Talk:Ian Plimer

Plimerite & Aust'n Humanist of 1995

I think it is worth noting Plimer's work as a skeptic fighting the creationists earlier, and also noting that :

- He has the mineral Plimerite - ZnFe4(PO4)3(OH)3 orthorhombic - named after him.
- Plimer was named ‘Australian Humanist of the Year’ in 1995.
- was president of the Australian Geoscience Council
- Plimer is the Patron of Lifeline (Broken Hill) & Patron of the Broken Hill Geocentre.
- Plimer is a regular communicator / populariser of science esp. geology and skepticism to the public via radio, print & TV.

Source : Page 4 ("About the Author") "Heaven & Earth", Connor Court, 2009. StevoR 124.182.226.16 (talk)

Blogs as Sources

Material being used to impugn Plimer from these two blogs:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer
• http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joss-garman-climate-change-deniers-cost-the-earth-1835058.html

And appears to violate BLP policy. The USGS is not a blog, agreed, however, it's claim, by itself, appears to have no bearing whatsoever on Plimer personally. I have, however, left it in the article. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that blogs under the aegis of major newspapers are regarded differently? The blog in question is written by the Guardian's Environment Editor, James Randerson, and describes an actual interview Randerson conducted with Plimer. This is completely RS. ► RATEL ◄ 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Garman piece is not written by a professional journalist. It's opinion, written by the founder of an environmental group, clearly hostile to the article's subject. It is not treated differently, and it clearly cannot be used in this context. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, the statement that volcanic CO2 is one of Plimer's "central hypothesis" is one I couldn't find in the Randerson piece. Did you find that elsewhere, or is it WP:OR ? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

From the article in The Independent: "an Australian academic whose central thesis involves the assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." Plus, the volcano claim is in many interviews and forms a prominent part of his book. I suggest you read this link to see why this has to go back into the article. [1] ► RATEL ◄ 05:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did the USGS source specifically respond to Plimer? If not, then it can't be used becaue it violates synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the USGS could be seen as a SYN vio. We don't need it. Para can be rephrased .... oh, do I have the time today? ► RATEL ◄ 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a new source -- [2] -- which I have used. ► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really better. Especially since it gives a huge possible variation for the Eyja event, the Eyja event has a huge anount of SO2, and the twin volcano, if it erupts, will give off an order of magnitude more gas. Still too much SYN at best for a BLP, though not as much for other articles. Collect (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It does contain a section that is directly related to Plimers claim:

Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:

The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.

And contains a direct answer from UGSC to Plimers claim:

Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:

I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.

These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja - and since they are directly connecting Plimers claim and USGS - there is certainly no synthesis. We can discuss the reliability of the reference for this kind of information - but a synthesis it is not. (the "central" part seems to be synthesis though) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with Eyja"?

The central part is from the Garman piece in The Independent. ► RATEL ◄ 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption

The entire article is premised on Eyja. And on an assumption that oits peak output of CO@ is 300K tons/day -- based on the twin which presumably emited 3 million tons/day when it last erupted (roughly a factor of 10 according to a number of sources). So, yes, the entry is SYN and, at best, is the opinion of the author and not "fact" per se. Moreover, this is a BLP and subject to rather more stringent requirements than other articles, as you have stated before <g>. [3] Icelandic volcanoes are noted for SO2 emissions more than CO2 emissions, and one case a bit over two centuries ago is the "gold standard" for volcanoes. Collect (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss out a comma in the sentence of mine that you quote - and the subsequent sentence which changes the meaning of that first sentence? The subject of Eyja is used as a pretext to addressing Plimer's (and other sceptics) claim about Volcanoes and CO2 - it is not an article about Eyja. The question of synthesis - and the question of whether the reference is reliable for this kind of information - are two different aspects. I'm addressing the one on synthesis (which it isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed no commas at all. I quoted your post exactly. The article, moreover, is quite specifically about Eyja - as the heading indicates fairly clearly. Unless, of course, one thinks that the headings of news articles have nothing to do with the articles as a rule <g>. And when you mention "commas" be sure that you used them. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plimerite

Has this received any coverage in any RS? Google news archives show zero hits. I've taken it out of the lede. ► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Mineralogical Magazine; February 2009; v. 73; no. 1; p. 131-148; DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2009.073.1.131 and Mindat - Plimerite

Agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unreliable source?" tags not appropriate

Cadae has tagged 2 sources as "unreliable". If you read the paragraph, you'll see that the source preceding the 2 that are tagged is the transcript of the actual debate, and from reading that it is clear that the rest of the paragraph is accurate — based on that transcript. The Guardian sources were included as confirmation of what happened, in case one or another source goes dead. But to call the sources "unreliable" when they are completely reliable for the text in the article is absurd. If we'd inserted "...and Plimer was made to look like an utter fool" and cited the Guardian columns, then you may have a point, but not as it stands. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They are unreliable, you are using monbiot`s blog to assert something monbiot said in an argument between both parties. The second is also unreliable as it is just a copy and paste of monbiots earlier column. Not very reliable at all, in fact as monbiot is essentially a blog should he even be used in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The transcript is certainly a reliable source, and so is the debate itself. And that is enough to verify the text in the sentence. Whether Monbiot is a reliable source, here, is a grey zone.... The column/blog wouldn't be reliable for personal information - but they may be for the information cited here (which isn't BLP material), since it is relating to claims in the book and the subsequent debate. Since Monbiot was a participant in that debate, he is certainly a reliable source to some information on that debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further reading here seems to show that the Monbiot references are used as extra sources to the information, and for that the references are certainly reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot was not merely a participant in that debate, he was Ian Plimer's opponent in the debate. To cite the blog of that opponent stretches credulity - wikipedia should be seen to be using reliable sources - the blog from an opponent is clearly biased. A reader would have no idea whether or not Monbiot has cherry-picked parts of the debate or not. A cite from an unbiased source would be fine. Cadae (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)