Talk:Thomas Sowell

Climate Change Section

Moving so we don't lose the text.

Sowell has written several pieces in support of climate change denial. He has called global warming "hysteria" and falsely claimed that climate data does not support it. His writings on the subject generally approach it from a societal angle, claiming that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier" and accusing those who advocate for public policy changes to deal with climate change of both "... demonizing the opposition with catchwords..." and claimed that such changes would be "...crippling the American economy..."

References

He has gone so far as to call the notion of climate change a "swindle" and claim that it's only supported by scientists in order to secure funding.

I'll post some discussion in a minute. Squatch347 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

My biggest concern with this text, as written, is that it defacto treats any comment as "denial." Which I don't think is accurate. If a politician were to say "the world will literally end in 8 years" and someone were to question that, it isn't denial because that position isn't scientific consensus. IAW our own page on Climate Change Denial, this term specifically refers to those who are rejecting the scientific consensus on the issue including its impacts. Most of what Sowell writes in the sources attached are related to impacts, and I'm not sure I see where he diverges from consensus in this edit (not saying he doesn't, just that we would need to make that clear).

I think this language also misrepresents the source as coming across as far more absolute than the source warrants. For example, he didn't call global warming as an entire concept, hysteria; he is referencing some of the more overwrought predictions as hysterical.

Here is my proposed re-write absent sources for formatting.

Sowell has written several pieces related to climate change in which he has taken a skeptical view of some commentator's assessed impacts and has generally favored little to no governmental regulatory action in response. Sowell has expressed doubt that humans are significant contributors to climate change and that public funding has biased research in this field. Further, Sowell has stated that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier," arguing the term "... demoniz[es] the opposition with catchwords..."

Squatch347 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it. I would get rid of "intervention" and replace it with "government action" or some such. "Intervention" sort of implies that government is the only possible solution, whereas Sowell would obviously prefer a free-market solution. I would also not wikilink "doubt" to climate change denial. We should not call someone who writes things like "What is at issue is not whether there is 'climate change' — which nobody has ever denied" and "There is no question that the globe is warming" a "denier". Yes, he disagrees with the scientific consensus and we should document that but his disagreement is more nuanced than simply denying climate change. I would wikilink to Politics of climate change or Politicization of science instead as being more descriptive of Sowell's stated positions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the first. Made both changes, but I think there could be a case made for the wikilink. The sourced article does have him quote some scientists that are dissenting from the anthropogenic status of climate change, which (according to wiki's article) is the scientific consensus. Squatch347 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sowell's position is hardly "skepticism": he has made multiple demonstrably false statements about the climate data. I believe that characterizing his view as "skepticism" is both misleading and confusing, as Climate change skeptic redirects to climate change denial for much the same reason climate change proponents insisted upon using the latter term: we are long past the point of skepticism, and anyone critiquing climate change models is engaged in denialism not based on evidence.

Now on to respond to some specific complaints...

is that it defacto treats any comment as "denial." Please highlight any comment quoted or summarized in that section which is not denial of climate change, or part of a denial of climate change.

IAW our own page on Climate Change Denial, this term specifically refers to those who are rejecting the scientific consensus on the issue including its impacts That is the position Sowell has demonstrably taken.

Most of what Sowell writes in the sources attached are related to impacts, and I'm not sure I see where he diverges from consensus in this edit Did you miss the part where he called it "a swindle" and suggested that scientists only pretend to believe it because it helps them get funding?

I think this language also misrepresents the source as coming across as far more absolute than the source warrants. Find me a quote from any of those sources where he acknowledges that he may be wrong, or even hints at such an acknowledgement.

For example, he didn't call global warming as an entire concept, hysteria; he is referencing some of the more overwrought predictions as hysterical. This is flatly wrong. Here is the full quote: Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years.

Note that Sowell never once cites any actual data or arguments to support his explicit view that climate change is a "swindle". He never once presents any data or quotes any scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus. In fact, Sowell at no point allows for any interpretation of the issue other than "anyone who believes in climate change is lying for personal gain, and an idiot to boot."

Not gonna lie, the discussion here prior to this edit is going a long ways towards supporting the IP's claims of whitewashing. I am not at all okay with the proposed re-write, and find it to be a rather blatant violation of NPOV. Climate change is a fact as far as WP is concerned, and any "skepticism" should be properly described as "denialism" and we should not be excluding quotes from Sowell on the basis that they make him look bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

He has made multiple demonstrably false statements about the climate data. Ok, let's present those quotes and we can include them. If we are going to lump him into someone who is denying the scientific consensus, I think we are obligated under WP:BLP to highlight what he has said and how the scientific consensus disagrees with that statement.

Please highlight any comment quoted or summarized in that section which is not denial of climate change, or part of a denial of climate change. I think the best resolution of this discussion might for us to talk a little about the framing of what is denial of climate change. As noted in Wiki's own article, that doesn't mean disagreeing with any possible claim about climate change.

Let me ask this, as a hopefully illustrative example, if we had a quote of Sowell saying "a politician who says the world will end in 12 years is wrong;" is that Climate Change Denial?

I would argue no, because there is no scientific consensus that the world will end in 12 years. That is a hyperbolic claim that is out of line with the scientific position.

It is that distinction I want to explore before lumping Sowell into that category. Is he referencing some of the hyperbolic claims (and given that he is generally focused on the policy world where those kinds of claims are more common, I think there is a presumption that that is the case) or is he referring to the scientific positions as outlined in Climate change denial?

Now, on the other hand, if he were saying something like "CO2 is not actually increasing."[1] That is clearly in contradiction to the established consensus as highlighted in our article.

Climate change is a fact as far as WP is concerned, and any "skepticism" should be properly described as "denialism" No argument here. But we need to avoid an equivocation fallacy. When WP says climate change, it means something very specific, and disagreeing with someone who uses the term incorrectly is not the same thing as disagreeing with someone who uses it correctly. I'm not saying that Sowell is doing that, but this is a WP:BLP and with that comes some due diligence requirements to make sure he isn't.

Squatch347 (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's present those quotes and we can include them. If we are going to lump him into someone who is denying the scientific consensus, I think we are obligated under WP:BLP to highlight what he has said and how the scientific consensus disagrees with that statement. I disagree with your reading of WP:BLP, there. I believe that going through his false claims one by one and presenting scientific rebuttals is arguably WP:OR as Sowell is largely ignored by climate scientists (though I admit that interpretation is not rock solid), and would bloat the section out while painting an overly negative view of Sowell. Doing that would, I believe, be a massive overcorrection.

I think the best resolution of this discussion might for us to talk a little about the framing of what is denial of climate change. As noted in Wiki's own article, that doesn't mean disagreeing with any possible claim about climate change. I agree. However, I'm fairly certain that calling it "hysteria" and a "swindle" constitutes denialism.

It is that distinction I want to explore before lumping Sowell into that category. With all due respect: You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between denialism and skepticism. Skepticism is doubt informed by experience and evidence. Sowell goes so far as to tell what are either bald-faced lies about the evidence, or to display his own near-complete ignorance of what the evidence is.

In the 1970's and 1980's, it would be fair to refer to many who denied anthropogenic climate change as "skeptics" because the data was more ambiguous. But from the mid-90's, the amount of data has exploded, which resulted in a massive downswing in its ambiguity. This is why "denialism" is the term preferred by experts, which is why "denialism" is the term preferred by WP.

Failure to follow that precedent on this article really then only has one rationale: whitewashing, or to put it in more Wikijargon terms, lending undue weight to a fringe view.

No argument here. But we need to avoid an equivocation fallacy. When WP says climate change, it means something very specific, and disagreeing with someone who uses the term incorrectly is not the same thing as disagreeing with someone who uses it correctly. I'm not saying that Sowell is doing that, but this is a WP:BLP and with that comes some due diligence requirements to make sure he isn't. So the crux of what you're saying seems to be that you believe it's arguable (or true) that Sowell is arguing against making policy decisions informed by the scientific consensus on climate change. If that's not correct, please let me know.

To that point, I would say that the quotes presented in my edit and in my earlier comment here lay that argument to rest. He's referred to climate change as "hysteria," falsely claimed that there's no data supporting it (multiple times) and called it a "swindle". He's rather clearly rejecting the scientific consensus.

On top of that, consider how incredibly illogical the position of advocating that we not make any policy changes as a result of climate change is. It's akin to advocating that cancer patients avoid treatment because "..." Notice that blank quote. Sowell, at no point, ever presents an argument that supports not making policy changes in spite of the reality of climate change.

So I don't think there's any distinction to be made, here. Sowell does in fact argue against the scientific consensus, and his arguments wrt policy are rooted in that, with no other basis.

Now, I'm open to changes to my edit. I particularly liked how you changed the use of the "demonizing" quote. But the actual proposed edit you gave above is wholly unacceptable to me. Here's another proposal which I'm okay with:

Sowell has written several pieces in support of climate change denial and has generally favored little to no governmental regulatory action in response.. He has referred to global warming as "hysteria" and a "swindle" and falsely claimed that climate data does not support it. Sowell has expressed doubt that humans are significant contributors to climate change and that public funding has biased research in this field. Further, Sowell has stated that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier," arguing the term "... demoniz[es] the opposition with catchwords..."

If you feel that is still too condemnatory, I'm okay with removing the "swindle" reference and the source supporting it, as I believe that any reasonable reader could probably intuit that he's said as much from reading the rest of the paragraph. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I prefer Squatch347's version. I suspect that we will need more than three editors to determine consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of WP:BLP, there. I believe that going through his false claims one by one and presenting scientific rebuttals is arguably WP:OR as Sowell is largely ignored by climate scientists (though I admit that interpretation is not rock solid) Sorry, I should clarify, I don't think we necessarily need a comprehensive list of quotes and then papers in the article, I agree that that would be bloat. More, I'm asking if you could elaborate on what specific things he has said that you feel disagreed with the scientific consensus.

However, I'm fairly certain that calling it "hysteria" and a "swindle" constitutes denialism.Referencing Guy's point I think we may just be reading the sentence differently. If I understand you correctly, you read it as Global Warming=Hysteria. I interpret that sentence more as "There is some hysteria that has been attached to global warming (ie world ends in 12 years kind of talk)." Or perhaps to frame it differently, you might read it as "all talk about Global Warming is hysteria" and we might read it as "some talk about Global Warming is hysteria."

You're trying to draw an artificial distinction between denialism and skepticism. I'm sorry if I haven't presented my case more clearly, I don't mean to draw that distinction. Rather, what I'm saying is that criticism of some people's reaction to a real phenomenon is not necessarily criticism of the phenomenon. IE I can be critical of the Day After Tomorrow's depiction of climate change while also completely accepting the IPCC's observations and predictions.

Sowell goes so far as to tell what are either bald-faced lies about the evidence, or to display his own near-complete ignorance of what the evidence is. Such as? Do you have a specific quote that is either of those things related to the scientific consensus?

So the crux of what you're saying seems to be that you believe it's arguable (or true) that Sowell is arguing against making policy decisions informed by the scientific consensus on climate change. If that's not correct, please let me know. No, again sorry I haven't been more clear. I mean that not everyone who says the phrase "Climate Change" necessarily means the same thing. The impacts, as defined by the IPCC are not the same impacts that some politicians or pundits imply. Sorry if I use too my analogies, I think they help clarify some times. A politician who says "Climate Change endangers every living thing on the planet" is not using that term correctly according to our own article [2]. Being critical of that politician's statement is not the same thing as being critical of the consensus or actual impacts of climate change. Or, to be even more over the top, if I were to say "Climate Change will mean the median temperature in the use is 220C in 2100" I wouldn't be referring to the scientific consensus, but rather a separate view of what climate change is (and happens to be wrong). Critiquing my statement would not be denial of Climate Change even if it is, strictly speaking, denying what I am saying is climate change. Does that help clarify what I'm trying to get at?

I honestly don't think we are that far from a good edit, I just want tighten up exactly what we mean in that first two sentences. Squatch347 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

More, I'm asking if you could elaborate on what specific things he has said that you feel disagreed with the scientific consensus. Haven't I been doing exactly that? I mean, my original edit was to literally point out several such things, and you quoted it here.

I interpret that sentence more as "There is some hysteria that has been attached to global warming (ie world ends in 12 years kind of talk)." You're, quite expressly, putting words in his mouth (words which run against the grain of his writings on the subject, no less) to get to that interpretation. One cannot read "Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years," and conclude that he's actually referring only to a specific subset of global warming proponents unless Sowell says or strongly implies that's the case. He does nothing of the sort. And it completely ignores Sowell's entire piece about it being a "swindle". The entire thesis of that article is denialism. I mean, what do you think his use of scare quotes was for?

Rather, what I'm saying is that criticism of some people's reaction to a real phenomenon is not necessarily criticism of the phenomenon. Oh come on... I just wrote three paragraphs addressing exactly this, which you haven't responded to at all.

Such as? Do you have a specific quote that is either of those things related to the scientific consensus? The "No data" quote is (easily) demonstrably false. It is one or both of those things, without question. This is the fourth time I've answered this question.

No, again sorry I haven't been more clear. I mean that not everyone who says the phrase "Climate Change" necessarily means the same thing. You keep comparing Sowell's critiques of "climate change" and "global warming" to critiques of specific false claims based in misunderstandings of climate change, except no such claims are evident. Unless you can point to where he is specifically responding to such specific false claims, your analogies are completely inapplicable.

In any case, I've asked for more input at WP:FTN, per Guy's suggestion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The "No data" quote is (easily) demonstrably false. It is one or both of those things, without question. This is the fourth time I've answered this question. I should have mentioned this last time. Note that we are discussing opposition to the scientific consensus. That is the flavor the WP denialism article. Arguing that there are grifters or that policy changes are bad ideas isn't arguing against the scientific consensus. There isn't a scientific consensus on carbon taxes, those are political questions. There is a scientific consensus on warming, human impact, and the effects. There is scientific consensus on the impact of certain policy proposals even. But those are the same thing as a scientific consensus on policy questions. Scientists address science, not policy.

The data quote would be a good addition, but I'm not sure I see a specific quote, just your reference to it. Looking through the sources, the closest I could find was a reference to their being data that didn't fit climate models. Which, when written, wasn't exactly controversial. I don't see a reference that supports there is "no data for climate change."

Unless you can point to where he is specifically responding to such specific false claims, your analogies are completely inapplicable. I'm sorry, I think the burden lies on you here. You are saying that he has made specific claims that are verifiably at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change. I'm asking what those claims are. Where is the reference where he makes a claim that disagrees with Climate Change?

One last thing to put on here. We should strike the Townhall article IAW WP:RS AGE, this article was written in 2007 and is referring to the models and data at that point, not the consensus now. Even our page in 2007 would be considered denial compared to now [3]. Squatch347 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)The data quote would be a good addition, but I'm not sure I see a specific quote, "Unfortunately, we are not likely to hear any similar apologies from those who have been promoting "global warming" hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models." In the future, it would benefit you to read the sources before getting into an argument about what the sources say. This is the fourth sentence in the first source.

Also see "There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today."

And there's the stuff I haven't bothered with, like claiming that the whole idea of climate change was "manufactured by intellectuals"

...Or repeating that long-since debunked canard about global "cooling" in the 70's.

Arguing that there are grifters or that policy changes are bad ideas isn't arguing against the scientific consensus. Please explain to me with even a hint of seriousness and integrity how a failure to adapt current policy norms to a future which is being inexorably altered by climate change is anything but suicidal, misanthropic lunacy. This level of pedantry in this argument is, frankly, shocking, and it is beneath the dignity of anyone who has any business discussing this topic to make it. If one is arguing that we should not do anything about climate change, then one is either denying climate change, or denying the importance of doing what it best for humanity.

I'm sorry, I think the burden lies on you here. You are quickly approaching the point at which WP:PACT comes into play and I start ignoring you for sealioning. Sowell is, quite obviously and demonstrably, not responding to specific arguments in any of these pieces, and the suggestion that he is would be easily provable, were it true. To suggest otherwise is unmitigated bullshit, and to suggest that I should somehow be required to prove that he's not responding to specific policy suggestions is irrational bullshit.

One last thing to put on here. We should strike the Townhall article IAW WP:RSAGE, this article was written in 2007 and is referring to the models and data at that point, not the consensus now. Even our page in 2007 would be considered denial compared to now. You should really check the page before you make such an easily disproven claim as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mjolnir mentioned this at the Fringe noticeboard, asking for uninvolved editors to comment. After reading through one of Sowell's essays, I can see why there is some disagreement. Sowell makes several statements that are objectively and provably false, such as when he says What is at issue is not whether there is "climate change" — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the "global warming" crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years. My understanding is that there is widespread consensus that the Earth's mean global surface temperature is increasing, has increased year after year, and had been predicted to continue to increase, and that those predictions have so far been correct within the relative margin of error.

  But he goes on to make a number of statements that show an incredible level of misunderstanding and ignorance. He appears to confuse global mean surface temperatures with the temperature at a given spot on the planet's surface at a given time. He confuses seasons and weather with climate. He talks about meteorologists, who are not even the sort of scientist he thinks he's refuting! I mean, this paragraph sums up everything that is wrong about the essay: Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?.

  Is he a climate change denier? I don't know, you can make a case that the label overstates his understanding of the subject. On the other hand, if we have someone who makes statements along the lines of "I didn't evolve from a monkey" and "I've never seen a fish evolve into a bird", those statements are truthful, ignorant, not technically creationist, but we'd probably have no problem describing such a person as an evolution denialist. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sowell is almost certainly wrong, but he is not stupid, and you should be suspicious when you think you have discovered trivial errors that a first year student would not make.

Re: "those predictions have so far been correct", No. They have not. While the evidence for warming is overwhelming, the evidence of reliability of the various computer models is far less compelling.

• "One systematic bias revealed in the evaluation of CMIP5 models was the apparent difference between the observed and modeled global mean surface temperature increase in the early twenty-first century"[4]
• "The models often used to inform adaptation decisions; global coupled atmosphere ocean general circulation models (GCMs), potentially downscaled with regional climate models (RCMs) have horizontal resolutions often far coarser than those demanded, and suffer from substantial biases. To reduce biases and to overcome the scale gap between the numerical model grid and the desired scale, climate model output is almost routinely post-processed by bias correction (often called bias adjustment) methods... Even though bias correction is often considered a necessary step in climate impact modelling, the approach is prone to misuse, and best practice still needs to be established. Some authors even question the very basis of bias correction... We define a bias as the systematic difference between a modeled property of the climate system and the corresponding real property.[5]
• "Despite considerable progress in recent years, output of both global and regional circulation models is still afflicted with biases to a degree that precludes its direct use, especially in climate change impact studies. This is well known, and to overcome this problem, bias correction; i.e. the correction of model output towards observations in a post-processing step) has now become a standard procedure in climate change impact studies. In this paper we argue that bias correction is currently often used in an invalid way"[6]

Many people fall into the trap of assuming that just because the evidence of global warming is strong that this means that the computer models accurately predict the future. They don't. The strongest argument -- and it is a good one -- is based upon actual data, and the completely anodyne assumption that past trends will most likely continue into the future.

Re: "He appears to confuse global mean surface temperatures with the temperature at a given spot on the planet's surface at a given time. He confuses seasons and weather with climate", This is nonsense. That was clearly an analogy, and a good one. Cherry picking such as only talking about record highs instead of average temperatures really are invalid.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sowell is almost certainly wrong, but he is not stupid, and you should be suspicious when you think you have discovered trivial errors that a first year student would not make. Sowell is as entirely uneducated in climate science as my 12 year old, and far more ideological wedded to a group that consistently (and often stupidly) denies climate science. His expertise in economics does not, in any way, translate to an expertise in climate science. I have seen equally educated men make far larger asses of themselves when stepping outside the bounds of their expertise.

Re: "those predictions have so far been correct", No. They have not. Well, that depends entirely on which models you're referring to, now doesn't it?

The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. ... The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. Note that almost all of those models had been made before the earliest work cited here. Some failed, most didn't. Also note that Sowell never specifies which models he's referring to, but implies that he means "all of them".

Also... Guy... I urge you to take another look at those articles. I can't tell from what you're saying whether or not you understand that the bias in question is statistical bias, not political bias, but all of those articles are about improving the accuracy of the models, and none of them ever come to anything even resembling the conclusion that any climate models have "failed".

In fact, I can't imagine how one could consider those articles to be evidence of the failure of climate models unless one started with the assumption that anything short of perfection was failure.

This is nonsense. That was clearly an analogy, and a good one. Umm, that doesn't read at all like an analogy to me, or obviously, to Hyperion. In fact, one would question the intelligence of a climate change denier analogizing climate to weather, given their extremely-well-known habit of mistaking the one for the other in public discourse. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The article should not mention his anti-climate-science stance, since there are no reliable sources covering it. The usual way these things are handled here is:

1. famous person says stupid thing about something they do not understand
2. Internet loonosphere agrees with person
3. reliable sources ignore it
4. Wikipedia ignores it

Unless item 3 changes, we cannot do anything about item 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition: The problem is that without reliable sources drawing attention to Sowell's ignorance and the demonstrable falsity of his remarks, we cannot call him out since that would be WP:OR. Adding the science position from sources that do not mention Sowell would be WP:SYNTH. And letting his remarks stand without refutation would violate WP:FRINGE. Also, WP:PRIMARY would not like it. So, I cannot see any solution except: keep it out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, exactly this. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thinking about the above, what if the situation were reversed? How would we cover it if:

1. A world renowned climate scientist says something stupid about economics, mixed in with some opinion/commentary about how they think that other unnamed persons are completely wrong about economics.
2. The Usual Internet Echo Chamber enthusiastically agrees with the climate scientist.
3. Reliable sources ignore the climate scientist's opinion about economics.
4. Wikipedia has an existing page about the climate scientist's conclusions regarding climate science, but nothing on their economic opinions.
5. Someone shows up on the article talk page and insists that we have to highlight the climate scientist's stupidity.

So, what would we do? Well, if history is any indication, we would make it so that 75% of the climate scientist's BLP was about his opinion regarding the baggage retrieval system they have at Heathrow.[7] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that someone has no reliable source, that's his own problem then. No arms, no cookies. That baggage retrieval thing seems to be an independent subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

First off, that bit about 75% of his BLP is nonsense and you damn well know it. But if said climate scientists kept writing article after article after article and just wouldn't shut up about it then yeah, we should cover it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He's explicitly included in a list of climate change denialists published in American Behavioral Scientist (abstract) (full text) (alt full text). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They write about the "conservative “echo chamber”", "a crucial element of the climate change denial machine". We should use what they say, not what Sowell himself says. Or in addition to it when they refute his points. Unfortunately, he is only mentioned as one data point in a table, but that should not be a big problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the article is literally called "Leading Voices in the Denier Choir", and this is not some clickbaity headline, but a peer-reviewed article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, a whole section might just be WP:UNDUE here. At his core, his writings pin him as an economist and social theorist, and I'm not sure that it's due to include that he is a climate denialit if we are basing our secondary-source description from a single journal article. It'd be like expounding upon his theological views or his views on religious freedom; he's written about them but they also aren't really all that relevant to what makes him notable, and I'm not sure they're worthy of inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

His climate change stuff has been extremely prolific and very widely distributed in climate change denialist circles. Most non-conservatives have ignored his writings on the subject (as they have mostly ignored his writings on just about anything but economics). To not mention it at all (as is the current state) would be to deprive the reader of any information about something he's very widely known for. I mean, he made a peer-reviewed list of of the "leading voices" in denialism in a behavioral science journal. That's no small feat. I think he's ignored in the press mostly because his writings on the subject are little better than the sort of crap one would expect from Uncle Jim-Bob who still insists the election was stolen.

As far as having a whole (sub)section goes, back in 2018, there used to be a subsection called "other writings". I'd be happy to condense some of the lesser topics in "Writings and thought" down to that again, with a mention of his denialism in there. The quantity of text written in my original edit and the proposal above (and a third on my talk page which Squatch347 has endorsed) were merely meant to fill out a subsection. But honestly, the "late talking" subsection could be trimmed and moved to "other writings" along with the second paragraph from the top of the "writings and thought" section, and the "Trump" subsection moved to the "Politics". Then, it would only take a sentence or two to fit the denialism in there without it being entirely unbalanced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• The man has written over 50 books, over 30 book reviews, and about 100 essays or scholarly articles, and not one has been on climate change or global warming[8]. He was one of the top syndicated columnists in the nation and probably has written thousands of articles in his lifetime. And according to your source, in a four-year time frame, he wrote a total of seven articles on climate change. At that rate, he wrote 1-2 articles per year on climate change. Wholly WP:UNDUE. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  A normal person who knows where the limits of their expertise are writes zero articles denying climate change per year. Seen from a climate science misinformation standpoint, he seems to be a top supplier of it. Yes, he does other stuff more, but this seems noteworthy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, we can't control what people write about. From a climate science misinformation standpoint, men like Myron Ebell or Marc Morano are the top suppliers of climate change denialism--as extensively documented in third-party sources. Sowell, on the other hand, is not a top supplier of misinformation and is notable due to his work on economics & race. Climate change is something he hardly writes about. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Seven articles is not "hardly", and we have a source analyzing his and other people's output in that area. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I am in agreement with Dr. Swag Lord: "The man has written over 50 books, over 30 book reviews, and about 100 essays or scholarly articles, and not one has been on climate change or global warming. He was one of the top syndicated columnists in the nation and probably has written thousands of articles in his lifetime." Focusing in on one subject that he rarely touches upon is clearly WP:UNDUE. Where are the high-quality sources that discuss his position on climate change at length? Where is the evidence that anyone cares about what an economist thinks about climate science? And no, a paper that lists every conservative commentator who has ever touched on the subject mentioning him is passing does not count. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  By my count he has written 1889 pieces for Jewish World Review and so far I have only found 2 about climate change. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  There are 9 linked in this section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nice. That comprises a solid 0.48% of all his columns. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Please show me the policy page that gives the precise percentage of a prolific writer's output that needs to be met. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  There is no "precise percentage," but all of your concerns should be answered here: WP:BALASP :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Dr. Swag Lord is correct. WP:BALASP says

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

I am seeing zero examples of any reliable, published material on the subject of Sowell's opinion on climate change other than the one mention is passing in a paper that listed every conservative commentator who has written on the subject. Do a Google search on "Thomas Sowell" "climate change" (with the quotes). Plenty of mentions by unreliable blogs, plenty of sources that publish every column Sowell writes, but no reliable sources that discuss the topic other than in passing. This is why we have our WP:WEIGHT policy; to avoid having someone who wants to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS searching through Sowell's thousands of columns for mention of their favorite hobbyhorse and and then writing a Wikipedia section based upon primary sources when no reliable source has indicated that they consider Sowell's opinion on climate change to be any more significant than a climatologist's opinion on economics. It's nothing more that a WP:COATRACK. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, because three sentences is far too much weight to give to a sentiment this guy went out of his way to write in multiple articles that were widely reprinted in dozens of sources and earned him the designation of being a "leading voice in climate change denial" in a paper that multiple behavioral scientists reviewed and said "Yeah, that fits." In case you can't detect the sarcasm, I assure you that it's there.

  But you know what? I don't really even care any more. I can easily handle one POV pusher with a bunch of bad arguments. But I haven't got the slightest interest in fending off multiple POV pushers, each one with their own pet bad argument. Have fun. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have come to the conclusion that, although Sowell is clearly an ignorant anti-climate-science agitator motivated by an unrealistic economic belief system, he does not stand out enough in the giant herd of ignorant anti-climate-science agitators motivated by the same unrealistic economic belief system who copy and paste bad reasoning from each other all the time. One single reliable source has noticed him being a part of the choir and singing along with the others, and only lists him together with the others, but that is not enough to make him notable as a Wikipedia-approved cog in the denial machine. He did not even invent new bad reasoning, as far as we know. If we had articles about individual sheep, there would be no need for writing in each of them "this specific sheep often says baa".

  I don't think a user needs to be a POV pusher to oppose the inclusion of that material. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's a pretty rational analysis. I can agree with that. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you found any 3rd party sources on his views on climate change? All I can see from this conversation is just articles by Sowell himself...? Rather suggests its not worthy of inclusion if you cant find any good 3rd party sources on this. Squatch347 - Gd123lbp (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Observer Comment The use of the perjorative word denialism—used in this debate in place of his simply stated skepticism—along with the consistant bludgeoning above regarding a desire to include non-cited to barely-cited climate change opinions of Sowell, seems to indicate that the debate is not happening here to build an encyclopedia, but in an attempt to right great wrongs, whatever these may be. Science by consensus is not science, it's indoctrination. This debate should be closed with no change to the status quo except as was originally proposed by Squatch347 above (and only then in light of that which is reliably sourced), before this conversation took a wrong turn into fantasyland. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Praise

The fact that Sowell is well-received is not in dispute, and it does not require that all criticism of his writings be removed, nor that every single person who's written a positive review be listed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy who added more: I included those people because I believed the praise part is not that expansive to how influential he has been, there were very few libertarians, heterodox economists and historians, which some would say he has had the most influence in (more so for libertarians and heterodox economists than historians), and I wanted to showcase that. Sorry I keep editing, I thought it was appreciated if someone expanded a section, and I don’t know entirely how this works, but I just want to make a solid contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk • contribs)

IP editor: That similarly-aligned academics and institutions praise Sowell for saying things that they already believe is neither remarkable nor necessary. The entire basis of US economic policy has shifted towards libertarian ideals instead of interventionist ones over the last fifty years so the rarity argument simply doesn't wash, either. The praise is WP:UNDUE and you must not edit-war to force your ideas into any article, including this one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

98.216.87.171 (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC) What do you have against me? I'm not trying to force my views I simply added people who praised him, nothing more and I carefully selected them to ones who are also influential to show their significance. Nothing about this is imposing my views, if that was the case I would have erased everything and wrote my own interpretation which I did not do, please chill out man I only want to help edit and update.

I do not, in point of fact, have anything against you. I don't know you so it would be ludicrous to project any personality upon your IP address worth having any sort of feelings towards. I do have strong feelings about edit wars and those who continue them when asked to stop, which is exactly what you were doing. Edit wars are always attempts to force a view into an article, even if they are backed by citations. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can add anything they want at any time in any way despite other editors' objections." If you honestly want to help edit and update, please start by reading each of the Core Content Policies and the Policy on Connsensus. You may find both helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to add something to Eggishorn's comment, since the IP editor appears to be new. The edit itself is simply a matter for us to discuss, maybe someone else comes along and makes a good argument for putting your edit back in, maybe someone suggests a better version or an acceptable compromise. When people talk about "edit warring", what they mean is that the edit was added, then reverted, then added again, and then when it was reverted there was an edit note saying that you should discuss this on the talk page. At that point if you had discussed this on the talk page it would have ebeen better. What makes it edit warring was adding the same edit back a third time, after someone had explicitly asked you to discuss it on the talk page first. You're new, you may not have understood what they meant, these things happen. But for future reference, when someone reverts and edit, it's best to discuss it on the talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

98.216.87.171 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Thank you Hyperion35, that was helpful.

Sowell is not 'well-received' among his fellow economists at all. He is rarely published and is not frequently cited by other economists and is not respected as an economist. He is respected as an explainer of basic economic concepts to children and as a popularizer of economics. This wiki article is unusual in that there is no 'criticism' section on Sowell, but there is on virtually everybody else who has a longer write-up. It's certainly not like there aren't many areas in which Sowell has been criticized.

From another perspective, I also find it odd that wikipedia won't publish any science that isn't mainstream, even paranormal claims that have some legitimate evidence behind them, but has no problem with loony ideas from heterodox economists.

How about a contributions section?

I like the idea of a contributions section, especially for scientists (social scientists or natural scientists), because it can show their key contributions without having to first read through everything. What you think?

Go for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Conversion of Thomas Sowell

Nice biographical article in Reason.[9] Lots of stuff we can use. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Change of Picture

The picture used must be quite old; that sort of picture would more be appropriate if the subject was deceased. I suggest we use a more up-to-date picture of him? HelpfulPi (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You would have to find a picture with an appropriate license and upload it. Here are the available choices right now: [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=thomas+sowell&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image ] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Thomas Sowell cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)