Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Myles Allen

Myles Allen gives his view about the longer term developments. . dave souza, talk 07:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Source request

T. O'Riordan (1997). "Review of Climate Change 1995 – Economic and Social Dimension". Environment 39 (9): 34–39.

Can anyone find this article? I can't seem to locate it, and we don't even seem to have an article on the journal it was supposedly published in. NW (Talk) 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to post a note on GregJackP's talk page. He may have it Minor4th 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This [1] suggests it may be in "environment and planning a" (but that can't be because the volume numbers don't fit: http://www.envplan.com/allvols.cgi?journal=A). Mind you this [2] Tol paper says just "environment". R Tol is User:Rtol so you could ask him. Only 2 google scholar hits are to cites in Tol papers, so maybe Tol got the ref wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

O'Riordan, Timothy (1997). "Economic and Social Dimensions". Environment. 39 (9). Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis Ltd: 34–39. doi:10.1080/00139159709604768. ISSN 0013-9157. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), "Unfortunately, involving these parties in the preparation of the final report politicized the whole IPCC process" (at p. 35), "many of the equity assessments and the highly controversial cost-benefit analyses" (at p. 35), and "This particular dispute lay at the heart of the outcry that followed the release of the early drafts" (at p. 38). The source both generally and specifically supports the statement it is cited for. GregJackP Boomer! 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Greg. Minor4th 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Doing further research, there may be a prob with Ebscohost. It shows a UK journal, but the ISSN points to the St Louis journal on WorldCat, so I don't have a clue which one is accurate. It could be the publisher is based out of the UK and actually publishes it in St Louis. Anyway, I was able to read the article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A CONVENIENT LIE

I have found actual proof of the corruption in the form of an IPCC report showing the changes made after government consultation. Anyone wishing to see my full debunking of the latest IPCC documents email me at "pahgcdt@hotmail.com".

In short, the IPCC cannot claim to be a scientific body as long as government has input into the decision making process. There is no good reason for government review and feedback during the generation of a scientific report. The attached document shows, government has no fewer than two opportunities to influence IPCC reports as they are created.

"I have found examples of a Summary [For Policy Makers] saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," - South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, an IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

"The IPCC's editors could - and often did - reject the peer-reviewer's comments, a reversal of the normal practice in scientific peer-review." - Climate data analyst John McLean after reviewing the documents of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I.

"…it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a large scale.... Data that challenges the hypothesis are simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not to, and is then changed." - MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen

"These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts." - Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, chairman of the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm

More than 31,478 US scientists have signed a mail-in petition rejecting global warming as part of the Global Warming Petition Project,26 including 9,029 scientists with PhDs. Additionally, a minority report from the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has released a list of over 700 scientists rejecting global warming. This list is perhaps more significant because it includes biographies from the scientists as well as specific quotes. The list includes many current and former IPCC members as well as several Nobel Prize winners.

The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that of the nine variables that affect climate change, they have a "low" to "med" level of scientific understanding for seven, and only a "high" level for two. It is with this data that they program their 16 computer models. The IPCC's current stated level of confidence in their conclusions would not be enough to warrant scientific publication on other subjects.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies.

"Are there other possibilities to explain the temperature increase of the last 40 years? Yes! Current warming is consistent with the 300 year trend. Changes in solar activity could explain much of it. Then there is the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere 'hot’' zone that is supposed to exist over the tropics. Temperature measurements show that the hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!" - Steven M. Japar, PhD atmospheric chemist who worked on the IPCC's Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports.

"Even doubling or trebling (tripling) the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." - Geoffrey G. Duffy, professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, who has published 218 journal, peer-reviewed papers and conference papers.

In 2007 a British court ruled that if Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown in schools the students would also have to be presented with nine factual errors in the movie.

The IPCC is driven by politics and is not an objective scientific body. Its conclusions are untrustworthy. There is still scientific debate about global warming. Computer climate models are unreliable. Earth's temperature has been warmer in the past. It is not hotter than normal. Changes in energy from the sun drive climate change on Earth, not carbon dioxide. Therefore, global warming has not yet been proven.

PAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.44.51 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this news. Unfortunately, your publication does not meet the standards required by WP:SOURCES policy. You are of course welcome to propose improvements to the article based on suitable reliable sources. . dave souza, talk 08:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I noticed a trend in this section where the lede for example is a rebuttal to criticism (somewhat odd??) and the paragraphs that are positioned as "global warming skeptical" all contain rebuttals that are equal in size to the criticisms themselves, or larger. In contrast, paragraphs within the section that take the position the the IPCC underestimates, or understates the global warming effects and dangers seem to have none of the previously mentioned rebuttals? It seems to smell of NPOV 207.81.141.208 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over."

Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave - by Christopher Brooker. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8181558/Cancun-climate-conference-the-warmists-last-Mexican-wave.html

“Scientists”, we were told, are calling for everyone to be issued with a “carbon ration card”, to halt all Western economic growth for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Dr Rajendra Pachauri was telling us that we must spend hundreds of billions on covering the world’s oceans with iron filings, on building giant mirrors out in space and on painting all the world’s roofs white to keep out the heat from the sun.

Cheers Steve Harnish (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, global warming is a lie and asbestos is harmless, too. Why should Booker's opinion pieces be of interest to this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" section

I've undone Ron's addition of a "systemic bias" section sourced to Pielke's blog and a UPenn report. We can discuss Pielke - at least he is an expert. However, he is mostly riding his hobby horse of local as opposed to global effects of climate change, and you cannot cherry-pick his views without providing proper context. Johnston, the second source, is a lawyer with a small side of economics. He is not qualified to evaluate science, and the publication cited is a working paper, i.e. not a properly peer-reviewed source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, Pielke is an ISI highly cited researcher. His blog posts are widely followed by climate experts around the world. His "hobby horse," as you derisively referred to it, is a climate forcing of the first order according to the peer-reviewed literature. The fact the IPCC ignores land use changes is worth noting in this article. The UPenn paper is not self-published. It was published after an extensive review of the peer-reviewed literature. This section is about criticism of the IPCC, not peer-reviewed criticism of the IPCC. I have restored the section.RonCram (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron, the IPCC is not ignoring land use changes. They even published a report on nothing but land use change in 2000 [3], and revisited the topic in AR4 chapter 7 [4]. Yes, Pielke is highly cited. But that does not give us license to quote him out of context. And the UPenn paper is not peer-reviewed (it's a working paper, the equivalent of a "Technical Report", which every scientist can publish without significant oversight), hence useless as a source by a non-expert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you tried the "self-published" excuse and that didn't fly, but you are trying to resuscitate the "peer-reviewed" excuse. It's not going to work. The IPCC may mention land use changes but they are ignoring or downplaying the conclusions of the papers in order to advance their narrative. This is bias, pure and simple. The criticism by Pielke is out there for all the world to see and most well-educated climate amateurs already know. It is just embarrassing for Wikipedia to have articles which name some of the criticisms but censor others, especially when the criticisms are from such a notable climate scientist. This is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility. The UPenn report does not have to be peer-reviewed to be notable. This is an interesting and notable report because it shows the impact the IPCC assessment reports have on legal cases and the legal system. It generated a great deal of interest in blogs and newspapers when it came out. Again, the section is not titled "Peer-reviewed criticism of IPCC." It is about criticism. Other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, do you have any other ideas for hiding these criticisms from Wikipedia readers? RonCram (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As Stephan points out, the proposed section gives undue weight to one or two fringe views, and appears to repeat blatant errors. Interest in blogs and tabloid newspapers isn't significant, if the critique is significant to this broad topic there should be more reliable sources available. Please present them and discuss proposals rather than trying to keep reinserting this poorly sourced "criticism". . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the point. If someone - anyone - had found a serious hole in the IPCC position, it would be headlines in every news outlet, it would have been top of the agenda at Cancún, major parties would be presenting to-and-fro papers at world conferences... If all we have are a couple of posts on a wordpress blog and that Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper ("Cited by 1", I see), then it's just not notable in the same sense that the IPCC is. --Nigelj (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Only one law review paper? I can point you to three (DeWolf 1999; DeWolf et al. 1999; DeWolf et al. 2000) that say it's ok to teach ID in U.S. public schools. Good luck with that ;-) . . . dave souza, talk 12:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you seem to think that by including this short paragraph I wrote, that it would be tantamount to a surrender on the scientific debate about global warming. Dave here seems to think this is somehow analogous to teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Actually, Dave, decisions about Wikipedia edits do not change policy decisions made by school boards. A criticism section is, by nature, giving voice to people who have criticized. The criticism does not have to be embraced by a majority. The criticism only has to be notable. Roger A. Pielke's criticism is notable because he is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. If you do not know who Pielke is, read his article. A blog posting is considered a reliable source about the views of the blog proprietor. Attempting to block Pielke's views from Wikipedia readers only puts Wikipedia in a bad light, something that already exists because of the heavy-handed edits by some who are now subject banned. Wikipedia needs to rehabilitate its image by becoming a little more reasonable. Regarding the report by University of Pennsylvania Law School, this is notable because of its impact on the legal system and legal cases involving global warming, such as the EPA litigation. The report has hundreds of footnotes to peer-reviewed literature which the report claims the IPCC has ignored or downplayed. The release of the report generated a great deal of fanfare in blogs and news reports and its existence is widely-known. While the report is not a defeat of the IPCC, it is a significant and notable criticism of it - in a large part because of its length, high standard of scholarship and publication by a major university. I am restoring the section. RonCram (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My advice to you is to stop reverting in this contentious section, and seek consensus before editing. Your section gives undue weight to Pielke and a lawyer's report: it's clearly disproportionate to describe this tiny minority (arguably fringe) as "Critics" as though they were among a huge number of notable critics – if their criticisms are significant, you should be able to find multiple third party reliable sources showing their significance: so far you've failed to do that, and the section really has to go unless and until you present a better case. You'd be well advised to delete it yourself while preparing that case, your statement above indicates that you're aware of the sanctions and should realise the need to comply with them. . . dave souza, talk 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I am familiar with undue weight. While the guideline has been modified slightly from my previous knowledge, the criticism section I wrote still complies. Quoting from UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." These criticisms are held by a significant minority of people. Roger A. Pielke is prominent. He is an ISI highly-cited climatologist (if you don't know what that means, please look it up). A publication by University of Pennsylvania Law School is a prominent publication. There is nothing fringe about climate skepticism. [5][6][7] Climate skepticism is seen to be a viable position because a number of prominent climate warmists have recently become much more skeptical. See Judith Curry,[8] Harold Lewis,[9] and Denis Rancourt [10]. This talk of climate skepticism as if it is part of the lunatic fringe is really unbecoming of Wikipedia. These are very famous scientists who are speaking out against bias of the IPCC. Your attempt to silence them makes you and Wikipedia look silly and uninformed. RonCram (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Cram's addition looks reasonable to me, and I'm sorry to see the old "fringe" argument (a favorite of now-banned editors) return. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition still has the issues of failing to demonstrate significance, misrepresenting sources, and, a favorite of now-banned editors, misusing blogs as a source. Not good. My opinion remains that this is inappropriate as being inadequately sourced and giving undue weight to what at best is a tiny minority view in science. Will review this when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at the risk of repeating myself, if the points made in Pielke's blog and this lawyer's paper were so important, why do we have no references to them from the main-stream media, the scientific press, or anywhere else? In the absence of such supporting cites to show their significance, they are non-notable and do not warrant a whole section in an article on an international UN body. --Nigelj (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave and Nigel, you seem to want proof that Pielke and Johnson's criticisms are accurate scientifically. This is an incorrect standard to apply. If a criticism has to match your opinion of correctness, then you are forcing your POV onto the article. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to take sides in a debate. Both Dave and Nigel seem to be unaware of the size and strength of the scientists in the climate skeptic camp. You need to come to terms with the fact the skeptic camp is growing. If the skeptics held a scientifically unsupportable position, that would not happen. The criticisms are obviously significant. Dave, you say the paragraph misrepresent sources. How so? In what way did I misrepresent Pielke or Johnson? Blogs are a reliable source for the opinion of the blog proprietor, not for the point of science being debated. A criticism section represents the opinion of people, so the use of blogs is appropriate here. RonCram (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

RonCram, you've failed to provide the necessary verification of the significance to the topic of Pielke's blog comments or Johnson's legal paper, reliable third party sources are required and hand-waving about a "skeptic camp" doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements. If it's notable you should be able to provide multiple independent sources showing both the significance of these criticisms in themselves, and their significance to the topic of the article. As for the science, Pielke is of course welcome to put forward a review paper for peer reviewed publication to gain support for his claims which only seem to have tiny minority support among climate scientists. Wikipedia isn't the place to overstate the significance of his blog thoughts. . . dave souza, talk 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

RonCram: You need to provide independent, third-party sources to back up your claims about the alleged skepticism of climate change by more than a handful of scientists who actually study climate for a living. The "size and strength" you are referring to might just have to do with the fact that some of the biggest deniers of climate change and backers of its criticism happen to also be very wealthy (and either don't know about or don't care about the science behind it), so they make a lot of noise. Sorry, but a lawyer's scruples about climate change are irrelevant to the scientific debate. Also, a blog (even by a scientist) is, by no means, an important source for such an important topic (it is not peer-reviewed!). Show us articles in major scientific peer-reviewed journals where the author(s) provide evidence to back up the skepticism and then it is relevant to this article. Otherwise, it is just fringe science and it needs multiple independent citations to even be mentioned. PS: Just because a scientist has reservations about an overwhelming scientific consensus, does not mean that this single scientist's opinions should be given equal weight. --Thorwald (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The last editor who reverted the paragraph asked for more sources. Fine. I am restoring the paragraph with a few changes and additional sourcing from notable climatologists. RonCram (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a lawyer is unqualified to comment on the science of climate change (I removed his info.). Also, sorry, Cato is probably the very definition of "biased". They, too, are unqualified to comment. Please find qualified (i.e., made by actual climate scientists) sources; any others will be removed. --Thorwald (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics do not need to be reliable, only notable. I completely disagree with the deletion, and Pielke and Johnson appear to be climate scientists. I'm going to add a {{content}} tag until this is resolved. Removing the tag while the discussion is in progress is non-constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnson "appears to be a climate scientist"? Please explain. 06:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the section became heavily decorated with banners while I was working, but I just made some changes so that we better represent what Curry is actually reported as saying in that source. Misrepresenting BLP positions on important matters is very bad form and we must not make that mistake. I agree that we cannot give space to blog comments in a top-level article like this, no matter who makes them. If they are worldwide significant to the IPCC, then mainstream media will pick them up, and it is those that we should work from. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I quite disagree. The mainstream media would probably not pick up serious criticism of the IPCC. And, a blog is reliable for the purpose of reporting the views of the blogger. If the blogger is notable, than the criticism is notable, and probably should be included in this article. Now, I'm not convinced that all of RonCram's additions are appropriate, but there were more examples of notable criticism than just Curry's. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"The mainstream media would probably not pick up serious criticism of the IPCC"? Are you kidding?? Don't you think their readers or their proprietors would be interested in hearing that the IPCC, and the whole global warming "myth" that they had "constructed" was crumbling down? They'd love it, but even they have to be constrained by basic facts; unlike bloggers. --Nigelj (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Judith Curry, Patrick Michaels and Roger A. Pielke are all climatologists. They are all notable. The fact Cato published Michaels criticism does not make the criticism invalid or biased. You are trying to create a standard which is completely foreign to Wikipedia. I practically quoted Judith Curry. None of those criticisms should even be controversial. The paper by the legal scholar is a tad different, but still a notable criticism from the legal profession. His opinion is based on the peer-reviewed literature. There is nothing which says criticism can ONLY come from climate scientists. RonCram (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In the latest version, I made some adjustments to make it clear that Curry is still concerned about global warming - but I removed the cheerleading added by one of the editors. I left out some of Curry's harsher statements such as when Curry accused the IPCC of "corruption." I think I am being quite reasonable, gentlemen, and I would like to see you do the same. It is not reasonable to exclude criticism from someone because he is not a climate scientist. It is especially unreasonable to exclude criticism from an ISI highly-cited climate scientist like Roger A. Pielke.RonCram (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, wikispan just reverted the edit without comment. He should have at least used WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.RonCram (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You should have offered to trade one of your surplus WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies that you're looking for, Ron, are WP:UNDUE and other guidelines linked from there. If what these guys put in their blogs was worth quoting, someone else would have published or quoted it by now, like Nature did with Judith Curry. --Nigelj (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Use_of_blogs_and_self-published_sources. As the arbs commented in the case, this is intentionally more restrictive than general policy on SPSs. Guettarda (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, actually I had this ruling in mind when I wrote the paragraph and quoted Pielke's blog. A blog posting is a reliable source for the views of the blog proprietor. If you doubt me, reread your own link again. The only question is if Pielke's view is notable. It is for two reasons: First, Pielke is an ISI highly-cited climatologist. As a noted climatologist and prolific author of peer-reviewed papers, his opinion is important to Wikipedia readers. Second, Pielke's blog post gives depth and detail to a viewpoint held by other noted climatologists (Curry and Michaels). The particular blog postings I cited were first written in 2007. They did generate news at the time. News outlets do not keep their stories online forever. There is no excuse for attempting to block Wikipedia readers from knowing about these criticisms. RonCram (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? The ruling says that SPSs can be used "typically articles about the blog or source itself". This is neither an article about Pielke, nor is it an article about Pielke's blog. So what - you were aware of the ruling and chose to ignore it? Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing left when I looked at this section was a overblown narrative about Judith Curry. I shimmied it down to a summary and shunted it off to the appropriate location. jps (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

jps, your edit was not appropriate. Do a little reading of the Talk page before making edits.RonCram (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That (Guettarda's) is an appropriate comment, one of the few I've seen from either "side". However,

1. IPCC is not a living person; criticisms not directed at an individual or individuals are not subject to WP:BLP restrictions, including the more restrictive requirements on source notable opinions to the opinion-maker's web site.
2. it is not the case that the appropriate expert for discussing errors in IPCC procedures is necessarily a climate scientist; a lawyer or an NGO organizational expert might be more appropriate.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

it is not the case that the appropriate expert for discussing errors in IPCC procedures is necessarily a climate scientist; a lawyer or an NGO organizational expert might be more appropriate. --> Mmm, not so sure about this. It might be true if we were talking about COP15 procedures, but the IPCC is supposed to be strictly a scientific body. jps (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom's language here followed their usual preference for inscrutability. My guess is that the restriction on blogs is meant only to protect BLPs of contrarians, and that they don't give a damn about quality of sourcing in general. But that's only a guess. Perhaps we should request clarification? I'm willing to do the legwork on the request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While the ruling mentions BLPs, it doesn't restrict itself to them. And had they meant for it only to apply to BLPs, there wouldn't have been any reason for them to say that it meant to be more restrictive than existing policy. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's clear. If they had meant for it to be a general restriction, why the mention of BLPs? (It's like all the confusion that results because the Second Amendment begins with "A well-regulated militia...") Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled Boris - it almost sounds like you expect clarity in arbcom rulings. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the arbcom's ruling was quite clear. You cannot use blog postings a reliable source for factual information, but you can use it as a reliable source for information about the blog's proprietor when he is talking about himself or his views. Reread the ruling. It's very clear.RonCram (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The ruling says "typically articles about the blog or source itself". That means you could use Pielke's blog in Pielke's bio, or in an article about Pielke's blog. This is neither of those. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)