Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

Vandalized?

This is my first time giving input to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what to do. I came across this Anthony Watts article and it appears that the secton on WeatherStations.org has been vandalized. It mentions Joseph Stalin, Deal or No Deal, Nuclear Weapons, and "my grandmother"!206.255.124.252 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it had been vandalized[1] this morning (UTC time). I've returned the article to a sane state. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a start

Watts and his work on SurfaceStations.org are being discussed on several articles related to global warming. I thought I would start this stub to help people get a better idea of who Anthony Watts is. He has deserved his own page for a while now. Please make it better. RonCram 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plasticup, very nicely done. Thank you.RonCram 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I think there should be a link to his blog at 'www.norcalblogs.com/watts/'; I also don't think a page for 'SurfaceStations.org' is really necessary. 72.47.71.160 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Okay, I added an External Link to his blog and SurfaceStations.org and unwikified SurfaceStations.org. RonCram 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the tags

The article currently reads:

Watts leads an all volunteer effort to document the quality of weather stations. The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA. The data is collected and displayed on the website for others to study. The collection of this metadata is considered very important by many scientists.

• Tag #1 -The website has the initial instructions and links to forms, etc here. [2] Roger A. Pielke has described what is required to adequately document and photograph a weather station and Pielke has strongly endorsed the work of SurfaceStations.org. [3] In fact, Pielke even allowed Watts to post a guest blog on ClimateScience.[4] If the instructions given by Watts were inadequate, Pielke would not be a supporter.
• Tag #2 -Scientists who have gone on the record supporting Watts effort include Roger A. Pielke, Stephen McIntyre, Lubos Motl and Warwick Hughes. But really, what scientist is going to say they do not want better data? Such an attitude would be completely unscientific. As the tags are unwarranted, I am removing them. RonCram 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron - The only scientist within climatology mentioned above is Pielke Sr. - Motl is the only other scientist, and he is string-theorist (about as far from climatology as you can get). McIntyre is an amateur (not that this necessarily is bad). Hughes is a "freelance earth scientist" whatever that means - whats his background? One relevant scientist doesn't make "Many" - even by a far cry.. (even 4 wouldn't be "many"). As far as i can see there is no collection except for pictures of metadata at Surfacestations.org - thats not all the metadata that is required by NOAA, and it's a far way from determining whether a surface station meets requirements or not. --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, not true. McIntyre has published in climate journals and so has Warwick Hughes. Do a search on google scholar before you make baseless claims. There are a number of other scientists who support Watts who post on ClimateAudit. I did not see a need to present a comprehensive list of all of the scientists who support Watts. Regarding your other point, you need to spend more time on SurfaceStations.org and on Pielke's blog. In addition to the photos, volunteers must complete a form that asks a variety of questions to determine if the station meets the requirements of the NOAA. I provided the links above. Please read them. RonCram 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing a paper (or a comment - as most of Hughes' are) in a scientific journal - doesn't make you a scientist. And yes - you will have to present a reliable source to your claim about "many" - otherwise its WP:OR. And you will have to document that it fullfills NOAA's requirements (which i very much doubt - having seen a random selection of filled out forms. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

the URL cited http://surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm doesn't have any quote from an expert in the field that this work meets the NOAA's requirements. And the URL doesn't have any of the forms that Ron mentioned. It would be useful if you could reference 1) exactly what the NOAA's requirements for monitoring stations are and 2) what the instructions on surfacestations.org are (without having to register for an account and wade through the site) and 3) some expert saying the instructions there fulfil the NOAA's requirements and 4) some expert saying whether or not the volunteers are doing what needs to be done to the standard required by the NOAA.

Regarding the use of the word "many", please read Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words, in particular:

Similarly, sentences like Many people think...—aside from leading to questions such as just how many is many—often implicitly endorse bandwagon fallacies, as their purpose is not to inform the reader about the fact that some people hold this opinion or other, but lend credibility to the statement that follows.

172.213.24.239 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is the definition of "scientist" that we use at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. You cannot change the definition willy-nilly. If four is not enough, how many scientists do I have to document to use the word "many"? Do you really want to see a list of names with a link to each? Do you really think that will make the article better? Also, the sentence says "The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA." It does not say that all of the data will necessarily be complete for each station, only that all of the instructions are there. RonCram 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing an experiment makes you a scientist, no formal training or publications needed. --Theblog 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Being a scientist requires you follow the Scientific method. Being called a scientist on Wikipedia would require that other experts acknowledge that you are one. Usually publication in peer-reviewed authoritative journals, or possession of formal training such as a doctorate, would be sufficient acknowledgement. 129.215.37.156 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidts thoughts

Tell me why Gavin Schmidt's self published views on Anthony Watts' project are in any way relevant? I'm sure there are some other unrelated bloggers that have said good things about Watts, why not get one of them? Or make an effort to respond to find Watts' response to Schmindts post at the very least. I suggest if you really think they are notable then on Gavin's page you make a new section "His thoughts on Anthony Watts' project" --Theblog (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read it, Gavin voiced his thoughts in a comment, talk about unnotable, and as presented before I removed it, it was improperly described.

Here is the quote:

Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

[Response: They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset which is already hugely oversampling the regional anomalies. - gavin]

Here is part of the line I removed

"Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt,"

Where is the reference to global warming in the comment he is responding to? Gavin does not criticise linking the surface stations.org project to global warming, because the guy never linked them. Gavin is not even responding to Watts directly, he's responding to some unknown blog commentator, again not noteworthy. Find some direct criticism from a non self published source and I say go to town. --Theblog (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, working at GISS, writing in a WP:SPS that is regarded as a WP:RS on climate science issues. He is directly involved in temperature reconstructions - and has been called as an expert on such subjects several times. His critique is both relevant and notable. And even more so, because all of the participants here are blog posters and the entire thing is blog-related. Pielke's comments are in a blog, McIntyre same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be followed to the letter. Schmidt is not even responding to what you are saying he is responding to. He is responding to a commenter making a entirely different point not regarding global warming. Do you think the Schmidt line is framed accurately? If you insist on violating WP:BLP then at least frame his self published quote to a random blog commentator correctly. --Theblog (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I do not believe your statement here that GS is 'directly involved in temperature reconstructions' is true -- do you have a reference? Unless you are talking about paleoclimate reconstructions, in which case that is an entirely separate issue. His area of expertise is modelling. That's what he's employed by NASA to do. The fact that he 'has been called as an expert on such subjects' is hardly relevant either. Who called him an expert? Do you mean in the media? What is relevant is the truth. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a further reference. And its apparently notable enough that both Anthony Watt's comments on it at his own blog[5], and on Climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your further reference has absolutely nothing to do with the original GS quote, its better left out. --Theblog (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, your reply from Watts does not address the comment quoted by GS, it addresses the other post, which is not mentioned directly in the article at all. --Theblog (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That GS is talking about the relation to GW is obvious. The entire point of this project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should let Anthony Watts speak for himself, I do not feel an unknown web commenter (or Mr. Connolley) speaks for Anthony Watts or his motives, and furthermore I don't feel GS's somewhat offtopic response to the unknown commentor's comment is notable. Additionally, GS's views have absolutely no bearing on Anthony Watts' views on global warming. If anything, report the "consensus" view in regards to Watts' views, maybe a line from AR4 on the topic of "localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment"- you can always cherry pick some guy who disagrees with anyone, this cherrypick of GS isn't even a particularly good one for reasons I listed above.--Theblog (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

William, Wikipedia is (or should be) about facts. The facts here are that Watts is taking photographs of weather stations around the world. If he is also making comments that follow from his skepticism on the AGW hypothesis, that's another matter entirely. It would belong down in the 'Views on global warming' section. In no way can this quote from GS be seriously, honestly considered serious, or relevant. If there is something in the peer-reviewed literature that formally responds to Watts' work then perhaps that would be relevant. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed

Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt, who commented in August 2007 "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset".

Watts writes: "The data will speak louder than any opinion I could ever utter. In the end, whether I’m right or wrong, the data will show the path and nature will be the final arbiter."

Gavin Schmidt is a single climate scientist. He is a GISS modeller, not an expert on the surface record. The views of a single scientist with no particular relationship to Watts or the subject matter just makes the article, frankly, sound amateurish & silly. The reader wants to know immediately, "So why is Gavin Schmidt important in the context of Watts or the surface record?" This leads the reader to confusion. If Gavin Schmidt was the President, this might be relevant. If this was an official position, e.g. of the IPCC, then it might be relevant. If it was even the official position statement of the RealClimate website, it would be moving in the direction of being relevant. Right now, it seems to be nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The same logic applies to the comments by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke. They are not experts on the surface record, and their views are just those of individual scientists. Stephen McIntyre is not the President, and Roger A. Pielke does not represent the official view of the IPCC. This leads the reader to confusion. The statement The project has been praised by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke Sr., the latter having described the effort as "very important" is nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Watts run his own company?

I'd have thought that his commercial stuff would be included in his page. TMLutas (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ToughStations

I'd love to see this rebuttal of Watts's work in the article: http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/toughstations.html 88.193.187.244 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be Watts's biography, not a discussion of the surface record. That would belong elsewhere. Probably in the 'global warming controversy' article.Alex Harvey (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meteorologist? Evidence?

I couldn't find any reference to Watts being a qualified meteorologist - it simply states it on the blog for the radio station that he works for. If there is none, he is simply a TV / radio weatherman and the article should be updated accordingly. MonoApe (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A TV weatherman can call himself a meteorologist as much as he wants, there is no protection of the title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title infers professional qualification with a degree in a relevant discipline, similar to physicist or chemist or biologist. I can't call myself a chemist just because I dropped some Mentos in to a bottle of coke - and I can't call myself a meteorologist just because I read out the weather forecast on TV / radio. MonoApe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He has the AMS Broadcast Seal,[6] though oddly he's footnoted as "retired." It would be useful to list his academic degrees. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've updated the article with that reference. MonoApe (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so he's a 'broadcast meteorologist'. That's the correct description for what he does/did and anything else would be inaccurate. There is no implication that a BM must have a degree in meteorology.Alex Harvey (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he is a 'broadcast meteorologist'? Who gave him this title? Himself? It seems to be the equivalent of calling the garbage man a refuse disposal technician. The current intro describes him as 'chief meteorologist', which he is not - other than as a label provided by the radio stations he reads the weather for. His only qualification appears to be a retired AMS Broadcast Seal holder, but no mention of that is made. His blog has been described as a "popular science blog" - popular in comparison to what? And it is very debatable whether someone with no scientific qualifications can be described as having a 'science' blog. It would be more accurate to state a 'climate-related blog'. I made these changes and they were immediately backed out by Atmoz and I see no justification in this talk page for that. The changes made to the intro appear to be an attempt to inflate and massage Watts' credentials. MonoApe (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The change in the lead was discussed in the section immediately following this one. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And the intro does not reflect that discussion - as detailed in my comment above. Nor does it reflect referenced reality. It's also hyperbole - "popular science blog". Etc. Each of these are detailed in my comment above. MonoApe (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A 'broadcast meteorologist' is the correct word for someone who gets up on the TV set each night and tells us what the weather's going to be. If you don't already know this, that is not my fault. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology is "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting" - note the word scientific. Watts has no scientific qualifications - he just pretends to be a scientist on his blog. Calling Watts a 'meteorologist' is the same as me calling myself a chemist because I dropped a Mentos in a Coke bottle. The fact that one country on the planet has supposedly polluted and diminished the meaning of meteorologist to mean 'someone who reads the weather', is not reason enough to give the false impression here that Watts is anything other than what he is - a weather presenter. MonoApe (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Entire article is just crass character assassination

I want to fix this beginning with the first line, which is completely inappropriate for a biography in an encyclopaedia: If we're not sure whether he's really a trained meteorologist, we say nothing. If we know that he's a Retired Seal Holder, we say he's a Retired Seal Holder. If there's controversy, and no one can be bothered doing the actual research to resolve the matter, then it doesn't belong in the first line. Presenting this in the first line, apart from being bad style (i.e. controversy doesn't belong in the first line), suggests that Mr. Watts himself is somehow trying to deceive, to misrepresent himself as a PhD holding meteorologist, for which there is no evidence. Thus I wish to edit the first line:

Anthony Watts is the founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations.[3] He is also a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio.

Any objections?Alex Harvey (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should explain why he is notable. If his claim to notability is being the founder of a website, this discussion should be continued at AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you may continue to the discussion at AfD in the meanwhile if you please. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Watts is 'notable' enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Obviously, the SurfaceStations.org project is a project, not merely a 'website'. Websites don't go out & take photographs of weather stations all around the world. Obviously, the thounsands of posters at Watts's 'Watts Up With That' site testify to the fact that Watts is very famous, and that in my mind is sufficient to establish 'notability'. (Are members of the Royal Family 'notable'? If so why? Should their pages be deleted too?) It would also be reasonable enough to assume that anyone new to the 'climate change' debate is going to want to know, sooner or later, who Anthony Watts is. Ergo, there ought to be an article in Wikipedia so that they can learn. That is, I believe, why Wikipedia exists.Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he also has a company (something like graphics or web design), which should be mentioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest something like the following:

Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, a former television weather presenter, owner of a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, a website devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations.

-Atmoz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'owner of a weather company' is obviously going to raise the question 'well, what is the company?' and Kim D. Petersen has made it fairly clear above that he objects to the unproven 'meteorologist' designation. In the meantime, I may send Mr. Watts an email to see if we can resolve these issues.Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the company (ItWorks) already is mentioned later in the article. I think a mention should go in the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the first line again, roughly in line with Atmoz's suggestion above. I have used 'broadcast meteorologist' to describe his profession, which is the accurate term. There is no implication that he is a research meteorologist.Alex Harvey (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some fairly minor changes to SurfaceStations section made

I have just removed the text "...where he posts pictures of particularly poorly sited stations" that followed the bit about him being a regular contributor at Steve McIntyre's blog. This text seems to trivialise both his contributions to SM's blog, and the SurfaceStations project. His contributions to SM's blog go much further than just posting pictures, and his SurfaceStations project is (again) is not just about photos. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed a quote that was out of context

The phrase 'and has said "you have to wonder if the whole house of cards isn't about to start falling down"' and the reference to The Nation Slams Global Warming was out of context, implying that this was his view of where his SurfaceStations.org project would lead. I checked the reference and found this wasn't the case at all. Instead this was just some blog post he made somewhere else, and concerned some incident with James Hansen. On its own, this quote doesn't add anything (this Wiki article already states that he's a GW skeptic). Thus it seemed most appropriate just to remove the quote and the reference. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the context. I rearranged things so it's clear that the quote was a more general comment on the science of global warming. Also regarding context, I moved the bit on expected results from surfacestations.org to the preceding section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from an autoconfirmed user

Could I request help from an autoconfirmed user to revert this article to revision 22:21, 2 April 2009 of Atmoz. Unfortunately I have a full-time job and can't devote every minute of life to protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. The article is now heavily biased again. It should also be changed back to 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)' or whatever it was before... Thanks guys. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I figured out how to do it myself. If editor MonoApe has issues with the article it should be discussed here. The only issue I can see documented in the revision history is that he has objected to is "broadcast meteorologist", which as was agreed above, is the correct term for someone who might be otherwise colloquially described as a "TV weather presenter" or a "TV weatherman" or the "news weather guy" or the "weather guy" or indeed anything else. On 'chief meteorologist' that is Watts's job title, fact, end of story. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see above there was also question about whether or not it is accurate to describe Watts's blog as 'popular'... I would have the fact that Watt's blog is 'popular' is self-evident and obvious, i.e. there are thousands of posters, too many comments for me to read, it was a winner of the noted award last year for its said popularity, gets more posts than any other blog, et cetera, et cetera. I am struggling to understand why anyone, regardless of their bias, would want to argue otherwise. If you're of the view that Watts is the Devil Himself, you may read 'popular' as 'the popular press', as euphemism for 'the gutter press', and still sleep soundly at night. For the rest of us, we can just read it as 'popular' because it obviously is. Okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for the hyperbole that you're so eager to inject. 'Popular' by what measure? 99.999% of the planet will not have heard of it. As way of comparison with a real scientist, PZ Myers, his blog is simply referred to as "...the science blog Pharyngula.". That's all that's needed. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. --MonoApe (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title

I have now renamed the page 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)'. 'Weather presenter' is pejorative and doesn't really accurate describe what Anthony Watts is any longer in any case (i.e. he's famous now internationally for his blog). I can't think of anything other than 'meteorologist' that really works... hope that won't offend anyone. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with meteorologist is that people suppose that this is an education, and a degree. Watts doesn't have such. So it is misleading. Weather presenter on the other hand is accurate (and i find the pejorative argument strange - its what he is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If people suppose what is not implied, that would be a problem for those people. Bill Gates is pretty good at IT, but he dropped out of Harvard. I have a degree, but I'm not rich. How does this all work? The obvious problem with "weather presenter" is that unlike "meteorologist", it is clearly wrong. I can say, living in Australia, I would never have heard of Mr. Watts if he is really notable as a weather presenter, since I have never seen/heard him present the weather, nor am I ever likely to. I suggest that you yourself, living in Denmark? would be in the same situation here. Evidently, he is notable not for presenting the weather, even if indeed he still does do this, but rather for the blog he has created, and perhaps more significantly, for SurfaceStations. I suppose we could have this discussion again once he has published in a journal of meteorology as to whether or not he is a meteorologist or a weather presenter or something else. For the moment, unfortunately, I don't have time to argue this point any futher. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Why is weather presenter clearly wrong? Meteorologist has a specific meaning to people, and it normally presumes a degree in meteorology (ie. academic). Watts is not a meteorologist by education or by any other means, except that in the US the title isn't protected and is therefore sometimes used to describe weather presenters.

That he runs a blog doesn't make him a meteorologist at all. Running a blog on physics or chemistry doesn't make you a physicist or chemist. The only claim to the title he has is was/is weather presenter (ie. broadcast meteorologist). Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For the article title, I prefer meteorologist. As far as I'm aware, the term weather presenter isn't used in the United States, and that's where Watts has worked. Even if he only presents the weather, he's still called a meteorologist, even if he has no formal training. Finally, I think he has had some formal training. Or at least he's picked up enough to get the seal from the AMS. And that's good enough for me. -Atmoz (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, weather presenter seems to be a british english thing. I'd go for broadcast meteorologist then. Meteorologist to me is an academic description. And from what i can see here its not just me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate (or weather) blogger makes more sense. Weather presenter is undoubtedly an attempt to slip a little "word knife" into him. Meteoroligist is a bit more than he deserves. Although in the US, that title often goes to news readers. Heck, look at all the airhead CBS vidiots that you liberals like (Curick and Dan Rather and the like). Do they really deserve to be called journalists? Unless you've gotten it done for a daily paper, you ain't shit in my book. But I segue. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above the term weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term, for someone who's primary job it is to present the weather on TV or radio which appears to be the case for Anthony Watts (see also [7] for example). Apparently this term is not used in the US, which means it's not suitable in the article per WP:ENGVAR but this doesn't make the term offensive. In any case, it appears Anthony Watts has moved beyond being a weather presenter into being a broadcast metrologist as evident by the AMS seal, albeit retired. Anyway back to the main issue, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses isn't that clear but it hints that it should be something someone are likely to search for and this agrees with other areas of wikipedia policy. Given that, and I would agree with Alex Harvey that his primary area if notability is his blogging, not his role as a weather present/broadcast metrologist, I would say Anthony Watts (blogger) is best. There's no need ot specify what type of blogger. Also I would emphasise that the primary purpose for the bracketed qualifier is to enable disambiguation and to a lesser extent to help with searching, it's not intended to convey a POV and should not be taken as such. It's not even seen that often. In other words, while there's nothing wrong with discussing the best disambigator, don't take it too seriously Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can roll with that. It's why he's here really if we're honest. No one put him on here because of the gig with the tertiary market TV station. It's all a part of the little slap wars that the girls at CA and RC have with each other. Meteorologist is the denialists trying to make him look like a scientist and weather presenter is the alarmists trying to use a little spin to put him down. Blogger is fairer and apter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I explained weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term in many countries outside the US? In any case perhaps you also want to consider David Brown (meteorologist) "Brown is one of few television weather presenters who is also a meteorologist" and Martin King (weather presenter) and Bob Johnson (weather forecaster) who is an experienced forecaster but is primarily known for "Weather presenting" or Tamati Coffey or Category:Weather presenters or [8] or [9] or [10] or [11] or even this US case [12]. It's quite clear in none of these cases, calling them weather presenters is intended or conveys any offense, nor to put them down or whatever. It's simply a neutral and acccurate description of their jobs and not slang or anything of that sort. Some weather presenters have additional qualifications or experience as evidenced in the articles I've shown and in those case mentioning it in the article would be fine, the trouble is, if Anthony Watts does have any, there is no information published in reliable secondary sources about it and apparently not even in self published source (i.e. Anthony Watts blog) about it. The only thing we do have is he apparently has a certified broadcast metrologist badge from the AMS but again that's apparently not published in any RSS or his blog so can't be mentioned in the article although under the conditions it's fine IMHO to still call him a broadcast metrologist as I mentioned above but it doesn't mean people should get overtly worked up about a term which if used to describe Anthony Watts were he not a noted global warming sceptic blogger wouldn't result in even a bat of an eyelash unless they're complaints about WP:Engvar as evidenced by the ample use of 'weather presenter' here and elsewhere with non controversial people. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Watts does not have "a certified broadcast meteorologist badge from the AMS". His only 'qualification' from the AMS is a retired Television Seal Holder. See my comment below for links. MonoApe (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I read it. Didn't change my suspicion on the action. Anyhow, (blogger) is fairer and apter, so kudos for your innovation. Make it so, please. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you have now intentionally broken every link on the internet that points to this page. (Some people call that vandalism.) On top of that, you are wrong. A quick look at common definitions shows that the term Meteorologist does not imply any degree at all.

Meteorologist - One who reports and forecasts weather conditions. (weather.weatherbug.com)

meteorologist - 1)a person who studies meteorology 2)a weather forecaster (en.wiktionary.org)

Contrary to what is written above, the term blogger is used on the Wikipedia Global Warming pages as a common ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit anyone the radicals disagree with. I know some of you just make up rules on the Global Warming pages, but what you have done here is totally unacceptable on a BLP page. And you only allowed 12 hours for discussion.

On top of that, Anthony Watts is not notable as a blogger, but for the significant problems he has documented in how the "instrumental surface temperature record" is obtained. I suggest finding one of his lectures on the internet and listening to it. He makes a lot of good points. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his data is compelling. Q Science (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why would all links be broken? Anthony Watts (weather presenter) Anthony Watts (meteorologist) still work. They just redirect. As for meteorologist perhaps you should look at this.

Well, until 13 June 2009, those links did not even exist. Any internet page that linked to this Wikipedia page before last Saturday will not be using either of those. That includes about 23 Wikipedia pages that you did not bother to fix. (Of course, many of these are talk pages or archives, but the links are still broken.) As for google.dk - that is where I got the second definition, third from the top. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As for blogger... First of all i'm not aware that it is an ad-hominem - but then i wasn't aware that weather presenter was viewed as such either, so i'm probably just a "radical" "vandal" and someone intent on "discredit"-ing Watts..... (*sigh* WP:AGF apparently lives a life in vain). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) feel free to remove this line if you've redacted/changed your comment

No, I think Watts is notorious for his denial of global warming. No one with a basic grasp of climate science is impressed that he has found a few weather stations in continental USA that are located near tarmac or A/C vents. It makes no difference to satellite measurements or records from Arctic stations or mountains of proxy data, etc. There is nothing compelling about "his data" - he simply reinterprets and distorts data from real scientists to suit his agenda of ACC denial. And, for that, his blog has received some attention - which is why some people want to call him a 'meteorologist' in order to bolster his credibility where he has none. MonoApe (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that no one knows that the satellite dataset indicates the temperature of the top one millimeter of the ocean. All temperature measurements over land are removed because they do not even come close to agreeing with the surface monitoring stations (because satellites measure the temperature of the surface and the "instrumental record" is about 4 feet above the surface inside an enclosure with specific thermal characteristics). This is why Anthony Watts reports weather stations on top of 6-story buildings as a problem. This is why placing electronics in the same enclosure as the new digital thermometers is a problem. There are standard siting requirements for weather stations and a large percent don't meet that standard. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're describing skin temperature. This is different than the satellite temperature "measurements" made by Christy and Spencer or Mears and Wentz. It's possible to calculate a skin temperature of the land, but you can't just compare naively it to measurements made 4 feet above the surface. Nor can it be naively compared to those temperature by C&S or M&W. Just as the skin temperatures of the ocean cannot be naively compared to that measured by buoys or buckets. Watts has not published his results in a refereed journal. He prefers to take pictures and post them on a website, and say there obviously must be a problem because it's next to a parking lot (or whatever). Until he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, he has not contributed beyond that of a blogger. -Atmoz (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'Weather presenter' is not a pejorative as some have assumed. It's common usage (in Britain, at least) for someone who presents weather on the TV / radio - and it describes exactly what Watts does. 'Meteorologist' suggests scientific qualification - Watts has none. Why has factual reference to him being a retired TV Seal Holder been removed? There seems to be an agenda from some to massage Watts' credentials in order to give him authority where none exists - e.g. calling him 'chief meteorologist' when, in fact, that's just the job title bestowed on him by the small radio station he works for. Referring to him as a 'meteorologist' will lead many to believe he has scientific qualification when, in fact, he has none. Meteorology has a clear definition - "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting". The key word is scientific and Watts is not a scientist of any kind - he just plays one on the radio and on his blog. I see no justification for the changes that have been made from my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts_(blogger)&oldid=290526000 MonoApe (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This stuff about him being 'only a retired' AMS Seal Holder is really quite silly. Albert Einstein is not only retired, but he's dead too. Does that mean Wikipedia should denote him as 'scientist' any longer? Should the lead of Einstein's article include a qualification "dead scientist"? What happens when James Hansen retires. Will Wikipedia still call him a scientist, or should he then be labelled a 'retired scientist'?

Maybe these will help

1. From senate.gov 2006 - ... research led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts of SurfaceStations.org
2. From senate.gov 2008 - Meteorologist Anthony Watts details the ...
3. From heartland.org 2009 - ANTHONY WATTS, Climatologist, Author: "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"

• From The American Metorological Society: meteorologist — A person who is professionally employed in the study or practice of meteorology. It often refers to individuals who have completed the requirements for a college degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

Thus, there is no requirement of a degree.

• From Wikipedia - Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology.
• From Wikipedia - scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method

Again, no requirement for a degree.

Wikipedia rules only require that the data be verifiable from a reliable source. Unless you can find a reliable source that says that he is not a meteorologist, then the sources I have presented should stand. Q Science (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And since we are talking reliable sources - then only one that can be used in the above is the AMS one. Which indeed does state that a degree is inferred. (btw. i think you yourself know that your argument is thin, if you have to point out that the definition of scientist in wikipedia doesn't require education...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to use swift boater Marc Morano and Senator Inhofe (Rep. ExxonMobil) as supporting evidence? Not even close to credible sources. AMS is a credible source - and what do they say - "individuals who have completed the requirements for a college degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.". A degree. And that's what most people will assume when reading 'meteorologist' - that the person has professional, scientific qualifications. Watts has none. He's an unqualified weather man. I think this discussion has run its course - do we have any remaining dissent that allowing Watts to be described as a meteorologist is likely to give people a false impression of his qualifications? I propose that 'weather presenter' is fair, accurate and appropriate. MonoApe (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'meteorologist' would give the wrong impression of Watts. He is a meteorologist. The AMS has said he is. A degree is not a necessary condition. Here is how the AMS describes their seal of approval:

The [AMS] Seal [of approval] is awarded by the Society to broadcast meteorologists who meet established criteria for scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather presentations. Among radio and television meteorologists, the Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction and a recognition of achievement in the communication of scientific information. To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work...

Sealholders are highly respected among their peers. Professional meteorologists have confidence that weather presentations made by sealholders will be technically sound and responsibly delivered. [Emphasis added]

AMS (.doc)

But I have no strong opinions on any of the options. -Atmoz (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is a bit misleading, since it talks about the revised seal of approval program, which was enacted in 2005 (before that it didn't contain the bolded "scientific competence" but was just about professionalism:

How do these two programs differ?

The main difference between the two programs is education and the exam. To apply for the CBM, applicants must hold a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology (or the equivalent) from an accredited college/university. Current AMS Sealholders (those that earned the Seal prior to January 1, 2005 ) are not required to meet this criteria. These Sealholders may qualify for the CBM designation if they pass the written exam. All CBM applicants must pass the written exam to earn the CBM designation.

[13]

So while its interesting that the AMS now has that requirement, it doesn't pertain to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of "meterologist" for a TV weather presenter is a USianism. That the AMS supports this is somewhat sad, in my opinion. But this is a world-wide encyclopedia. In this context "meterologist" is indeed misleading - for me, this is someone who has a degree in meterology, or a related science, and is working in the field. See WP:BIAS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that describing a citizen of the United States with a word that accurately describes them in the United States is bias. It is bias to call them weather presenters. -Atmoz (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, we should call Kim Jong-il "Dear Leader". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the only reliable source provided calls him that... -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with how a phrase is received in the USA - Wikipedia is a global website, remember? 'Weather presenter' is a plain and factual description of what he does. 'Meteorologist' will lead many people to assume Watts has professional training and qualifications when he doesn't.

Note that AMS gives him only the title of (retired) Television Seal Holder - not 'meteorologist'. Watts is not on the list of AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologists - http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm. He is not any kind of meteorologist.

My edit of a few weeks ago provides factual, referenced statements of job title, qualifications and status with AMS - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29&oldid=290526000 - I've seen no coherent argument why that edit should not be used, other than some editors from the USA assume 'weather presenter' is a pejorative, and it's been clearly established that it is not. There's no justification for honouring him with the title of 'meteorologist' - it's just an attempt by some to massage his credential to give him authority where he has none. --MonoApe (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I hereby disagree with MonoApe's assertions. It should be clear from the discussion above that his edit is controversial and lacks a clear consensus. Watts should be referred to in a manner consistent with how he is referenced in reliable media sources. I assert based on the analysis performed below that "weather presenter" is clearly NOT the preferred term in that respect. If MonoApe can establish that "weather presenter" is actually used more often than some form of "meteorologist" then he should present that evidence here for consideration. Otherwise he should accept the reality that his edit lacks consensus and stop introducing it. --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I acquiesce to your renaming of my thread (wrt basic point on rebuttals to BLP views)

It got threadjacked so hard that, that's what made sense. I did have an (I think) relevant point to this article and to others about not needing to juvinely argue against the BLP within his bio. And before anyone gets too upset, I think Watts is a buffoon. He makes the real skeptics look bad (of course a lot of my fellow skeptics make us look bad...sigh.) But my basic point was let's not feel the little kid need to disagree with the biography subject within his article. I mean I think Hitler was wrong too. But if the bio says, Hitler thought the Jews were evil, that's the content. That's what the dude thought. I don't need to add my own cobbled together argument on how the Jews aren't evil. Just in CASE someone comes along and agrees with Hitler. Or because it just chaps my a...lueta jonte allueta...to see that in print. At least quote someone else making the rebuttal. Although even that is persnickety. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP does matter, and you really shouldn't be calling people buffoons. I'm not really sure what thread you are referring to since the thread you've participated in is the one above. Are you Alex Harvey or something? In any case, if you are referring to [14] I agree it's removal was appropriate because the rebuttal was not reliable sourced. Nneither of the references appear to be a rebuttal of Anthony Watts' claims which is generally necessary in a BLP and heck from what I understand (from a quick read thorough of the sources) neither even say "even if anomalies were found in temperature stations in the USA, it would not alter the increasing temperatures recorded in the Arctic and globally." instead they simply appear to be discussions about the temperature increases observed globally and in the Artic, in other words it's a clear cut case of WP:OR (specifically WP:Syn. Having said that, I'm not convinced that Anthony Watts' claim/hope is notable/significant enough to be mentionedin the article if the only source for it is an op-ed Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am Alex Harvey and, no, I haven't been posting anonymously above... I agreed with Atmoz's comments above. Also someone described the current naming of the article "Anthony Watts (weather presenter)" aptly as a "word knife". My opinion again, for what it's worth... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"popularize...the controversy"

I also have issues with the phrase under views on global warming where it is stated that Watts's blog was created to "popularize...the controversy" of global warming. This is a bad wording, implying that his intention is to create controversy, and I am sure that he would deny that this has ever been his intention with the blog. Maybe people actually hold the view that he wants to "popularize...the controversy", but without supporting evidence given (e.g. a direct quote) this should be changed & evidence should be given. I also don't like the "house of cards" quote; I don't think it is a representative quote of Watts's views & thus belonging in a piece this short. It may be something he really said; I just don't think it most appropriate in a Wikipedia BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop the contro seems correctly to be unreferenced (and unreferencable), and thus should go - it is opinion and that has no place here, it is also completely wrong - since Wuwt didn't start as a GW blog, though it quickly became one. I agree on the "house of cards" which seems cherry-picked, and more representative of an editors opinion than of Watts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a rewrite of Views on Global Warming:

Watts is a well-known climate change skeptic. He has stated that he had once "been fully engaged in the belief that CO2 was ... the root cause of the global warming problem" but that he later changed his thinking after learning more about the science. Watts established a science blog "Watts Up With That?" that presents mostly skeptical climate change news and opinion.

I would also like to move views on global warming section ahead of surface stations section. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well-known" by what measure? Let's keep the evidence-free hyperbole out. MonoApe (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How do we measure "well known"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, probably insert some more appropriate adjective then. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It requires no adjective. And it's very debatable that he is a 'skeptic' any more than meteorologist - but that's a debate for another day. MonoApe (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move wars

QS moved this page as 2009-06-18T06:09:47 Q Science (talk | contribs | block) m (5,767 bytes) (moved Anthony Watts (blogger) to Anthony Watts (Meteorologist): To better describe the person, based on talk page). I don't see any consensus for the move, nor do I agree that "Met" describes him better, so I've moved it back. Certainly his claim to fame in the wide world is his blogging William M. Connolley (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his claim to fame is his book about problems with the National Weather Service’s network of temperature stations.

Before making the change, there was some discussion here and in the sections above were it was clearly stated that meteorologist is the correct term.

As for consensus, I decided to be bold. After all, the name change last weekend was a complete surprise without any consensus, and it broke all the links from outside wikipedia. I was just repairing the damage. (Well, I was trying to.) Q Science (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that "it was clearly stated in the section above" seems to glaze over that there wasn't consensus for it. Just stating something doesn't make it correct. Can we get alternatives instead? Meteorologist is out per several people (its an US'ism), blogger is asserted by you to be pejorative, weather presenter is asserted by others to be pejorative - Can we get some other alternatives then? Author? (although i rather doubt your assertion on his "claim to fame") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in no way responsible for links outside wikipedia. Indeed, the only time I've ever heard this come up before is discussions about moving the Main Page. Otherwise, moving pages is a normal part of wikipedia, and we don't give any consideration to links from outside. Besides that, the links aren't broken since there should still be a redirect. It is usually recommended to fix internal links in articles after a move, especially double redirects (although a bot should do it if you don't I believe) and there's general agreement not to move too often but that's about all the concern we give to 'broken links' `Nil Einne (talk)

I've no objection to boldness, as long as you haven't either. Just in case it flies, I don't suppose (global warming skeptic) would do? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am basically ok with it, but it appears from what I've read that Anthony has gone out of his way to avoid that phrase. He really seems more interested in how the data is collected than in Global Warming in general. (Of course, that could just be a way to avoid criticism since he openly associates with skeptics. Apparently, he also works with NOAA to improve data collection methods.) Q Science (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite preferring 'meteorologist' myself, I am also happy with 'blogger', as far as the disambig is concerned. There are more important things to argue about, and I believe Watts would share that view. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

I see I am more than a month late to the party here. WMC states "Certainly his claim to fame in the wide world is his blogging." I find that reasoning to be a bit thin. If we were to apply that same reasoning to someone like, for example only, James E. Hansen then we would have to have him listed as James E. Hansen (Incomplete and Inaccurate Computer Modeler), or more recently James E. Hansen (Global Warming Activist). Somehow I don't think you would agree with that in his case, so it seems a bit POV to insist on (blogger) here. We all know Watts is a Meteorologist by training and background, do we not? KDP states "Meteorologist is out per several people (its an US'ism)". And the policy against using a "US'ism" is where? Please point me to it so that I might familiarize myself with it. What term do they use to refer to said profession across the big pond?

KDP asked for some alternatives, I propose "Champion of the Truth"  :)

As a non-scientific, non-binding means of assessing how he is seen in the real world in mainstream media sources I ran a few queries on Google News with the following results:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 86 for "Anthony Watts" meteorologist. (0.09 seconds)
• Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "Anthony Watts" blogger. (0.09 seconds)
• Your search - "Anthony Watts" "weather presenter" - did not match any documents.
• Your search - "Anthony Watts" "Champion of the Truth" - did not match any documents.

Note that a quick skim of the results for "meteorologist" reveals no false positives (that I noticed, at least). A similar scan of the results for "blogger" revealed no false positives, but it also revealed that "meteorologist" was mentioned in 2 of the 5. So, unless and until someone comes up with a better way to assess how he is actually referred to in "the wide world", I assert that "meteorologist" is the preferred term by objective 3rd party reliable sources over "blogger" by a ratio of about 17 to 1. Hence "blogger" would seem to be WP:UNDUE in this case. Do you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment in Anthony Watts (blogger) #Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title above. The use of meteorologist for TV weatherman is a USianism. Also, typing "Anthony Watts" meteorologist into Google News gives me a grant total of 7 hits, 4 in Heartland Institute press releases, one in Prison Planet, and two in Right Side News. Only one is in an arguable reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Google News gives me a grant total of 7 hits" - Now try expanding the search to include "All Dates" instead of just the past month. Sorry for not making that clear. --GoRight (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that helps. But still, in the first 10 hits all but the Heartland Institute, one Fox News report, and what seems to be an email digest call him "TV meteorologist", "local weatherman", "TV and radio meteorologist", "KHSL meteorologist", not plain "meteorologist". That's 5 out of 10, and four of the others are not remotely WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please see my comment in Anthony Watts (blogger) #Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title above." - Done. While I can certainly sympathize with your sensibilities on this topic, I think it appropriate that the main page be qualified using the term most frequently used in the MSM and the redirects adjusted accordingly (i.e. "(Meteorologist)" becomes the actual page and "(blogger)" becomes the redirect). You are indeed correct that this is an international encyclopedia, as is the Google News search so there should be parity between the two on that account. I am open to other methods of determining the proper weighting between these two alternatives but the Google News counts seem quite adequate to that task. If you feel that this determination deserves further research and a better methodology, please provide them. Sans that, I still maintain that "(blogger)" is WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All (as far as I can tell) reports on Watts are from US sources. He is quite non-notable elsewhere. So of course there is a systemic bias in Google News, a mere aggregator. But even in the US, MSM mention him rarely, and, at least as judged from the sample above, do not describe him simply as a "meteorologist". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here's an unqualified reference in the Sci/tech section of the BBC News: Solar storms spark light show ("Meteorologist Anthony Watts, based in Chico, California ..."). We could go exhaustively through these hits and weed out anything questionable, which would only serve to reduce the ratio from 17 to 1 to something less. How likely do you think it would be for such an effort to reduce the ratio to below 1 to 1? Personally I find it highly unlikely and wholly not worth the effort overall, but since the current disambiguation was (apparently) changed from the original "(Meteorologist)" to the WP:UNDUE version "(blogger)" without the benefit of ANY such analysis it would still seem appropriate to restore the original, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"So of course there is a systemic bias in Google News, a mere aggregator." - Actually, I think you have that backwards. As a "mere aggregator" it can have no such bias (other than to exclude foreign sources which we both know that it does not). So the view we are receiving IS the aggregate view of how he is ACTUALLY represented across the international media and it is on THAT view that WP:UNDUE should be applied, is it not? --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course as a mere aggregator it reflects the bias in the sampled media - which in nearly exclusively in the US, and not "across the international media", where he actually is barely mentioned at all (your 2001 BBC hit notwithstanding). See WP:BIAS. You are also falling into the trap of a wrong dichotomy. "Meteorologist" and "blogger" are not the only options - and from you sample, it looks like "TV meteorologist" (or equivalent) is a lot more frequent than plain meteorologist, especially in RS - but then, as I understand it, he is not working for TV anymore, so that would become "former TV meteorologist", which I think distinctly inferior to "blogger". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, your argument is self defeating. We are both fully aware that WP:UNDUE means that content is to be given appropriate weight in accordance with the proportion in which it actually appears in independent reliable sources. If Watts is barely mentioned in the international sources, as you claim, then how is it surprising at all that most of the references turned up in Google News are from US sources? This does not alter the WP:UNDUE nature of this problem at all, your claim that "he actually is barely mentioned at all" in international sources is actually reinforcing my position vis-a-vis the Google News statistics we are observing, not weakening it. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We're catering to an international audience, that is the reason for the problematic nature of the meteorologist part. If the audience had been US only, then no objection would have been raised. The basis is that TV weather presenters in the US are called meteorologists, some of these have (more or less) advanced degrees in meteorology, so it doesn't become an issue - This is not the case for Watts, he doesn't have such a background (or at least not one i've seen). I'm all good with any of these: "weatherman","weather presenter", "former TV meteorologist", "author", "blogger" (and probably others that haven't been presented yet) but not meteorologist, which contains (outside the US) a connotation of academic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

James Hansen doesn't need disambiguation so the point is somewhat moot, but in any case, James Hansen is primarily known as a scientist, not either of the things you mentioned which contrasts to Anthony Watts Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Analysis of the Google News search data:

OK, I took the time to slog through the Google News lists to pull out the least controversial view of the available data. I assert that at any point in time the Google News aggregator will provide a representative sampling of the available international news media, so if we limit ourselves to only sources directly picked up by that aggregator at the same point in time it should give us a reasonable view of the relative proportions of how Anthony Watts is being described in the international media.

Since SS seems to dislike the US sources, I have only included the sources which are arguably (a) mainstream media and (b) claim significant international (i.e. non-US in this context) readership. These results should be, necessarily, highly biased in SS's favor assuming that his assertions are correct. You are making the bald assertion that Google News is highly biased in favor of US media. I assume that if I completely ignore all US media in this list that the result should be suitably representative of international media? Or are you asserting that there is bias in their international sampling as well? If so, please provide some sort of evidence to that effect as the bald assertions are growing rather thin in the face of actual data.

The list of such sources which include only unqualified references to "meteorologist":

1. From BBC News: Solar storms spark light show ("Meteorologist Anthony Watts, based in Chico, California ...").
2. From the Australian: More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice ("US meteorologist Anthony Watts noticed ...").
3. From the Australian: Dire climate predictions reflect darkness of our mood ("Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who ...").
4. From the Canada Free Press: UN Climate Distractions ("meteorologist Anthony Watts").

The list of such sources which include unqualified references to "meteorologist" AND refer to him as a "blogger":

1. From the UK Telegraph: The world has never seen such freezing heat ("US meteorologist Anthony Watts") and ("readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit").
2. From the Jewish World Review: The killer frost for global warming ("Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist") and ("Watts and McIntyre, the bloggers").
3. From the Australian: [Not only breaking the news but smashing the tax rates] ("Watts Up With That blog, run by American meteorologist Anthony Watts ...").

The list of such sources which refer to him only as a "(blogger)":

1. From The Register (which claims UK readership): Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ("Anthony Watts, who blogs at Watt's Up With That?").

The list of such sources which refer to him as a "weatherman" AND refer to him as a "blogger":

1. From the Jewish World Review: NASA-affiliated institute cools off global warming debate ("California weatherman Anthony Watts") and ("reads Watts' blog").

The list of such sources which refer to him as a "weather presenter", "broadcast meteorologist", "TV meteorologist", "former TV meteorologist", or "author":

The leads to the following ratios for international (i.e. non-US) references:

• Total unqualified references to "meteorologist": 7
• Total references to "blogger": 5
• Total references to "weatherman": 1
• Total references to "weather presenter": 0
• Total qualified references to "broadcast meteorologist", "TV meteorologist", "former TV meteorologist": 0
• Total references to "author": 0

I believe that this demonstrably and objectively establishes "(blogger)" as being WP:UNDUE and the unqualified term "meteorologist" as preferred even within the international media sources.

Again, if you have an alternative methodology which is clearly superior to the analysis here in making an objective assessment I am more than happy to consider it once it has been provided. Barring that I would ask that the appropriate moves and redirects be made to bring this into conformance with applicable policy.

Are there any remaining objections? If so, what are they and why should they take precedence over this issue of policy? --GoRight (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated based on a second pass audit of the raw data to account for the other possibilities. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work, for something that is really irrelevant. The trouble here isn't undue weight or anything other. It is that meteorologist outside the US means something different. See my comment above, i have no trouble with most postfixes that have been proposed except for the meteorologist one, since it isn't accurate. And while most sources may be from the US, the audience that WP is presenting the information to, is international. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that he was a TV weatherman (USEng: "meteorologist") is not in question - that's what undue weight covers. But the word "meteorologist" has a different meaning in other parts of the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

@Both: Despite your protestations and claims regarding the meaning of words in the US and abroad, the simple fact of the matter is that the media around the world appears to use the term "meteorologist" more frequently than even "blogger" and if we are to respect both WP:V and WP:UNDUE the requested changes should be made. We should reference the man the way that objective third party sources reference him and in that regard "blogger" is WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the "media around the world" gladly ignores Watts. Your analysis is interesting - I checked the Australian and Canadian sources, and oh my, all three are opinion pieces of the Anti-AGW lobby. As you know, an opinion piece is only a WP:RS for opinions of its author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well come up with an alternative, please. Personally i have a hard time understanding why its such a big issue - what is the big problem with "blogger", "author", "weather presenter" or "former TV meteorologist" (or even "entrepreneur" (for his company))? All are verifiable and every one of them avoid the ambiguity inherent in meteorologist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But I don't want an alternative. I WANT to follow WP:UNDUE which is clearly one of your favorites. I WANT him to be referred to as he actually IS referred to by WP:RS around the globe in ALL of the major English speaking nations of the world - as a "meteorologist" above all the alternatives you have proposed thus far. Your personal preferences carry no weight on their own, please establish that some other description is used more often than "meteorologist" and I'll be happy to drop the point. If not I would AGAIN ask you to adhere to policy. --GoRight (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Part 3

color or colour - that's right, we are supposed to use the American spellings. How is this argument any different? Also, what countries use the word meteorologist? Europe? Really?

Meteorologe (German)

1. meteorologist
2. weather forecaster
3. weatherman
4. forecaster

Météorologiste (French)

1. meteorologist
2. weatherman

Google translate is great. Also notice that none of the definitions say that a degree is necessary. Q Science (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR. No, we are no supposed to use American spellings (in general). Moreover, this is not a question of spelling, but a question of semantics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on that, since Anthony Watts is an American, meteorologist is definitely the correct descriptor. Thanks. Q Science (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did you miss that part about spelling vs. semantics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hereby claim WP:RETAIN and assert that this article has been developed using the American norms of speech and grammar. The Brits should keep their own linguistic oddities and foibles to their own articles, IMHO. In the US "meteorologist" is a preferred term for describing individuals such as Anthony Watts. In addition, given the argument that for the most part that peoples outside of the US do not know or care about who Anthony Watts even is all the more reason to stick with the American norms. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did you miss that part about spelling vs. semantics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. The spirit of the policy is clear. Please leave the wikilawyering to the professionals!  :) :P --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has argued against using american english in this article so that line of argumentation is rather moot. Now please get back to addressing the issue, which is semantics. I've repeatedly asked for alternatives here, apparently it has been drowned out in all the spelling non-sense.

Now could we please get back on track? What alternatives are there, given that meteorologist is contentious and ambiguous? I've proposed "blogger", "weatherman" "weather presenter", "former TV meteorologist", "author" and "entrepreneur". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Watts btw describes himself as a "former television meteorologist"[15] which is one of the proposed alternatives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"I've repeatedly asked for alternatives here" - And established the relevant weight of none of them. The question before us is NOT whether other alternatives exist, they may well exist. Rather, the question is which of these alternatives actually HAS the greatest WP:WEIGHT?

I have repeatedly asked that we actually try to stick to policy here. I have provided a reasonable analysis to establish the unqualified reference to "meteorologist" as being the preferred alternative due to WP:WEIGHT using examples that explicitly exclude the US and specifically include the other major English speaking countries around the globe (i.e. specifically within the target communities that you are complaining about). That analysis runs counter to your other assertions regarding common usage of the word. Stop stonewalling and either provide some superior form of analysis to establish some alternative as actually HAVING a higher weight, or allow the requested changes to be made per the policy. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis, as mentioned above, does not contain a significant number of reliable sources and is hence worthless. Also note that your first analysis (including the US) on closer analysis showed a preponderance for qualifying the meteorologist with some form of broadcast, TV, radio, weatherman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Your analysis, as mentioned above, does not contain a significant number of reliable sources and is hence worthless." Then please provide a better one, otherwise this is the best we have, and as things stand now it is vastly superior to any provided by either KDP or yourself. "Also note that your first analysis (including the US) on closer analysis showed a preponderance for qualifying the meteorologist with some form of broadcast, TV, radio, weatherman." But of course we NOW need to include the US perspective on all this. Quite right. Somewhat expected, actually, I was wondering when it might turn back to this. Provide a comparably detailed level of analysis for the US sources and I will be happy to consider the over-all effect on the WP:WEIGHT of each. Personally I decline to take another round about the Mulberry bush. I have provided an analysis which clearly accounted for all of your stated objections so it seems rather disingenuous for you to throw those out and ask me to start over at the beginning again. Please provide your own counts to validate your bald assertion. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow us to disagree. And that would mean that we are stuck with "no consensus to change", and that the current postfix sticks... I don't think that this is what you are arguing for... is it? If we are going to reach some sort of compromise from this impasse it would seem that we need some alternatives on the table. I've given several. Including the "former television meteorologist" that Watts uses himself to describe his background. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Allow us to disagree." - Fine. [Self Removed] --GoRight (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The original change was made without discussion, let alone consensus. Therefore, your argument to keep the current descriptor because of "a lack of consensus" is without merit. Q Science (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"The original change was made without discussion, let alone consensus." - Absolutely. The posturing here seems to be one of WP:OWN for this page. Can KDP please establish, via some suitable authority, that in English speaking countries outside of the US that the term "meteorologist" implies an academic degree? So far we only have a bald assertion on that, and its use in the articles I have cited above seems to be at odds with that claim. While I assume good faith on on KDP's part, I fear he may be confused. --GoRight (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have demonstrated above that 2 European languages do not use the American word meteorologist in the way you suggest. Will someone please provide at least one usage from Europe where the term is used in the way you are suggesting? Q Science (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm? No. What you've done is to use Google translate, that then looks it up in a dictionary (english). Strangely enough i speak German, and Stephan is German. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Monoape

Monoape, I reverted some of your edits. This page is not the right place to be presenting refutations of Watts' views of the surface record. The quote provided was one-sided and didn't actually appear to say or add anything (to say yes the temperature has been rising rapidly is to beg the question, how rapidly?); NOAA has said some other more positive things about Watts' work. Lawrimore appeared to be referring to Steve McIntyre, not Watts. So that quote just isn't right here. I think we should wait until Watts's paper is actually published before we start arguing about it in Wikipedia. In any case, these arguments would belong in the surface record page, not Watts's bio page. I left your rewording of Lawrimore in because I agreed it was an improvement. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Harvey, the Dr. Lawrimore quote was definitely NOT referring to Watts' "independent group of meteorologists and weather buffs" but to the "bloggers" who keep arguing over which year was the hottest. KDP was wrong to put it back. Q Science (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This stuff belongs in the surface temperature record page, and of course, inclusion of it here will shortly turn this page into a duplicate discussion of the surface temperature record. I'll return later to start the ball rolling in that direction... duplication of discussions is preferrable to POV. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another MonoApe edit

MonoApe, you've added this text:

Watts still expects that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort will be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO₂ but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

This is something that Watts said in 2007. Can you explain how you justify a wording "still" in 2009 based on a source dating 2007? Further, there is a phrase that "In any case, NOAA still sees the evidence for human-driven warming is robust." That statement is too ambiguous to have any meaning, and thus Watts would agree with it too (as would just about everyone). Thus it is not relevant.

Kim D. Petersen is obstructing my efforts to remove the text. Can I ask Kim also to explain his reasons for this? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"NOAA: Evidence for human warming remains robust"

William M. Connolley apparently supports this too.

William, since you apparently also view this MonoApe-added statement as an important new piece of the article, can you tell me what the relevance of NOAA's statement that "evidence of human warming remains robust" is to this article? Because I am not getting it. Maybe I am just of real low intelligence, but I'm struggling a bit here. The statement that A. Watts has made that is causing such offence is that some of the recent global warming may be a result of measurement error. We all understand the distinction between "some" and "all"? Assuming we do, then, there's some logic 101 I've picked up along the way: If Watts claimed that some warming may be measurement error, then a statement from NOAA that "evidence for human warming remains robust" is of no relevance to the Watts view, and therefore of no relevance to the article. We must really be writing for the lowest common denominator if we do not expect the readers of Wikipedia to see this. Do you not think that playing the readers as fools here is really not helping anyone? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I spelt that out far enough.

if "some" warming was caused by measurement error; then

some warming caused by measurement error; some warming caused by humans ==> evidence for human-caused warming remains robust

else

no warming caused by measurement error; some warming caused by humans ==> evidence for human-caused warming remains robust

fi

So here's a game, can anyone see why the statement "evidence for human-caused warming remains robust" is not relevant to the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, that is apologetics (ie. strong POV)... You know as well as i do that Watt's claim isn't that the measurement errors have an insubstantial effect on the record, his argument is that the whole thing must be suspect because of errors. And that is what the NOAA statement is about, it states quite flatly that such extrapolation is wrong.

Summary: Watt's whole argument hinges on saying that poor station location => temp record suspect, and thats what the NOAA statement is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, and how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said? Watts does not believe that all temperature rise is a result of measurement error. That is a completely false, and silly statement that you just made up on the spot. I invite you to either support it with evidence or retract it. Meanwhile, what is relevant to this actual article is that the article currently only goes as far as attributing to Watts a view that some and not all temperature increase might be the result of measurement error. Thus, the NOAA statement that has been added by MonoApe and defended by Kim D. Petersen & William M. Connolley is of no relevance. I ask again, why? Alex Harvey (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said" I know this because it is in his book. You didn't notice that Watts said "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century." in the introduction to his book? Hmmmm? Lets stop beating about the bush shall we? You know as well as i do that this is what Watts' whole argument is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NOAA's statement is irrelevant. Hansen has made it clear that the US surface temperature represents only about 2% of what he computes for the globe. Thus, even if Watts finds very large errors, Hansen's proprietary "average temperature model" basically ignores the data anyway. Q Science (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On what A. Watts really believes, I would suggest that it is pretty close to what R.A. Pielke Sr. also believes, viz. that:

A conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21°C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth's surface, the warm bias due to just this one effect explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming.

See here and Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652. Those who are in favour of having Watts bio page turned into a discussion of the reliability of the US surface temperature record should probably consider some other recent statements by Pielke that have explicitly defend Watts' work: here and here. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pielke today again defends Watts work, with some interesting stuff here.

I will report if NCDC refutes this personal attack against a well respected colleague [Watts] who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community. Stay tuned also for at least two peer reviewed papers which are quantitatively analyzing, using Anthony’s data, the impact of the poor sitings of the HCN sites on the long term surface temperature trends and anomalies.

These articles of Pielke's group, if published, should be usable in the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What Pielke says is not what Watts is saying - will you please stop doing original research here? (and why pick another "in the minority" scientist to claim that Watts is correct? (Sorry, but that is the reason that P.Sr. is in disagreement with almost every other scientist in the field, as seen from his blog)). You should use mainstream sources. Thanks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OT but... Pielke wants NCDC to respond to a youtube video? -Atmoz (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Go figure. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Petersen's revert

Kim D. Petersen, again without addressing the issue of relevance as highlighted by both myself and Q Science, has reverted the edits without giving reasons. My edits clearly improved the article, and certainly there is no justification other than laziness for reverting them in toto. In any case, Petersen is (a) defending inclusion of an obvious factual error (the wording "still" is used in the article to imply that Watts is immuned to reason against 2009 developments but is based upon a 2007 source) and (b) fails to address the fact that a statement "evidence for human-warming remains robust" can not be used relevantly in an article that gives Watts's view as "some warming may be caused by measurement error". Kim: do one of the following: (1) apologise and restore my text; or (2) explain yourself; or (3) off we go to arbitration again. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not see some text that had been inserted above... Kim wrote:

(quoting me) "how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said" I know this because it is in his book. You didn't notice that Watts said "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century." in the introduction to his book? Hmmmm? Lets stop beating about the bush shall we? You know as well as i do that this is what Watts' whole argument is.

Yes, I know exactly what his argument is about, and it's certainly not what you seem to be saying here, and I'll have to say I'm surprised indeed that you don't seem to get it; it's not exactly rocket science. Watts is arguing that the US temperature record is hugely unreliable. He is saying that the uncertainty in the data is far greater in magnitude than the change in temperature itself that it is said to measure and cannot therefore be used to establish a temperature increase as small as 0.7 C. You seem to be arguing that this means he believes there was therefore no temperature increase. This is completely fallacious reasoning. If his analysis of the uncertainty is correct, then he has drawn a perfectly valid conclusion: we know nothing at all about the temperature increase over the last century, only what we've got in the radiosonde data from 1950 and the satellite data from 1979. This would be, I suppose, why Pielke's group is checking it. But how on earth did you come to the belief that Watts doesn't believe there was a temperature rise in the first place? That would mean he denies the satellite data and the radiosonde data as well. You have absolutely no evidence or reason to suspect that his view diverges in any way whatsoever from his friend Pielke -- who he credits as helping him in the report. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a rather long strawman argument here... I haven't argued that Watts' should be saying that there is no warming. (which makes your entire rant moot) - try rereading the above section again. (by the way: I've never been in arbitration with you - so that's a strawman as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have said above that Watts has argued for "insubstantial" warming (that is, indeed, the straw man that you have created to spill fruitless words over in this latest nonsense dispute). So let's not play more word games; whether you say "insubstantial" (the word you used in the revision history) or "negligible" or "extremely little" or "zero" warming (words that indeed you didn't use) it is neither here nor there; the point I have made holds equally in all cases. The fact is that Watts did not say anything at all about "insubstantial" warming; you have invented this. The article has Watts saying that "some" of the warming "may" be measurement error. The Heartland document provides nothing new in this regard.

On arbitration, I must have meant "escalation"? What is arbitration then? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read my comments again. You still have it wrong, instead you are raising even more strawmen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

metacomment by Abd

When I was in my early twenties, wandering the streets of San Francisco, barefoot and carrying a guitar, there was a saying, promoted by the Family Dog. "May the Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind." Alex, that you don't know the difference between arbitration and escalation speaks volumes about how you haven't the foggiest idea what you are doing here. You have opinions on the subject and you are debating them. Back up. Learn about Wikipedia. Read the policies, that's a start, but there is no substitute for actual experience. Read arbitration cases. Yes, arbitration here means the Arbitration committee. Escalation means to go up a step in the dispute resolution ladder. Don't skip steps unless you have a very, very good reason. User RfC is generally the last step before ArbComm. Don't even think of it at this point. If you have a dispute with KDP discuss it with him. On his talk page or yours, as long as he permits it. Focus on finding agreement, or, failing that, to delineate specifically the disagreement, so that you can both present it to a third person for their opinion. That's the second step in DR. The process takes discussion down to a small group at first; sometimes it even goes into email, so that there aren't a bunch of people kibbitzing, which can distract and turn a possibly resolvable dispute into a factional one. Be willing to learn. KDP is a highly experienced editor, and he didn't reach that stage by being utterly unreasonable. Try it. Remember the wiki-epitath for so many editors: He was Right. Being Right, believing that one knows the Truth, is just about certain death here. Unless what you believe is the majority view, in which case you might survive for a while! Actually, being Right isn't quite the problem, it's believing that others are Wrong. That doesn't actually follow from being Right, because of the fallacy of the excluded middle. You may be Right from your POV, and the other Right from theirs; the trick is to see the matter from both POVs at once, which will give you .... depth perception. Stereo vision, and you will see that what seemed to him to be left of center and to you to be right of center is a product of your different positions. Both were correct, merely incomplete, and if you can add the depth term to the position data, you can both sign onto it. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked through the information as a neutral bystander, I think Watts' position can best be summed up, "Doesn't deny global warming, but questions severity and anthropogenic contributions." That said, I don't think the statement by the NOAA is really important and could be removed (though it's not imperative). The "still expects" for the other disputed line doesn't seem to fit either, as his study is 80 percent complete and the results so far appear to back up his claim. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason that NOAA's statement is included is that A) it directly relates to Watts' work B) it references Watts' work. ie. for instance the Q&A is a direct response to the station collecting, and claims that Watt has made. That it is such a response, is stated by Pielke and Watts - so it would be rather strange not to quote NOAA's response. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but wouldn't that quote be more for the SuperStations.org page, rather than Watt's page? Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably - except that its been merged into Watts bio. (neither was notable by themselves) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, what comments did I miss? Can you please state your argument clearly? I can find nothing but a breezily-added sequence of non sequiturs in the above. Now you are saying, "well, the NOAA statement is clearly about Anthony Watts's work." Fine, no disagreements there. I couldn't add hundreds of NOAA statements, if I have no regard for context, that are also about Watts's work. That doesn't mean they should be included. They need to be relevant. Alex Harvey 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, you seem to have agreed that the statement is not relevant and agree that Petersen is defending inclusion of a factual error for reasons best known to himself. You don't seem to regard the issue as urgent (and sure, given the extent of Wikipedia disinformation that is defended in other climate change pages it might be argued that this is not life and death, however...) can you not see that the text is being used, subtly, to promote the idea that Watts is a "denalist" who rejects the most basic parts of the climate change agreement, viz. that the world is warming? Alex Harvey 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. What exactly makes you claim that people are promoting that he is a "denialist"? Because we disagree with you? Its very simple: NOAA made a statement regarding Watts' book, Watts and Pielke replied. That means that its very relevant, since apparently both sides (NOAA v. Watts/Pielke) find it notable. You can hold the opinion that NOAA's statement is faulty as much as you want (that is apparently your POV), Watts/Pielke will agree with you - but that doesn't make it correct - since NOAA quite apparently disagrees. Sit down quietly and try to assume good faith, and stop making personal attacks... you've been asked to do so repeatedly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

@Kim If that's the case, then I see no problems. @Alex, you're not helping yourself when you start on "rants" about Wikipedia's "disinformation." Soxwon (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, if what is the case? Alex Harvey 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, where did I say that NOAA's analysis is faulty? Alex Harvey 02:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the above where you state that "defending inclusion of a factual error", since what i'm defending here is the inclusion of the NOAA statement, i'm inferring that you mean that NOAA is wrong (makes a factual error). If that is not the case, then please explain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I am putting a lot of effort into making myself clear here. Perhaps too much effort; maybe that's the problem and I've overwhelming with too much text. In any case, can you also make the effort to see what I have already said? The factual error as I have made clear above is that a 2007 source is being used to imply that Watts holds a particular view of the NOAA response, which was issued 6th July 2009. The words Watts gave in 2007 are presented in the article as if they are a response to the NOAA document. My rewording, which you reverted, fixed this problem. So why not just go into the article, and fix this up? I realise this would require a bit of work. I.e. someone would need to actually see if there is a WP:RS that gives Watts's view of the 6th July NOAA document. I am unaware of one. For this reason, I have suggested, I think very fairly & reasonably, that we just do not discuss either Watt's Heartland document OR the NOAA response to it until such time that there is discussion of it in the WP:RSes.

On the NOAA response; I don't have an opinion at all yet. Much of it seems reasonable. Alex Harvey 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, can you find anywhere to indicate that Watts should have changed his mind with regards to the statement that "some of the warming may be localized"? I've just read through his book (again), and that certainly seems to be exactly what he is still saying (Ch 7). The disagreement between Watts and NOAA is still the same: Watts says that because stations are poorly located the surface temp record is suspect, and NOAA is saying that the surface temp record is not computed that way (ie. that individual station errors do not propagate), and that Menne(2009)/Peterson(2006) show this, Pielke and Watts obviously disagree. As i said before both Pielke/Watts consider the NOAA statement relevant (as shown by their blogs) and NOAA obviously also does. And more importantly all of them consider it a response to Watts claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, the word "still" implies "in the present"; and that would be July 2009; don't you agree? You are using a 2007 source as evidence that Watts holds a point of view now in mid-2009. Have a look at this page, it might help: Anachronism. I am truly sorry that you are unable to see this. Alex Harvey 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2007 Watts launched the 'Surface Stations' project, whose mission is to create a publicly available database of photographs of weather stations, along with their metadata. The project relies on volunteers to gather the data. Watts stated that he expected the result of the SurfaceStations.org project would be to show that some of the recent global warming has been caused not by CO₂ increases, but from changes in the temperature-measurement environment.

Now that's what I had... Just can't understand why you'd be arguing on and on for insertion of the word "still". Alex Harvey 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I had also changed the quote to prose for the benefit of our readers. Alex Harvey 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex. You've nice and easily jumped the main question here: Do we have any indications that Watts doesn't hold this view 2 years later? No. And quite the opposite really. I've just reread his book (today even), and nothing in the book indicates that he has dropped this view, in fact as i stated in the above Chapter 7 states much the same thing. The quote is not an anacronism since its first of all not that old and it reflects Watts views today.

Please, instead of jumping up and down and complaining. Try finding some source/reference that actually supports your view (apparently?) that Watts should not stand behind that quote anymore. (since quite frankly i find the same sentiments all over his writings). The quote is chosen because its clear and concise.

Finally the NOAA Q&A is a direct response to his book, where (as i said above) the same sentiment is present. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I have not dodged the main issue because on the main issue, yes, I think the statement is indeed correct! Yes, of course: I also think that Watts "still" (yes!) holds that view. That is not the point. That is merely my opinion, and I can't support it. As it happens, it's your opinion too (we agree! woohoo!) but: "Opinions have no place in Wikipedia." Right? Are you assuming good faith here? My concern is that my correctly-written, properly-sourced text has been reverted in favour of text that is badly-written and poorly-sourced. That is my only concern. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We go by what is verifiable - the quote is verifiable, and nothing indicates that it is out of date or any any way or form doesn't reflect Watts current opinion (what btw. is the run-out date for quotes? a week? a year? 5 years?). There is nothing false or "factual(ly) error(neous)" about it. Especially since we both agree that it is an accurate reflection of Watts views. If on the other hand that we had indications that Watts has changed his mind, then things would look different (and i certainly would look at things differently), but we haven't and it doesn't. Now as for "badly written" - well i do not agree that the other was better written... (btw. if you want - you could look for a more recent quote that says the same thing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let the record show here that your opinion of Wikipedia policies is that 2007 sources may be used to establish that a person holds a particular opinion in 2009 despite the fact that significant developments have occurred in the meanwhile (i.e. 2007 was the beginning of Surfacestations; 2009 is at the end of it). It would seem to follow that anachronisms are therefore not ruled out by any Wikipedia policies. I doubt this is true, but I am afraid I don't know well enough to contradict you. The point is minor; I let it rest now. Let's see if I'm allowed to fix the grammatical errors. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: How should this page be disambiguated?

How should this page be disambiguated? --GoRight (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion found here, here, here, and here. If you wish to comment please do so in the section provided below to keep the !Votes clean.

!Voting

Please weigh in with your opinion on the best option with your opinion on the following options for disambiguating this page by including your !vote below (capitalization will be adjusted to meet style norms, as appropriate):

1) (blogger)

• Acceptable. Second choice (yes, I have two of those ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. This is what he is (well) known for. This is why he has a fan base (including here on wikipedia). Martin451 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Third choice. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• First choice, it's what he's known for. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Barely acceptable. Everyone's a blogger, seemingly, these days—it's what they blog about that sets them apart. It doesn't clearly direct an interested party who may only know that Watts has a web site on climate change. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. That is what he does and is most notable for nowadays. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Trivializes his accomplishments, imo -- & smacks of WP:POV pushing. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2) (meteorologist)

• First choice. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• The majority of the article deals with him as such. Most sources seem to use this term to describe him. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable, misleading. Even per the AMS, it suggests a formal degree[16]. In other parts of the the world, the term implies such a degree, which Watts is lacking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Per above discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional acceptance. If a reliable source states that he received a degree or completed a professionally recognized certification program in meteorology, then this becomes my first choice. Otherwise, it's unacceptable. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable, totally. Meteorologists scientifically analyse diverse weather data to come up with forecasts. Weather presenters read those forecast from a prompter. That doesn't make them meteorologists. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Totally unacceptable. per Stephan, Kim, and Kaowhaahere. Martin451 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable per others Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• 2nd 1st choice [based on brevity]. Prefer it be reserved for formal training in meteorology, but the purpose of disambiguation is to make it clear to potential users as to where to go. This they would recognize. AMS's views are not what disambiguation is about. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. He was just a TV weather presenter SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. The arguments that in Europe the term "meteorologist" has a different meaning are bogus because that is an American term. Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3) (former television meteorologist)

• Acceptable, but clumsy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. This is what Watts calls himself though. I agree that its too long and clumsy though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable; he is still a broadcast meteorologist. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable but not preferred Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable, but not preferred (clumsy & suggests no longer active in meteorology). --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable but not preferred. This is how he describes himself. But it sounds clumsy for an article title SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

4) (broadcast meteorologist)

• First choice. This was his official title for 17 years, so I think this description is accurate. If you have a source that confirms that he actually received a degree somewhere in meteorology, then I would consider changing my vote to #2. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. Good compromise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable, but long. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. This is not what he is well known for. He is known for he internet work. Martin451 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• 1st 2nd choice [based on brevity of "meteorologist" & purpose of disambiguation]. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

5) (weatherman)

• Acceptable, but too informal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. But low choice --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable, seems pejorative. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. (Not pejorative). Martin451 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Interpreted as pejorative by some. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable but seems a bit informal and potentially should be avoided given that he's an American and the term may or may not be pejorative to Americans despite being widely accepted elsewhere Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. I once refered to s.o.'s graduate training in meteorology. The retort was "so he's just a weatherman." --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

6) (weather presenter)

• Acceptable. Second choice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. --BozMo talk 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable, seems pejorative. Alex Harvey 08:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable, first choice, because that's what he is Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable. (Not pejorative). Martin451 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Interpreted as pejorative by some. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable but potentially should be avoided given that he's an American and the term may or may not be pejorative to Americans despite being widely accepted elsewhere Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Same problems arise as with "weatherman." A bit goofy sounding, as well. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Acceptable SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

7) Other. Please specify your suggestion next to your name.

7.1) AMS Television Seal Holder

Since the term "meteorologist" is at least somewhat controversial applied to someone without a science degree, AMS Television Seal Holder, with a link to the appropriate AMS page, seems ideal. It's more accurate and precise. Gmb92 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• "climate researcher" for those who don't like "meteorologist" --John G. Miles (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But, as far as I can tell, he's not researching climate. Even assuming good faith about his work, he is researching the US weather station network, not climate. Also, I cannot remember any source calling him a climate researcher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is approach the subject as if I were someone coming to Wikipedia in need of being "disambiguated." If I've heard of Watts, its not because he is a broadcaster--I've heard of him in relation to his being involved in the climate change debate. His sites are very specific to climate change and the research he's done (even if it's not your particular flavor of climate research) is specific to that end (as William Connolley has pointed out above, "The entire point of [Watts'] project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW."). He's certainly understood to be a meteorologist as well (what formal science training qualified him the AMS seal, I do not know, only that it appears to be required), but since there was some discomfort with that I thought this might be a way to avoid it. And that is the purpose of disambiguation, after all--it's to help those trying to track down the correct Anthony. I have no problem with "meteorologist". --John G. Miles (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Afaik, no training was required for the previous incarnation of the AMS seal - that is something that subsequent versions have corrected. But, that aside, your argument makes rather little sense, as Watts is known for climate change not for meteorology. Climate science != meteorology. The base trouble about meteorologist is that it implies formal training, something which Watts apparently doesn't have (or at least no documentation of such can be found). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point completely. I'm not equating meteorology with climate—I'm pointing out what those who are coming to Wikipedia would equate with Anthony Watts in trying to track down information (it is an encyclopedia and this is the disambiguation part). As for the AMS seal of approval, it states that "offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards" is what was required [17]. Whatever evidence he presented evidently satisfied the AMS. That was my only point. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, i didn't miss your point. If you go by that btw. then blog is the most likely thing that people coming to WP would equate with Anthony Watts - certainly not meteorology though perhaps climate. The AMS seal before 2005 had no such requirement (education). That is the reason that it isn't being given out anymore, and that the "new" CBM certificate was launched (which requires education (degree in meteorology, written exam etc).[18] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you don't have to debate everything. It was just a suggestion in an effort to be constructive. You evidently don't like it. Do you want the last word? Feel free to take it; I don't specialize in minutia (or hostility). --John G. Miles (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

7.2) No disambiguation term (added by Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

This disagreement started because someone simply decided one day to change the page name without any discussion at all. The best approach would be to return to the old consensus - no disambiguation term.

• Preferred Q Science (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comments

• I hope it's clear that all these disambiguation terms should be in lower case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is set up as a majority poll. If we do this to find consensus, it should use support !voting (i.e. !vote for all acceptable alternatives). This would also get rid of the "let's put in the one option I want and 45 other mostly equivalent ones to split the opposing vote" effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  If there is a style of voting that has a precedent on Wikipedia which you believe is more appropriate and not likely to dissolve into utter chaos I have no objections to your making the necessary adjustments as I am unfamiliar with it. --GoRight (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Simply change "with your opinion on the best option" to "with your opinion on the following options". As for precedent: That's how we select Arbs (or really anybody). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  If there are other serious options that I have missed, please add them as you see fit. Beyond that let's simply sit back and let the community have its say. --GoRight (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a list of alternatives with space to vote? Calling voting "!voting" is missing the point of avoiding votes altogether. --TS 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious as to what the difference between a "vote" and "!vote" is. I don't get much time to spend here, so I'm hoping to shortcut having to research the difference. --John G. Miles (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny you bring this up. I was wondering the same and I am spending quite some time here. I was always suspecting it is the same thing? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's geek stuff. The "!" character serves as a negation operator in some computer languages. For example, a line of code may have something like "if (x != 3) then" meaning "if x is not equal to 3, then..." So !vote means "not a vote." It's sort of an in-joke, because most of the time it really is a vote, but we're supposed to keep up the pretense that discussions are closed on the merits of the points that are raised instead of straight up-or-down votes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boris. I was fully aware of what '!=' means in programming languages. But it didn't make any sense to me in this context. Because, as you point out '!vote' eventually is a vote. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we let this thing run for a full month and then decide what it means. I'm not clear on how one decides a "winner" from this mess. You say this is how we select Arbiters and such? Without starting a huge deal over this right now, does anyone want to comment on the current standings and how we should be "scoring" things here? --GoRight (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that decision-making on a wiki is best done by discussion which leads to decisions by consensus. Whenever a poll is held it almost always slows things down by forcing people to take sides (voting). So we say "don't vote." So some who people don't understand that voting is the problem vote anyway but call it "not voting" ("!voting") as if that made any difference.

That is very frustrating.

There are actually very few occasions when saying support or oppose is in any way constructive towards making a decision on Wikipedia. --TS 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the sections referenced at the top of the RFC. Further discussion was headed nowhere and was likely to simply result in increased division and animosity. Technically this is not a vote. It is a straw poll to assess community consensus (and from a wider audience than just those involved above) and is non-binding although I expect that on this issue it is likely to carry the day towards determining something that people will be willing to live with. Note also that people are not constrained to "support" and "oppose". They are offering commentary as well. This is merely a structured way to gather that commentary in a digestible format. --GoRight (talk) 04:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, Wikipedia has long recognised that polls only increase division, and cannot achieve consensus. If discussion is stalling, that last thing you should do is call a poll. Widening the circle of discussion by introducing new people is good, but this isn't the way to go about it.--TS 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

At least the !vote shows us something... That the "blogger" postfix (with "broadcast meteorologist" as a close second) is the least controversial of the choices available - but then that was the status quo, before the poll.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but now we have some real evidence to back that up. Alternatively I would say that if we exclude outliars from each category that "broadcast meteorologist" is the preferred option. I could always go change my !vote on "blogger" to be "unacceptable" if that would help.  :) --GoRight (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why we should disregard outliers, except if we want to preference one postfix over another. Blogger is according to the !vote barely acceptable to all - while broadcast meteorologist has at least one unacceptable. I don't think that we've come any further than we were before, blogger is still the least controversial choice. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"I can't see why we should disregard outliers ..." - I can, to find the best option rather than the barely acceptable one. "broadcast meteorologist" by far exceeds blogger in terms of preference among those voting. A full 2/3 of those voting considered this to be either their first or second choice vs. 3/8 for "blogger" (and even that is a stretch because Stephan had 2 second choices). --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"best" is a subjective thing. I rather doubt if the one who stated "unacceptable" finds it the "best" (i rather think i finds it the opposite). You are now treating this as a "vote" instead of a !vote, the idea is to find consensus - not the optimum, and while i myself prefer the bm postfix, the bl postfix seems to be the consensus version (not optimal, but acceptable to all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about the expression of first and second choices in this !vote. As you are firmly aware, consensus does NOT require that all parties be in agreement. Indeed, this is rarely the case on global warming pages. If, however, you wish to establish an agreement on the global warming pages which states that all parties must minimally agree on some point before a consensus can be claimed I will be most happy to accommodate you. If not, then the elimination of outliers is perfectly within the prevailing definition of consensus, and in this case specifically there is a clear consensus (2/3 of those voting) that "broadcast meteorologist" is the first or second choice. --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course its subjective. You eliminate the outliers to have a preferred version. Now i'm not saying that it may not be the "correct" choice - but please do not try to cast it as objective. And sorry - i do not agree with your "clear consensus" statement. Final comment: Please try to refrain from your "precedence" statements, they are strawmen, since the issues aren't similar. I've said it before: Argue each case on its own merit - it is very very seldom that cases are alike enough to draw direct parallels. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. I have to say I find it difficult to see what anybody really thinks from this. A couple of years ago I thought we had this voting nonsense cracked, but now it seems to have given rise to "bride of son of daughter of the vote the time forgot", namely "!vote".

A more productive way to address this would have been to ask whether the current name "Anthony Watts (blogger)" is okay. If there were consensus for that then no problem. If not then some people might suggest alternatives, and if we all agreed on one alternative that would be great and we could use that name. What happened here was that a "vote" called for historical reasons a "!vote", took place, and as a result we've got a myriad of pointless alternatives that not many people are that interested in. Some people are even suggesting letting this stupid poll continue for another month, as if that would change anything! All possibility of agreeing to the current name or to an alternative has been sabotaged, unwittingly, by the act of creating this poll. --TS 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"A more productive way to address this would have been to ask whether the current name "Anthony Watts (blogger)" is okay." Read the discussion. Did that. That answer was no, it is not OK, for some set of editors. "If not then some people might suggest alternatives, and if we all agreed on one alternative that would be great and we could use that name." - Read the discussion. Did that. We could not agree on an alternative. We had reached an impasse, a point where there was no clear consensus on anything. So we put the alternatives identified in the discussion into a !vote and sought additional outside input on the matter.

We needed to bring in some additional outside views. An RfC is the obvious way to do that. We only structured it as a !vote to cut to the chase on what people thought of each option. We even left it open ended so that others add additional options if they wanted. The only difference between your "more discussion" option and this !vote is that all of the opinions end up neatly sorted for easy reference. If you want to see what your "more discussion" option would have looked like, simply take all of the opinions expressed above and intermingle them in a random order. I fail to see how that would have helped. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So we put the alternatives identified in the discussion into a !vote and sought additional outside input on the matter. Duh! Read this and try to understand: No matter how many exclamation marks you put in front of it, asking people to vote is not inviting them to a discussion.

This discussion may be stale and in need of new ideas. Again, whether you call it a "vote" or a "!vote" you only guarantee that anyone who comes to the page will be faced with a de facto multiple-choice questionnaire. Thus you constraint the discussion and make it far less likely that a meaningful discussion will occur than you would have if you had just said "What do we do about the apparent lack of local consensus for the name Anthony Watts (blogger)?"

Here's an idea: start again with the above question or (my favorite) "Is the name Anthony Watts (blogger) appropriate for this article?" Get rid of the poll. It's the one thing that's making a decision harder to reach. --TS 03:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and decline your suggestion to scrap the poll. In my view this is the one thing that has taken what was becoming a heated argument and turned it into a matter of fact decision. --GoRight (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest a compromise in which you keep the poll, but no one is explicitly or implicitly obligated either to participate or to pay any attention to its results? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Now Boris, I have never twisted your arm to participate or pay attention to the results. Please feel free to move on to other things. I can handle the poll and making the required updates to the article!  :) --GoRight (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the informal poll has served a very useful purpose and has made clear that there are two options that seem to be clearly preferred, with the first being "broadcast meteorologist." By summarizing concisely where consensus is pointing, the poll disrupts endless filibustering by those with an interest in maintaining the status quo through endless discussion--a process that has occurred regularly on "hot" topics where one side has a vested interest and point of view they want to enforce. Blanket revert and then talk it to death. In this case, however, complaining after the fact about the outcome of an informal poll is a bit like trying to erase the chalkboard only after one sees the writing on the wall.

I also find it disingenuous to try to limit the options to the only one that a specific individual or group of individuals prefers. Both a "yes" and "no" outcome serve only those who wish to preserve the status quo and works against real progress on the topic. And I don't think there would be any objection regarding the informal poll if those who now complain thought their preferred disambiguation (the status quo) was not clearly in disfavor as reflected there. At this point, any outside party can find a nice summary of where things stand. I understand that may bother some here. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

I see that the RFC Bot closed the RFC a few days ago. So we need to decide what the results tell us. There has been some discussion, and disagreement, over how the results should be interpreted. KDP seems to favor "blogger" on the grounds that it has the widest acceptance overall. I favor "broadcast meteorologist" because of those voting there was a clear consensus that this choice was preferred (i.e. 2/3 of those voting indicated this was their 1st or 2nd choice). Are there any suggestions on how to resolve this new disagreement? --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation would be "no consensus to change and no single objection to the current title" -> let's save some work and keep it as it is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As stated above - i agree - there is no objections to the current title, whereas there are exceptions taken to all other titles. Thus no consensus to change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless others want to pursue this further I will agree per Stephan's save some work argument. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. We seem to have a late !voter above and his vote appears significant to the interpretation of the results. Given that "blogger" is now on equal footing with "broadcast meteorologist" in terms of over-all acceptability and that "broadcast meteorologist" appears to be the favored term between the two, should we switch to having that as the preferred disambiguation? What do you think, SS and KDP? Is there still an argument to NOT switch? --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Its already closed, so late !votes are irrelevant, and Tillman has had several chances earlier to chime in. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's not really an argument. There is no statute of limitations on participation that I am aware off and I know you are aware of WP:CCC. If that's the best argument you can muster I think we should respect the !votes. Previously you were against ignoring !votes, have you changed that position? --GoRight (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course its an argument. You asked for an RfC for a month - and that time has run out, the notices have been removed on the various boards (by the RfC bot). That someone later chimes in. doesn't change the results of the RfC. (you yourself noted that it has been closed). That consensus can change is not the question - of course it can. You can if you want, later start another RfC if you believe that this to be the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The RfC notices have been removed by the BOT but I don't see anything on this page indicating that continued input is not allowed. Do you? Have you changed your position on ignoring !votes? It sounds like you have, and selectively so. Give me a real argument not some made up technicality, please. Why does WP:CCC not apply in this case? It's not like this RfC is ancient history. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really had intended not to comment anymore on this.... But the relevant question is then: When will it stop? Do we adhere to a moving target then? And No. I am not ignoring CCC (see my comment), it is exactly because of CCC that a "rolling" !vote is worth less than nothing... A !vote RfC will only give you a reasonably useful information when it is limited in time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MonaApe's new lede

MonoApe just changed the lede back to his version; again... I have reverted it to the present, agree version. I invite MonoApe to cast his vote in the above poll. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MonoApe has inserted it a second time. The text MonoApe wants to insert is violation of WP:BLP and I must therefore revert it a second time.

Anthony Watts is a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio, described as a 'Chief Meteorologist' by the radio station but listed as a retired Television Seal Holder by the American Meteorological Society. He publishes the Watts Up With That blog, owns ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and is founder of the SurfaceStations.org project which attempts to document the quality of weather stations.

I am not going to repeat the above discussion; simply advise MonoApe to please respect the consensus above as I revert it a second time.

The agreed text (based on text originally proposed by the respected editor Atmoz) is as follows:

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist, editor of the science blog, Watts Up With That?, owner of ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, which is devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations around the world. He is currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio.

Kim, what's your opinion of this one? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the second version quoted here. --GoRight (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Both are factually correct. None of them break BLP as far as i can see. I'd suggest an amalgamam of both, to address whatever issues that you and MonoApe have. The first version goes over the top, and the second version is too toned down, to the extent of being inaccurate. "around the world" might be the claim, but the reality is that its the US historical network. the chief meteorologist thing is just a fancy title with no background - they could have called him head-honcho and it would have had just as little reality, which is why i think it either should be removed (its not really noteworthy) or addressed. Watts himself describes his state as "former television meteorologist" so i'd suggest that as the title instead of broadcast meteorologist (which is out-of-date as correctly pointed out in the first version). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed an amalgam in the text. The term 'broadcast meteorologist' is the correct generic term that embraces the fact that he has worked both on television and radio. It is thus the more correct wording, and more elegant writing, assuming we agree that fewest number of words to make a point is a fundamental to that. I agree on 'chief meteorologist'. It doesn't need to be in the lede as Watts himself has described his work there as a hobby. Obviously at least some people must see this as an inflation of his qualifications... can't see how myself. I also agree on USHCN rather than "around the world" and have thus changed the text. Is it okay now? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we are bumping into a semantics issue here. The whole "broadcast meteorologist" vs. "former broadcast meteorologist" is directly analogous to the debate about someone being a "scientist" vs. a "former scientist". I argue that even after someone stops actively publishing they continue to be a "scientist" and that "former scientist" is therefore pejorative. The same can be said for "broadcast meteorologists", or any profession for that matter. I consider "former" to be pejorative, unless you actually mean "retired" in which case you should say "retired". And even in the case of being retired it simply means that you are no longer practicing your profession, NOT that you are no longer a member of that profession. You expertise in a give area does not simply "evaporate" upon retirement.

In the case of Watts, he is still a practicing broadcast meteorologist given that he is still employed as such at a radio station, correct? Or am I wrong about his employment status? Note that "broadcast" is not limited to TV, is it? I am using it to encompass both TV and Radio. --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Watts apparently doesn't agree with you on the first point, since he apparently called himself a former TV meteorologist. On the second point, I agree that since he apparently still works as a broadcast meteorologist, he's remains a broadcast meteorologist even if not for TV Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not "called himself" but "calls himself" (see here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To revert discussion of NOAA's response to Heartland document, or to include discussion of Heartland document

We would all agree that this article must be formatted in accordance with WP:Criticism. It is implied therein that criticism (reception history) must follow in some way a summary (see WP:SUMMARY) of that which it is being criticised.

However, editors have inserted into the text a reception history for Watts A. 2009: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? based on the the July 6 response to this report by NOAA.

Watts 2009 is, I believe, only a preliminary report of the findings of Watts' surfacestations.org project. Thus the NOAA response must be viewed equally as a preliminary response to a preliminary report.

At any rate, in order to keep this page compliant with Wikipedia policies, we need to either

1. revert the NOAA response (a good option, since it could be better discussed in the temperature record page; or
2. insert a summary of the Watts 2009 preliminary findings as well as balance the NOAA material (currently quotes from NOAA are cherry-picked to hide the fact that they have partially agreed with Watts's findings).

My feeling is that (1) is a better option as option and that (2) is going to inevitably inflate the notability of the subject, lead to revert wars and editor conflicts, but inevitably result in a page that both sides can live with. That resultant page will likely promote Watts's preliminary report. It doesn't need to be here.

What are our thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where NOAA partially agreed? I just read their ref given in the article and did not get the feeling that the quotes given here are cherry-picked at all Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone briefly summarize the main arguments against including a discussion of Watts actual report here? It is a significant and notable paper and project, both of which are key aspects, although not the only aspects, of the subject's notability. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

=== Merging some content related to this discussion. ===

I have attempted to modify the text to leave the actual meat of the NOAA report in while also including Watts response (duly abbreviated). Please let me know if the result is satisfactory to all. I also incorporated some of the later additions from before I started my edit. Hopefully my merge is acceptable to the author.

On a separate topic, I note that some BOT has come along and reverted a change presumably because of the indicated URL http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ncdc_response-v2.pdf. If you can pardon the pun, Watts up with that? Is that URL on some watch list somewhere, and if so why? --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I was also wondering why the bot did that. No idea... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's because the Nefarious Global Warming Cabal^TM has taken control of the Wikimedia servers and deleted all links to virtuous, right-thinking, "real American" websites... Actually, the bot checks for anonymous editors inserting links to certain frequently-abused sites. If an autoconfirmed user adds the same link it'll probably stick. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is sadly what I had suspected all along. I appreciate the honesty here.  :) "certain frequently-abused sites" - That much I understood. But is Watts' site explicitly on the list for some reason, or was this a false hit on some regular expression? I'm just curious. It looks like the bot is using some sort of pattern matching and I suspect it was just a false hit of some sort. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Mystery solved. The revert list for the bot includes wordpress.com, which kind of makes sense, so it seems to be a false hit that wasn't specifically on Watts' page. He was just collateral damage, I guess. --GoRight (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is no cabal this time... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Splette, regarding your above comments, NOAA response states:

Q. Over the course of time have U.S. weather stations been exposed to local environmental conditions that could unduly influence temperature readings e.g., located close to growing trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.? A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. ... Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network (a network of over 1000 long-term weather and climate stations), though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest.

So to me, that suggests, yes, they admit, there is a bit of a problem here. I don't see any mention of this in the article at the moment.

GoRight has asked, does anyone know of a reason why Watts 2009 should not be summarised? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am willing to summarise as best and neutrally as I can the Watts 2009 findings but I fear it's just going to start a revert war. If I do that the article can not avoid mentioning that 9 out of every 10 American weather station has been found to not meet siting specifications. Quoting Watts 2009 Executive Summary:

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

So do I have in principle support from neutral editors to insert a summary of Watts 2009 findings? The other, very good option, is still to revert the NOAA response, let scientists debate Watts' findings a bit, let history have its say, and then insert Watts 2009 + NOAA. Comments? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any objection to summarise Watts opinions, provided it is clear that they are his opinions. If he publishes them in some peer-reviewed journal then they take on greater weight William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube video...

I have reverted the following new section:

In July 2009 Watts issued a DMCA takedown notice for a Youtube video criticising his work. George Monbiot in The Guardian accused him of censorship. The video was reposted at DeSmogBlog.

Aside, Watts is not really doing himself any favours in getting offended by this sort of nonsense... Anyway, the little YouTube video (entitled "Climate Crock of the Week") apart from merely summarising the NOAA response document, adds a gratuitous guilt-by-association connection to Big Tobacco via Heartland (obviously the fact that his document was published by Heartland proves Watts is funded by Big Tobacco...) and also paints Watts as the retarded weatherman from the Will Ferrell film, Anchorman. Watts apparently complained about copyright violations. Now this is all titillating stuff and puerile; can we try to keep Wikipedia out of the gutter. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted twice so can't revert a third time. There is no consensus for inclusion of this negative material, and two editors have reverted. Can I remind Rd232 of WP:PROVEIT. I.e. onus is on the editor including negative material to justify its relevanace and weight. For instance, what is the relevance that it got reposted at a blog? Is that to help the reader find it? Where is the discussion here of Watts side of the story? Alex Harvey (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of the repost would be to show that the apparent attempt to censor criticism by abusing DMCA failed. Relevance of the material is entirely in the removal - I've not even seen the video. An entire Guardian story about this also seems to go a long way towards showing it merits inclusion. Rd232 ^talk 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of weight and notability. The incident was clearly embarrassing for Watts but is it really notable enough to belong on his Wikipedia entry? In addition, I don't Alex's personal opinion on the video has much relevance either.Gmb92 (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gmb92 on the problems related to WP:WEIGHT. So far only Grandia and Monbiot seem to care. Where's the outrage in the impartial media? I'll also throw in WP:NOTNEWS for good measure. --GoRight (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with GoRight here. Particularly given this is a BLP. It's not uncommon that some issue gets some minor attention in or two notable blogs but if these don't get more widespread attention, they don't tend to belong. Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gmb92, Rd232, apologies by the way for the eruption of my personal opinion of the video into the text. Agreed it wasn't necessary. I'm trying... :) Alex Harvey (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That Watts has been involved with The Heartland Institute might well ring alarm bells; he has been listed as a speaker at two Heartland-organized conferences on climate change, in March and in June this year. That is legitimate comment. The view that Watts is out of his depth on this issue is also legitimate comment. As the Youtube escapade hasn't really attracted much attention, however, I don't consider this to be worth putting into the article yet. Watts probably isn't attracting enough public attention as a person, it's mostly blogs and Youtube. --TS 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts' rebuttal to NOAA

I've trimmed and reworded a paragraph on Watt's rebuttal--please check and revert if necessary. My main concern with the original is its undue emphasis on the "out-of-date" data--the author of NOAA's preliminary analysis of course used the data published in Watt's Heartland paper presented the previous month.

Of secondary concern was an unquestioning presentation of the substance of Watts' rebuttal. Watts seems to be picking fault with the very act of attempting to homogenize the data. If that's what he's doing we can report that but it's unclear to me what weight, if any, should be applied to the rebuttal. Presenting it as fact doesn't seem acceptable. --TS 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts is a global warming denier

I've reverted a series of four consecutive edits that seem to recast Watts as skeptical only of the mainstream global warming theory ("CO2 as the primary driver of climate change"). This is a false view. Watts has launched a full-on attack on the fact of global warming by alleging or implying that the warming trend is an illusion caused by poorly organized instrumentation. --TS 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some comments (I have returned the edits to their appropriate place):

• One edit was to distinguish between Climate change and Global warming, very different subject areas (I could cite NASA if you wish, but Wikipedia itself is clear enough). You, in fact, confirm the very purpose of my edit in both your edit comment about "Watts' full-on attack on the evidential basis for global warming" and your section title immediately above. The edits merely make your point for you (not that they need to).
• The edits are fully consistent with Watts statement, sourced in the article, that he does not reject global warming itself, but states clearly that his surfacestations.org project will "demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2." I added no new information to the article for the specific purpose of maintaining consistency with what is already written there. The edits were for clarity only. Stating you have a particular point of view is not sufficient reason to revert good-faith edits.

I also made several different edits for several different reasons. Wholesale reverting of every edit because of strongly held views might come to be viewed as disruptive editing or tendentious editing, and I strongly suggest you revert each edit on its own merits according to the very different reasons given in the edit summaries for each of those edits.

I would also ask that you adhere to WP:AGF and not revert edits based on motives (which don't exist) that you want to impugn to another editor.

Finally, your revert comment demonstrates a specific POV and an effort to enforce that (even though your reasoning is completely unrelated to the edits at hand) and directly contravenes Wiki's NPOV mandate.

• My final comment: I was very careful and minimal in editing for accuracy and clarity. If you want to object to those very standard edits, you need to get consensus here before reverting them again. --John G. Miles (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere specifically ignored a request to resolve problem reverts in talk and engaged in another wholesale revert of several separate and very minor edits for reasons unrelated to the original edits--this isn't about being "encyclopedic," it's about accuracy (also, see above discussion). Wholesale reversion of multiple separate edits for separate reasons starts to appear disruptive and tendentious. It also appears that a problem with tag-teaming is beginning to develop for an edit that was carefuly crafted, specifically neutral, and added nothing new to the article but did correct the internal inaccuracies. I will try to engage him on his personal talk page so that the non-issue issue can be resolved here if the problem continues. Is it okay for me to be somewhat dumbfounded as to why this is controversial in the least!? --John G. Miles (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The included links to other Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming also improve the information provided by the article. They also make clear the difference between the two and as to why the edits were necessary for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John G. Miles (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't follow all of the above, but can you accept at least that Watts has specifically suggested that, on the American temperature record at least, the record of warming is false and that much of the rise in recorded temperature can be attributed to poor instrumentation? --TS 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully accept that point of view and I was careful to make sure my edits did not dispute or change that fact. To say that Watt thinks "the record [i.e., instrumentation data] of warming" is false isn't to say that he rejects all the warming itself.

The one I think you're discussing here (you can point to which edit, specifically, if I'm wrong) simply changes "climate change" to "global warming" (they are two different things, which the Wikipedia article links make clear). I also agree that Watts objects to CO2 being the primary mover of the warming. My reading of Anthony Watts suggests he supports several theories other than CO2 as contributing to that warming such as galactic cosmic rays and ocean circulation (I believe he's posted on both), which is why I edited the article to reflect that; but, as the quote within the article itself demonstrates, he doesn't reject all warming as being unrelated to CO2--just any significant human contribution (hence the "significant human-induced" edit). The quoted reference specifically states "some" of the warming is due to instrumental bias. I'm just trying to limit claims to what the sources support. --John G. Miles (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but Watts is not sceptical of "CO2 as the primary driver", that is in fact not what his blog is about. The major focus is on the instrumental temperature record, and that it (according to Watts) is showing too much warming. He is from a read of his blogs sceptical of all major climate change theories - including CO2/Methane/LULUCF/... Galactic cosmic rays is outside mainstream - and so is any Ocean Circulation "theory" (i place that in scare quotes - since i'm not aware of any science published that states this), he has also supported the Iris hypothesis (also outside mainstream) - in fact the conclusion is: He doesn't support/believe in any major climate change theory. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John, re your comments about me above, feel free to be as dumbfounded as you like, but don't forget what you wrote in your edit summary, which was (the article) "Isn't abt "encyclopedic" but accuracy". Absolutely not so. Encyclopedic content is always accurate (as opposed to claiming content of an encyclopedia is always accurate). If content is not accurate, it is not encyclopedic. We might quote someone who spouts garbage, but as long as the quote is accurate and verified, then our content is encyclopedic whether or not informed readers disagree with it. So what happened here. I didn't see "a request" so I certainly didn't ignore any. My watchlist popped up an edit to the article, which I checked. It was your edit where you changed "He established a blog Watts Up With That? which mostly presents skeptical climate change news and opinion" to "He established a blog Watts Up With That? which primarily presents news and opinion skeptical of significant human-induced global warming." I noted the very important, fundamental difference.

1. (the blog) "presents skeptical climate change news and opinion" -- totally neutral

1. (the blog) "presents news and opinion skeptical of significant human-induced global warming" -- non neutral

Your edit introduced "significant human-induced global warming", and by doing so indicates that it exists. Your edit is not reporting that the subject of the aticle says it exists (or denies it), or quotes him saying so. Instead, with unattributed POV, your edit infers it is Wikipedia's opinion that it exists. Not someone else's, but Wikipedia's. You replaced an accurate NPOV passage with blatant POV so I am going to restore the NPOV version. If you don't agree, then take it to RfC. Re "tag-teaming", is it possible you are a little bit too involved in this article? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Too late, I see it has already been reverted by someone else. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to change the title of this section, which is "Watts is a global warming denier". I specifically intend to distinguish Watts' position from that of reasonable skepticism. --TS 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:A Kut Above You

I've removed the following statement from the end of the section on SurfaceStations.org.

Watts would do this by setting "out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly."

The main effect of this introduction seems to be to introduce a personal attack on NASA climate modeller James Hansen.

What Watts' project actually does is attempt to compare the siting and usage of weather stations in the Global Historical Climate Network series against published standards in NOAA’s Climate Reference Network Site Handbook. We can say that without referencing Watts' own materials--the NOAA's preliminary report describes the process. --TS 06:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

AKAU is a Scibaby sock. RBI. -Atmoz (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Having seen his other edits I wouldn't be at all surprised. He certainly is a persistent soul. --TS 06:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this is Scibaby. Personally I will no longer revert or report Scibaby socks; doing so has become increasingly controversial, and I don't need the aggro. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a page specifically dealing with the scibaby socks or should I just plod through the sock puppet investigation process for each one? --TS 06:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past they have been handled informally but lately a firestorm of criticism has erupted over that approach. The best course is to file a SPI report on each one. You're less likely to get into trouble that way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is this "firestorm of criticism" erupting? Is there a specific venue? --TS 06:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Boris is talking about the current AN discussion. I've started blocking and rollbacking Scibaby's on sight and then submitting them directly to a checkuser for verification. I've been previously told to apply WP:DUCK at SPI, and I follow that advice. Applying a process that wastes more admin time than sock time leads to madness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. This at least looks like a cut-and-dried case, though I did try to give the editor the benefit of the doubt by trying to persuade him to defend his edits. --TS 08:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Watts' involvement with the Heartland Institute

I understand that Watts has attended two of the "climate conferences" held by Heartland Institute this year to organize opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. His report on the surface station project was published under the imprint of the Institute. We should probably cover this association with a right wing political think tank. --TS 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seems relevant. Let's search for some RS SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This document (already in the article as reference "NOAAResponse", refers to Watts' report published by the Heartland Institute:

NOAA (6 July 2009). "Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?" (PDF). Retrieved 8 July 2009.

On the Heartland Institute website itself, the book is offered for free download:

http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html

This conference program for 2008 shows that Watts was a scheduled speaker at the Heartland's First International Conference on Climate Change in 2008:

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceProgram.pdf

This account of Proceedings at the Second Conference on Climate Change in March, 2009, shows that Watts was again a scheduled speaker:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Heartland held a third conference in June the same year, and again Watts was scheduled to speak:

http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/proceedings.html

--TS 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The book download is relevant but the talks may not be. Lots of people give talks at lots of places. This is only relevant if Watts explicitly endorsed Heartland's views during his talk. I'd give a presentation to the Heartland folks myself if they asked me to (though I won't hold my breath waiting). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what is missing here is details of Watts' financial connections, if any, to Heartland. Whether speakers receive remuneration is pivotal. Unless we have a reliable source for that I agree that making a lot of the conference appearances isn't on, though it certainly should be mentioned that he spoke at all three conferences. Heartland's connections with oil interests make the conference rather controversial. But I want to wait to see if we have reliable sources on that because this encyclopedia isn't for original research. --TS 01:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This posting on the well respected RealClimate blog reports that the Heartland Institute were "offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk" at the 2008 conference. --TS 02:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The honorarium is no big deal. The more important point in the RC post is that Heartland stated their conclusion in advance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of leaving this matter out of the article for now. I'm not convinced that we have reliable sources making much of the connection per se. I regard it as highly significant but that's obviously a minority opinion. --TS 17:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

The statement that After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment" is false. It states in the preceding sentence: Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. That's clearly not making any predictions and to state it the way it does now is taking the quote out of context. Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When that opinion piece was written, Watts had surveyed taken pictures of 40 out of 1221 stations. Seems to be a small percentage. The rest is a quote. I don't see what could possible be false about it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Another editor has added a tag disputing Watt's WP:notability. I'm surprised this would be disputed: Watt's pioneering of the review of weather-station quality (at http://www.surfacestations.org/) would seem to establish his notability, in my view. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's Watts who is notable, or surfacestations.org. In general I'm opposed to having biographical articles on people of marginal notability -- too much potential for mischief. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that i'm not surprised. Watts may be notable in the very narrow circle of sceptical blogging on climate change, but his impact beyond that is extremely limited. The "pioneering" work doesn't seem to have had much of an impact either, and truth to tell, its nothing but foot-work, not something that you get notability from, unless its widely covered. Personally i'd say its a marginal notability, and limited to the US and climate change alone. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an peculiar lack of third-party, reliable sources about Watts, surfacestations.org, and WUWT. I seem to keep having these conversations. Someone should update the notability guidelines to bring policy in line with practice. Notability is established if at least one editor claims the subject is notable. No evidence need be provided. -Atmoz (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Watts in the news media:

• Daily Telegraph: "Anthony Watts's Watts Up With That blog (see the blog posting on September 4) created an animated graphic showing the DMI's temperature changes over the past 50 years. Far from confirming the hypothetical upward spurt claimed by the Hockey Team's computer, the most remarkable feature of the actual record is that it shows no significant change whatever."

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "It is interesting to note how the GISS was made aware of its error. The GISS data are based on temperature readings collected at surface stations throughout the United States. California weatherman Anthony Watts suspected (correctly, as it turned out) the readings at some of these stations were showing more warming than had actually occurred, either because the area around the station had become more urban (asphalt and concrete reflect more heat than grass and dirt do), or because there was a heat source close to the station."

• Reno News-Review: "Watts, me worry? Chico meteorologist Anthony Watts has been hailed a hero by Republicans and dubbed a climate-change ‘denier’ by environmentalists." (profile of Watts)

• Washington Examiner: "Weather stations give flawed temperature data, meteorologist claims" -- commentary re Watts & surfacestations.org

WP:N: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Looks like Watts satisfies that requirement.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please ponder upon the word "significant". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue the first isn't reliable, but it doesn't matter because it's not about Watts—it only briefly mentions him. The second is not about Watts either; it briefly mentions him. The third is free, alternative weekly tabloid, and is non-notable, and thus not a reliable source. And the fourth is an opinion piece and clearly not reliable. -Atmoz (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would counter-argue that the UK Telegraph, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Washington Examiner articles all represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:N. Reliable third-party news coverage does not appear to exclude opinion pieces published in WP:reliable sources. Please post references to the contrary, if available. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RS#News organizations. -Atmoz (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest then, if people genuinely think the article fails notability requirements, then just nominate it for deletion. Why waste our lives arguing about this? Meanwhile, the "may fail notability" flag on the article is a BLP concern. It is an insult to Mr. Watts. I agree with Boris, I don't like having articles on marginally notable people, and I think Watts falls into this category. Do we seriously think we'll get this article deleted? I doubt it. I am removing the flag again. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is the notability flag a BLP concern? Are you serious? If this is the case, then why does the {{bio-notability}} template even exist? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

insert Actually, I didn't notice that the template was specifically reserved for biographies. Well, I guess I think the template shouldn't exist then. Anyhow, I've moved on. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have asked the question at Notability/Noticeboard. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in my opinion Wikipedia shouldn't have entries on marginally notable living people until flagged revisions are implemented. Anyway, in my experience inclusionists currently dominate en.Wikipedia deletion debates. So, if this article were to be nominated for deletion right away, it is likely that the result would be "keep." If, however, the notability noticeboard discussion deems the subject as not-notable, then that might help sway the deletion board regulars. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about moving this to Surfacestations.org or other suitable title? Most of the content would be kept but there would be fewer WP:BLP implications. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that "noticeboard" had a grand total of 20 posts before today in its 9 month existence, I don't think a lot of people are watching it, much less know about it. -Atmoz (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(To SBHB) One thing that helps establish the notability of a topic is if it is linked to in other Wikipedia articles. Is Surfacestations.org mentioned in at least one other en.Wikipedia article? If so, then I think that might work. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One mention, one reference.[19] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies at all pages, not only explicit biography pages. A "merge", which would really just be a "rename" I think, would in fact have the opposite effect, i.e. it would encourage POV pushers & the Watts hate crowd who don't understand BLP as applying in all pages, to add more seriously bad, damaging, libelous material into the Watts biography. Meanwhile, Watts was a 25 year TV meteorologist. His blog is probably the most notable thing. I think this is silly, and I think we're just creating more controversy & more work for ourselves here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactor that please. And a question for you. If BLP applies to all pages, why doesn't it apply to your comments about fellow Wikipedia editors? -Atmoz (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This page is sufficiently watched such that BLP issues should be removed quickely, no matter what the title. I don't think moving it would cause any problems, and could draw attention away from Watts, and onto his work. This article is largely written by people of very opposing opinions, and getting a neutral article under any name will be difficult.Martin451 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactor what? It does/should apply to comments about fellow editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"it would encourage POV pushers & the Watts hate crowd who don't understand BLP as applying in all pages, to add more seriously bad, damaging, libelous material into the Watts biography" is directed at someone. Whom? And why is it appropriate to label someone as part of the "Watts hate crowd"? -Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin451, the problem with that proposal is that 'Watts Up With That' is a very popular blog. Far more people would know about Watts from his blog & from his TV career than they would & perhaps ever will from SurfaceStations.org. This proposal doesn't make any sense to me, but as I've said, if people want to delete or merge or rename the page, why can't we just put the proposal out there & see who supports it? (Note, I don't know what the process is for proposing a merge/rename). Alex Harvey (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot just assert that something is notable. You have to show it with reliable third-party sources. You have failed to do so. What does "very popular" mean? Do you have sources that call it very popular? What about sources that say that more people know Watts from his blog and TV career? Without sources to back up your statements, it's just original research. -Atmoz (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I didn't say that you were part of a "Watts hate crowd"; please read it again. I didn't mean that at all. What I meant was, as a watcher of this page, and watcher of the internet climate change debate, it's quite plain that a lot of people hate Watts. Yes, I mean hate. A lot of people hate him. You said a few months back that you agreed that Watts is notable, that you didn't the page should be deleted, and that if you did think the page should be deleted, then you would have nominated it accordingly. So what has changed? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

More evidence for Anthony Watts WP:notability

• 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Science Blog: Anthony Watts, Watts Up with That

• Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. comments on Watt's report, "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" -- + many more Watt-related posts at Pielke's site.

• National Climatic Data Center responds to Watt's report, above: Talking Points related to: Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?

• A Google search for "Anthony Watts" "surface temperature record" [20] gives 150,000 hits

• A Google search for "Anthony Watts" meteorologist [21] gives 62,000 hits.

C'mon fellows -- Watts is clearly both well-known and WP:notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1/ Not about Watts. 2/ Blog. 3/ Not about Watts. 4-5/ Please find the sources in your Google searches that establish Watts' notability. -Atmoz (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Watts Up With That. See Blog award: "Among the major blog awards are The Weblog Award"...

2) Blog by a well-known university climatologist, writing in his area of expertise. See WP:SPS: "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Pielke clearly meets these qualifications.

3) NCDC is responding to Watts paper. Watts is cited in references.

I believe all three of these refs are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", per WP:N --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blog awards may give notability to a blog, but not to the author. 2 and 3 are self-published, and not appropriate for a BLP. From WP:SPS, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." -Atmoz (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you added a quote from WP:SPS after I added my previous comment. I also see that either you are a very good selective reader, or your reading comprehension skills are at the kindergarten level. -Atmoz (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, we're not adding material to the article -- we're attempting to determine the article's notability. So WP:N governs, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And please remember WP:civility. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From above:

(EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest something like the following: Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, a former television weather presenter, owner of a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, a website devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations. -Atmoz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow I'll be back as soon as someone actually nominates the page for deletion or merge. I think we're wasting time here. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Boris has raised this at BLP/N. I am removing the tag again per WP:BLP and it needs to stay out until there is consensus on the BLP point. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a notability tag is a BLP violation. It just means that there is some dispute as to whether the topic meets Wikipedia's internal guidelines for inclusion. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is clear consensus that it is not a BLP issue. You're the only one that thinks it is. -Atmoz (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

I boldly removed the proposed deletion tag and instead listed it in Articles for Deletion (here). My rationale is that prod is for straightforward, noncontroversial deletions, and in my mind, this one is not. Also, more editors will be aware of it there and perhaps find better sourcing. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other, at least at this time, but thought this was the best way to proceed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for WP:Notability

Arguments claiming "no reliable sources" are hard to understand. I have managed to find around 300 reliable sources since 1980 establishing Watts notability. See here. I'll come back shortly and pick out the best ones... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm.... I've picked through the first 3 pages of those, and i have to say that my conclusion is the opposite. (ie. it surprises me how little evidence there is for his notability in those). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with Alex. (Cue someone to agree with KDP.) --GoRight (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You agree that the article should be deleted? You agree that he'll be back "shortly" with some decent sources? Or what? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I held back from !voting until reviewing these, as I said at the AfD, and I didn't find anything that encouraged me to !vote keep. I agree with Kim. (Did I miss my cue? I think I commented on the AfD before Kim posted here :))Verbal chat 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for this article is a breath of fresh air. I think the article is heading for deletion. I would suggest keeping track of the sources and use them to start an article on Watts' blog or climate tracking project. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: I added the second notability tag by accident. I clicked cancel and assumed it worked - should have checked. Thanks. Verbal chat 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Shouldn't the first one go now that AfD resulted in no consensus? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the notability problem is still there - otherwise it wouldn't have been a no-consensus but a keep. The reason for the no-consensus seems to have been all the material added to the AfD... But not to the article - so that would be where to start. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Surfacestations

It is not appropriate to describe what Surfacestations is "NOT", without a good reason (e.g. if it claimed falsely that it was) AND a reliable source indicating such. Surfacestations is "not" many things, should we list them all? No. This is turning into an edit war, please discuss here before continuing. ATren (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. This particular inclusion, like many on related articles has only one purpose: to reduce the perceived credibility of the subject and do so with poorly sourced (and in this case unsourced) innuendo and well poisoning. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a good source for this, and it's not a BLP issue. Verbal chat 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What source describes Surfacestations purposes in the following: "to document and photograph, not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature"? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an entirely correct description of the project. You may not like that - but it is. Photographing and checking the various stations for their compliance with recommendations is foot-work, not research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources please .... oh thats right you cant find any. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fact: "Surface stations is not a ball of yarn." That is an entirely true and uncontroversial statement, and yet we don't include it because SS doesn't ever claim to be anything related to yarn, one way or another. I've not seen any evidence that SS claims to publish, nor that it denies publishing, and no reliable source has made these points either. Unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to include what they don't do. ATren (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But this fact is also relevant. I suggest people avoid analogies as they're not very good at them. Please stop the silly editwarring. I've just reported BluefieldWV for his part (5 reverts today). Verbal chat 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If its so relevant, you shouldn’t have any problem finding a source for it. No hop to it, go find your source! BluefieldWV (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been reverted probably half a dozen times today, mostly by different editors. I suggest we try RFC to get an outside view. ATren (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it as original research violating NPOV. The material in the article is in no way an accurate summary of what is actually in the source. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it should be removed, not tagged. There is no way this statement is ever going to be properly sourced, because it is almost certainly an untrue statement. This is Jimmy Wales view of the matter:

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it rather to identify the problem within the article while there is an ongoing dispute.

If the discussions continue without a policy-backed reason for including the material, or a very good and compelling argument to WP:IAR, then the material should be removed.

I suspect this information has been used as an attack on Watts by his critics. If so, then it should be remove immediately per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I stopped in after seeing this on the BLP noticeboard. The addition may not be a BLP issue, but it is almost certainly not neutral. I've had to battle tendentious editors on this kind of thing before, and it just shouldn't be put into an article unless a source is found that specifically says what is claimed. As it stands now, stating his specific goals is OK, but extrapolating what his goals aren't based on omissions is not. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. For future reference, I'm copying the material below. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of SurfaceStations.org is to document and photograph, not to publish in the peer-reviewed literature.

Move to surfacestations

As the notability of this BLP hasn't been established, the recent AfD was no consensus, and the sources mostly deal with his websites, why not rename and refocus this article to be about those instead, which have many more WP:RS (see the AfD). This would address quite a few of the current issues. Verbal chat 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I like keeping it as a BLP. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It would still be covered by BLP policy, but it would address the notability issues and coatracking of his website. Make it about his website, and these issues disappear. Left as a non-notable biography, unless he does something notable in the meantime, it'll probably be deleted at the next AfD. Verbal chat 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

when you put it that way .... I would have to hear some more input. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the current state of the article and the AfD, I think this is a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

the deleted references to Watts' blog and Surfacestations home page

It seems that I have been overruled to restore links in this article to Anthony Watts' blog and to the Surfacestations.org home page.

Here are the BLPs of other bloggers in the climate change debate.

• Joseph J. Romm
• James Annan
• William Connolley
• Michael E. Mann
• Roger A. Pielke
• Roger A. Pielke (Jr)

I leave it as a challenge for others to find me even one single climate change blogger whose blog and pages are not linked in the Wikipedia articles. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The links to the blog and surface stations were already included in the article, so they don't need to be in external links. However there is more than one way to skin a cat. Martin451 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to references or external links? In regard to their inclusion as external links:

I'd rather just follow WP:EL closely. Is there any discussion about the validity of the links in those articles?

This article is about the person. External links to pages about the person are appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an RfC to do with this at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#RfC_on_official_links. These two sites are connected with Watts and are coverered by

The original two-part definition was this: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

So the links should be included either in the external links section, or in the info box. Martin451 (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these references to the policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:ELOFFICIAL. Clearcut policy. Why on earth did this become controversial here? --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It became controversial because Alex added links inline when they were already in the external links section.[22] Note that this is not in line with WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I don't have strong opinions on whether they are linked inline or in a EL section. So I thought I was being nice by removing the links in the EL section.[23] There is no need to link to them twice in the same article. As it turns out, I probably should have not been nice and just reverted Alex's edits. -Atmoz (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The links should (obviously) be in the external links section - because that is where people would expect to find them, and that is where they are for the other people listed above. The box on this page serves no purpose at all and should be deleted. Poujeaux (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Poujeaux. Not enough info (at present) to justify this very sparse infobox, which just looks silly. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing reference

I tracked down the missing reference, Atmoz deleted it September 27, 2009 and added a tag saying that a reference was necessary. Q Science (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Words to avoid

Stephan Schulz, you have reverted my effort to reword the following sentence: "Watts issued a rebuttal in which he argued that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which he claims accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[12][13]"

Your edit summary asked me to read WP:CLAIM again, which I did. I then arrived at the same conclusion, viz. that "claim" here is being used improperly here to cast doubt on Watts' assertion. It should therefore be reworded neutrally per WP:AVOID. What is your concern here, i.e. why do you feel the text needs to present this as a "claim"? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about your change from "argues" to "states". Watts is a retired weather man, not a RS on facts on climate change. NOAA, on the other hand, is. There is no symmetry here, and we should not pretend that there is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

some biased sentences

These two sentences appear to introduce editorial bias:

After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."[9] The method used is to attract volunteers of varying levels of expertise who undertake to estimate the siting, usage and other conditions of weather stations in NOAA's Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and grade them for their compliance with the standards published in the organization's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook.[10]

The first sentence is a complete distortion of the source, such that the article is appearing to say the opposite of what the source says. The word "only" is a value judgement added by the editor. On "small percentage", the source has Watts explicitly urging caution after the "small percentage" has been surveyed. The article, on the other hand, has him doing the opposite, i.e. making conclusions on the 40 stations surveyed.

The second sentence doesn't give a source at all (I assume it comes from surfacestations.org somewhere). The wording is bad, though, in that it says Watts intention is to attract volunteers "of varying levels of experience". What I find the project stating is this: "Anyone with a digital camera, handheld GPS and and basic observation and reporting skills can contribute to this database." That to me says, "no particular experience required, this work is easy."

See also User_talk:Alexh19740110#This_is_going_too_far. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Alex Harvey. Let's plan to delete the inappropriate POV language. 99.204.116.86 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Second. WVBluefield (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion of complete distortion. The text appears entirely accurate. Restored William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Here is the source:

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports.

"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

And here is what you have in the text:

After only a small percentage of stations had been surveyed Watts predicted that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort would ultimately be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

So you are saying that you can't notice any differences in meaning at all; that would be a correct interpretation of your "entirely accurate" above, correct? And does Kim D. Petersen also still maintain that he can't notice any differences either? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the point with "only," and maybe with "predicted." Better to state "After 3% of the stations in the network had been surveyed, Watts said he expected..." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a start, and may be a diplomatic proposal, but we still have a kind of synthesis, and there is still bias through omission. After 3% of stations were surveyed, Watts has done a lot of stuff. How about, After 3% of stations surveyed, Watts' blog won the 2008 Wizbang award. A true statement, but purely original research and synthesis. In order for this not to be synthesis, we need to follow the actual linking of ideas that is in the source. After 3% of stations were surveyed, Watts urged caution, but nevertheless felt doubtful that NOAA's temperature reports were accurate. He said at the time, "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

BUT, is this source actually reliable? It's an op-ed, and I am rather suspicious about it. The statements appear to contradict each other, suggesting the journalist has put his own spin on it. This is why I favour just dropping the whole thing. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(And of course there is the weight problem; why do we care about what happened after 3% of stations were surveyed now that 90% have been surveyed? What is so significant about the 3% mark?) Alex Harvey (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the 3% -- why not 2%, or 4%. How about "As the project began, Watts said he expected..."? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid having individual editors calculate their own preferred percentages or descriptions of those percentages, etc., I've tried a rewrite of the section to avoid all that. The SurfaceStations.org section also had a flow where individuals seemed to be responding to information at the beginning of the project (e.g., Jay Lawrimore) when in fact their comments are referring to the present state of the project (2009). I've tried to rearrange things to give a better history and reflect a truer chronology of events (including responses to Watts' project). I've cited the actual numbers mentioned in the sources to avoid personal calculations. Haven't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, but I think it's a good start. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very good, well done. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

the Wizbang thing

Either mentioning no award or explaining who gave him the award, either one, is preferable to offering zero context, as this article previously did. Why is the award important? If the company who gives out the award is irrelevant, then the award is irrelevant. If the award is relevant, then the reader would benefit from knowing why there is such an award — who offers it? just some guy? a private company? a consortium? the internet police? the secret one world government? Why should the reader care that he got an award unless they know who gave it to him? Awards are relevant, or not, depending on who's giving them out. No one cares about Little League trophies.

This article appears to be intensely edited by a few people at a rapid pace. Would it be useful to bring in some disinterested third parties?

Also, are informative edit summaries not as important as the guidelines suggest? Reversions here have been sparsely annotated. ~YellowFives 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference covers that. Putting too much detail in the text just makes it a clumsy read. At any rate, it is a user poll where individual users (>37,000 last year) cast votes and not simply something awarded by some company. Again, clearly stated in the reference. Q Science (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference does not cover that. Aylward has made a substantial effort to present his project as no less than The Weblog Awards, period, as though there was something official about it. That's good for his marketing, but bad for the Wikipedia reader. The sentence as currently written is extremely misleading and uninformative. "In 2008, his blog won a Best Science Blog Award" means nothing, and if that's the extent of our coverage then we shouldn't cover it at all. Seven more words are a brief and concise way of adding context and making our coverage meaningful to the reader:

• "from Kevin Aylward's private company, Wizbang LLC." But we could be even more concise if necessary.
• "from Kevin Aylward's private company."
• "from a private company, Wizbang LLC."
• "from a private company."

The last sacrifices much context, but is still more useful than what we have now. ~YellowFives 13:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Now I start wondering if the award is notable enough to be mentioned at all... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you perhaps not aware of it because our coverage was lacking necessary detail? Atmoz believes that Wizbang LLC is not notable enough for mention. If this is true, then Wizbang's awards are not notable either. Particularly because the awards are so vaguely named The Weblog Awards, we are misleading readers into assuming that the awards are more important than they are, unless we explicitly state the company behind the award. ~YellowFives 15:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If Time Magazine gave an award, would you say "some private company"? Are the Oscars awarded by "some private company"? I consider your use of that phrase to be inappropriate. And by the way, the reference says exactly what I said above. Why do you claim otherwise? Q Science (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So "The Weblog Awards" are on the level of an Oscar or Time's Person of the Year? No. These are obscure awards by an obscure company, and we cannot expect the reader to recognize them. They do not have anything like the recognition of the Oscars, so we can't say "he won a Weblog Award" and expect that it means anything to the reader like it would if we just said "he won an Oscar." But in any case, we don't say "Barack Obama won a Person of the Year award." We say "In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year ..." We not only say that he won an award, we say who gave him the award. So if you want to claim that "The Weblog Awards" are comparable to Time's award, then we should treat them like Time's award, stating that they are Kevin Aylward's and/or Wizbang LLC's award, and we should have a whole Wikipedia article for them.

In response to the entirety of my first comment, you asserted "The reference covers that." And it does not. So I replied, factually, "The reference does not cover that." The reference does not make clear who owns the awards, or that they are just named The Weblog Awards as a marketing gimmick. And a fine gimmick they are. I recognize Aylward's marketing savvy. Good for him. Bad for Wikipedia's readership. ~YellowFives 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog awards are a dime-a-dozen. Leaving it in pacifies those that think it's important. -Atmoz (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether the award is in or out. If it's in, it should just be noted for exactly what it is. ~YellowFives 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• The "private company" doesn't determine who the award goes to so it's as irrelevant as it is uninformative (the BET, Golden Globes, Oscars, Tonys, etc., are all private company awards). Many sites, even those who don't like the process because of the outcome, such as Pharyngula [[24]], which came in second in 2008, & Deltoid [[25]] lobbied for the votes along with other sites [[26]] (just some quick examples) specifically because the internet voting Weblog Award indicates both popularity and intensity of following (an "American Idol" or "Britain's Got Talent" voting method). All the previously mentioned sites, favorable to the Weblog Awards or not, refer to the Awards without qualifiers. All these sites found no meaningful "context" in mentioning the "private company" source of the award (are there any that are not private?). Given the internet voting protocol for awarding them, adding the "private company" qualifier adds no meaningful information. The Weblog Award is well enough known amongst the internet blogging community as to not require the qualifiers. That information, if included at all, properly belongs in the "clutter cleaner"--the footnotes.

Any lengthy description of how the voting process works or who runs it (just like a discussion of "the private company/owner" for the BET, Grammy, Tony, Golden Globe, etc., awards) belongs in the footnotes. The awards are always referred to by their name, not their owner (Grammy & Tony don't own their respective awards). If you want to include details on the award-giver and/or how the voting process works, a footnote would be more appropriate. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's readership is not limited to the internet blogging community, so we cannot use that community's familiarity to determine what we report here. All of the examples you give, BET, Golden Globe, Oscar, Tony, Grammy, have at least two important differences from Wizbang's award.

• First, the Oscars and such are already fairly well known to the general public, rather than a small and insular blogging community, and hence need little or no explanation.
• Second, they are distinctively named (the "Oscars" or "Acadamy Awards" rather than "The Movie Awards"), and so do not imply that they are anything bigger or more official than they really are, and need no caveat.

Neither justification applies to this award. "The Weblog Awards" lack both recognition and distinctiveness. If the name was not so generic, then there would be less reason to make the distinction for our readers. As it is, SPLETTE did not know that this was the project of a small private company, so we can expect that many readers will be similarly unaware. Your edit is informative in its own right, as it explains the process, but it does not address the rest of these problems.

The "private company" does determine who the award goes to, because they choose both the categories and the finalist nominees. Watts could not have won the award without this deliberate action by Wizbang. This is yet another reason that the company needs to be mentioned.

The non-distinctive name of "The Weblog Awards" allows Aylward and his award winners to capitalize on the important-sounding gravitas of the unqualified definite article. That's great for them. But here at Wikipedia we have a duty to our readers, to make clear that this is a weblog award, not the weblog award, just one weblog award among many. ~YellowFives 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove In-Article Mention of Publishers Unless Direct Influence on the Published Material Can be Established

I'm proposing we return the article to its direct and undistracted state by removing the inclusion of publishers in the article proper (it's already in the footnote reference) unless the publisher has a verifiable impact or influence on the content of the report/book/paper it publishes. That the publisher in this case (Heartland) specifically disclaims such suggests it is nonnotable to include it in the article proper. The only reason I can see for mentioning the publisher is to try to associate the publisher with the report content, something that is clearly not the case in the surfacestations.org project as specifically stated in the report. This "game" of cluttering otherwise clear articles has been played before. I clarified the relationship in a kludge to clarify the original publisher kludge out of respect to the process, but we need to eliminate uninformative "clutter" from articles unless a clear reason for inclusion can be established. --John G. Miles (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That the report is printed by Heartland, instead of by a regular printer of science, is very much a relevant information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially if Heartland sees the necessity for a disclaimer that makes it more, not less notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)