Talk:Richard Lindzen

Health Risks of Smoking Section

I note that this page is protected, a lot of edit warring has occurred, and someone has restored the libelous, unsourced health risks of smoking nonsense, despite prior agreement, and much Wikidrama, that it should go. We finally had agreement from a number of admins, and Atmoz, in the past that it failed utterly weight, and shouldn't be here.

Can someone fill me in on what has happened here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that the source given for the smoking nonsense now, is, wait for it, an old Wikipedia diff! How creative! Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a Newsweek article based on an interview with Lindzen. It can be assumed that he read it, and didn't find it to be libellous. In any case, what is it with the sensitivity of GW sceptics about the fact that most of their leading sources are also passive smoking sceptics (and that the same is true on the other side - bodies like the UN, EPA and scientific academices have done a lot to promote the consensus view in both cases). The sceptics on passive smoking like FORCES have no problem acknowledging that the cases are linked. The arguments are pretty much identical in both cases. Lindzen is consistent here, but his own supporters apparently want to muzzle him.JQ (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JQ, and sorry for my lack of patience as evidenced above. Can I assume you're the editor who put it back in? (Sorry, I'm fairly busy in "real life" at the moment, and haven't the time to check these things). I don't want to start the same dispute again; I'll simply ask, have you checked the archives for the protracted arguments on this point? To cut a long story short, we have policies in Wikipedia referenced here: WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP; and this section on smoking was found to violate these. The Newsweek reference to L & smoking contains but a single, ambiguous sentence on L & smoking. Further, it doesn't mention "passive smoking" at all. The rest of the stuff on the internet about L & smoking is largely folklore (apparently originating in this Newsweek piece, perpetuated by its long history of being included in this Wikipedia bio, and probably as with all folklore, containing some kernel of truth). As such, it is found to be given undue weight by inclusion in this short bio. L has no real connection with tobacco, thus for this BLP, WP:UNDUE insists that it can't be included. I ask you, respectfully, to acknowledge the pre-existing consensus and remove it again, as soon as full protection of the article is removed. Is that okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been away and missed the discussion. I'm happy to go with the consensus.JQ (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it as written. In the article the claims are sourced to smoking is basically an aside, only taking two sentences of one paragraph, and most of that is descriptive. However, presuming that it is a view that is more important that the source suggests, there are a couple of problems. The source doesn't mention passive smoking at all, although the text we're using seems to attribute that claim to the source; he never says that the risks are overstated as such, but instead the article says that he will "expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking" - from this it may be inferred that he downplays the risks, but that's just an inference; and the second sentence being quoted, "He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" merely tells us that Lindzen smokes, and adds some colour to what is a well-written Newsweek article - it doesn't really relate to his views on smoking. From the source, the most we can say is that he is a smoker, and that he believes that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is weak. Are there better sources for his views on smoking? - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, Find the previous discussion in the archive and if it was a consensus I will remove it through the article protection. --BozMo talk 08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, proving a Wikipedia consensus could be harder than proving or disproving AGW itself... Anyhow, the discussion that resulted in the removal of this recently-restored section and led finally to resolution of a long-standing argument is here: Talk:Richard_Lindzen/Archive_5#ref_29.... Atmoz & admin Oren0 gave the same view that I have summarised above, and Bilby seems to have independently given a similar perspective. Previously an admin Rd232 had almost agreed that BLP policy was contradicted by its inclusion but finally suggested an RfC instead. Atmoz is the editor who actually removed it, and at that point Kim D. Petersen gave up. An era of Wiki-peacce has almost reigned since. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was actually consensus to remove it. I just think everyone got tired of yakin' and warin' about it. -Atmoz (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I have taken it back out. I waited until the end of protection although largely that was down to good weather and the orchard needing mulching. It looks pretty weak to me in terms of notability and relevance. --BozMo talk 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more vote for the consensus against. Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion, I've concluded there isn't a consensus, and that the secondary sources clearly make the point that this is part of a general pattern in which critics of the mainstram scientific consensus on climate change have a track record of similar criticism in other areas, and particularly of involvement in the tobacco debate, either as general contrarians (Lindzen) or as paid advocates (Singer, Seitz, Milloy, Bate, CEI, Cato, IPA etc). The eagerness of some editors with a similar POV to remove this only strengthens the case for inclusion in some form. It may well be that this article is the wrong place, but the general point is clearly notable, and correct, and should be referred to.JQ (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One more opinion that it should be left out per the previous discussion. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more that is should be included. As previously stated, there was no consensus for removal. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, the question is "where is the consensus to reinstate it?" --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the start, it seems clear that everyone who supports Lindzen's views on climate change also wants to suppress any mention of his views on tobacco smoking. This seems to indicate, pretty clearly, that his views on this point, if established by a WP:RS would have a significant effect on hsi credibility in general, and that WP:WEIGHT would therefore support thier inclusion. In my view, the existence of multiple reliable sources is clear, so the material should stay. But I'd be very interested if any "sceptic" would be willing to say what they see as the difference between the two cases - I can't see much of one, and clearly neither can most of the sceptical experts.JQ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another source on this, from the ABC (Australian national broadcaster) science reporter Robyn Williams, based on a personal interview and linking Lindzen's views on climate science to his general contrarianism, as indicated by his attitude to tobacco smoking [1].JQ (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section on contrarianism, with a string of sources linking Lindzen's contrarianism on climate change to his tobacco contrarianism. The relevance doesn't need to be inferred, it's spelt out by the sources. JQ (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted as a BLP violation. You have found an op-ed by a comedian, now, who reports on the anecdote. He probably read it on Wikipedia, a while ago. You refer to Lindzen as "notorious" for his "contrarianism". This is terribly biased writing; please leave this out, or at least make some go at building a consensus for a new section here. It is not the job of Wikipedia to be doing psychological assessments of the personalities of living scientists. To do that, you need extremely high quality, reliable sources. Robyn Williams is indeed a very smart, and funny man. His opinions on Richard Lindzen, however, don't belong here. Your new section is WP:OR practically from end to end. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Robyn Williams (science reporter) not Robin Williams (comedian). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@A: Please read the edit before reverting, which you clearly didn't do based on your post above. -Atmoz (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say I "clearly" didn't read it. Is it your highly attuned Wiki-telepathy? Or just a cheap assumption of bad faith? I not only read it; I downloaded the Williams piece and read that too. I'm surprised it's not Williams the comedian, because the essay is actually quite funny. "I like Bob Carter. Even in a kilt. He has that baritone warmth that men share when they assume they’re united against the Philistines." Now Atmoz, I have correctly reverted your revert, taking me to 2RR, although your side is only a 1RR each. What fun. This material is clearly original research from beginning to end, and it doesn't belong here. Please do the right thing, and enforce policies, not personalities. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read it because the edit stated that Williams was a science reporter, not the comedian. Yet on the talk page you only talk about the comedian as if it mattered.

For future use: [2][3] -Atmoz (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"a science reporter, not the comedian" - Are these two mutually exclusive? --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I missed that; you're right. One point to you. On the other hand, I correctly found the text to be violating enough policies to suggest that the correct thing to do next was REVERT, and then DISCUSS.

So tell me, where are we going with this? Have you found evidence that Lindzen's views on smoking are connected with his notability sufficient for inclusion in a bio that doesn't mention that he solved the mystery of the quasi-biennial oscillation in his 20s? The Williams the Science Reporter piece is almost a replica of the Guterl piece. Two unreliable sources for a section don't add up to an RS. Yes, Lindzen is a smoker; yes he apparently has a view that maybe it's not going to kill him. Given he's survived till he's 69, maybe he's right, who knows? Where are we going with this? The same WP:UNDUE problem exists, and it'll still exist if you find another 10 pieces that are almost identical with Guterl. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've reverted me, anyhow, so I'll be back in a few days. If the WP:BLP violating material is still there, I'll be taking the appropriate actions, in the appropriate forums (plural, unfortunately, since a number of different policies are violated...). Alex Harvey (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had the impression you were an Australian, Alex. Do you really not know who Robyn Williams is, or what the Griffith Review is? As for your suggestion that this is derived from Wikipedia, Williams is giving a first-hand report, independently confirming Guterl. But at least you've outed yourself as a sceptic wrt the dangers of tobacco smoking. Given that you agree with Lindzen on this, why are you so keen to suppress his views? JQ (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I live in Sydney, Australia, as it says on my user page. Meanwhile, I didn't have the impression that you were an academic, actually working for a university. I had the impression that you were some random climate change blogger. Well, there you go. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The new section really isn't convincing, and I find I have to agree with Alex that it looks like undue weight - as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things. But the evidence is that he doesn't see that the link between smoking and lung cancer has been strongly established. That's not much of a case to build a section on. I'm not completely opposed to it, so long as it remains factual, but it really doesn't come across well, and probably makes those opposing him look worse than he does. It just feels like an awful argument on which to base a very strong claim, and the sources are themselves far from excellent, as they provide only three brief, throwaway mentions of this view. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things." Absolutely right. This suggestion has been made by numerous WP:RS sources and should be included in the article.JQ (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, strong claims need strong sources. it is getting better, but the smoking side of things doesn't help establish this as a worthwhile view. - 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read the articles cited in the second paragraph of the contrarian section, i.e.:

"This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."[26] Writing in the Griffith Review, Australian Broadcasting Corporation science reporter Robyn Williams stated "I interviewed Lindzen in Boston and was impressed by his assurance as well as his cheerful chain‐smoking and delight in being contrary. He is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer". [27]"

While these quotes do, in fact, appear in the cited sources they are wholly unrepresentative of the much larger articles whose topics were completely unrelated to the quotes being set forth. This looks to me to be significantly WP:UNDUE based on the sources actually cited and as a result the entire topic appears to be WP:OR in order to purpetuate an ad hominem attack on Lindzen. I think that the second paragraph should be removed as WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR here. A string of reliable secondary sources make the link between Lindzen's contrarianism on smoking and GW, some favorably and some not. If you think it's an unfair characterization of his position, find a statement by Lindzen repudiating the views imputed to him by people who have interviewed him first-hand.JQ (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim he didn't say these things, or that he even holds these views. I am claiming that you are giving them WP:UNDUE weight since you are basically having to cherry pick references to make the connection. It is this sifting through sources to find quotes to cherry-pick that looks like WP:OR. Find an article where this connection is the primary focus of the article and you might have a case. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not contrarianism it's self-justification of an addiction! How many other scientists or doctors are also smokers and also say the same dumb things? ie it's totally irrelevant. For real contrarians check recent history; economic contrarians like Bill Bonner and Nouriel Roubini predicted the meltdown from bad credit. Quite a few contrarians said BSE probably could transfer to humans when government scientists said it couldn't and programming contrarians said the millennium bug was much ado about nothing. Happily Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Pasteur were all contrarians too. In fact virtually every major scientific or engineering breakthrough came from contrarians. ie that's also irrelevant. If you juxtapose this squabble with the rather more important fact that Schneider used to promote global cooling (of course Lindzen didn't) and yet it's been mighty difficult to get that fact into his wiki bio then it all becomes bizarre. Criticism about L's scientific stance from his scientific peers is fine but the rest are cheap smears that demean Wikipedia. Let's stick with correctness as far as is possible and leave our own political correctness out. Apparently Lindzen's peers care what he thinks whether they agree with him or not.JG17 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

shocking

I am pretty busy at the moment, but this text is truly shocking; it is damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia (the biggest problem; yes, Lindzen is probably laughing, whereas Jimmy Wales is probably crying); and of a disappointing slur against Lindzen. It'll take me some time to figure out exactly how to fight this, given it is violating so many basic Wikipedia principles, but fight it I will. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second this; this article damages Wikipedia's credibility. In no way does this article represent a neutral POV. Surely there is a process to remedy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrtkay (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note BLP/N

I have alerted the BLP/N here: WP:BLPN#Richard_Lindzen_2. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on contrarianism, which was mostly sourced to magazines like Grist and Seed. On RealClimate, criticism from the Guardian, a major UK newspaper, is being suppressed, so I can't see how Grist, Seed, and Griffith Review should be acceptable here. We need to apply consistent editorial standards across articles on the same topic, especially if that topic is contentious. ATren (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reveal reality to you - the Guardian is not being "suppressed" on RC. Try reading those discussions again, no one has at any point in time argued against "the Guardian" (hint: either you have misunderstood the discussion completely or you are misrepresenting things). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra references on "contrarian":

• Sampson, Patsy (2000). "The Science and Politics of Global Warming: The Climate of Political Change at MIT" (PDF). MIT Undergraduate Research Journal. 3. MIT. Who would know better than Professor Lindzen,who has been assigned by the media the title of "climate contrarian."
• Stevens, William K. (Feb 29, 2000). "Global Warming: The Contrarian View". New York Times.
• Lindzen, Richard S. (Mar 16, 2007). "On Global Warming Heresy". I am frequently asked to describe my experiences as a contrarian about global warming.
• Eilperin, Juliet (Oct 2007). "An Inconvenient Expert". Outside. That is Dick's natural personality—to be somewhat of a contrarian," Wallace says. "He feels he can work the argument and win. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
• Yang, Hu; Tung, Ka Kit (1998). "Water Vapor, Surface Temperature, and the Greenhouse Effect—A Statistical Analysis of Tropical-Mean Data". Journal of Climate. 11 (10). doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2686:WVSTAT>2.0.CO;2. A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that the increased convection associated with the CO2-induced warming should act instead to dry the upper troposphere:

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple more:

• Grundmann, Reiner. "Climate Change and Knowledge Politics" (PDF). Environmental Politics. 16 (3): 414–432. Apart from the US contrarians (such as Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer, who are given very little attention) - note here talking in context of German media.
• Boykoff, Maxwell T. "Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change". In Liverman, D. G. E.; Pereira, C. P. G.; Marker, B. (eds.). Communicating environmental geoscience. Geological Society Special Publication. Vol. 305. Geological Society of London. ISBN 1862392609. "Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates, Sherwood Idso, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels
• Broecker, Wallace S. (2006). "Global warming: Take action or wait?" (PDF). Chinese Science Bulletin. 51 (9): 1018–1029. doi:10.1007/s11434-006-1017-4. Further, as his detractors point out, Lindzen is well known for his contrarian views. For example, with equal vigor, he denies that cigarette smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) ::I've restored the smoking-only version. Kim, you seem to have a much different approach on this page than you do on RealClimate. Here, any criticism is fair game, even if it's sourced to shaky sources like Grist. But on RealClimate, you reject criticism sourced to the Guardian, home of the oft-quoted (on Wikipedia) skeptic critic George Monbiot. You try to justify this inconsistency with weight arguments, but that's weak. These are not fringe views we're dealing with, they're significant minority views, and weight cannot be used to justify total omission for one side of the debate coupled with piling-on for the other. ATren (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah - more misrepresentation. The only argument given on RC was one of weight (ie. the lack of it), perhaps you may take a look at the references that i've provided above? They show that there is rather a lot of weight behind the description of Lindzen as a "contrarian". That's what makes the difference. Or are you going to argue that the sources above are from minority positions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

→ This article just came off protection four days ago, and I would really rather not lock it again as there is plenty of room for improvement outside that one section. The currently active editors here are perfectly well aware of WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. Please abide by them so I do not have to protect The Wrong Version. When the above discussion resolves, we should get a nice stable article that everyone can live with. In the meantime, there is no pressing need to clog up the edit history and waste server space and editor time that could be more productively invested in discussion. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Contrarian article to indicate that it's a neutral term, like contrarian investing. While I don't think additional explanation is required, I have no objection to it if that makes this section more palatable to other editors. We could even add a reference to Freeman Dyson and James Lovelock as suceessful contrarian scientists who were sometimes right and sometimes wrong.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I am not going to assume good faith here. The term "contrarian" is absolutely not a "neutral" term here, in this context, and you know full well that it isn't. It is used pejoratively, to imply that his views are not reliable. Stop playing silly word games. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Alex. As someone who's placed a substantial amount of money with a contrarian investment firm, I disagree with your statement that contrarian is a negative term, and I don't see a contextual difference. Now I personally think Lindzen is an unsuccessful and wrong contrarian, and maybe you've guessed that, but the negative aspects have to do with unsuccessful and wrong. This section should just be about Lindzen being a contrarian, and I'd oppose anything in it that implies contrarians are necessarily wrong.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take a break if you are incapable of seeing other editors as peers instead of opponents. I do not agree with your interpretation of the word "contrarian" and Brian apparently doesn't either... but as always it really doesn't matter what we think. I've demonstrated that rather a lot of reliable sources (including peer-reviewed ones) describe Lindzen as a contrarian, that establishes that it at least has some weight when we are talking about Lindzen. Can you explain to me why/how we can ignore these sources? (and please do not give me a i don't like it argument. The only way that i see for us to be able not to mention it, would be by removing Lindzen's personal views on climate change (ie. opinion columns, interviews, public appearences) completely...Just describe him as a scientist and ignore the public debate 100%. But i don't think this is doable since Lindzen is (has made himself) an important part of the public debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, do you agree or disagree that a number of advocate scientists (e.g. skepticalscience.com, "Eli Rabbit", Gavin Schmidt) have argued that Lindzen's "contrarianism" makes him an unreliable witness, and discredits him? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equally, lots of Lindzen's supporters have made arguments that treat consensus as a pejorative, compared Lindzen to Galileo and so on. There's no serious dispute that Lindzen is a contrarian - the dispute is whether his contrarianism makes him an unreliable witness. Critics typically say yes, and that criticism is presented here with reliable sources. Supporters say no. You could do better in balancing the article by citing some of them than by trying to remove the criticism.JQ (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

JQ, good stuff; thanks. And Kim, will you also agree that "contrarianism" is used here to discredit a great living scientist? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, i do not agree with that. As far as i can remember climate contrarian is/was commonly used term for what today is called climate sceptic. Iirc Pielke Jr. wrote something on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's very amusing. At 22:53, 8th Dec, after I had argued that the designation "contrarian" is purely arbitrary, and that every good scientist can be called a "contrarian", you contradicted me, saying, "I think you are confusing contrarian with sceptic. Every scientist is a sceptic." Now, at 4:21, 11th Dec, you say, "As far as i can remember climate contrarian is/was commonly used term for what today is called climate sceptic". So you seem to be getting a little tied up in knots here, Kim. Tell me again: what's the difference between a "skeptic", which every scientist is, and a "contrarian", which apparently, only Lindzen is. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) What is your problem with my 2 comments? Here is a more formal description: Scientists are all sceptics. Some sceptics are scientists. Some sceptics are contrarians. Some contrarians are scientists. (Some X are Y - means that there is an intersection between X and Y, and that X is not entirely contained in Y. X are all Y means that X is a subset of Y.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, tell me, Kim, what is the difference between a "skeptic" and a "contrarian"? I put it to you, Kim, that the difference is that, one is neutral, and the other pejorative, in the context of climate change debate. Thanks for your kind attention. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys... this is not your personal playground. Please do not use it as such. Thanks Bigdatut (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Need better sources in lede

I came across mention of Richard Lindzen in this news story, and since I'd never heard of him I looked him up here. A few statements in this article's lede need to be sourced better. The first is this one:

Describing himself as a global warming "denier" rather than a skeptic

The source for that is an audio clip that doesn't seem to include any such claim by Lindzen (although I'm using the audio search and transcription tools rather than listen to the entire 38+ minute audio, so those tools may be flawed — if somebody wants to indicate the time at which the statement is made, that would help.) I've tried to find other sources for this (particularly text sources) and came across this instead:

(From "End the chill" by Lawrence Solomon)

"Most of the 10 especially object to being called "deniers" because they do not at all deny the existence of global warming, only what they see as erroneous and even outlandish claims from climate change alarmists."

The "10" being referred to here are the ten subjects of Lawrence Solomon's book The Deniers, among which Lindzen was included. It's possible that Lindzen wasn't included among the "most" that Solomon refers to, or that his views on the term "denier" have changed, but if so then there should be a better source for the claim that he is self-described as a denier.

The second claim that should be sourced is this one:

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; [...] This hypothesis, generally rejected

I don't doubt that the hypothesis is generally rejected, but there should be some actual cases of scientists rejecting it, which could be cited here. I'll look for such rejections myself, but I'm not a climate researcher and don't know where to look.

I haven't made any changes to the lede because I suspect they would be immediately reverted, given the contentious nature of articles on climate change. --Oski Jr (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I found some sources in the article on Iris hypothesis, but they don't all seem to be rejections (the last two support the hypothesis.) Maybe a better phrasing in this article would be "This hypothesis, not generally accepted..." and the citations from the Iris hypothesis article that reject the hypothesis could be used here? Otherwise the two articles should be brought more in line (either this one dropping the "generally rejected" entirely, or the Iris hypothesis article dropping the references to support or listing more rejection sources to indicate the proper weight) and that's a can of worms I'd rather not open. --Oski Jr (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oski Jr, whilst I agree, may I suggest until we have resolved the above point, it's not really the right time to be worrying about this level of detail. Please note the thread above. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the section immediately preceding this one, with the 3477 words of people talking past each other, throwing around accusations of "bad faith" and countless alphabet soup policy violation references? Let me see ... (eyes glaze over) ... how about no? I was just suggesting a few minor fixes to the lede because I would've found them useful when I was reading this article about somebody I'd never heard of before. If that's going to get me caught up in an ongoing POV battle, then I'd rather bow out now. Maybe I'll stop back in a few days to see which side won the war (though I suspect it'll simply have changed focus, or perhaps venues) and try to make my proposed changes myself, unless somebody else does first (or explains why they're a bad idea.) Cheers, --Oski Jr (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be a new user to Wikipedia, just joined in the last day. It may be an idea to try to get a feel for how Wikipedia works before wading into the middle of a heated dispute. Before you shoot me down, note that I support you on this point, but it's not the right time to be proposing it. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "denier" claim, which needs better documentation than is apparently available, and changed "generally rejected" to "not generally accepted", which is clearly correct.JQ (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about moving this sentence from the lede to the Career section: "This hypothesis, not generally accepted as part of the scientific opinion on climate change , suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO₂ warming by lowering the climate sensitivity." We could just add it to what's already there on the Iris issue. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)\

I moved it to the global warming section. It's significant mainly as a point of overlap between his research and his public advocacy on the AGW issue, not as a major feature of his research career.JQ (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

614:1513 words = "balance" argument continued

Since the previous discussion was interrupted, and we've all had a chance to calm down, I respectfully request those opposing my position above to recosider, and concede that ratio 1:2.5 for a career section to a section on discrediting his stance on global warming is highly inappropriate. I remind KDP, BAS & JQ that Lindzen's notability derives from his position as a great scientist. He is never an average, "science soldier". He is one of the pioneers, who'll be remembered for his contributions to the history of science and most certainly not for his contributions to the mainstream media (see WP:NOT#NEWS). Biographies are written by historians, correct? I ask editors, calmly, to consider this position. I realise, it goes against the grain, but for Wikipedia to move to a higher level of quality, and really rival Britannica, we need to start seeing in this way. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome new responses. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that content like "When asked about Lindzen, Schellnhuber said "People like him are very useful in finding the weak links in our thinking" constitutes a discrediting statement. Alex has failed to address the issue that much/most of the warming section is neutral or presents Lindzen's thinking, and therefore can't be considered discrediting. As for Lindzen being a "great" scientist, I don't know how one would measure that. I understand he once did some good work on atmospheric tides. Anyway, Alex is free to introduce reliable, notable information indicating exactly that.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so you've found a single sentence that admittedly doesn't seem to go anywhere else other than to present a positive take on Lindzen (which means that some troll will soon try to remove or "balance" it), so let's grant your point and say the ratio is now 614:1472 instead. Does that make a difference? No. As for Lindzen being a great scientist, he did a great deal more than what you allude to, i.e. that he resolved a several hundred year old dispute about the cause of the semi-diurnal tide. See above, again, for an incomplete list of many more of his great contributions to mankind's knowledge of the atmosphere. Finally, you suggest again and again that, "Alex could balance the article by adding to the career section!". This is a ridiculous position. In order for the article to have balance, I would need to expand the career section to about 5 or 6,000 words. And, as I have conceded, the work Lindzen did from the 1970s through to the 1990s is far too difficult for me to write up. I have given up, unless I can get help from someone who understands it. You know that's not going to happen, so what are you really proposing here? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the disagreement comes from perception. We can try to cut it down with questions: Would L as a scientist alone merit an article. The answer is Yes (per WP:PROF). Would L as an advocate of his position on global warming merit alone merit an article? And again the answer is Yes (significant coverage in secondary sources). So both aspects are important. Now the second thing to do is to ask, can we determine which section should have more weight? (ie. have more/most content) My answer would be that L as an advocate is the more notable aspect (and i suspect that B does as well), but i guess that you have a different view on that. But i'd then ask the question: What aspect of L is the average reader of this article going to be interested in? And i think we will all answer that its the gw aspect. To be short the statement that "Lindzen's notability derives from his position as a great scientist" is not as clearcut as you think. (i personally find that it is the reverse, its the advocate aspect that where the notability derives, with the scientist part backing it up)

Now you raise an interesting viewpoint in your description of a particular sentence (in the previous discussion), i have to say that i while i can follow the "story", it is not the "story" that i read - my reading was quite a bit more nuanced. My guess is that you can read good or bad intentions into almost everything if you are actively looking for it. (the play the recording backwards and you get the devils voice problem). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I appreciate this effort at constructive dialogue. I think, on does L merit an article based on WP:PROF, the answer is obviously, yes, and we can agree on that point. On whether he would merit an article simply based on his contribution to the global warming controversy & media appearances, I would also agree, yes, but here is an important point for you to consider, that you may have genuinely overlooked, viz. that during the AfD discussions for Anthony Watts (blogger), I have !voted "keep" there and then proposed that we stubify the article, whereas you !voted "delete". You can see I am being consistent here, and I am not sure that you are. We should maintain the same editing principles at all articles, and we should both agree that the controversy section here that is based on MSM news appearance is given way, way too much coverage.

Your next question is also interesting, viz. what does the "average" reader want to know about? This is indeed an interesting question, and I will propose a different question: Is Wikipedia just a Wiki or is it a free encyclopaedia? If it was just a Wiki, then what you're saying would be right, for any article other than a BLP. We would generally give the average reader what he wants to know, whilst still remaining sensitive to the rights of living people. But if Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, we must aim to cover the issues that need to be presented in a reference work. There are far more references to Lindzen in the peer reviewed literature than there even are in the mainstream media (i.e. there are only 183 news hits compared with 360 scholar hits + he is an ISI highly cited researcher).

Basically, it doesn't matter how you choose to argue this, you end up with the same result: We need to cut the controversy section back to about 100 words, per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, please. When using Google searches, try to determine whether the hits are correct or not. Your 183 news-hits isn't correct.... Try searching for "Lindzen" and limit the search to "Past Month" and you get 185 hits (the same amount as a full search). Thats just within the last month. There is a good reason for WP:GOOGLE and this is one of them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, you're correct, my mistake, and the correct number is 1,630, apparently since 1988. It makes no difference, though, because it doesn't change the fact that he is mentioned far more in the peer reviewed literature than he is in the news. He is indeed, an ISI highly cited researcher, see his ISI page, here. For what this means, see here. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but even the 1630 figure is also wrong - you are assuming that the Google news search engine can accurately cite old news (not to mention of course that you only count public media mentions, and not all of the books that mention him, the think-tank reports, the speeches, ...) . And as for comparison with the # of citations in scholarly papers - that would be an apples/oranges comparison. I do not doubt that Lindzen is an accomplished and highly cited scientist (and i doubt if anyone else does), but that doesn't change the fact that Lindzen also is a very prolific advocate in the public/political arena, and that it is this part of his persona that has made him a house-hold name (notability). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into a fantastic argument about Google News, but explain again why Anthony Watts' biography should be deleted, per your AfD arguments. Please repeat those arguments, as they have become relevant to the present discussion. Apples are for Lindzen per WP:PROF, and you have there assigned a weight of 1. Oranges are for the, shall I say, Lindzen per 'household name factor' (which is usually called 'fame'), and you say here this establishes Lindzen's 'notability', but you cite no guideline for that one. Somehow, though, you're trying to convince that it is correct to assign a weight there of 2.5. Please restate your arguments for the deletion of Anthony Watts. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets try another metric, since you seem so fond of them. Goto google books and check Lindzen as a search-parameter, now count the books into political/public policy vs. science. Again we see that the majority of sources aren't science ones. (i'll note that this is an apple/oranges argument again, since there is less scientific material vs. regular material within any given category). What i'm saying with regards to notability, is that Lindzen as the "household" name is significantly more notable than Lindzen as a scientist - but again its apples/oranges. Comparing the 1 vs. 2.5 is also apples and oranges - either section could be expanded. Personally i think the public part has reached a reasonable level, whereas the scientist part could be expanded. (and please stick to Lindzen since there is a world of difference between Lindzen and Watts, both in public notability as well as in scientific notability - and magnitudes of difference in the amount of reliable sources available). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, so I went to Google books as you suggest, and in books, another form of print media inappropriate for measuring the notability of an WP:PROF, I find coverage significantly weighted to his scientific work. The first book #1, is his own book, The atmosphere, a challenge: the science of Jule Gregory Charney. The second book #2, is his classic 1970 work with Sidney Chapman, Atmospheric tides: Thermal and gravitational. A third work #3 merely mentions him (Singer's book). He is of course mentioned in unreliable Gelbspan work (#4). Then we have a scientific work on mesospheric modeling (#5). Then, we have more Green literature by McKibben, also unreliable. #7 & #8 are scientific works. At #9, we have the first & only serious, academic treatment of his political stance. #10 & #11 are serious science. #12-16 are Green literature. #17, #18 science, #19 Green, #20 science. So if I pretended that anti-Lindzen hate speeches were reliable sources, we'd end up with a ratio of about 50:50. But, none of these Green works turning up are about Lindzen, per se. He is merely mentioned in them (in a similar way to how the Devil is mentioned in the Bible). As such, after filtering out the crud, we're left with about the same ratio I proposed: 10:1 or so, science:public policy. This argument also fails completely. (And please tell me, who is going to expand the science section?). Alex Harvey (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Lindzen is not only notable per WP:PROF - so that argument is rather futile, secondly i notice that you mark alot of books as unreliable - how come? Because they are "Green literature"? How do you define that? (Your comment on #9 amused me rather alot - its written by Boehmer-Christensen, who is rather infamous as a editor of science) - Methinks though art letting thy personal POV shine a bit too much through here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct on ref #9; I didn't read the subtitle, or the authors, so that means in the top 20 google book hits, 3 of them are his own books, about 50% discusses scientifically his work, there is nothing there that's specifically about his polical views, and no balanced treatments of it. I don't see how this helps establish support for the weighting of the Wiki bio. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe i asked a question which you didn't answer. Why are policy books unreliable? (note that i'm not discounting #9) We are discussing the balance of policy vs. science with regards to Lindzen, so blindly removing the non-science books seems rather strange. (or is it that you simply won't accept that particular aspect of Lindzen?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I only followed this is passing - Alex, after running the page through wc, it seems like you count all of the text on Lindzen's position on global warming as "discrediting his stance on global warming". Sorry, but that's nonsense. What's discrediting about "Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere." or "In 2001 Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences.[10] The panel's report, entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,[11] has been widely cited." or "Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment." He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"[14] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[15] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[16] He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone." or "Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.[19] In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming."? Indeed, it looks like about 80% or so of those sections present Lindzen's position, with only minimal replies to them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Iris Theory

Where, exactly does this link say that Lindzen's Iris theory is "not generally accepted as part of the scientific opinion on climate change"? Looks like OR/SYNTH to me. WVBluefield (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Iris effect is a very interesting but controversial idea" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial ≠ "not generally accepted as part of the scientific opinion on climate change". The material in the article must match the source, drawing a conclusion not stated in the source constitutes OR. WVBluefield (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually controversial does mean generally not accepted... if it had been generally accepted, then it wouldn't be controversial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You interpretaion that controversial = generally not accepted = "not generally accepted as part of the scientific opinion on climate change" is quite a stretch to put it mildly. WVBluefield (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether Iris theory is part of scientific opinion on climate change. I disagree that we need to recreate and duplicate the entire scientific opinion article here in order to establish it's not part of that article. The outside citation is superfluous in my opinion. I think the sentence works as a simple reference to the scientific opinion article where people can go for more information if they desire. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Carry on. -Atmoz (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, carry on indeed, now that the momentum for the previous thread is derailed a second time... ;-) I oppose any change to this article until the dispute above resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Balance

In the interests of achieving more balance to the article, I'm starting to add some publications. I've only added a few and will probably hold off until I can find a way to determine which (among the hundreds!) are most notable, probably by checking to see how many citations each paper has. I also want to ease into making any changes to the page. I don't think there needs to be as much argument over the balance issue as there is on this talk page.. it should be a lot less work to simply add more content to the "Career" section (now including "Publications") and that will improve the article as well as add more balance. --Oski Jr (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

hi Oski, as a new Wikipedian it might be an idea if you have a look at our editing policy referenced here: Bold, revert, discuss. There is in fact no need to make discussion here if you intend to make uncontroversial edits. Adding some publications is probably a good idea, but it isn't going to help resolve the above discussion, which has actually been ongoing, frankly, since the page was created about seven or eight years ago. I now want to fix the article so that it becomes stable and maintainable, and so that it is no longer a target of trolls & vandals, so that we don't need to keep coming back here, every couple of months, to engage in the same disputes. Welcome to Wikipedia, and think about creating a user page! :) Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Balance argument, summary

Kim & I seem to have become bogged down in too much detail about search engines etc, so I'm going to summarise our dispute again.

I thank Kim for his message at my talk page, and I'd like to say that what I really want is for Kim to actually agree with my proposal, and to see that I am proposing a win-win solution that will save WP server space, that will save our time so that we can focus more on writing articles, and less on increasingly heated arguments about controversial content, and so that we can set a new standard for climate change BLP coverage that will actually more effectively communicate with the public, post-Climategate.

As far as I can see, there has not been a consistent or satisfactory answer to my fundamental question, how can we have a balance of 625 for a great man's scientific achievements and contributions to mankind's knowledge of the atmosphere -- knowledge that is now used by scientists to understand how to respond to global warming, e.g. in GCM models, see the ECHAM5 GCM cumulus parameterisations derived from the work of Lindzen & his students -- and 1472 words devoted to discrediting his stance on global warming, and not violate WP:UNDUE?

The responses have not been consistent, because on the one hand, KDP & BAS have argued at times that the career section should be expanded (implying that the balance is presently wrong) and at other times has argued that the balance 1:2.5 is just about right (well, only KDP actually said that).

Those who have argued that the career section should be expanded (which it should) have not provided any plausible explanation of how we're going to get it expanded, since I don't think any of us are up to the task for writing about Lindzen's work on gravity waves, cumulus parameterisation, theory of the ice ages, and so on.

So, it follows that the only solution will be to cut back the controversy section, to something shorter, and quieter, and that remains purely factual.

Please note, I will be offline from Dec 23 until Jan 12, and I will raise an RfC before I go, requesting outside input on this matter. Merry Christmas to all. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Harvey. I think the simplest solution is to reduce the negative. Certainly a section headed "Contrarianism" is undue weight without sections headed "Admired","Reputation for brilliance" etc. NPOV is very clear ""Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, ". Likewise "The media appearances" section contains this "According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis" but not this "For instance, he (Lindzen) points out, the computer models do not reflect the climate's natural variability very well -- a key shortcoming in trying to gauge the human effect on climate, one that is readily conceded by the modelers." Not only are individual articles given excessive importance, they are summarized from a critical POV. Having already been targeted in this discussion by JQ [4], I'm not going to make the changes necessary but the first one would be to remove the "Contrarianism" heading and make "Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian." the last sentence of the previous paragraph. In short this article is biased in sourcing, summarizing and structure. Hopefully the RfC will bring some help.Momento (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the sourcing of the contrarian part, there are a significant weight of sources that do describe Lindzen this way (see previous sections), therefore we can't ignore it. NPOV is not "equal time", it means that when we describe Lindzen's view on global warming, we have to describe what the majority opinion is, and where it differentiates with Lindzen's views. When Lindzen asserts something about what models do or do not, then we also have to describe that this is a minority viewpoint, and what the majority viewpoint on that aspect is. That is what NPOV demands. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He may have been called "Contrarian" in a blog and two articles but in the same article he was also described as having "the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research" and the person (Held) who describes Lindzen as "contrarian" also said he's "a smart scientist". Where's the section headed "Smart Scientist". The "Outside" article as says Lindzen has been hailed "for presenting a clear and coherent scientific counter to unfounded climate alarmism". Where's the section that says "A clear and coherent scientific counter to unfounded climate alarmism". Picking out one description and ignoring the rest is undue weight. Creating a heading and a special section is even worse.Momento (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"a blog and two articles" try again (here's what i was referring to as being in the earlier discussions (did you look?) - note these were all found within a couple of minutes of checking):

Extra references on "contrarian":

• Sampson, Patsy (2000). "The Science and Politics of Global Warming: The Climate of Political Change at MIT" (PDF). MIT Undergraduate Research Journal. 3. MIT. Who would know better than Professor Lindzen,who has been assigned by the media the title of "climate contrarian."
• Stevens, William K. (Feb 29, 2000). "Global Warming: The Contrarian View". New York Times.
• Lindzen, Richard S. (Mar 16, 2007). "On Global Warming Heresy". I am frequently asked to describe my experiences as a contrarian about global warming.
• Eilperin, Juliet (Oct 2007). "An Inconvenient Expert". Outside. That is Dick's natural personality—to be somewhat of a contrarian," Wallace says. "He feels he can work the argument and win. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
• Yang, Hu; Tung, Ka Kit (1998). "Water Vapor, Surface Temperature, and the Greenhouse Effect—A Statistical Analysis of Tropical-Mean Data". Journal of Climate. 11 (10). doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2686:WVSTAT>2.0.CO;2. A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that the increased convection associated with the CO2-induced warming should act instead to dry the upper troposphere:
• Grundmann, Reiner. "Climate Change and Knowledge Politics" (PDF). Environmental Politics. 16 (3): 414–432. Apart from the US contrarians (such as Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer, who are given very little attention) - note here talking in context of German media.
• Boykoff, Maxwell T. "Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change". In Liverman, D. G. E.; Pereira, C. P. G.; Marker, B. (eds.). Communicating environmental geoscience. Geological Society Special Publication. Vol. 305. Geological Society of London. ISBN 1862392609. "Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates, Sherwood Idso, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels
• Broecker, Wallace S. (2006). "Global warming: Take action or wait?" (PDF). Chinese Science Bulletin. 51 (9): 1018–1029. doi:10.1007/s11434-006-1017-4. Further, as his detractors point out, Lindzen is well known for his contrarian views. For example, with equal vigor, he denies that cigarette smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Former student"

The "former student" is Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, who got his PhD under Lindzen, has co-published several papers with him, and is now a climatologist teaching at the University of Maryland. He is well-qualified to have an opinion on Lindzen, both personal and scientific, and is being cited by Seed (magazine), a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's former PhD student and co-author Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, now teaching at the University of Maryland....

Just an idea. --TS 01:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We have much more reliably sourced statements being removed from pro-GW articles. This needs to be rectified per NPOV. On RealClimate, established scientists are suppressed on weight arguments, while here, former students and environmental weeklies are used as sources for criticism. This double standard needs to be addressed. ATren (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• You seem confused about what NPOV is about. All content policies (NPOV,...) are about single articles - the reason for this is that subjects while seemingly similar (though these aren't) have a completely different background in how they are covered in reliable sources and how the balance of these describe the subjects. As an example within the context of BLP's: Lindzen can't be compared to Pielke Sr. because L is significantly more a "public" person (lots of RS's cover his personal views), while PSr isn't - this goes for all articles. They must all be edited and judged on the individual coverage in reliable sources. Sticking to a false dichtomy like yours (pro vs. contra articles) is a flawed argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Is this your personal view or is this actually stated somewhere? If so, where? --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seed is not an environmental weekly, but a pop-sci bimonthly. And while Kirk-Davidoff is a former student - as are, more or less without fail, all academics - he also is an established researcher who worked for years with Lindzen and apparently got along well enough to co-publish a paper with him in 2000 - 2 years after his PhD was awarded, 3 years after he went from MIT to Harvard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, that is correct, and it is the reason that KD is almost certainly being quoted out of context by the journalist. It is the reason that the source is unreliable, for how it is used, and why it should be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is your personal interpretation - I'd say OR, but there is not even any R in it, as far as I can tell. You can have a good working condition with someone, you can even be a friend, and still have and state an honest opinion, and you can still disagree with them professionally. Being called a "contrarian" is not automatically an insult. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled a different quote about Lindzen's purported contrarianism from the Seed article. The quote I added summarizes the views of more than one person and doesn't place undue focus on the one former student.

I still disagree strongly with the last paragraph of that section, which links Lindzen's smoking views with his GW views. Those sources are weak, and the link is tenuous at best. It seems to be little more than opponents saying "see how he opposes GW consensus, he did the same thing with smoking", a kind of guilt-by-association. If this appeared in a stronger source it might be OK, but the weakness of both the claim and the sourcing makes it unacceptable. ATren (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1472 words of Wikipedia balance

I will return January 12th, to bring more and more and more attention to Wikipedia's proposition that 625 words for Lindzen's career against 1472 words to discrediting his stance on global warming is "balanced". To the various editors who have contacted me privately expressing support, I suggest that you make that support public, and move forwards from the days where the whole of Wikipedia bends to the will of a small group of advocates. To anyone else who finds this article offensive, please see that all focus needs to begin and end with this fundamental lack of balance, and that Wikipedia is not, to quote Lawrence Solomon the other day, "the missionary wing of the global warming movement", but instead, a free encyclopaedia, which is what I thought it was, years ago, when it first appeared, and has served me so usefully as a resource throughout my career. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, this article is a disgrace. And removing another editor's civil talk page contribution is harassment.Momento (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Alex. This article has Kim's crusading fingerprints all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.18.1 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Second the motion.Bigdatut (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I support that as well. I am all for a balanced article, citing both pro's and con's. However, there seem to be a number of editors who are working to trash global warming sceptic biographies by inserting negative comments and fighting against the insertion of balancing positive insights. I'm running into a similar situation over at Jim Inhofe, where two editors keep deleting a sentence from another sceptic praising Jim. For shame! Madman (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Has any of you actually read the article? As pointed out above, by far most of the "1472 words" (give or take a few by now) present Lindzen's point of view, they don't discredit it. If you want more balance, add material to the other sections - User:Alexh19740110/Lindzenearlydraft is a bit hagiograhic, but contains a lot of good material. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Every sentence counted in the 1472 words (assuming the article hasn't changed since I did the word count) is followed by a second that discredits the view given in the sentence before it. My point stands, as far as I can see. As for my draft, it is not only hagiographic in part, it is not factually correct in other parts, and is hopelessly incomplete. Adding any of that material in (e.g. the tides section which I think is probably good) would simply create a new problem of balance (and not to mention accuracy): why an article about Lindzen's contributions to tidal theory that says nothing about all his other work from 1970-1990? Do we have here a professional meteorologist who understands Lindzen's wave-CISK theory or his work on cumulus parameterisation or his other theory of atmospheric dynamics who can actually help me finish this? Otherwise, there is still no other way of balancing the article other than to remove the gratuitous criticisms sections. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only have I read it, I've got it open before me. And the headings "contrarianism" and "Expert witness fees and expenses" clearly violate WP:COAT (Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.). Lindzen has been a notable scientist for over 40 years but you wouldn't know it from this article. The fact that a few people have described him as a "contrarian" in the last five years is a very minor footnote to a long and distinguished career. It certainly doesn't warrant its own section. And a separate section called "Expert witness fees and expenses" based on an article by ONE journalist is absolutely pathetic. I could make a dozen overdue edits to this article in 10 minutes but I might be indefinitely banned for going against the status quo.Momento (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning but who decides what's "disruptive"? My experience is that "majority rules" not "truth". Fortunately "the majority" of editors who replied above think this article is negatively biased and not "truthful" Can I fix it?Momento (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have complaints about specific editorial conduct, please raise them at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎. If you have any queries about how the probation will be managed, please post them at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation‎. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have complaints about editorial conduct. I do have a concern that a discussion about changes needed to remedy obvious breaches of Wiki policy (BLP, Coatrack, Undue weight etc) is met with "Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked"! Shouldn't our concern be to encourage appropriate edits, not suggest that the edits may be "disruptive"?Momento (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Analogous weight discussion at Rajendra Pachauri

I believe we should resolve the discussion at Rajendra Pachauri's BLP before proceeding with this one, given some obvious parallels, see Talk:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Links_to_news_articles_about_COI_and_the_open_letter. Those who agree with me there should, to some extent, agree with me on a number of points here, too. Let's see. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree Alex. I've been saying this for a while: I believe it is very important for different articles on the same topic to adhere to the same standards. Ideally, the entire encyclopedia should have consistent standards, but lacking that, we should at least try to ensure that we have some consistency across articles on the same contentious topic. Now, as to what that standard is, I don't know.

I initially supported including well-sourced claims against Pachauri, because that's what always happened on skeptic articles - if it was sourced it was in. But the resistance to negative well-sourced material on Pachauri (and others as well - there was a long debate on RealClimate about including sourced negative opinion, and eventually that too was kept out) has forced me to re-evaluate how we address the skeptic BLPs. Sourcing alone is not enough. It has to be a reliably sourced, notable claim that has been in the news for a while and has been somewhat widely reported (i.e. even if they're well sourced, if it's a transient news item with few sources, it fails weight and/or NOTNEWS).

So I don't care about the standard we use, only that it be consistent, and from what I can tell the standard is much higher on pro-GW BLPs than on GW-skeptic BLPs. Attempts to bring pro-GW BLPs in line with skeptic BLPs (by including well sourced negative material) have been met with strong resistance. Therefore, I've begun the task of applying that higher standard to GW skeptics. I think we should do that here. I've already done it on a few others, but there is, once again, resistance -- and ironically, some of the same editors who have fought for higher standards on pro-GW BLPs are fighting to keep dubious claims in skeptic BLPs. So it may have to come to an RFC on the whole lot, where independent editors can examine the whole set of disputed articles and apply standards equally.

Bringing it back to Lindzen, I will try to take a look tonight. At a glance, Lindzen seems to be a clear case where the higher standard of inclusion needs to be applied. ATren (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is already a common standard for all topics: weight. But as long as you can't tell the difference between little coverage and widespread coverage, as well as tell the difference between short news-flashes and long term coverage. Then you are going to bump into what you perceive as difference in consistency. The Lindzen issues have very little to do with the issues that surround the Pachauri issue, just as the Plimer issue is widely different from both Lindzen and Pachauri. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim, on Pachauri, you rejected inclusion of critical material sourced to 3 respected newspapers -- and I'm referring to full news articles documenting the claim, not mere passing mentions. On skeptic articles, you have argued for inclusion of claims sourced to a single opinion writer (multiple times) and I found one example where you cited Exxonsecrets. On Plimer, the Monbiot debate section is sourced almost completely to Monbiot himself writing in the Guardian, and I've seen no independent coverage (you claim there is, but refuse to provide links). Now, I can dig up more if you like, but it is my assertion that your weight evaluation (and others') has been inconsistent across articles, and that needs to be fixed. I am prepared to back up this assertion if I must. Actually, I already did on the Pachauri talk page, but you reacted strongly, so I've tried to keep it impersonal. But if you demand evidence, I will provide it. (Side note: I am not accusing you of bad faith. You obviously are acting in what you believe to be the interests of the encyclopedia, but I believe you have erred in your judgement of weight, and I'm prepared to demonstrate that. My main concern is that the inconsistency be addressed, not in laying blame -- it just so happens that you've been one of the most vocal opponents to addressing the issue) ATren (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because on the Pachauri issue things are (strangely enough) different from the issues that have come up here. None of the Lindzen issues are breaking news, nor is it limited in timeperiod (all issues on Lindzen are spread over years, where the one on Pachauri is limited to within (largely) a month), and there is also not the problem that such sourcing is extremely limited in coverage (1 story out of thousands within a short timeperiod). All of these are weight issues, and none of them match or have anything to do with each other. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

KDP, please stop flogging this poor horse. Your WP:WEIGHT argument has utterly failed to gain any purchase with multiple editors. It has been rejected. That argument is not an argument that no double standard exists, that argument is precisely what enables the double standard to exist at all. Please stop being an enabler for double standards across BLPs and help to make WP:NPOV consistent across all such pages. The project will be a better place for it over-all. --GoRight (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry GoRight, it has failed to gain any purchase with ... the sceptics. Nothing strange there. Weight is a general issue GoRight, it cannot be determined generally, but has to be decided depending on the relative prevalence of the issue within the literature. Spread of coverage on issues concerning Lindzen is different from that of Pachauri, Plimer, Obama, or any other person. It is unique to an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you calling me a GW skeptic? Shall I call you a proponent? Please see the top of my user page. ATren (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

While this is a technically true statement where it fails to gain purchase is in the balancing of WP:NPOV with WP:WEIGHT. It lacks purchase because the differences you speak of in WP:WEIGHT are far outweighed by other WP:NPOV concerns across the articles. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm running into the same argument at Jim Inhofe, where my suggestions to structure the article similar to a biography of a (or any!!) liberal Democratic senator was nixed because Inhofe is known for this political stands and not his accomplishments. It's absurd. Madman (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the same with anyone who is perceived to be a skeptic of AGW. KDP is a master at using WP:WEIGHT but in this case it is falling short and I believe that this is the case because the actual discrepancy in treatment across certain pages has become so blaring. Compare Jim Inhofe's treatment to that of James E. Hansen as one such example. The same applies in all the GW related BLPs. --GoRight (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in how Kim D. Petersen has historically applied WP:WEIGHT against skeptic biographies should review our thread Talk:Richard_Lindzen/Archive_5#ref_29.... On the basis of a single passing, out of context reference, in a single reliable source from a decade or so ago, an entire section was made to stand, and stand for about six years or so, connecting falsely and by insinuation Richard Lindzen with Big Tobacco. This thread began when I found that Kim had added an incendiary new source as supposedly new, supporting evidence for weight -- a hopelessly biased & flawed opinion piece. After many weeks, no more reliable sources could be found, but Kim can be seen to argue here for inclusion based on, wait for it, typing "lindzen passive smoking" into google, and then counting the number of hits obtained. 2,000 hits was then described as the "elephant in the room", and this elephant of google hits was Kim's definition of weight. Let's not pretend otherwise: weight has been bent in Wikipedia to be whatever the including editor wanted it to be. Please don't lecture to us that weight is applied consistently in Wikipedia, thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But we digress and there be climate change probationary sanctions to worry about along with talk page guidelines. Let us move the conversation to my talk page. I have started a section here. --GoRight (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is no digression. Most of the material from the Ref 29 discussion has been readded here a few weeks ago, with a new set of bogus reasons and arguments that pay spite equally to our WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#NEWS guidelines, but I will begin a new thread below, to make this clearer. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll wait till ATren responds again, as he said he was going to review the whole thing this evening. But the point remains: we cannot make any progress unless editors see that an argument made at one BLP either applies equally on all BLPs, or it doesn't apply at all. To remind readers, this is what NOT#NEWS actually says, and NOT#NEWS tells us how we should interpret NPOV, WEIGHT: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is by now fact that much of the material in the Lindzen article has failed the test of time. Gelbspan's allegations of the mid 90s are seen as irrelevant; Lindzen is not a fossil fuel industry shill, and that is accepted by all. NOT#NEWS says that Gelbspan's allegations, regardless of whether they appeared once in a PBC documentary, are not worthy of inclusion. A simple statement, followed by Lindzen's denial, is completely unacceptable. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Alex, I don't see this being resolved without DR. We could play their "team revert" game to subvert 3RR, but that's just gaming the system and I don't want to stoop to that. Rather, I suggest we collect evidence of editors who enforce completely different standards of weight, and try to get the worst offenders topic-banned. We can start on Lindzen, and a few other skeptics where weight was ignored, and then try to find a few examples on the proponent side where critical info was suppressed by the same editors, despite extensive coverage. Between Pachauri and the email controversy, I'm sure we'll be able to locate examples of that. Then we can start the steps. Probably NPOV/N first, then RFC/U.

I had planned on doing this anyways for Pachauri's COI claim, but your arguments convinced me that it was better to remove borderline material from skeptics than try to add it to proponents. That's why I've dropped that for now, and instead taken up the challenge of cleaning up these bios. Mark Nutley was involved in the Pachauri stuff, perhaps he'll help here. JPatterson might help too, though for him it must be indirect because he's got a bogus topic ban. There are others. Tillman, Unitanode, Abd, maybe they can help dig through the evidence. Let's take our time and do this right, and when we get there we should have a rock solid case. Heck, I spent 15 minutes searching and found 5 glaring examples.

Anyway, perhaps we should move this to our talk pages for further discussion. ATren (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One simple change

As per - The headings "contrarianism" and "Expert witness fees and expenses" clearly violate WP:COAT (Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.). Lindzen has been a notable scientist for over 40 years but you wouldn't know it from this article. The fact that a few people have described him as a "contrarian" in the last five years is a very minor footnote to a long and distinguished career. It certainly doesn't warrant its own section. And a separate section called "Expert witness fees and expenses" based on an article by ONE journalist is absolutely pathetic - I propose removing the section heading "Contrarianism" and placing this sentence (Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian.) at the end of the previous paragraph.Momento (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)