Talk:Robert M. Carter

too praiseworthy?

Is it just me or is this page a bit too praiseworthy, without any critical analysis of his views. One begins to suspect that the subject may also be an author... Kwakpwns (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

restored the .au critique

I've restored this:

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]

Which was cut, stating WP:BLP reasons (specifically that it was the opinion of a journalist). That particular critique is not valid - as the article is not an Op-Ed/Editorial and thus is part of the newspapers normal journalism. Its a WP:RS - but WP:WEIGHT might be an issue though (haven't looked that much at it). --Kim D. Petersen 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim please reread the original article and my correction. That journalist only cites one former climate scientist's own position. The news item does not support a blanket statement made by "the Australian climate science community". You have restored a blanket POV statement. I am reverting to the correction. DLH (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The news item ONLY states regarding Carter:

• A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.DLH (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The paper says exactly what it was quoted as saying before you changed it and reverted it. [1]. You replaced it with a lower quality source without discussion, and also added a large amount of NPOV material. I am reverting much of it and I ask that you discuss it on the talk page below (which you have ignored) before making these kinds of changes. Phil153 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil please reread my change - there was NO change to the reference - i was rephrasing the statement to accurately report what the article cited Pearman to state. Please review. The present statement is inaccurate. The Royal Society of New Zealand made Carter an Honorary Fellow for his research on the climatology of New Zealand. Reporting one scientist's objection as referring to ALL Australian climate science seems inaccurate and POV.DLH (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the current version is an important quote. It's in a reliable newspaper subject to editorial oversight, and it says:

'Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Changing this to a quote from a single individual degrades the quality of the article. It is important to note the nature of Carter's climate science credentials, as others have noted in the section below. The above quote does that (and has the weight of the editorial board behind it), the quote you put in does not. His honoring by the Royal Society is related to his work as a geologist. Phil153 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

removed the .au critique

The comment by the Sydney Morning Herald reporter is quite inappropriate for this article. First of all, it gives undue weight to the reporter's completely unsourced and unverified statement. Even though article from which the statement was taken was not an Op-Ed, since the statement was not sourced or verified, the statement is unquestionably the reporter's opinion.

Furthermore, the statement is false, or at least misleading. This is because the purpose of the statement is to call into question Prof. Carter's qualifications, yet presents him only as a marine biologist while conveniently omitting his qualifications as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, and environmental scientist plus peer-reviewed publication record in environmental sciences. The reporter's mis-characterization, perhaps, borders on libel.

Additionally, the reporter herself, Wendy Frey, is well-known to be a global warming advocate and her objectivity toward Prof. Carter is clearly questionable, certainly not neutral. DrPaul0401 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a repeat of the section above. I don't think there is any requirement that material we quote from elsewhere be sourced to your satisfaction - only that the source itself be considered reliable. I'm not too familiar with au papers, but is there reason to believe the SMH is unreliable? I don't think we should be taking into account your opinion of the reporter, either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The points I am making are: 1. The statement by the reporter is clearly an opinion and it is disparaging. 2. According to W-BLP the statement must be a neutral point of view and verifiable. You could argue whether it is neutral or not, but it is definitely not verifiable. This is not my requirement, it is W-BLP. 3. The statement is simply incorrect to characterize Prof. Carter only as a marine geologists. For these reasons, the statement should be removed. DrPaul0401 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it again. Clearly it gives undue weight to one person's opinion. In general WP readers are not so stupid that they need a newspaper reporter to tell them what to think about an issue such as global warming. Redddogg (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of source that we should be using, factual statements from a news article published by a reliable mainstream publication. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By a single non-notable (red link) journalist. Find a second source to corroborate this per WP:V (extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources) and WP:BLP (do no harm and remove poorly sourced material immediately). --GoRight (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say. In particular, there is nothing extraordinary in the sourced statement; it's a sourced, factual criticism of him that's fully in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not factual, it is one journalist's opinion. If this is not true you should have no trouble producing a second source. Per WP:BLP this is a disparaging remark and should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced as a statement of fact and one article stating the opinion of a non-notable journalist does not rise to the level required in this context.

Strawman ahoy. Its not "one journalist's opinion". Its not an Op-Ed or a column, but a regular article in a newspaper. That means that it has the news-paper behind it, and the full editorial oversight of that newspaper. Its a journalist who is reporting the facts as they are presented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is a statement of fact then you should not have any trouble finding a secondary source to corroborate this point. As it stands now it is only one person's opinion regardless of whether it is in an Op/Ed or not. Given the sensitive nature of the statement extra scrutiny is warranted. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Robyn Williams article says much the same, and why exactly is it an information that has "sensitive nature"? He is a sceptic, who is arguing against the mainstream scientific opinion. (thats fact). And do try to drop the strawman - We have a newspaper that says this not one persons opinion - its not an Op-Ed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say." - This is all smoke on your part. Does WP:V not state that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources?" Does WP:BLP not state both "do no harm" and "remove poorly sourced material immediately?" You seem to forget that these policies are actually written down and people can verify that my statements regarding them are accurate. I'll also ask you to refrain from future personal attacks of this sort. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an extraordinary claim, it is a simple statement of fact: a scientist with non-mainstream views is out of the scientific mainstream. This is obvious and non-controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is extraordinary because it is potentially libelous and this is a BLP. Pejorative, defamatory, and potentially libelous material requires extra scrutiny in a BLP. This is standard practice. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this defamatory? He's clearly not in the mainstream. It's an objective fact, not a libelous criticism. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. The article is full of the usual ad hominem rubbish youd expect (Isnt a real climate scientist! BIG OIL! BIG OIL!) from the SMH. Hate to sound like a conspiracy nerd, but if the majority of the rabid far left said the moon is made out of cheese, the SMH would publish articles saying so in its science section. Jaimaster (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats a rather impressive claim. Now you can take it up on WP:RS/N, because if the SMH really does this - then its not a reliable source... And that should be noted on that board, so that we do not reference it again (anywhere), on such things. On the other hand .. it may just be your opinion, and the SMH is a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21108534-7582,00.html?from=public_rss

Journalists considered themselves advocates instead of straight reporters. Not that this substantiates my personal opinion of the SMH's leanings, but it gives an insight into how it and The Age can often get a little over-invested in an issue on idealogical grounds. In any case is a single article from an otherwise completely not notable author in a WP:RS newspaper sufficient WP:WEIGHT to state what it does? That is the real issue here. Jaimaster (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is not a legitimate source for determining "standing in the Australian climate science community." But if idle opinion published by any wanker is enough to satisfy wiki's standards for determining what is fact, Id be more than happy to pull a new blog out of my ass saying Carter is a frickin genius. But in all seriousness, the only way to legitimately publish a fact about scientist's "standing in the Australian climate science community" would be if you had a source polling the Australian climate science community. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.112.247 (talk • contribs)

The SMH is certainly a reliable source, and this is a regular journalistic piece (not opinion). Whereas your blog idea wouldn't be a reliable source (please see WP:RS and WP:SPS). Please be aware that calling the journalist a "wanker" is a violation of WP:BLP (even on talkpages). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Self Promotion?

It looks like the subject of the bio has done a lot of the editing. There are three separate links to his personal website and a rather complete list of his papers which aren't of particular interest. According to his website, he is a paid speaker on climate issues, despite having no expertise in the field. If there are no objections in the next couple of days I'm going to clean up the self promotion a bit. Phil153 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. But keep in mind that WP's purpose is not to attack individuals. Nor is it even to fight global warming, as evil as that is. Redddogg (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of the list of "external links" section. The external links part of his page contained a huge number of references, something that I haven't seen listed on the pages of any other scientists (see, for example, List of Geologists and the pages of a few from this list: Sue Henrickson, Jack Horner, Kenneth J. Hsu )

Most of the references are hosted on the subject's own home page and not media links. In addition, the long list of journal citations aren't external links.

The few authors of this page have also added a large amount of other not notable information to the main text. For example, the information in the current second paragraph of his page doesn't differ at all from most academics in most universities; many prolific scientists and writers have far less information provided. To me it read like a deliberate personal resume for a paid speaker (especially given the edit history), but I'm not sure what the wiki policy is for this kind of thing so I've left it be. I'm also apppreciate comments about the deletion of the references.Phil153 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The self-promotion needs to be edited, for example ... has published more than 100 scientific papers ... is self-promotion, as is ... his current research focuses on stratigraphy..., from the second paragraph. I think that the removal of Selected Research Publications is reasonable. GrahamP (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it seems reasonable enough not to need editing, but feel free to improve it, of course.Phil153 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Added "palaeoclimatology" as Carter's descriptive term for his climate research. DLH (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I just went through the footnotes and I notice that a lot of the article is sourced by primary sources, including Dr. Carter's own website. It probably would make both sides happier if the secondary sources, the articles written about him, were used more. Redddogg (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any articles about him? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing has been written about him then the article should be deleted because he would be non-notable by WP's definition. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Attack page, thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. The WP:BLP guidelines do not rule out critique, as long as its adequately sourced to a reliable source. Simply stating that the journalist is writing opinion, doesn't make it so. The article is printed in a respectable news-paper, by a respected journalist - and is not marked as an Op-Ed, or a column, thus having to adhere to the newspapers general review guidelines (which is what RS is specifically about). The information is also not surprising (ie. should invoke a red flag - since we can find equal descriptions elsewhere). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative comments removed

I took off a couple of sentences saying that he has not published a scientific paper denying global warming and that he is not a climate scientist. The article needs to be about what he is and what he has done. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that stuff is directly relevant (see discussion above) and I'm restoring it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My objection isn't the information but the way it was expressed. What he didn't do and what he isn't. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's going to publicly discuss global warming, then the fact that he has no standing in the climate science community is directly relevant and it would be a glaring omission if we didn't mention this pertinent fact. It isn't simply a matter of mentioning "what he isn't". It's not like we are mentioning he didn't go to clown college. Gamaliel (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Should WP mention that Sarah Palin was not in the military? Or that Barack Obama didn't go to medical school? I think that if we start mentioning what everyone has not done it could really get out of hand. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel was very clear, so either you haven't read what he wrote or you are deliberately ignoring it. Carter is not a climate scientist and he has not been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, nor is he recognized as an expert in the field. NPOV is also clear on this point and supports inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the recent negative comments stating no publications, with two direct references to his peer reviewed publications reviewing climate change issues. It appears that Carter has an strong grasp of the major climate change issues. Stating he is not an expert appears to me to be POV. DLH (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated the comments related to Carter's lack of peer reviewed evidence, leaving the links to the recent publications, and leaving most of the adjusted wording. The "Knock, Knock..." article does not present original evidence contradicting the consenus - it is an opinion piece stating Carter's well worn position, with many supporting references from skeptics. It offers a worthwhile read, and provides Carter an opportunity to state his case, but is essentally a rehash of the same newspaper and magazine articles that Carter has published over the preceeding decade. Note that it was published in an economics journal. GrahamP (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to Video/Interviews

The current generation of internet users being highly video oriented, I believe it is important to link to video interviews/presentations where available. I added the following section: "===Videos featuring Carter==="

• 2007 Australian lecture on relationship of CO2 to global warming

-

• Testing the Hypothesis of Dangerous Global Warming YouTube (Parts 1-2), Climate Conference (Heartland Institute), New York, March 2, 2008

-

• Balancing the Climate Debate (Alan Lee, Nzone Tonight), Youtube Shine TV, Auckland, New Zealand, April 18, 2008

---

KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted the section alleging possible copyright violations. Please explain in detail. I see no violation in providing a link to posted videos. This is distinct from the issue of directly adding the videos themselves.DLH (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not link to possible copyright violations. And these are highly likely to be such. Since WP:COPYRIGHT distinctly says that we can't link to such - they are out. (see specifically WP:LINKVIO). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim you are overreaching. Reread the policy:

Linking to copyrighted works Shortcuts: WP:COPYLINK WP:COPYLINKS WP:LINKVIO

"Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content. However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The linking restriction is explicitly to sites you know are breaching copyright.

I emailed Bob Carter who replied that the copyright was owned by Leon Ashby. Leon Ashby in turn emailed on Nov 14 2008, with explicit permission:

• 'I have the original copyright of all of Bob Carters videos. Yes Do whatever you can to sort of any difficulties. I grant copyright for anything that assists with the improvement of Bob`s message or giving wider viewership of them as long as they are non profit activities.

cheers Leon Ashby Bushvision president' With this explicit approval and in light of Wikipedia's actual policy, I am reverting the deletion. DLH (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research or thought

I've noticed some recent edits adding videos and comments that come directly from Carter himself.

As an encyclopedia we're meant to mostly quote reliable secondary sources about the subject, not list the thoughts and assertions of the subject themselves, especially for someone who isn't notable except for his media advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. I haven't trimmed some of his comments, such as his assertion that he receives no funding from interest groups (and haven't added the counterpoint that he's on the board of conservative lobby organizations that DO receive funding from oil and other interests). But if this uncritical self commentary keeps getting added I'm going to insist on a stricter application of policy. I hope this is ok...feel free to discuss it. Also, comments such as Responding to major economic reports advocating climate mitigation policies are close to POV. I won't edit them yet in the hope that there will be some discussion on this. Phil153 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted your recent edit which removed a well sourced and important quote from the SMH. There is discussion in the sections above establishing the importance of including that quote. Please discuss before removing it. Phil153 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article appeared quite POV to me, so I was trying to correct that by providing some reference to his relevant scientific research. eg the discussion implies that he has not scientific climatic credentials. I am adding a beginning section under Global Warming explicitly citing this primary research into NZ's climate change over the last 3.9 Ma. I have emailed Carter on whether he is a Research Prof or Adjunct and to clarify one page or the other.DLH (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil it appears you wholesale reverted most of my changes with little regard to detail. eg. I had added references to specific research. Please go back and restore object changes and bring those you object to here.DLH (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My reverts were selective, I don't believe I removed anything related to specific research. Please point out what I reverted that should be included under WP policy. Phil153 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the inclusion of his geology related climate research, it's notable information and important for explaining his perspective. It's also reliably sourced. If that was reverted I apologize, but it appears to be back in now. Phil153 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain some of the reverts in more detail, not explained above:

• The reference (the [1] after the intro) goes to his official staff page at JCU where he is called an adjunct research professor.
• As for his credentials, Carter has no expertise in climate science (except related to geology) and no published papers in any climate journal (to my knowledge). He is a geologist.
• You can't say things like "His expertise is demonstrated by"...this is POV and original thought. Just like I can't say "his lack of expertise in climate topics is demonstrated by...". I can only quote reliable sources that make these claims.
• His appearance at the "International Conference on Climate Science" is misleading and not at all notable...it was put on by the Heartland Society, a private conservation lobby group/think tank to which his organization has ties. Such a conference has no standing of any kind, so I deleted it.

Thanks for you patience. I won't revert any content that is in line with NPOV, RS and Weight policies, but the above seem clear violations to me. Phil153 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil I do not understand your position relative to Wikipedia's. Geological climate science is one of the well established areas of climate science and is reviewed in IPCC etc. Consequently, stating he "has no expertise in climate science" appears POV to me.

I'm only stating it on the talk page. Climate science involves detailed analysis of atmospheric and surface processes, and extrapolations from past and present data. The only relationship that geology is in obtaining records of past climate within ice and rocks. It's like saying the radiologist trained to x-rays your ankle is qualified to comment on medical issues. Phil153 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The International Conference on Climate Science was attended by over 500. It is the best extended public presentation of Carter's summary of climate science. Please review the presentations at 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. I count about 45 PhD's presenting materials on their research. Just because it is not the majority view, does not justify dismissing scientists presenting their research on climate change in a public forum. I say it should be included.

On his career, see Carter's extended career details at

• Carter's CV

• 2001-2005, Visiting Research Professor, University of Adelaide, Geology & Geophysics
• 1998-2005, Adjunct Research Professor, James Cook University, Science, Engineering & Information Technology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory
• 1981-1998, Professor & Head, James Cook University, Science, Engineering & Information Technology, Earth Sciences

These appear to be noteworthy. Propose listing those under Career: DLH (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This page shouldn't have a complete listing of his positions, CV, and all his research papers. That's not what Wikipedia does. Look at any of the pages on List of geologists, for example, all of them far more notable than Carter. It merely reports and weighs notable information gleaned from secondary sources, such as newpapers, meta reviews, books published by reliable publishers, and so on. As for the rest, I'll let others comment so we can get some kind of consensus. Phil153 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been 28 citations to Carter's publication: The Stern Review: A Dual Critique RM Carter, CR de Freitas, IM Goklany, D Holland, … - World Economics, 2006 http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalWarmingIPCC2007RptCritiqueSternReview.pdf DLH (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of "However,"

The article currently contains the following "However, he is a member and adviser to the Institute of Public Affairs, a group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.".

The use of this particular conjunction suggests that the statement following it is in direct contradiction to the statement preceding it. In this case the cited source does not justify that implication. Carter clearly asserts that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments." The cited source does not contain any information that contradicts this statement. It merely asserts that he is "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs". This does NOT imply that he has accepted research funding from any particular sources, nor does it imply that he "is a member and adviser" to that group as the article now states. It merely means that he is "on the research committee" and nothing more.

Even so, I have not removed that fact as it existed in the article. But if we are going to throw around unsubstantiated accusations such as this, the subject of the BLP should certainly be allowed to have their own stated positions used in their defense, should they not? Even the cited article was that fair.

The article as it stands fails WP:NPOV on this point and it should be corrected.

Regarding the text that I added, I would remind everyone that per the ArbCom Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. Please provide some acceptable rationale for why you have removed this properly sourced material or kindly replace it. --GoRight (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a senior member of a body that has received money from oil and tobacco interests. This is an important qualification to the claim on his website, and since it contradicts the sense of his disclaimer the word "however" is appropriate. We're trying to write a biographical article about the subject, not conceal his publicly acknowledged commercial entanglements. --TS 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to remove those facts, so I am not trying to conceal anything. Where does the cited reference state that he is a "senior member" of anything? Do you have a WP:RS to back that up? If so feel free to add it to the article. If not then I would ask that you stop embellishing and simply stick to what the source actually states.

I obviously have no problem leaving the factual material in, since well, I left it in. I do have a problem with the current wording and your assertion that the facts "contradict the sense of his disclaimer." His disclaimer says he has not received funding from the stated sources. The reference merely states that he is a member of a committee. The current wording suggests that being a member of a committee somehow equates to accepting funding which it does not. As such, that assertion is inherently WP:OR and should be removed unless a WP:RS for that statement can be provided ... especially within a WP:BLP.

On the issue of including his own statements regarding whether ones funding sources affect the validity of ones research, does anyone dispute that he said this? Does anyone dispute that this is a WP:RS? Does anyone dispute that this statement pertains directly to the context in which I included it? Does anyone dispute that this statement pertains to the subject of this article? If not then per the above cited ArbCom ruling the removal of the material is improper and it should be restored. --GoRight (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TS, which is why "however" was used. Look at the why of it. The reason he makes the statement about funding is to dispel any notions that he benefits from denying regarding global warming, as many prominent advocates do. That's what the statement means. That's it's only purpose. The "however" is a joiner used to say "this statement doesn't tell the whole picture", not "he's lying", which is clear from what follows. I can't think of any word that would be more appropriate.

As for the arbcom ruling - arbcom does not rule on content issues. I consider the placement of that quote to be a bad editorial choice, especially the comment about peer review which is irrelevant to the section. I wouldn't object to it being properly placed elsewhere. The arbcom ruling also applies to neutral material only. I see the inclusion of his negation and the removal of "however" as a whitewashing (not necessary intentional) of clear and simple facts. As for the text you wish to include, OF COURSE he thinks and says that his own conflict of interest is perfectly ethical. Providing that adds nothing except to clutter the very simple facts, which the reader should be able to make up their own mind about without Carter dropping into the article to spin it his own way. Phil153 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are merely after the "clear and simple facts", then simply remove the however and leave the rest, except for the advisor part since the reference does not support that assertion. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This may sound a bit brutal, GoRight, but I think you're wikilawyering at this point, trying to interpret policy in a way that suits your wish to remove the word "however". In particular, asking for a "reliable source" for my comment on this talk page that Carter is "a senior member of a body that has received money from oil and tobacco interests" seems disingenuous, given that we agree that he's on the research committee of that institute. Carter's close relationship with fossil fuel interests is, if anything, understated. --TS 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Its OK, I can take it. But the facts are the facts. The cited source does not refer to him as a "senior member", so for you to use that term is clear embellishment and indicative of a POV. The current wording also asserts that he is a "member and advisor" when the reference makes no such claim. It only states he is a member of a research committee. Embellishing with "senior" and "advisor" is not WP:NPOV. Just stick with what the source actually claims and I'll shut up, or find a WP:RS that claims what you WANT to say and I'll shut up. Until then the embellishments are WP:OR on your part and clearly NOT WP:NPOV.

If you feel his relationship to fossil fuel interests is understated please find some WP:RS that agree with you and we can discuss how best to get that point into the article. As it stands now, based purely on the provided source, the implications being actively made here are unjustified given the actual statements made in the source. You can call my sticking to the actual statements made in the reference wikilawyering if you want, but that doesn't change what the reference actually does say. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's an advisor (or a similar capacity) to other front organizations of the IPA. I believe he's also involved with the Heartland Institute. I'll try to dig up references. In the meantime, advisor can go, obviously. But he's more than a "member" of the IPA. Far more. As for RS, it's kind of hard since no one really cares about Carter and little has been written about him in newspapers. His main notability is his promotion of his viewpoint in the media. We're left with his own assertions on his own homepage. Phil153 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I am asking is that wikipedia policy be followed, especially on a WP:BLP. This seems like a small point to waste a lot of time on, actually. I am not arguing taking out the factual material as supported by the existing source which is 95% of what you want. I just object to the embellishments and the unsupported implication (at least by this source). --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a texbook case of Gaming. Yes, I think hunting more sources will help here, Phil153. Thanks. --TS 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter is on the list of Global Warming Experts in the Personnel section of the heartland.org website. --TS 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed your edit mentioning the Heartland Institute...It looks like a list to me, and doesn't show membership or significant involvement. Phil153 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks like I was misled by their rather expansive use of the term "Personnel". "People we know and like" seems to be their preferred meaning. --TS 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, his advisor status and links to organizations that receive funding from oil companies (which was the original wording) is contained in the article itself. The article states that he is a science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. So "member and advisor to organizations" was accurate. Phil153 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only going by the reference directly cited by the statement. Given the shear number of references in this article, would you mind pointing me to the ones that substantiate that claim? And if this truly is accurate please feel free to revert the original language, if you are so inclined, and simply add the additional references that you mention here. --GoRight (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See here, where SPPI explicitly lists him as a Science Adviser. --TS 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (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) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Frew, a RS?

Frew's statement that Carter "appears to have little standing" in the climate community appears very clearly to be the reporter's own opinion. She doesn't source or attribute it in any way, and given Carter is a published paleoclimatologist, it seems to be not only incorrect, but inserted to bias her readers against Carter. It's unclear whether or not it should even be included in the article, but if it is, the reader should be clearly alerted to the potential bias here.FellGleaming (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry FG, you can't just put something down as "the reporters own opinion". We differentiate between opinion articles, from which we cannot source factual information, and regular news-articles, from which we can source factual information.

This is a newsarticle - thus we can rely on the full editorial control of the news-paper for the information. Attributing it as Frew's opinion amounts to POV. It seems very clear that you do not like the information, but that is not something that we can use for anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't applyt, as I'm sure you realize. The issue here is the reporter's statement is not just unverifiable, it conflicts with verifiable fact. A journalist is not competent to say a published climatologist "has little standing in climate". Further, this environmental reporter has a lengthy history of leveling false accusations against climate change skeptics. Quoting directly from WP:RS, the relevant bit is "it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement [is] something that must be assessed on a case by case basis."

To conclude, the issue here is not whether or not the SMH is generally reliable, but whether this particular statement is verifiable or not. FellGleaming (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round this loop again, via anons William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IPA

The text as written (especially with the leading "However..." phrasing, implies the source contradicts Carter's claim to receive no funding from oil or tobacco. However, the source doesn't do this, nor does being on a committee for a group that once may have received funding from a source equate to you personally receiving funding from that source. Clearly a NPOV issue, especially in a BLP Fell Gleaming^talk 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal snipes

Rather than get into an edit war, can Wikispan explain why a personal snipe by an environmental reporter has any place in a BLP? Saying that Carter "appears to have little standing" isn't backed up by his research record, published articles, and his status both as a professor and a Fellow of the NZ Royal Society. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Robert Carter thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is patent crap. He feels so strongly about the topic he made a television appearance in The Great Global Warming Swindle. That is fine. But you must also accept that by taking such a position — against scientific consensus — Carter will inevitably draw criticism. Thus, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald Wendy Frew says Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community."^[2] You sought to deflect from this unfavourable judgment by placing Frew's remark "into proper context" (diff) noting simply that Carter had published research in palaeoclimatology. Well, yes. But that is a personal observation that has no bearing on Wendy Frew's opinion that Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community." You subsequently removed all trace of criticism, calling it a "personal snipe that isn't supported by Carter's research record". (diff) Once again this edit summary is unsatisfactory because Carter's research record — which nobody doubts exists — is a separate matter from how well (or poorly) his research is received. We should not inject our personal opinion on the quality of Carter's research into the article. Instead, one can show that Robert Carter's work is regarded highly by his peers through the use of reliable sources. This should not be too difficult if Carter is genuinely changing scientific opinion on the causes of recent warming. Wikispan (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One additional point. It is circular reasoning to suppose that environmental reporters are biased simply because they report on the environment. Many criticisms of people who reactively dismiss Nuclear Power are penned by environmental reporters. The trick, as always, is to relay the best scientific advice. Wikispan (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You admit this is Frew's opinion. The opinion of a journalist on a scientist's standing is irrelevant. Frew sources this claim nowehere, and it's not born out by the facts, such as Carter's professional standing. Her bias is displayed not by her being an "environmental reporter", but by her interjecting opinion into her column. That's strike one. Strike two is that placing derogatory, personal opinion into an entry violates BLP. Stating a person lacks standing in their professional field is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims in BLPs require extraordinary proof ... not simply the off-hand personal opinion of a person who herself has no standing or experience in the field. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Who says criticism is irrelevant? Criticism is permitted (even encouraged) providing it is correctly attributed, sourced and worked into the main body, which this is. If the criticism had been made by a sports reporter, you could fairly doubt its relevancy. Wikispan (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Err, what? Did you mean to actually type what you did? The most important aspect of criticism is not whether its "correctly sourced", but whether its accurate and relevant. For a BLP, this is triply important, as implying a person lacks professional standing in their field can open Wikipedia up to potential for a lawsuit. Criticism of Carter's views or positions, from people competent to criticism them, is highly relevant. Scurrilous personal opinions on Carter himself are not, especially when they attack his professional standing, by a person not competent to judge. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevancy, yes; accuracy, no. Who is to say whether a criticism is accurate or not. Me? You? This is the reason why attribution is important. WP:ATT says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." We must make it crystal clear who is making the criticism. Attribution is of crucial importance. I can't emphasise this enough. Always attribute opinions to those providing them. If we were to follow your curious approach instead ("the most important aspect of criticism is ... whether its accurate") then this conversation would still be over, because anyone who supports the argument that AGW is a fraudulent scheme will certainly have little standing in the climate science community. In any case, let us do away with personal emotions, please. Wikispan (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Policy on BLPs states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Further: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.". A single brief statement that a scientist lacks standing in his field is the very definition of a poorly sourced claim, especially when the person making the claim gives no source for it, and herself lacks all standing in the field. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This criticism is not a "titillating claim" from a tabloid. Please correct your error. Wikispan (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe tabloids are the only source that can promote a titillating claim? BLP policy is very clear here. A single offhand remark-- that you yourself admit is a personal opinion by a person not in the field -- is not nearly well-sourced enough to impugn the professional standing of a BLP subject. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Personal snipe", "biased", "not born out by the facts", "extraordinary claim", "open Wikipedia up to potential for a lawsuit", "scurrilous personal opinions", "sensationalist", "titillating".

All of your arguments are fallacious. You simply want to delete this criticism because you like this guys message (i.e. Global Warming is a crock of shit). Unfortunately for you, and mark, there is more reliably sourced criticism that can be added to this article. I will work on this over the weekend. Wikispan (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your admission that you're going to spend the weekend slavishly searching for criticism of Carter doesn't help you to portray yourself as a neutral editor. It smacks rather clearly of an intentional attempt to bias the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am inviting Marknutley to explain why he has deleted the same criticism without conversing here on the talk page. This edit summary is inadequate. (diff) Robert Carter considers AGW to be a nonexistent. How is it undue weight to quote an environmental reporter who says Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community"? There is more criticism where this came from. Would you like me to provide addition critical commentary to make this point clear? Wikispan (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP and one persons opinion on his standing within the Oz climate community is undue. Is this supposed low standing reported widely in reliable secondary sources? mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Funding sources for IPA

I'm not entirely sure that the sources of funding for the IPA are entirely relevant on an article about Robert M. Carter. I would suggest that they might be relevant at the article on the institute itself but I don't see why it's relevant here. Could someone please put an argument that it should stay? Thepm (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- this seems to violate NPOV by implying that Carter might be a corporate "shill". Doesn't seem appropriate in a BLP. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problems in "Global warming" section

I've tagged this for NPOV and WP:Weight problems. Aside from the IPA funding issue, the sentence on the Heartland Institute's funding and secondhand smoke, sourced to Grrenpeace, seems inappropriate in a BLP. Comments? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any other comments, I have been bold and made some changes. It appears that Carter is not a "committee member" at IPA, but rather a member of staff. I've taken out references to second hand smoke and funding sources, partly because the reference was sourcewatch, which is itself unreferenced except to a dead link, but mainly because it's not relevant on this page. I've also taken out the second reference to the NIPCC.

I've left the NPOV tag and will leave it for someone else to take it off. Thepm (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better -- thanks! I also trimmed the "industry funded" bit mentioned above, did a bit of copyediting, and pulled the tag. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV again

The article as it stands provides a distorted account of Carter's scientific credentials regarding global warming. There is an extensive list of co-authored articles (mostly in economics journals), external links to his own speeches or articles in support of him, including double reference to a POV by (economist-politician) Vaclav Klaus. Yet the criticism surrounding him is made to appear as marginal opinion of a journalist. In fact, the quote from the SMH that he has "little standing in the Australian climate science community" is rather an understatement and not simply the opinion of a journalist. For instance David Karoly of Melbourne University / IPCC considers Carter's theories an "alternate reality", a review of his latest book by New Zealand scientist James Renwick states that "is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions", while another article considers that Carter is "Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument" ... "bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact" and that his "half-truth"s amount to "a whole lie". --Elekhh (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

potential resource paragraph by Naomi Klein

But deniers’ relative economic and social privilege doesn’t just give them more to lose from a new economic order; it gives them reason to be more sanguine about the risks of climate change in the first place. This occurred to me as I listened to yet another speaker at the Heartland conference display what can only be described as an utter absence of empathy for the victims of climate change. Larry Bell, whose bio describes him as a “space architect,” drew plenty of laughs when he told the crowd that a little heat isn’t so bad: “I moved to Houston intentionally!” (Houston was, at that time, in the midst of what would turn out to be the state’s worst single-year drought on record.) Australian geologist Bob Carter offered that “the world actually does better from our human perspective in warmer times.” And Patrick Michaels said people worried about climate change should do what the French did after a devastating 2003 heat wave killed 14,000 of their people: “they discovered Walmart and air-conditioning.”

from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4

99.190.86.244 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)