest you start there... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 02:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your WP:OR with respect to this article. Can we remove this WP:OR from the article now? Please review the argument KDP and Oren0 used above for the industry links discussion. This is directly analogous. --GoRight (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me borrow a summary from above from KDP and translate it into this situation: "I'm sorry, but it may be fact, but it isn't pertinent fact. This article is about Lindzen, not about Cato or the other organizations - when we mention Cato et al. It is only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen, when we mention specific funders attributes like being a think tank, it is also only because secondary sources link them to Lindzen." Show me your secondary source that calls them "think tanks" and links THAT to Lindzen. --GoRight (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you really think that it would be a problem to establish that link? Here is one (of many) Scientific American Nov 2001 "Dissent in the Maelstrom" [9]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is insufficient on multiple grounds. First it is an opinion piece and not suitable to establish a fact. Second it does not specifically call either the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall Institute a "think tank". As you have established above one must find a secondary source (not an opinion piece) that specifically makes refers to these specific institutes as "think tanks" and then ties that characterization specifically to Lindzen. Third, your example here is still WP:OR because it is YOU that is making the connection between "think tank" and these institutes, not the secondary source.

As you yourself pointed out above, it may be a fact that these are think tanks, but it is not a pertinent fact on Lindzen's page unless you have a secondary source to make the connection. Without that source Oren0 would argue (I presume) that "think tank" is being given WP:UNDUE weight just like my inclusion of the other funding sources would be WP:UNDUE weight even though they were established facts. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not an "opinion piece" - sorry. It is in the profile section, not the letters section of SciAm. The connection has already been made above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But if you really insist: McCright and Dunlap(2003) "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy" Social Problems, August 2003, Vol. 50, No. 3, Pages 348–373 , DOI 10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC) The connection is Cato+Lindzen+Think-tank, it also states that Lindzen made a speech underwritten by OPEC in Cato's "Regulation" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This may be an acceptable source. Do you know if this is a peer-reviewed journal? If so this would be a WP:RS for this statement of fact. If not this is essentially expressing the opinions of the authors and is not reliable as a statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Under the assumption that KDP's latest source actually is peer-reviewed, I believe that he has a valid source for making the current claims found in the section currently titled "Consulting fees and Funding sources of other organizations" as related to "Think Tanks". I have been noting a lot of edit waring over this particular section and its contents for some months. So to determine whether there is actually a consensus for inclusion of this section AT ALL, I reviewed the past 100 edits with the following conclusions based on actual edits to the main space article:

For Inclusion:

1. Splette
2. Stephan Schulz (Think Tanks) (ExxonMobil)
3. Ratel (Whole Section) (ExxonMobil)
4. KimDabelsteinPetersen (ExxonMobil)
5. Atmoz (ExxonMobil)
6. Brian A Schmidt (ExxonMobil)
7. William M. Connolley (ExxomMobil)

Against Inclusion:

1. JG17
2. GoRight (Think Tanks) (Whole Section - Questioning Now)
3. Alexh19740110 (Whole Section)
4. 72.82.44.253 (ExxonMobil)

Items in parenthesis indicate the content that was either added or removed. Given this I question the existence of a clear consensus to support the inclusion of this section or some portions of the content therein. I believe that WP:BURDEN requires that the individuals seeking to include the material demonstrate that such a consensus actually exists. How would those who favor the inclusion of this material seek to demonstrate such a clear consensus? Lacking such a demonstration the entire section should be removed for lack of a consensus to include it per the above anlysis. --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - 3 of the 8 accounts GoRight uses to argue against consensus are already-identified0-and-blocked Scibaby accounts (Chas Balz, Samuel Belkins, and Vertpox). So much for his argumentum-ad-sockpuppetem. Raul654 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so they were. This has been corrected. I didn't bother to visit all the user pages, sorry. 7/12 => ~58% still short of a clear consensus which is typically viewed as being 2/3 or more, or in some cases as much as 3/4 or more. Still much closer than it was. --GoRight (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction - Stephen Boltzman is also a tagged-and-blocked Scibaby sockpuppet. And now that I look more closely, (a) from his contribs, it's possible that Alexh19740110 is a scibaby sockpuppet too, and (b) Scibaby has on at least 3 occasions used IPs in the 72.x.x.x network. The more I look, the more it appears that the current edit warring is the result of GoRight and Scibaby alone. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but unlike you I don't have a Scibaby obsession. I trust that if there is any possibility whatsoever that Scibaby is involved in something you will chime in to point that out. I'll gladly delegate that responsibility to you so that I might concentrate on other things. "The more I look, the more it appears that the current edit warring is the result of GoRight and Scibaby alone." - (a) I am not actually edit warring here since after my individual WP:BOLD edits I have taken my discussion here to the talk page, and (b) as for the rest of your comment when that becomes an actual statement of fact rather than unsubstantiated rhetoric let me know. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post has described both Cato and Marshall as think tanks. (Full versions not available online) [10][11] Cato described as a TT by Business Week.[12] Marshall as a TT by Newsweek.[13] -Atmoz (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the actual point of this discussion. Whether or not Cato or GCM are think tanks is NOT what is at issue here. For the sake of this discussion we can accept that they are as being known fact. The discussion is whether that fact is pertinent to this article as determined by secondary sources. KDP and Oren0's argument above is that going out and finding known facts about Cato or GCM is STILL not usable on this page unless a secondary source connects said facts to Lindzen (i.e. because otherwise it was WP:OR to go gather those facts and bring them here). None of your sources appear to make that connection (although I wasn't able to read the full sources). The point has become moot because KDP appears to have found a satisfactory source for that point. All you need to do now is add that source to the article in the proper place. Given the elimination of apparent Scibaby socks from my analysis above my claim of a lack of consensus is admittedly much more tenuous than it first appeared. --GoRight (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all Scibaby socks have been deleted. We have a source linking Lindzen to Cato and Marshall. C and M are obviously think tanks. There are many, many sources that describe them as such. Insisting that a single source is needed that links L to the TTs C and M is horse hockey. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"We have a source linking Lindzen to Cato and Marshall." - Correct.

"C and M are obviously think tanks." - An obvious fact but one that is not pertinent on this page without a reliable secondary source to connect that combination of facts to Lindzen, per KDP and Oren0's argument above concerning the funding sources of these organizations. Regardless, this point is now moot as KDP found a satisfactory (at least to me) source. Just use that. After the sock puppet adjustments above it is clear that there is a consensus at this time for inclusion of this topic, so I am no longer asserting that objection (unless the consensus changes at some point).

"There are many, many sources that describe them as such. Insisting that a single source is needed that links L to the TTs C and M is horse hockey." - Funny, this is the exactly analogous point being made over at Lawrence Solomon with respect to his being an "environmentalist". Would you support using this same argument there? If not why should it apply here? --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the objections to calling Solomon an environmentalist are absurd. -Atmoz (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)