Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Improving the lead

• The lead of a BLP, particularly the first sentence, is about why the person is notable -- why there is a Wikipedia article about this person. All sources point to Watts being known for blogging (look at title of the article) about climate change denialism.

• Wikipedia doesn't list credentials in the lead like that. For example we don't write "M.D." or "Ph.D." in the first sentence of a BLP, much less "AMS seal holder". See WP:CREDENTIAL.

• Use of a primary source like nvsos.gov is verboten; for one thing, it gives his personal address. See WP:BLPPRIVACY.

• Watts identifies himself as a former meteorologist on his website, and BBC News confirms it. Since this is not a self-serving or extraordinary claim, I added the primary source for good measure.

Manul ~ talk 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I left the section "Improving the lead" alone, but the change did the opposite of improving, and I have reverted it. There seems to be a belief that if Michael E. Mann disparages WUWT, that's enough of a fact that it should go in the article lead. But we already have three disparaging comments about WUWT, and zero complimenting comments, in the right section -- the section about WUWT. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, you restored a link in direct violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. (I shouldn't need to quote a policy in order to convince someone not to give out a personal address on Wikipedia.) Please self-revert immediately.

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. Now the lead doesn't even mention what his blog is about, which is quite bizarre since it's what he is known for. It appears that you wish to attribute the Mann source as if it were a singular opinion. No, Mann reflects the view of independent sources -- per WP:ITA we don't mislead the reader by implying that only Mann holds this view. Manul ~ talk 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That happens to be the address of IntelliWeather (it's published on the front page of intelliweather.com), but I acknowledge that such government-related sites shouldn't be publicized by Wikipedia and have replaced with a reference to WUWT which merely says Watts runs IntelliWeather. I apologize for the delay in making this change. As you can see, I do not accept your claims that Mr Mann's denigrating of WUWT belongs, but a bland modifier like "climate-related" would probably do no harm. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(The address of IntelliWeather is the same address reported by WHOIS for his other domains, and almost certainly his residence. Next time please don't blindly revert without looking at the explanation behind a change.)

You haven't really addressed the reasons I gave for the other changes to the lead. You say that Mann is denigrating Watts, as if this is some personal feud and not about scientific evidence and consensus. Please see WP:PSCI; it is Wikipedia policy that mainstream reception of a fringe view be prominently included. Since Watts is notable primarily for his fringe view, that view should be included in the lead, and therefore mainstream reception must be included in the lead also. Manul ~ talk 00:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking here about a peer-reviewed study by Mann of Watts or of WattsupWithThat, and in any case Mann is not recognized as an expert re Watts and his blog, and did not present "scientific evidence" about the blog -- he merely called it a name. And your claim that "all sources" agree with you is false. Earlier I referred to an administrative ruling, I'll repeat its contents on your talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My edit was partly in response to your removal of information from the lead that describes what the blog is about, which makes no sense to me. He's known as a blogger -- "blogger" is in the article title -- but the lead doesn't say what he blogs about. This doesn't even concern "skeptic" versus "denier". My point is that there must be something there to describe WUWT. You removed the something.

Also, there's no such thing as an "administrative ruling" on content. Admins don't rule on content. You linked to an ANI, not an RfC. It was a mistake posting to ANI because there's nothing for an admin to do (unless you were claiming vandalism). Try WP:NPOVN or some other form of WP:DR for content disputes. Manul ~ talk 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying I "removed" is misleading, what I did was revert an edit which had added Mr Mann's name-calling. Saying your point is there must be "something" is disingenuous, I suggested that a bland modifier like "climate-related" would do no harm, and I suggest it again. As for the admin ruling: it's about the fact that refusal to follow the sources in this area is misconduct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be time to ask for an end on Peter Gulutzan's editing of this page. Anyone want to join me in a request to WP:AE? jps (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

jps has also written to my talk page re going to WP:AE "in a few days" unless I "back down". I rejected the demand, I will welcome going to a forum where an administrator will look at jps's accusations. During the few days, I will not revert jps's most recent edit inserting "denialism" in the lead again and commenting "I'm done accommodating POV-pushers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't edit war and let us have a conversation, then there is no reason to get admins involved. I understand that your position is that somehow the admin in question thinks that we shouldn't use the term "denialism" or its derivatives in the lede. I simply don't agree with that interpretation. I think that the admin is saying to use the best sources which I judge to be somewhat comfortable with using "denial" and their derivatives. jps (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: I expected you to carry out your threat and make your accusations in front of an administrator. If you're now the one who's "backing off", I guess I will bear with your rudeness for a while longer. Now: your description of my position is incorrect -- I accept what the admin said about majority of sources. On that basis, I intend to remove your poorly sourced material from the lead of this BLP. I am allowing time first for the conversation you spoke of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of sources use "denial" and its derivatives. That is, we are talking about the majority of the reliable sources on the subject. jps (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The book by Mann for one which is what we are currently using to source the statement. There are a few dozen more I can name, but the question is, how do you want to do this? I'll name a source and you name an equally reliable one that contradicts it? jps (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest, by adding something like "WUWT? is more often known as a denier blog." in the Watts Up With That? section of the article and following with 7 citations, you'd make checking and later lookup easy. I started the ball rolling by adding 6 saying skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not really what we're supposed to do. What's with this attempted enumeration? Present your best source and we'll move forward. jps (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

jps (talk: You have said over and over (I didn't count) that the majority of sources support an edit saying WUWT? is a "denialism" website. I have asked you: what are those sources? You are not answering. I will try again. What are those sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I responded above. The majority of the most reliable sources do so identify the blog. Michael Mann's book, published by an academic press, is my first source. Yours is the Scientific American article? I think I'm happier with the book by Mann. jps (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann and Watts have been in a personal feud for years. Mann shouldn't be used as a source for Watts or his blog, especially one that has been cited as diminishing the Holocaust or derived from from it. Sorry, nut this is a clear-cut BLP issue. There are enough sources with various descriptions that we none other that a "climate change blog." --DHeyward (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is incoherent; edit? --JBL (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ DHeyward, what evidence to you have of this alleged personal feud? Michael E. Mann is a distinguished professor, and in the hockey stick controversy#Controversy over MBH 1998 his work has been under attack from contrarians, fossil fuel thinktanks and deniers since 1998. Wattsupwiththat.com/category/michael-e-mann/ only seems to go back to 2011, there have clearly been earlier cases of Watts denigrating Mann's work but I've not found any cases of Mann personally responding: he covers Watts' blog briefly in his book, as cited. As for deniers, in 2008 Watts' blog featured guest posts by Roy Spencer, signatory to the Cornwall Alliance alliance declaration "We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry." etc. . . dave souza, talk 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Denial" is simply a means to say that someone denies a claimed fact. Climate change denial has essentially nothing to do with Holocaust denial nor does it have anything to do with AIDS denial as the facts being denied in all those instances are very different sets. The claim that this is defamatory is a big stretch, I'd say. What it appears to me to be instead is a concern troll objection. jps (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Denial is a disbelief that something is true. Is the climate changing, yeah. Is man having an impact, yeah. Is man having a significant impact on temperatures, maybe. Is CO2 directly linked to an increase in temperatures, well according to the predictions from the models that is unsure, so people are skeptical. It is pretty hard to be in denial of a future event which has not happened and which has not been proven. Perhaps if the climate models were not universally so far off it would be easier to make the connection. Arzel (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arzel, you seem to be in denial about some pretty basic physics here, disputing the 1896 science of Svante Arrhenius: and climate models seem to have done pretty well. That's an informative webpage rather than a reliable source, do you have any reliable source for your assertion that models were "universally so far off"? All of which shows the need at Wikipedia for accurately showing science rather than getting mixed up by attempts to deny there's any problem. . . dave souza, talk 19:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's simply is a "denial that something is true" than, Watts is not a denier as he readily admits that greenhouse gases will contribute to warming. Neither is Curry. There are many competing theories about why there is a hiatus so are all those voices "deniers" because they fail to agree? There are many competing claims about sea level rise and avg temperature in 2100. To use this language over other language such as "sceptic," which is at least equally as prevalent (and probably more so) in neutral sources, implies an agenda to make sceptics look the same as holocaust deniers. This is even mentioned in our article climate change denialism. It's pejorative and has no place in an NPOV encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wattsupwithtat hosts a lot of text that outright denies the facts that outline that most of the global warming that has occurred in the last decades is due to human contribution of carbon dioxide. This is plainly not a scientific skeptic position and we've got the academic sources to prove it. WP:PARITY demands that you show your academic sources which dispute this characterization. When someone denies a fact and is called out in the literature, it is not Wikipedia's job to right the wrongs as perceived by those who support the deniers. jps (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your asking to prove the negative? How about all the papers that recognize a hiatus? Mann doesn't (well it depends on the phase of the moon whether he does or doesn't). By that logic, Mann is a "denier." "denier" is political rhetoric, not scientific. In that sense, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to choose sides. There are AGW adherents and AGW sceptics. WP is not the place to wage political fights and WP is not on any side. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What does a supposed "hiatus" have to do with the blog wattsupwiththat? You are confusing topics here. jps (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It demonstrates that "denier" is not a scientific term just a political one. The temperature record is pretty clear. But we don't categorize people into political buckets over scientific differences in meaning. Nobody has taken exception to being a sceptic or contrarian voice. "Denier" is not. Mann is sceptical that there is a hiatus but he is not a "hiatus denier" no matter how many scientific papers disagree with him. There are many competing views from ozone and water vapor to deep-ocean heat to trade winds to arctic measurement anomalies. All have been postulated and all have had rebuttals with various amounts of adherence. No one though, is labeled with a political term like "denier" for daring to challenge the consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That's convoluted. I have shown you a peer-reviewed paper and two books published by university presses which identify WattsUpWithThat.com as a blog that hosts climate change denial. If you have a similar caliber source which disputes that characterization, let us see it. All I see are media discussions and books that are written from the perspective of climate change denial and thus can hardly be called independent enough to pass our sourcing guidelines. jps (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That statement is false, but I believe the appropriate place for discussion is BLPN now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply writing "that statement is false" does not make it so. jps (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually one of your sources complains about the bloggers, not the blogs. Since you have already said it's about the blog and not the blogger so BLP doesn't apply, that sources should be tossed (hint: it's the book). Here's one of many sources that manage not to call him (or his webiste) a "denier" [1] --DHeyward (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protip: the source in question complains about both the blogger and the blog. We're using it as a source for the blog. If you want to start a discussion about sources for the blogger, be my guest. If you can't find academic sources that show Anthony Watts' blog does not include climate change denial, then you have failed to make your case. jps (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors trying to dismiss or denigrate the Mann book need a policy-based reason to do so. @DHeyward: your assertion that "denier" "is not a scientific term just a political one" is significant how? Is the implication that Mann is not a scientist?

Wikipedia editor's opinions does not override reliably published statements, especially those of peer-reviewed academic publications. And even more so when those statements are attributed as opinion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This edit lists sources obtained from googling with search terms such as "skeptical blog" and "skeptic website" (these terms are included some URLs) and forms the conclusion that WUWT? is known as a "skeptic" blog. This is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH, and one would do well to read the entire No original research policy. This also underlines the problem of conflicting sources as well as the solution of deferring to high-quality expert sources. Manul ~ talk 09:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I remind Manul that there is a discussion on WP:BLPN. If there is no consensus on WP:BLPN, then I expect most of the people who objected to calling WUWT a "denialism" site in the lead will not object to removing a sentence calling WUWT a "skeptic" site in the WUWT section -- that would be a part of a return to the status quo ante. Or, if/when the WP:BLPN discussion ends with a firm rejection of Manul's position, I don't think our keep-denialism-out side would rub it in by insisting on "skeptic". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I see that the WP:BLPN discussion has now been archived after four days of inactivity. I am obliged now to remove the template about it. If there is further comment about the end of the WP:BLPN discussion, please put it in the previous thread "Characterizing WUWT" after Mr Tillman's notification. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The BLPN discussion obviously was not reaching consensus; also, it has been archived due to lack of activity in the past week. Unsurprisingly, I also agree substantively with Manul. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not find mention of this WP:NOR violation in the BLPN thread, which was archived twelve hours before "Again I remind Manul that there is a discussion on WP:BLPN..." was written. In any case, obvious cases of original research may be uncontroversially removed. Manul ~ talk 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been already objectively demonstrated,[2] the majority POV is that this is skeptic website, not denialist. In case anyone attempts to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, I remind all editors that per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If any editor attempts to add or restore any fringe POVs that this is a denialist website, such content should be immediately removed and without waiting for discussion per WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For godsakes, use preview instead of making dozens of minor edits!--JBL (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, do you understand what the aforementioned WP:SYNTH violation is? Manul ~ talk 20:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

These sources were all mentioned in the WP:BLPN discussion. It's not a policy violation to find sources. I've asked the administrator who protected this article whether it's correct now to remove the recently-added labels of WUWT, from either side. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

An administrator cannot magically turn a lack of consensus into consensus. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Peter Gulutzan: Correct, it's not a policy violation to "find sources". It is a policy violation to synthesize sources to form a conclusion that is not present in any of the sources. This thread is about your edit which synthesizes sources. This thread is not about any wider issue; only that edit. There's no shame in not being familiar with every line of Wikipedia policy. Would you please read WP:NOR? Re the admin, I previously explained to you that admins do not rule on content. Manul ~ talk 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there is WP:SYNTH issue, it can easily be resolved by citing sources reliable sources which support the majority POV and of which there are plenty. This seems much ado about nothing. Just cite the sources which cite the majority POV, case closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, would you please start another thread if you wish to argue that characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation? (I'd like to hear the argument, since it's never been explained.) As I mentioned to Peter, this thread is just about the synth edit. Manul ~ talk 00:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no violation of anything, the conclusion is present in all the sources, and indeed this is "much ado about nothing". But I am not telling Manul immediately what he/she should do, since I have a pending question to the administrator about what the correct conduct would be now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where exactly did I argue that "characterizing a blog using high-quality expert sources is somehow a BLP violation"? (I'd like to hear that argument, too, since I never made it.) Please see strawman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

The administrator replied but did not directly answer whether going back to the status quo ante was appropriate (we only got an opinion that the BLP discussion ended in no consensus and a suggestion to continue discussion). So I can't just declare Manul's question moot. I puzzled for a while over the WP:SYNTH claim, wondering how something can be synth when it is (using the policy's wording) "explicitly stated by the source" in all cases, and finally I guessed that Manul must be objecting because one of the six sources said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic". I changed the article wording accordingly. Also I added one more citation. For Manul's second claim, that there is a WP:NOR violation, I failed to guess. Why should Manul object if I found some (though not all) sources via "googling"? Does Manul claim that these are not "reliable, published" sources (the WP:OR requirement)? What difference does it make that Manul can't find mention of the sources in the BLPN discussion, when it's plain that they are mentioned? I trust there is some serious basis for Manul's claims that we have not yet seen. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "skeptic" versus "skeptical" or whatnot. None of the sources you listed say that WUWT is "known as" a skeptic blog -- that is a conclusion you reached by synthesizing a number of sources together. Remember that we have at least one high-quality expert source saying that WUWT should not be called a skeptic/skeptical blog. Please read WP:NOR carefully; again, there is no shame in not being familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies.

Now we might discuss how to deal with this terminology in the article. We only need one good source in order to write that WUWT has been called a skeptic blog (very different from being known as a skeptic blog), but if this is included then there must also be text citing the high-quality expert source which disputes the characterization. Manul ~ talk 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I guessed wrongly that Manul was complaining about the trivial-seeming difference between "skeptic" and "skeptical", it turns out Manul was complaining about the words "known as". Well, WUWT is indeed known as a skeptic blog, and the citations are evidence of that. Manul's nameless "high-quality expert source" is outweighed by the existence of other sources which are also academic and have reputable publishers (I'll try to avoid calling them "high-quality expert" since I don't see how such terminology could be objective). More importantly, when we're talking about what a thing is "known as", we're talking about terminology as used by reliable sources in general, not just academics. Knowing that at least one put-denialism-in editor thinks Wikipedia essays are evidence, I refer to WP:SSF "Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy". But what I see as evidence is the clear statement of an administrator, the majority of reliable sources matters for terminology questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Manul has made edits with the word "compromise" in the edit summary. The article text now has it that some say skeptic blog, some say denier blog. I only speak for myself, but I can tolerate the removal of most of the it's-a-skeptic-blog citations, since the original problem, the unattributed label "denialism website", is out of the lead. Minor problems remain: there's still a citation from Mann (this can be fixed by citing Dunlap + McCright instead), and "others have described ..." is vague (this can be fixed by saying "Dennis W.C. Liu has described ..."). jps: do you accept this "compromise"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why the removal of Mann? It seems like an excellent source to me. Also, I'm concerned about WP:GEVAL problems with the labeling. It might be better to come to a means by which we don't use either term if we can. Anyway, there is some source sorting going on above. It would be nice to have a fuller description in my opinion. What do you think about the other sources being considered above? Some of them make the "skeptic" point a bit more clearly and in ways that seem to indicate that climate change denial is a good wikilink in some fashion. jps (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

jps: are you saying you accept this "compromise" except for an objection to replacing the Mann citation with a Dunlap + McCright citation, or are you saying no? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this solves the problems completely. I'm concerned that the current wording violates WP:GEVAL. I don't understand at all the replacement of Mann with Dunlap & McCright. So, I guess, "no" is the right answer. On the other hand, this is better than the wording was in the past. jps (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Manul: I realize you cannot be responsible for jps, but if your "compromises" are not even acceptable to the editors who share your general put-denialism-in opinions, then they're not compromises, they're just "accept X's demands so that Y can demand more". Unless there is some way around this intransigence, there is no reason to accept your recent edits which lack consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% that AzureCitizen's addition of "some" and "others" is not reflective of the sources. Manul ~ talk 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Saw this post when I circled back and examined the follow-up edits. I rephrased the text again to specifically indicate who is saying what here. Does that make it accurate and reflective of the sources? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that the in-text attribution is well-done. It makes it seem like these are single opinions when, in fact, they represent something of a consensus. There is no disagreement that I can find that the blog is sympathetic to climate change denial. Even the sources which describe it as 'sceptic', if they go on to describe its contents, firmly place it in that category. jps (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the climate change denial article is written such that a skeptic equals denial. Your argument has been positioned from the beginning to make it impossible to find a middle ground. I am not sure you even believe there is a middle. If a person believes that there has been climate change but does not believe that future temps will increase even remotely (and lets be honest, they have not to this point) at the rate predicted by the IPCC models, is that person a believer, skeptic, or denier? Arzel (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Quantify your claims of how the temperature has changed and was predicted to change according to IPCC consensus. I am happy to entertain, if there are sources, the proposition that there is variance in possibilities. I'm not prepared to simply take the say-so of editors that there is a difference between what the media has called "climate sceptic" and our article on climate change denial. If you don't like our climate change denial article, I suggest you show some sources that make a distinction over there, but until you are successful in making a new article for us to consider, I am going to go with the assumption that there is no sourced difference except in the preferred terminology of the groups being described. jps (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck making any changes there. The article is pre-defined to make no difference, and then that article is used as a shoehorn to frame people like Watts. A classic example of Confirmation Bias. Additionally, it does appear to be pretty clear that there is no difference to you. Regarding the original IPCC estimates, the observed values are either outside the margin of error or at the very least on the very low end of the predicted values for ALL models. This is not in debate. As someone that has done a lot of simulation modeling I find it distressing that anyone that is highly skeptical of the predictability of this models is called a denier. Until they actually predict the correct temperatures they are pretty worthless. On a personal note, I must ask why you even care what Watts says? If his views are fringe, as you believe, then very few people believe him anyway, and if the science is sound, as you believe, then history will be your vindication. To shout down opposing debate seems very un-scientific. The Climate Change proponents should be trying to prove their science wrong, that is the basis of statistical analysis. Arzel (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Show me sources to meet your WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, this conversation is pointless. jps (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Something you won't like. I have done a lot of predictive analysis, and have also created models which model the past very well, but like these climate models they soon show that they are missing some important information. Climate modelers should spend more time trying to find out what they are missing and less time calling people deniers because their models don't work the way they claim. Predicting future events is difficult, so I have sympathy for those that think they can do it accurately. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's well understood that Curry doesn't really understand statistical modeling (citation: [3]). I guess you don't either. On the other hand, if you'd like to point me to your publications in climate science, I'd be willing to read your peer reviewed papers. Otherwise, can we get back on subject? jps (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Also see WP:WikiVoice, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It's just a fact that WUWT has been characterized as a skeptic blog and as a denial blog; the named attributions are just cruft. Manul ~ talk 01:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrasting skepticism and denialism

Peter Gulutzan, you said "Not in the source."[4] However it is in the source:

“ Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism...Muller showed Congress the colors of a true scientist, skeptical and grappling with evidence...Unfortunately, the tone of some of [Watts' and McIntyre's] blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example, has a posting...It is important that students understand the difference between the essential skepticism that all good scientists need and being a denialist or a knee-jerk contrarian.[5] ”

Liu is contrasting Muller's approach and Watts' blog posts as exemplars, respectively, of skepticism and denialism. To be absolutely clear, the paragraph says, in summary, (1) here is a property of denialism; (2) Muller did not show this property; (3) some of Watts' blog posts do show this property; (4) this is the difference between skepticism and denialism. Liu is a good source for sorting out these terms. Manul ~ talk 23:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion is not equal to fact. Liu's opinion is just that. He may think that some of the blog posts sound like denial, but that is simply his opinion. This is particularly important for things which are in the Eye of the beholder. Can't use WP voice of "fact" for which is opinion. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:ITA, "Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree." Independent mainstream sources converge on WUWT being climate change denialism (see previous threads). In scientific matters, Wikipedia aims to reflect the mainstream view. Manul ~ talk 01:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly article nor is Watts a scientist. Regardless, consensus is not fact either. The history of science is littered with beliefs which were eventually proven to be incorrect. Not sure why this one deserves special treatment. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like this response is a total WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me. Seems clear that Manul is correct that the source in question does include a straightforward explanation of skepticism and denialism. We either use the source or we don't. If we don't, we ought to have some good reasons other than hoping that this will be some instance of science being proven incorrect. jps (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would take the opposite view, that you should wait for this science to be proven true. The models to this point have been lacking in this ability. Stephen Hawking even bet against his own proposition. Everyone should be happy though as it is becoming more and more clear that CO2 is less of a problem in terms of global temps Arzel (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

Science is never "proven true", and expecting that it might be shows a misunderstanding of the scientific method and enterprise. Demanding "proof" is a favourite tactic of people trying to stop some action, but it's not something science can or will ever produce. Science gives us increasingly better models of reality, but never absolute proof. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about climate change have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion of whether the source is correctly used here. On that subject, Manul is obviously right. --JBL (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with those criticize Arzel's lack of research fortitude. We stick to sources, not what someone has extrapolated on the basis of a Stephen Hawking bet. jps (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

By proving true, I was clearly referring to the simulation models. If the models actually were able to predict correctly what they claim to predict, then you would at least have something. They have not, thus many are skeptical about the actual impact of CO2 in the future. However, considering that the Climate Change proponents have declared the science "settled" they have in effect already declared it true. Stephen I agree with you completely regarding the scientific method, I wish that same belief was followed through with the science behind climate change simulation modeling. JPS I have several published research papers and am in a far more experienced position than you to talk about simulation modeling. Arzel (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Show us your published research papers, Arzel if you are you proposing we use them as sources. jps (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul: Indeed I said "Not in the source". And, as your quote shows, Liu does not say that WUWT blog posts "have a denialistic tone that misappropriates scientific skepticism". (The scientific-skepticism part is what this is about.) The words about scientific skepticism may be nearby, but nothing indicates that they're words about Watts's blog. By the way, do you know what Mr Liu's education is? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter has reverted the assertion that WUWT misappropriates scientific skepticism because, he says, Liu did not say that. I disagree. I think we all agree that Liu contrasted genuine skepticism (illustrating with Dr. Mueller) and fake skepticism that refuses to accept evidence contrary to one's preconception (illustrating with Watts). Yeah, one could argue that the words and punctuation between "misapprorpiates skepticism" and Watts name means Liu didn't say Watts is misappropriating skepticism. But that's a s.........t............r............e.............t............c............h, made possible only because there are additional words and punctuation between that phrase and the WUWT blog's name. Reading the parpagraph as a whole, we're clearly talking about real and fake skepticism, and WUWT is presented by Liu as the latter. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul's edit didn't say that "Watts is misappropriating skepticism", but that the tone of some blog posts misappropriates scientific skepticism -- but tones don't misappropriate, people do, as Liu made clear: "Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism". Notice the word "often" which means that even if Liu claimed Watts was a denialist that wouldn't necessarily mean that Liu says Watts misappropriates. But Liu doesn't even claim it. Liu says Watts is a skeptic and Muller agrees that Watts is a skeptic not a denier -- the "words and phrases" that Manul replaced with "..." indicate that Liu was not thinking of Watts when he used the word "denialists". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Citing opinion columns for contentious claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice.

Yesterday, the article stated that "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy" but cited an opinion column. We should not be stating opinions as facts. So, I attempted to fix the problem.[6] However, Joel B. Lewis reverting the change stating "("X has been criticized for Y" is not putting anything in Wikipedia's voice". This makes no sense in that "X has been criticized for Y" is the very definition of stating something in Wikipedia's voice. In any case, I've attempted a compromise.[7] Other editor's feedback is welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "has been criticized" is the lead sentence for a paragraph; it introduces the subject of the paragraph. The following sentences are the criticisms, whose existence was introduced by the first sentence, and it is these sentences that are (correctly) sourced as the opinions of the criticizers. The word "alleged" is both redundant and weasely. The phrase "putting things in Wikipedia's voice" would be a correct and relevant description of these sentences if the first sentence said "Watts's blog is full of inaccuracies," but the phrasing "has been criticized" already places the criticism not in Wikipedia's voice. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was "Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy". The sources cited in this paragraph don't mention inaccuracy. Whether or not this attempt to "compromise" succeeds, the sentence will be poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Inaccurate" is a partial synonym of "untrustworthy" and "[not] credible" and certainly covers their relevant meanings -- if anything, this wording is more favorable towards WUWT than the views being summarized. (This is not to say that it is the best possible summary sentence of the criticisms in that paragraph.) --JBL (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The other two remaining sources[8][9] also appear to be opinion articles. Why do we have an entire paragraph cited to opinion columns? At this point, I'm wondering why we should keep this paragraph at all. We should have higher standards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, neither of the two remaining sources[10][11] even support the claim that the blog is inaccurate. Given that there are no reliable sources cited for this paragraph, per WP:BLP, I am removing it immediately and without waiting for discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are restating your previous comments without any obvious acknowledgement of the responses. I am not interested in restating my responses, which are above. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have a good thesaurus saying inaccurate is a synonym of untrustworthy, please cite it. It seems the paragraph was inserted in 2013 by user 96.248.80.142 without any discussion that I could see, and it's not just the "inaccuracy" claim that's a problem. According to the citation for Mr Suzuki's opinion piece, it was published in the Carman Valley Leader of March 8 2012. But that day's paper is available online, here, and it doesn't contain Mr Suzuki's opinion piece. The date is actually correct, but the original source is Mr Suzuki's blog, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, any reasonable reading of my comments indicates that I am open to alternative wordings -- why don't you suggest one? --JBL (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: All three sources appear to be opinion columns, two of which don't even support the content. The only source that comes close is an Monbiot's column. Without any secondary sources to establish the notability of Monbiot's opinion, this fails WP:WEIGHT. Look at it this way: if this was truly worth including, then secondary sources would have covered this. If secondary sources don't find this worth reporting, why should tertiary sources cover it? Our goal as encyclopedia authors is not to find the most damaging opinion columns and then thrust them into an encyclopedia article. This is shoddy scholarship. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources

1. Scientists dispute climate sceptic's claim that US weather data is useless (not opinion)
2. The Inquisition of Climate Science
3. Climate science and acts of creation
4. Heat rises in the search for temperature data truth--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone looked for better RSs with criticisms at GoogleScholar? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Okay, my suggestion for the alternative wording of the first sentence is "Watts's blog has been criticized." And please address the problem with the Suzuki quote if you think it should be kept. I have no opinion about the Monbiot and Hickman quotes. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That reads like a fragment to me; also it's odd to say something has been criticized without saying anything about the nature or subject of the criticisms. On net I mildly prefer the current version. About Suzuki, his columns certainly are published by that paper; have you checked whether it appeared later? (I tried, but their website is extremely difficult to navigate on mobile.) If it really is only on the blog, I do not object to removing it. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Re criticism: I thought that the rest of the paragraph was the criticism, but I seem to have been unconvincing, never mind. I googled for: site:carmanvalleyleader.com "weathermen like Anthony Watts". Nothing. I intend to remove the Suzuki quote but will wait a few days in case some other editor wants to give a try at repairing the citation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: I explained the problem, see above. I gave lots of time for you or anyone else to step in. Then I removed the quote. Very shortly thereafter you reverted with no comprehensible explanation. You're welcome to join the discussion here, but reverting without joining the discussion is unwelcome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading....."

Found this in less than 60 seconds at GoogleScholar...presumably there is more of the same but one would have to look. For now, and reserving the possibility that I will return to this later, I'll let others wrangle over whether/how to use this in the article. It's From page 172 which is (I think) part of Chapter 13: The changing ecology of news and news organizations: implications for environmental news, by Curtis Brainard, which in turn is part of The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication edited by Anders Hansen, Robert Cox; published by Routledge, Mar 5, 2015

"While blogs have allowed scientists and other legitimate experts, in fields from politics to economics, to communicate more easily and directly with the media and public, a vast cacophony of other voices make the Internet a bewildering place where the quality of information can be hard to judge. RealClimate.org, established by a group of nine prominent American and European climate scientists in 2004, is one of the most trusted sources. It aims to better inform "the interested public and journalists" by providing "a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." At the other end of the spectrum are influential sites for "climate skeptics", such as Watts Up With That?", a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts, whom scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record." (bold added, by the way)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Good work! This looks like an excellent source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

TOC can be accessed here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Two kinds of skepticism

Some sources use "skeptic"/"skepticism" when referring to climate change denialism, and this is made explicit in at least one source,

“ Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has recently been very much in the media spotlight. When, in November 2009, emails by climate scientists were published on the internet without their authors' consent, a debate began in which climate sceptic bloggers used an extended network of metaphors to contest (climate) science...Anthony Watts first broke the story of the emails on his (award winning) blog Watts Up With That.[12] ”

One source had been proffered to rebut the denialism connection, but actually confirms it.

“ ‘Climate scepticism’ and ‘climate denial’ are readily used concepts, referring to a discourse that has become important in public debate since climate change was first put firmly on the policy agenda in 1988. This discourse challenges the views of mainstream climate scientists and environmental policy advocates, contending that parts, or all, of the scientific treatment and political interpretation of climate change are unreliable. It persists today, espoused on sceptical websites (McIntyre 2012 , Watts 2012).[13] ”

Additional clues that the source is using skepticism and denialism interchangeably include cases where the text mentions sceptics/sceptical/scepticism followed by a parenthetical reference to an article that is explicitly about denialism, e.g., Dunlap R and McCright A. (2010) "Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies".

The second meaning of skepticism is, of course, scientific skepticism, and we have a source differentiating WUWT from that, as already mentioned,

“ Denialists often misappropriate scientific skepticism...Muller showed Congress the colors of a true scientist, skeptical and grappling with evidence...Unfortunately, the tone of some of [Watts' and McIntyre's] blog posts sound denialistic. Watts's blog, for example, has a posting...It is important that students understand the difference between the essential skepticism that all good scientists need and being a denialist or a knee-jerk contrarian.[14] ”

We should focus on reading what sources actually say instead of googling "skeptic" and counting the results. It is still true that the best sources typically use "denial"/"denialism"/"denialistic", and when they don't (like above), they are still referring to the phenomenon of climate change denialism, however it is called. Manul ~ talk 19:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you have it backwards. Instead of Googling "denial" and counting the results, we should look at the what actual reliable sources say about the issue. The best sources typically use "skeptic" or some variation thereof. I performed a random sampling of all reliable sources, including peer-reviewed journals, and here are the results:

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. One could reasonably argue whether 10 sources is an adequate sample size (if so, just ask, and I can expand the sample size). But based on these results, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul: I see that you made yet more insertions of "denier" in the article. I reverted I see it was reverted. You need a consensus. You don't have it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul's sources this time are: Nerlich, Painter + Ashe, and Liu (again). For Nerlich: Manul took the first two sentences from the abstract ... and the sentence about Watts from page 10, using "..." to pass over 10 pages and make it seem like the phrases are related (unlike Manul I provide a no-pay source here). Then Painter and Ashe do not say WUWT is a denier site, the mention of denial is that it's a concept (along with skepticism) which refers to a discourse, whatever that means. And Liu, as explained before (in this post that Manul did not reply to), is not a "source differentiating WUWT from [scientific skepticism]". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the point?

A "random sampling" is meaningless when specific sources have been presented.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's our job to present the majority viewpoint. Earlier, I asked the question, what do the majority of reliable sources say about the matter? I'm attempting to answer that question by providing an objective answer. It's too easy (and too common in BLPs unfortunately) to cite outliers as though they are mainstream viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The implication that Mann is an "outlier" is purely speculative.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on two different random samplings, that certainly appears to be the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So we have good sources to support the following

• A. He self-describes as "skeptic"
• B. He and/or WUWT are often described in media as "skeptic"
• C. Some (like Liu) say the tone used in some posts seems/sounds/appears (exact word?) denialist
• D. Some (like Brainard) say WUWT is on the "other end" of a spectrum of trust as compared to RealClimate, and that scientists have frequently criticized WUWT for misleading readers

Again, is there some reason you are excluding the peer-reviewed book by an actual climatologist, namely, Mann?
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: There are two ways to interpret your question. Since I'm not sure which one you're asking, I'll answer both:

1. Because we need to determine the mainstream viewpoint: What do the majority of reliable sources say about this issue? If 9 sources say A, and 1 source says B, you don't cite the oddball source; you cite the majority.
2. If you're referring to the random samples, they were selected by Google, not me.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION
What's the big debate about? I confess I have not studied the play-by-play here, but at cursory pass it sounds like some want the article to just say some of this list of points, and others want the article to say just some of the others. In particular the "majority" discussion sounds like that. Yet we have at least some quality RSs for each of these points, so we seem to be bound by NPOV to write text about the whole range. Aren't we? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That is pretty much the present state of the article, though it probably needs a little fine tuning.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: This particular debate is about whether to describe Watts as a "skeptic" or "deniar", the latter of which is a WP:WTA. Wikipedia guidelines state that "denier" is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Quest, in my view you're missing the point. Wikipedia editors should not be "describing" Watts at all. Instead, we should describe how RSs describe him, and some RSs say each of those 4 things. At WTA I think the specific section that most applies is WP:LABEL, and we can easily provide inline attribution to references for the 4 points I listed above. Its a fact that people do debate this very issue, and for evidence we've no further to look than this talk page. Fine, we should do a good NPOV job of informing readers about the conflicting viewpoints, without going to far in the direction of WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, blanket squelching of any and all mention of denialist allegations is equally problematic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that we should squelch all mentions of "denial" in the article. But we should be extremely careful in using that term. In any case, the point I am currently trying to get across is that the mainstream viewpoint is that this is a "skeptic" blog, not "denialist" blog. Can we all agree on that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no we can't. In the uniwikiverse, at least insofar as I am aware, the notion of a "mainstream view" exists only in relation to its opposite as described in WP:FRINGE. Read that way, saying the mainstream view is that he is a rootin' tootin' honest as they come genuine hardcore scientific skeptic rather implies that anyone who says he's a "denier" spouts WP:FRINGE nonsense but that isn't the case.

However, I'm glad you brought up the notion of mainstream vs fringe, because aside from the label issue, we should also follow the basic template of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. At that article, to comply with WP:FRINGE the lead sets forth the mainstream viewpoint of global warming, so that the fringe material in the body of the article is set in proper context, as required by the FRINGE guideline. Setting the label issue aside, we need to cover what Watts says in substance. That's the only way the notion of "MAINSTREAM viewpoint" creeps in, or so it seems to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge: you are right. The article is supposed to be about Anthony Watts (blogger). The majority of known reliable sources call Watts's blog skeptic / skeptical not denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan:, who says "The majority of known reliable sources say...." That means there is a minority of sources that are nonetheless reliable sources which contain other verbiage... "denier", "misleading", "other end" of a spectrum of trusted blogs from the "most trusted" end. We all agree that -

• (A) Such sources exist
• (B) They are reliable sources

If the majority label him "skeptic" and a minority label him "denier" then it is POV for Manual to turn those words into synonym, but it is also POV for anyone else to purge the minority viewpoint. Further, @Peter -

• (C) You simply ignored my challenge to the notion of "mainstream" view used here. In wikipedia's guidelines I believe the opposite of "mainstream" is WP:FRINGE. We really should include a bit about the international scientific mainstream view of anthropogenic global warming to provide context for what Watts typically says, in addition to the label we apply. Do you disagree, Peter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Indeed there are reliable sources that say Watts and/or Watts's blog is misleading or cannot be trusted -- and such statements were already quoted in the article before the put-denialism-in edits started in mid March. If you read all the earlier discussion then you know there are objections that Mann is a poor source for the denier label for Watts's blog, if you read this thread you know there are objections that Nerlich, Painter + Ashe, and Liu (again) are not supports for the denier label for Watts's blog. And I apologize for not making it clear that I was not ignoring you, but I did say what matters here is the view that the mainstream holds about Watts and/or his blog, which was my non-blunt way of saying: I disagree with you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempted dismissal of Mann was adequately refuted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources saying something other than 'skeptic

@Manul, and anyone else, please list here the three sources you hold up as the three best sources saying Watts and/or WUWT are something other than "skeptic". I'd like to take my time studying the three best. Don't worry if they're paywalled, I've got an excellent library nearby. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What should probably be examined first is the scholarly consensus.

1. Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.
2. Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. p. 72. Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist...and founder of the site "Watts Up with That?" which has overtaken climateaudit as the leading climate change denial blog.Mann also characterized Watts as a "climate change denier"(p.222)
3. Elshof, Leo (2011). "Can education overcome climate change inactivism?". Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education. 3 (1). It is important for students to have structured learning opportunities to find and analyze how these tactics are employed by climate denial organizations and blogs like...'Watts up with That' and others.
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Source number 3. Page 43, paragraph 2. "Having students compare and contrast the way climate science is discussed with in a popular skeptic blog run by an ex-TV weatherman (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)" proves the opposite. Haven't looked at the others yet. Arzel (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC) (NAEG adds that pg 43 of the paper = pdf page 29. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC))

Might as well post both quotes

It is important for students to have structured learning opportunities to find and analyze how these tactics are employed by climate denial organizations and blogs like the ‘International Climate Science Coalition’, the ‘Friends of Science’, the ‘Science and Public Policy Institute’, or ‘Watts up with That’ and others. In helping young people recognize the common characteristics inactivist media campaigns teachers can better prepare them to apply and hone critical thinking skills when they encounter different applications of denial argument in the context of other science policy debates.(p.28 of paper/14 of pdf)
Having students compare and contrast the way climate science is discussed with in a popular skeptic blog run by an ex-TV weatherman (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) versus a blog operated by professional climate scientists like ‘Real Climate’ (www.realclimate.org).

This just shows that they use the terms in an almost synonymous manner. (p.43 of paper/29 of pdf)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it pretty much makes one of your "best" sources useless in its inconsistency. One of your sources is Mann who has a known personal beef with Watts, thus his opinion is degraded. The first source calls his blog part of the "cyber-ghetto", not exactly a scholarly approach and makes a claim which is clearly false in its hyperbole. Emotion appears to be driving this author, and is clearly not a neutral presentation. The only neutral presentation is source 3 which is inconsistent. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent if other sources also use the term interchangeably, and it was just one of the sources that was reverted--not a source I'd personally researched--and was listed above by another editor as well, so I assumed its reliability was not at issue.

No need to personalize the discussion, which is already highly irregular as far as policy is concerned anyway. What is the basis of your claim of a personal dispute between Mann and Watts? And what is it that you claim is relevant about that? Watts' book is a peer-reviewed academic publication in his field of expertise.

Furthermore, the comment regarding the term "cyber-ghetto" is irrelevant: the sources is reliable. That is to say, the sources can be as biased as it likes, it is not required to have a "neutral presentation".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Elshof not that great I read Elshof's paper with some disappointment in his use of language. In addition to Arzel's observations, Elshof's footnote 1 is about terminology, where he says "The terms ‘skeptic’, ‘climate denier’ and ‘denial’ will be used in their original contexts as quoted from sources." but Elshof goes ahead and uses the terms without such context when speaking his own thoughts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't personalize this discussion, I said the author of the source was being driven by emotion. If you are arguing that the terms are interchangeable, then why do you care if the term is skeptic or denier? You are arguing for a contentious label and at the same time argue that the use of biased sources to back up that label is perfectly fine. I find it hard to square that circle. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

All sources are biased in some manner. See User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Something_I_wish_everyone_understood_as_well_as_Leonard_McCoy (Star_Trek). According to confirmation bias, the only exceptions to this rule are those sources that agree with me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but I think we can agree that Watts has made some serious complaints about Mann, and Mann is pretty upset with Watts. Seems odd that Mann's opinion should be taken at face value just because he wrote a book with his opinion, we certainly wouldn't label Mann based on Watt's opinion. There is bias and then there is the extreme where one could reasonably assume that the writer is incapable of being objective because they are part of the story. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind that that's in a journal that "is not using a peer-review process", but I think the put-denialism-in side would do better to mention the only high-quality academic source: Dunlap + McCright. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see that that journal is not peer reviewed. Where are the quotes for "Dunlap + McCright"? Do you have a link?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

" the put-denialism-in side would do better to....." Peter, if you are taking any side other than the reliable sources side, you are engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking, and you've already been alerted to WP:ARBCC#principles, which explicitly bar battleground thinking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: If you're serious, take your accusation to an appropriate forum. Ubikwit: try here. Dunlap + McCright are not "notable" in the sense that people who aren't in Wikipedia aren't notable, but they are academics (sociologists, which I regard as a field that's relevant when studying the blogging phenomenon). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't express yourself very clearly... according to the notion of WP:NOTABILITY as you typed it, not a soul on earth was notable prior to creation of the very first biographical article, which should have never been created due to the person's lack of notability. See WP:ARTN NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: That source is reliable, and describes Watts as a "contrarian scientist" that is part of "the denial machine".

Also, it would seem that a "label" cannot be said to be contentious when reliable sources use it interchangeably with another "label". The term can also be applied in a descriptive manner (and has).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: Yes that source is reliable and that's why I recommended it to the put-denialism-in side. If Arzel is saying denialism is a contentious label and Mann is a poor source then Arzel is correct, and we already know there's no consensus for putting in either one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get a grip on the issues and sources, but as a matter of process I'd say there is also no consensus for keeping them out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: WP:NOCONSENSUS says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That alone should suffice, though the editors who've reverted have also shown other reasons, and willingness to discuss them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Peter Gulutzan:Well, it's good to have more than one source available, but what is the basis of your arbitrarily anointing the pronouncements of Arzel as "correct"? I have (obviously) disagreed with him, and he has not responded to questions regarding his assertions.

Incidentally, "contentious" is a somewhat relative term here. because reliable sources use it on its own, and reliable sources use it interchangeably with skepticism or define skepticism in terms of denialism as its primary feature.

In order to declare that Mann's peer-reviewed book is not a reliable source, a strong reason must be provided for doing so, and none has been provided, let alone discussed.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Re me: please use neutral terms. Re Arzel: he or she already pointed to a guideline. Re Mann: the objection is that the book is a poor source for statements about Watts and his blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK so three possible sources have been listed. Any other "best" candidates to be nominated? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the three sources listed, Mann seems to call Watts a "denier." The other 2 merely note that an effect of skepticism is pockets of denial. But that does not make the skeptic equal to the denier. Any more than a statement that an effect of rain is puddles makes rain equal to puddles. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a potential source-identification thread. Eventually I will get copies of the nominations and do my own analysis, and probably start dedicated threads to discussion of each. Rlendog, do you have any additional sources to suggest in answer to my opening post in this subthread ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not. I was just responding to the claims regarding the sources that were listed. Rlendog (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• 4. Here's one from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (bold added, removed internal cites)

"Public confusion is heightened by misleading sites and blogs labeled as science when they are decidedly not. For example, two of the most popular “science” blogs listed by Wikio, a site that monitors blog traffic, are Watts Up with That? and Climate Audit. Both are anti-climate science, conservative sites that deny that climate change results from human activity. In contrast, two of the other top-ranked science blogs listed by Wikio,30 Climate Progress and Real-Climate, strongly support both climate change science and a political agenda to curb carbon emissions." Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholser, Science and the Media, Published by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA 02138; 2010; ISBN#: 0-87724-087-6 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

List of sources saying to some speakers 'skeptic' = 'denialst' = 'skeptic'

Three best sources saying that for some "skeptic"/"denier" are synonyms, or an example of 'rebranding', or "interchangeably used" etc? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's one that defines skepticism in terms of denialism.

1. Peter J. Jacques , Riley E. Dunlap & Mark Freeman (2008) The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism, Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349-385

   Environmental scepticism encompasses several themes, but denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability, is its defining feature (Jacques 2006).

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

2 "Bill Nye: Stop calling Sen. Inhofe a climate change ‘skeptic’", Washington Post, Dec 12 2014 bold added

"In a statement released this week, several dozen people from the science world asked the media to stop calling Inhofe (R-Okla.) and others who do not believe in the scientific evidence supporting climate change “skeptics.” Instead, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry argued, it would be more accurate to call Inhofe and the others “deniers.”

"We are concerned that the words ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ have been conflated by the popular media,” reads a letter released by the group. The statement is signed by Bill Nye and Carl Sagan’s widow, Ann Duryan, along with several prominent scientists."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion is continuing. It seems extremely obvious that the term "denier" is not widely used by reliable sources. So what's the point of continuing this discussion? This horse is dead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you have nothing to fear if I keep looking into it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. But it does seem like a fool's errand. Even if we assume that it's an even split between "skeptic" and "denier", what are the statistical odds that out of 20 randomly selected sources, that not a single one uses the term "denier"? To make an analogy, what are the odds of flipping a coin 20 times and all 20 times resulting in the same outcome? Sure, it's mathematically possible, but it's extremely unlikely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Regarding your first source, I don't see Watts mentioned. Can you please indicate which part of the source describes Watts as a "denier"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The second source doesn't seem to mention Watts either. Am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your reply on the last two comments also. AQFK, thanks for increasing the signal-to-noise ratio with good questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann is the source for "denier"[15], and the page number is provided above along with a link above, or here.

• Note Neither Mann nor the paper cited above are "popular media" sources, both are scholarly, peer-reviewed sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Any sources that first discuss skeptical vs denial and then apply EITHER to Watts

Please list all sources that discuss the distinction between genuine scientific skepticism and denial, and then having done so apply either one to Watts and/or WUWT? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP and minority viewpoints

FYI, there have been various comments about "majority sources" or "widely used" etc cetera, and Peter has referenced a related ANI from a year ago. I'm trying to make sense of BLP policy in this regard, and if you're interested, see the discussion I started at the BLP noticeboard.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (strikeout by author)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Thank you for noticing the statement by former administrator TParis. I hope that if you want an authoritative opinion about TParis's statement you will ask on an administrator noticeboard or a policy noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE, I deleted that noticeboard query when I became aware of the thread at the FRINGE board. But I think I disagree with TParis on the basis of BLP policy for public figures as explained (for now at least) in my sandbox here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of NPOV

It is odd that the current dispute was not settled with the last compromise which includes all three terms: skepticism, contrarianism, denialism. The text is strongly backed by scholarly sources, which are especially important for a science-related topic such as this one. No source yet mentioned contradicts the ones we already have. One source had been proffered as rebuttal, but it turned out that it aligned with the other sources (explained here).

It is unequivocal that the view of WUWT being climate change denialism is prominent in high-quality sources. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires that significant views be included. The wholesale removal of a significant view is a violation of the NPOV policy. Ergo, the removal of climate change denialism is a violation of NPOV.

• The first removal had comment reverting contentious edits.[16] I guess this is referring to BLP, which says that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed. However the material in question very strongly sourced.

• The second removal had comment This is not a neutral tone per WP:LABEL.[17] (1) WP:LABEL mentions "denialist", which is quite different; we are describing a blog according to reliable sources, not labeling a person. (2) even if we add non-personal "denialism" to LABEL, we still have that denialism is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". (3) WP:MOS is a guideline, which cannot override the WP:NPOV policy.

The reasons given for these edits are insufficient and can nowise justify violating NPOV. The recent barrage of discussion advocating the removal of this view from the article remains unconvincing, which seems to be the consensus at FTN. Manul ~ talk 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a barebones stripped-down naked list of possible sources, without commentary or argumentation or expecting me to parse and comb through large article edits. That is the most effective thing you could do to win me over to your point of view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the opening sentence of this revision. (I don't understand the "parse" issue; the wiki software parses and formats it for you.) I try not to have a "point of view" apart upholding policies and guidelines. This isn't complicated, and I don't know what you think should be different. If you have a source and accompanying text that you believe should be included, just say what it is. Otherwise, it seems to me the current text and sourcing is fine. Manul ~ talk 04:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your diffs are huge and complex with moving stuff around at the same time your editing/deleting. It took me a full hour to itemize the refs between your last revision and one by Arzel, to find that you chopped 6 refs and added 6 others. You would be more effective if you articulated this sort of thing here on the talk page, including a list of added and deleted refs..... instead of expecting other editors to make heads or tails out of massive diffs or combing through two different versions like I resorted to. Another approach is to do your MOVING in one diff, and your other changes in a second one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The change to the lead is really going against discussion. There is no consensus for this change and looks like edit warring. In addition the new lead has some serious logical issues.

• The argument put forth is that "Denial" must be included for NPOV and that MOS doesn't matter, even though MOS says "Denial" is a NPOV word to avoid. I don't see how that can be justified. Also, it clearly fails MOS because it is not "widely" used.
• The other argument is that skeptic = denier. This is simply not true. The two words have different meanings in a literal sense. Those that are strong proponents of climate change have stated effort to say that they are the same in order to label a skeptic as a denier.
• This leads to the logical problem. If they are the same, then why is there such a concerted effort to use the word "denier"? I would like a response from Manul and Ubikwit as why "denier" must be in the lead for NPOV reasons if the word "skeptic" is = to "denier" It does not make sense other than to further promote the effort by climate change proponents to label skeptics as deniers even if that term is not widely used. I would call it OR if not for a couple of source which make the connection, but it is certainly not main stream as there are few that say they are the same.
• Also, this is not a science article, so the continued refrain of "peer reviewed" has no place. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the MOS-words-to-avoid argument, the operative text reads "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." Left open to hairsplitting is exactly what "widely used" means (e.g., is that phrase code for majority usage or something else?); and also the criteria used to determine in which cases is inline attribution more appropriate; and also unstated is an answer to more appropriate than what? At best the text implies that inline attribution is better than stating contentious labels in Wikipedia's voice. At any rate, the notion that our MOS simply precludes use of "denial" under any conceivable circumstances is nonsense, and since that's nonsense we have to engage in an analysis as to this context.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the skeptic <> denier argument, there are two truths here. Picking one and dissing the other is POV, whichever one you champion. NPOV means explaining the technical definitions and also fact that usage is conflated. See for partial list of sources Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)#List of sources saying to some speakers 'skeptic' = 'denialst' = 'skeptic'. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

While this is not a science article, there are academic peer-reviewed articles relevant to the topic, and these still tend to be the best sources. "Climate change sceptic" and "climate change denier" have acquired largely overlapping meanings, with the term "sceptic" being preferred by the deniers/sceptics, and the term "deniers" being preferred by proper sceptics and many supporters of the mainstream position. This is another case where terms that are different in a strict sense have acquired similar and overlapping meanings. So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place - do we follow popular or the exact usage? On the other hand, WP:NPOV is clear: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - and some of our best sources do indeed use the term "denier". So I agree that the term should be included. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We really are not stuck. "Skeptic" and "Denier" are not synonyms and don't mean the same thing. That climate change proponents are trying to make them mean the same thing is not relevant. Why are climate change proponents so adamant about making them the same? What is a "proper sceptic"? I find that terminology quite demeaning to say the least. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to like RSs that verify the terms are conflated, but casting ad hominem aspersions isn't effective rebuttal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What ad hom? Also, Bill Nye is not a scientist nor is he a linguist and hardly in any position to redefine the meaning of a word. Arzel (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If that ambiguous remark was not directed at other wikipedia eds, then I apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question: A proper sceptic is someone who is sceptic. A pseudo-sceptic is someone who easily believes even quite implausible claims that conform to his existing worldview, but shows high levels of disbelief even in the face of evidence about claims that conflict with his existing worldview. Many deniers are not at all sceptic, but like to claim the label - i.e. they are conflating the two terms. But since you seem to be interested in clear terminology: Is a climate change proponent someone who is in favour of releasing more CO2 to make for a warmer and greener world? Or do you use that term to refer to people in agreement with mainstream climate science? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A proponent is someone who accepts the IPCC as truth. Since anyone that disagrees with the IPCC is called a denier, the proponent must be the opposite. The definition of a denier is someone who refuses to believe a known truth. So is is possible for someone that is skeptical of the IPCC to be a "proper skeptic" or are the all labeled a pseudo-skeptic (denier)? Arzel (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Given something like 3000 pages in AR5 I dare say there's plenty to disagree with without denying that the place is warming or that we're responsible for most of it or that there are good Reasons for concern. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:@Arzel: We really need to stick to the sources here, and not skewed Wikipedia editor interpretations and contrivances.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer reviewed scientific papers are the best source for scientific results. The issue of whether Watts is a "sceptic" or "denier" is not a scientific result. So scientific papers are not the best source for this question. Indeed, given the scientific consensus different than Watts' view, such papers are likely to introduce a bias to the question which would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. The best sources for this question are media reports. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the logic of that assertion is clearly flawed, particularly the point about bias and NPOV.

Scientists (particularly climatologists) are probably the most qualified to assess the information being disseminated on Watt's blog, considering that they are experts on the subject matter of the blog; accordingly, they are obviously the best sources regarding the characterization of the blog and its content. The attempt to prioritize "media reports" over peer-reviewed secondary sources from the relevant technical field contravenes WP:RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Rlendog, I agree, an expert on climatology should not be considered an expert on Watts unless there's evidence that person has studied Watts, and has some qualification for judging Watts's mental state or Watts's motives for blogging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither set of sources are inherently better than the other for the exact type of fact we're debating (i.e., value judgments held by various sources).

We are dealing with value judgments. Rlendog correctly points out that whether Watts is a "denier" or "skeptic" is not a scientific fact, but rather is a value judgment. Unless some other policy/guideline stands in the way, here's how I think NPOV treats value judgments

Article text	Voice	Assessment
Watts is a skeptic (or denier)	Wikivoice	Value judgment masquerading as fact; Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200
Watts self-describes as skeptic	In line attributed	That's a fact, he does indeed self describe that way
An American Academy of Arts and Science report says WUWT denies 'that climate change results from human activity'. Curtis Brainard, writing in The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication edited by Anders Hansen, describes Watts' blog as being on the least trusted end of a spectrum of trust, and says it has been "repeatedly criticized by scientists for misleading readers"	In line attributed	These are facts, those sources really do say those things about Watts/WUWT

That said, Rlendog seems to suggest that the AAAS report, being a scientific paper, will have inherent bias compared to corporate-owned profit-driven pop media like Fox News. Since we're dealing here with value judgments, tossing the science lit and keeping the pop media is, uhhhhh..... a dubious approach, which is just as suspect as keeping the science lit and tossing pop media.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: How is including WP:FRINGE viewpoints in the lede a "compromise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Might as well ask me if I've stopped beating my grandmother, but in any case, see why this is not a FRINGE issue in the first place, posted at the fringe noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy, my question was directed at Manul, not you. In any case, WP:NPOV applies to all articles. WP:NPOV outlines three categories of viewpoints:

1. Majority[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30] (All randomly selected)
2. Significant minority
3. Insignificant minority/fringe.[31] (Not randomly selected)

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. So, the issue here is how we should deal with the majority viewpoint versus the insignificant minority/fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can make VAGUEWAVES at some holy policy, but what precise sub-sub-sub section lists the criteria that distinguish a significant from an insignificant minority view? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The attempted dismissal of the book by Mann is becoming disruptive, in my opinion.

The revert warring without any attempt to produce compromise language does not show a semblance of collaboration.

The ignoring of discussions (and sources) demonstrating that peer-reviewed publications include denialism within the scope of skepticism, the discussion regarding "source counting", and the ignoring of other, already presented sources is also not helpful. For example, though not exhaustive, PG, I believe, introduced the first and I introduced the second source listed below, while I see that Grant's book has also been mentioned above. Fourth source, the AAAS report, was introduced by N&EG.

1. Dunlap + McCright, The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
2. Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. This creates pockets of denial that can become significant sources of misinformation. One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.
3. Denying Science, John Grant (author)
4. "Watts Up with That? den[ies] that climate change results from human activity. " Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholser, Science and the Media, Published by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA 02138; 2010; ISBN#: 0-87724-087-6

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:07, 16:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping on FOC-ing, Ubikwit. I have not completed my off-wiki literature review, so I have not yet advocated for specific article text. I'll get there eventually. Meanwhile, A-Quest-for-Knowledge is attempting to frame the issue, but this is a NO VAGUEWAVE ZONE, so I have asked him to specifically identify the sub-sub-subsection text from policy on which he bases his "insignificant minority" argument. Keep on WP:FOC-ing! I will be done with googlescholar in a day or three, and will then turn to books. You have some interesting ones there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I missed the AAAS report when first posted. I just added that above, too.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I wish everyone would understand that this is about characterizing the blog, not the person. Any discussion involving "denier" is a red herring. I asked for sources that rebutted the last compromise, however none were given. There is not much sense in these abstract discussions without concrete sources. Manul ~ talk 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a reasonable approach, and is the focus of most RS. He describes himself as a "skeptic", however, so if we are going to include that, there appears to be no (policy-based) reason not to include Mann's characterization of him as a "denier", properly attributed, of course. We also need to wikilink to climate change denialism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhhh.... does anyone else have trouble reconciling Manul's comment

• "Any discussion involving "denier" is a red herring" (bold added)

with his article edit that added

• "[WUWT] is characterized as promoting climate change denialism"? (bold added)

For gods sake please don't tell me one is an adjective describing a man, and the other is part of a predicate adjective describing that man's blog.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLPGROUP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are few (perhaps zero) BLPs of pseudoscience proponents where it would be OK to write "pseudoscientist" in place of (or in addition to) "work is characterized as pseudoscience". The same principle applies with regard to climate change denialism. Manul ~ talk 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view, without inline attribution slamming the person creates a BLP violation and slamming the person's work without it also creates a BLP violation.

I've started a theoretical abstract thread at BLPN to ask others thoughts. If anyone goes there, please don't do a WP:MULTI by importing the Watts discussion to that how-does-it-work-in-the-abstract thread. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We include the mainstream reception of fringe content per WP:NPOV, specifically WP:PSCI. Some might call that slamming, others might call it criticism. It is a common misconception that "pseudoscience" is just meant to be derogatory. No, it designates a real category (see the demarcation problem), and its use conveys information to the reader. Similarly for pseudohistory and climate change denialism. The answer to your question, I think, is that we uphold both NPOV and BLP. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting fringe works, BLP or not. The implication that WUWT promotes skepticism in the non-fringe sense is misleading in the extreme. Let's not write a misleading article.

The attribution of "scientists and scholars" (similar to the Menzies article) is fine with me. I was only worried about WP:WEASEL, as I mentioned when I removed it. I agree with the point made elsewhere in this thread that the article shouldn't imply that climate skepticism and climate denialism are actually synonyms, though sources dealing with WUWT treat them as such (explained here). With these changes I believe this last revision is on quite solid ground, and as before I await independent sources that contradict it. Manul ~ talk 21:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I wish editors would stop edit-warring WP:BLP violations into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're edit warring them back out again, and that is not compelling discussion in an effective way. First someone has to stop the edit warring, apparently via formal complaint or page protection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on edit-warring provides an exemption on removing WP:BLP violations. There is no exemption on restoring WP:BLP violations. In fact, the burden of proof lies with the editor restoring the contentious content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

I was hoping you'd have an idea for how to get you and Manul politely talking to each other but you appear to be invoking 3RR exemptions instead of dialog ideas. Do either of you guys ever make use of WP:DR ?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

MORE, A 3RR naming you will go something like

NAEG- A Quest for Knowledge was edit warring, diff diff diff

AQFK- I claim exemption for deleting BLP violations

NAEG- The asserted BLP argument is based on AQFK's belief that (A) various sources are insignificant minority viewpoints and (B) that our rules require telling the difference between significant vs insigificant minority viewpoints. He's made a VAGUEWAVE at NPOV/BLP, but I asked him to specify the exact sub-sub-subsection of text that he applied when he cast the sources he doesn't like into the "insignificant" category, and he did not reply.

So, Quest, I'm asking for a second time. On what precise guideline or policy text did you rely when you chose your method of analysis? I mean, to decide a source is an insignificant minority view, you can rely on your own POV, your own OR, or some text from policy/guidelines. So how did you decide your methodology was a good one? Please quote the paragraph(s) or provide sufficiently precise pointer that direct quotation is unneeded. (second explicit request) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge: I see that your edit today effectively restored the article's lead's mention of WUWT to a version before Manul's first edit that Manul said was a "compromise". Thank you. This is real compromise -- not pushing a side, not forcing in something new, retaining the old version in the absence of consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP claim

In this edit relatively new but sophisticated editor ScrapIronIV has asserted that certain text is a BLP violation.

The text he took out stated that Watts' blog

"includes material that is supportive of Watts's disbelief that the human role in global warming is as large as it has been measured to be by the scientific community."

I can't fathom why this would be a BLP problem, because the article also has a verbatim quote Watts' gave to PBS NewsHour

"Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors."

ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs), you can make a WP:VAGUEWAVE at BLP/NPOV but you need to walk us through how you apply the text of those to arrive at your conclusion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See the NPOV Noticeboard here[32]. I am just maintaining consensus as specified. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The thread you cite is just one of a WP:MULTI thread debate that has not yet reached a conclusion, but I'm going to tend to real life for awhile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will hold off myself for a while while I review the discretionary sanctions on this topic and BLP - I am apparently wading into a minefield, and I'm not experienced enough (or savvy enough) to wend my way through it blindly. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by NewsAndEventsGuy

NewsAndEventsGuy made many changes overnight. Some are "bold", so I've reverted where I noticed problems. Here is discussion. This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming." With the edit summary "Neither source mentions CO2", NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sources. But the mention of CO2 is sourced in the following sentence, and the sources that NewsAndEventsGuy removed were in support of the words skeptical, anthropogenic, etc. Reverted. This edit affected the sentence fragment "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways" ..." With the edit summary "View of climate change: off topic" NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sentence. It is correct that greenness is not a view of climate change, but the greenness of Anthony Watts is relevant in an article about Anthony Watts. Reverted. This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming." With the edit summary " Source only said watts criticized some analysis,stopped short of text in article" NewsAndEventsGuy removed a citation. But the citation called Anthony Watts a skeptic, and a skeptic has a skeptical view, and it's relevant. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence which indirectly quoted Watts. With the edit summary "View of climate change: wordsmith" NewsAndEventsGuy changed to direct quotes -- but Watts didn't use the exact words inside the quotes. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence fragment "but in 2008 said that he had later changed his thinking after he "learned more about the science and found it to be lacking." With the edit summary "View of climate change: add a step of evolution" NewsAndEventsGuy removed that and added a new statement about what Watts signed in 1997. But the original was directly about Watts's thinking, the changed version was about a group's thinking. Reverted. This edit affected a sentence about what bothers Watts re "policy" and "the actual solution to making a change to our society". With the edit summary "View of climate change: not strictly on point)" NewsAndEventGuy removed that. But, again, this is a view of Anthony Watts that is relevant since his notability has to do with blogging about opposition to climate change mitigation policy. Reverted. This edit adds a new bit. With the edit summary "View of climate change: add the statement about the science" NewsAndEventsGuy quotes the Manhattan Declaration about CO2 and catastrophic climate change. But we already have references to a better source, Watts himself, so this is redundant. Reverted. This edit adds a new bit. With the edit summary "View of climate change: Provide the mainstream context to comply with WP:FRINGE" NewsAndEventsGuy adds sentences and quotes about the IPCC view etc. But NewsAndEventsGuy is surely aware that another editor insists WP:FRINGE goes the other way, in this article which is about Anthony Watts (blogger). Reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Peter Point 1 - deletion of two references Peter wrote

"This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming." With the edit summary "Neither source mentions CO2", NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sources. But the mention of CO2 is sourced in the following sentence, and the sources that NewsAndEventsGuy removed were in support of the words skeptical, anthropogenic, etc. Reverted."

Reply - Classic WP:SYNTH

Re Peter Point 2 - Watts solar panels

"This edit affected the sentence fragment "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways" ..." With the edit summary "View of climate change: off topic" NewsAndEventsGuy removed the sentence. It is correct that greenness is not a view of climate change, but the greenness of Anthony Watts is relevant in an article about Anthony Watts. Reverted."

Reply - Peter admits he is defending broken WP:MOS formatting instead of following WP:SOFIXIT; A collaborating article-improving editor would instead move the text they know is in the wrong place to an appropriate section, instead of justifying a sweeping revert that restores busted MOS. Reindeer, I understand, eat that stuff but we should not. Peter, where do you think it would fit better?

Re Peter Point 3 - ______

"This edit affected the sentence "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming." With the edit summary " Source only said watts criticized some analysis,stopped short of text in article" NewsAndEventsGuy removed a citation. But the citation called Anthony Watts a skeptic, and a skeptic has a skeptical view, and it's relevant. Reverted."

Reply - Yes the source you restored contains the string of letters s-k-e-p-t-i-c. However, our article text requiring WP:VERIFICATION asserts that he is skeptical "of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. The source doesn't even mention that. The source only talks about how some data is handled and Peter apparently supplied personal knowledge about the exact subject of which Watts is skeptical. Well, I agree Watts is skeptical of that. But my agreement is based on me applying my knowledge of other sources to this article, because this article does not mention skepticism about global warming overall, much less anthropogenic global warming. Peter's reason 3 is classic WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

Re Peter Point 4 - screwed up quotes

I grant you that one. I put the journalists phrase into Watts' voice. Simply oversight, easily solved. DONTREVERT-FIXIT

placeholder, I don't have time to review the rest now, but I'll add more later)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Re (1): I believe you're objecting solely to the fact that CO2 is mentioned in the first sentence in the paragraph, but the citation saying CO2 is after the second sentence. In that case, would it be okay to put the two sentences together -- "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming; he believes it plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change." -- and having the citations follow both clauses? Re (2): I believe you're objecting to the fact that the section topic is "View of climate change" and greenness is only peripheral to that. In that case, would it be okay to change the section heading to "View of climate change and environmental issues" so that greenness becomes relevant to the section as well as to the article? Re (3): I believe you're objecting to the fact the cited text says "climate change skeptic" and it is WP:SYNTH to suggest he's skeptical of "anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming". In that case, would it be okay to change the sentence to "Watts has expressed skeptical views related to climate change, particularly anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.", or are all mentions of skeptic / contrarian / denier / denialism / etc. illegitimate unless it's stated in the source in the same sentence that anthropogenic global warming is meant? Re (4): I believe you're objecting to the wording (since your edit summary said "wordsmith") of the sentence beginning "He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that ...". In that case, would it be okay to change ". He further avers" to ", and"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts' solar panels

Let's do the easy one first. If you have an RS that supports contention that he has solar panels because of his views on climate change then show the source. Otherwise, lacking any sources that specifically connect the panels to his views on climate change, then WP:MOS sectioning and layout rules require export of this text to another section. I propose a new one called [[Watts' use of renewable energy]]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing about solar panels in the article. We're talking about the sentence "In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways",[36] mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil."[37]" Right? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, right. I knew I'd seen it somewhere, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GOCE edit

Hi folks, in response to comments made at the NPOV board about this article, I announced and then instigated a review and copy edit of this article. 95% of my effort was to move and re-organize existing content. I did add some content to the Infobox and cited it, as well as, I removed one reference and associated piece of content regarding a review of Watts website.

The ref and content was the block quote attributed to Curtis Brainard here[33]. Layout-wise it stuck out like a sore thumb and came across as a bit WP:UNDUE. Plus it doesn't help any that Brainard does have have his own WP article, so he's non-notable as far as the Project is concerned. Plenty of sources seem to bash Watts website, so I didn't think it would be missed.

Otherwise, I primarily worked with what was there. Hopefully there isn't anything drastically appalling with my edits. I have no stake in this and did not know of Watts until the Noticeboard request. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And now the fun begins... Oy vey... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What bothers Watts most

Before recent edits by DHeyward, the text read

He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (bold added)

Although the bolded phrase was not formatted as a quote, it does use the language used by the interviewer, and this is critical because it defines the pronoun "they" in Watts' quote. DHeyward altered the meaning away from the RS by changing the bold text so that it instead reads climate change activists. Watts was not asked about "climate change activists", he was asked about "people who say there is a lot of global warming". Many many many people say that, and while they might want the things Watts describes they are totally inactive trying to make it happen.

To cure this problem, I then imported a direct quote for the journalist's question. What's more WP:VERIFIABLE and objective than that? The result read

" Asked "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" he replied "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (Bold added)

OOPS! While "climate change activists" was somehow dandy, apparently the verbatim question-and-answer is somehow toxic waste, which D removed entirely, with the edit summary

rm. don't agree with interprtation of soundbite quotepull that spans multiple questions/answers. It's clear he means activists drawn to a cause and not everyone that believes in global warming (underline added)

Say what? "spans multiple questions/answers"?? No it doesn't. There is this question, followed by this answer. Read the transcript in the ref. Plain as my nose.

Side-bar, Watts' answer to the verbatim question "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" became the focus of commentary. There are 1500 Google hits on the verbatim question combined with "Watts". For example, Skeptical Science's Dana 1981 wrote,

Watts on His Motives and Double Standards

At Skeptical Science it is against our site policy to speculate about a person's motives, but in this case, Watts volunteered the information.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

"It is interesting that Watts responds to a question about a science-based opinion with a criticism about policy. For example, Watts is not most bothered that people are ignoring or unaware of the biases that he incorrectly believes exist in the temperature record. No, Watts is most bothered that we might implement an economically-beneficial carbon tax.

CONCLUSION The text should be restored to show both the question and the answer because

• What bothers him most about those people is highly relevant to a biography about the man
• The question is followed by the answer without interruption, contrary to D's edit summary
• Using both the question and the answer is objective and NPOV, whereas DHeyward's edit puts words in Watts' mouth, based on DHeyward's interpretation of the word "they". He says his interpretation is "clear". Well, it certainly isn't clear to me, because I prefer to read the RS text without committing WP:Original research.

@DHeyward: please self-revert.

refs for what bothers Watts most

References

Illegitimate science blogs

In the Nolan RS, he says WUWT won the bloggies because the "LEGITIMATE science blogs don't want to compete". Is that an RS for the assertion that Nolan thinks WUWT is the other kind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. jps (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be an inference. Whether it's the other kind or "other legitimate" cannot be inferred. If it were an Oscar and a good film chose not to compete, it would be a "legitimate contender didn't want to compete" but it takes nothing away from the legitimacy of other contenders. Marlon Brando chose not to compete for the 'Godfather' Best Actor award but there was still a very good actor that won. --DHeyward (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann is a poor source

Michael E. Mann is a poor source for the claim that Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist, for these reasons: involvement, lack of knowledge of the subject, history of name-calling.

INVOLVEMENT: Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy. Watts has made accusations about Mann (example post: "Dr. Michael Mann's dishonest political messaging"), and Mann has made accusations about Watts (example post: "Is #AnthonyWatts really the best front man the #KochBrothers can buy?"). So the Mann source is written by a person "directly involved", who is not independent -- a primary source. WP:NOR says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT: We've seen no answer to the question: What qualifications does Michael Mann have to decide whether Watts is into "denialism" / is a "denier"? Mann is known to be qualified in climatology, which of course means he can say with authority that Watts is wrong, but saying it's because of denialism is a non-climatological diagnosis of a person. We can see that Mann has not studied Watts from this quote: "How can someone w/ a Meteorology degree have as poor an understanding of the atmosphere ... as #AnthonyWatts?" ... If Mann had done basic study of Watts (perhaps by reading this Wikipedia article), he'd have known Watts has no meteorology degree. So: he's no Watts expert.

HISTORY OF NAME-CALLING: This was stated at the beginning of the WP:BLPN discussion: Mr Mann is known for labelling others, for example calling Roy Spencer an "evolution denier" , calling Judith Curry a "disinformer", calling Steve McIntyre a source of "denialist drivel" -- which should suggest not that they all are guilty, but that he likes to accuse.

In that WP:BLPN discussion and on this talk page other editors have objected that "denier" is pejorative, that Mann "has a known personal beef with Watts", and so on. I've taken the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section). I don't think anyone has objected to there being criticism of Watts, but we already have lots of that, and name-calling is a different thing than disagreement. Let's see whether there really is a consensus that Wikipedia should relay Mann's calling Watts denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars was published not by Greenpeace or by The Heartland Institute, but by Columbia University Press, one of the leading publishers of academic books. It doesn't get much more reliable than that. Watts and his blog has run attacks on nearly all highly visible climate scientists. That does not magically insulate WUWT from qualified criticism. And while I'm not much into guilt trips (note: believing weird things is not a crime in most modern legal systems): Do you seriously deny that e.g. Spencer can be described fairly as an "evolution denier" [34]? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would take issue with any language that evokes the image of "holocaust denialism" which is what that word does. It should be considered a form of Godwin's law and the party that invokes "denier" or "denialism" should immediately cede the argument. It's really not disputable that the term was used to evoke this imagery and it's shameful that we are even debating it. It has no encyclopedic value considering there are less hostile terms that can be used. Continuing to use it even after the holocaust reference has been pointed out is beyond the pale. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Denial is the usual word for it, and it is the right word for it. Climate change denial is clearly in the same category as evolution denial, moon landing denial, Al-Qaida-9/11 denial, AIDS denial, and, yes, holocaust denial. All of those are easily refuted, far-fetched ideas, posing as science, and denying scientific facts that, in most cases, collide with the ideologies of the deniers. They are all attractive to people who do not know a lot about the subjects and like the "results" the deniers "get". Look it up: Denialism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not. Applying "denial" to political topics is very recent with "Holocaust denial" followed by "AIDs denial" and I'd submit the WP article was created to support its use in climate change in much the same way that mythical Global warming hiatus was created on Wikipedia as a generic, multiple occurence event that really only applies to a single, specific case. WP is not a reliable source. "Denier" use here is incorrectly and inappropriately conflated with a non-political use of "denial" as a psychological term used by Freud. This is by design. They are not even close with regard to climate science and its use has been appropriated much the same way that adding "gate" to a name means it must be a scandal and taint those that are touched by it. It's use is intended to remove all discourse on the topic by making its defense unpalatable. "Denier" in this case is a pejorative term misapplied by Watts' ideological opponents for ideological reasons, not scientific reasons. It's very difficult to find any aspect of climate change science that Watts disagrees (the same with Curry, Lindzen, et al). What they find is there are political disagreements over scale and priorities. In places where there is scientific uncertainty (such as the average temperature in the year 2100), it is incorrect to label lower projections as "denial". Mann chooses to label those that don't follow his political outlook as science deniers is an incorrect application and pejorative in its use. We certainly don't label Mann as a "fraud" because certain people call the CRU email controversy "climategate." I would hope we don't quote or use the term "fraud" in his bio just as we shouldn't use "denier" in Watts bio. --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

DHeywardIf there is anyone operating under ideological pretense that would obviously have to be Watts. Mann is a scientist whose research is published by a university press in a peer-reviewed book; therefore, his statements are regarded as highly reliable by Wikipedia. The attempted verbal gymnastics to dismiss his characterization of Watts as a climate change "denier" engaged in climate change denialism is not based on "politics", but science. That is to say, the only individual being scrutinized here to offer an expert opinion of that nature is Mann, as recognized by his peers and the university press publishing his work in book form.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not the editor that brought up ideologues or politics. Editors that support the "term" denier at least have the intellectual integrity to realize his book was political. "Denialism" is indisputably used today as a political term to stop debate. It is not a scientific term. A book publishing house is not "peer reviewed" either, they rely on the reputation of the author. This particular book was about politics as much as science and it even says as much in its description. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors edit according to community policy

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I agree it should be omitted for not meeting that standard regarding the use of "denier." --DHeyward (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition of denialist in English: A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. [35] The holocaust has nothing to do with this topic, so please stop invoking it. — TPX 11:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. All due respect, I know it's Remembrance Day and all, never forget, sure, but I can't believe the reason there are no climate change deniers on WP is because the whole concept of denialism was co-opted by the Nazis in the mid-20th century. Hugh (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Michael E. Mann and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars are absolutely a reliable sources for whether Anthony Watts (blogger) and blog is deniers or sceptics. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Of course Mann is a good source for this information. Peter Gulutzan's arguments are bizarre. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a useless criticism of Gulutzan's argument, straight from the "Is not!" "Is Too!" school of debate. Marteau (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument isn't persuasive. It's similar to disbarring Christopher Hitchens from our articles on religion, on the basis of not having particularly nice things to say, 'name calling', and being on the opposite side of the issue. — TPX 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is not a single argument for dismissing the peer-reviewed source that has basis in any policy. See WP:BIASED, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mann is only reliable for his opinion about Watts, and that is what this is. Peter is right on target with this. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Mann says that Skeptic equals Denier. Skeptic and Denier have different definitions. Mann is not an expert on the English language, and his defining of the word Skeptic to be the same as Denier has no weight. His opinion is simply is opinion and should be treated as such. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you're confused here Arzel. Mann is not being used as a source for English language usage - he's being used to say that Watts isn't actually a skeptic, but a pseudoskeptic or denier. I can see how this discussion might be confusing - you really should check out what the article - and ideally, the source - says before weighing in. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Not confused. Mann's opinion of what is the definition of a true skeptic is the issue. Mann is not the arbiter of who is what. He can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice. Frankly this whole issue of what is a "true skeptic" is Orwellian in its approach. The issue is a Catch 22 making it virtually impossible to rationalize. It is not even clear what constitutes a "true skeptic", virtually anyone that is skeptical about projected increase in temps, the future effect of CO2 on temps, or man's impact on climate change is labeled a denier. That is not science. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG, Mann GOOD source

(1) Agree that Mann's opinion is RS for Mann's opinion;

(2) Fact of Mann's opinion still RELEVANT with due WEIGHT

(3) General Rebuttal (updated)

3a, Peter reason 1 (involvement);

Peter, have you read Mann's book? Do you consider yourself "educated" within the meaning of NOR as you quoted? If so, then with reference to the book's contents, please explain the particular details the book fails to provide so that educated people can arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise, you're slam of Mann's book has very little to do with RS-quality assessment, and instead has everything to do with your dislike for Mann and/or derivatives of "denial" applied to Watts.

3b, Peter reason 2 (lack of knowledge of the subject);

"The subject" at hand is knowledge of the criteria which disginguish genuine scientific skepticism from denial. Mann is a full professor engaged in hardcore research. To these sorts, the philosophy of science needed to tell these things apart is as fundamental as needing bread in order to make toast. On the flip side, do we have any evidence whatsoever that Watts has training in genuine scientific skepticism?

3c, (history of name-calling); Uhhhhhhhhh......... pot's fan calling the kettle black? You've actually read Watts' blog, right? Moreover, show me where its written that we assess a given RS on the basis of their manners or rhetoric?

(4) We should write Watts' says "skeptic", Mann and AAAS say "deny", other researchers observe the terms are pretty useless due to lack of clear dilineation and what's important are the views underlying the labels; I'll work on that more eventually but see little point while there's this daily quibbling.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The Mann book is a high-quality source that is reliable for this information. Agree that the arguments against are somewhat bizarre.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Mann's accomplishments are those of a real scientist and his ability to thoughtfully distinguish between skepticism and denial may be safely presumed well within his expertise. If Mann's judgements on this dimension are not RS no one's are. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mann quote has been restored and there is strong support for keeping it. Okay, as long as there are no attempts to expand or emphasize it, perhaps it's not bad enough to be worth further argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(A) This thread's consensus -- Is Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars an RS? (Answer, yes)

(B) Unasked and unresolved by this thread -- What text actually goes in the article?

Peter, are you saying you will concede point A if and only if you get your way on Point B? In my view, we haven't really focused on "B" yet, so I'm not ready to characterize this thread's consensus in the manner you describe. Also, I'm not sure if I'll have wiki time during the next week, but its not an emergency, right?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: Re (A): the argument was about a far more specific point than that. Re (B): my objection was due to the addition in the article of quotes from Mann saying Anthony Watts (blogger) and his blog are denier / denialist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mann is a reliable source for climate science. He is not a reliable source for taking his opinion as fact with regard to blogs or other scientists. He may disagree with other climate scientists and those disagreements may be notable. But claiming that he can unequivocally label other people goes beyond his expertise. His critical analyses of scientists like Judith Curry or Spencer or Lindzen is notable but his name calling is not - nor does his name calling somehow extend to Watts when it doesn't extend to scientists. The argument that Watts labels Mann in his book is without merit since we wouldn't take Watts opinion of Mann for his bio. --DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about the man, but his Blog. And Mann's book is not (only) on the science, but also on the political wrangling. It's published by a highly reliable publisher - that's our normal bar. Heck, we accept Fox News.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• All of which seems to miss the essential. Mann's book fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. Let's accept the opening statement that "Watts and Mann are on opposing sides of the climate change controversy". As the topic is science, Watts undoubtedly presents the minority view, and indeed his views at best are fringe and have characteristics of pseudoscience. Mann is a well qualified and respected source for majority [mainstream] scientific views on the topic area, and from that perspective Watts is both denying clear scientific findings, and promoting fringe views. Both WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI aspects of WP:NPOV policy require us to show how the minority/fringe pseudoscientific views of Watts have been received by the scientific majority, and Mann is a reliable source for that majority view, as required by weight policy. . . . dave souza, talk 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• This discussion is a bit difficult to follow. The article seems (more or less) fine the way it is now in regarding using Mann for this content. What exactly is the proposed change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The proposed change was what I said in the start of the thread: with respect to the quote where Mann calls Watts a denier and calls Watts's blog denialist: "[take] the Mann source out (without taking out a use of the source in the Surface Stations section)" since Mann is a "poor source" (WP:BLP says poorly sourced material should be removed). However, most editors on this thread rejected that argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"ungrammatical change"

@Guettarda: In regards to this edit,[36] can you please be more specific? What exactly is exist is the grammatical error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That you deleted "writer". I have copy-edited the text to comply with the policy you cited.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't meant to do that. Thanks for correcting my mistake. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We need to say what the blog is about

Please try to describe the blog.

We can't just say it's a weather and climate blog. It has an editorial bent and the sources show that it does.

jps (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't seem to support content.

In regards to this edit,[37] it states that the blog " most notable for" and cites sources which don't actually state what it's most notable for. For example, it cites a source which states, "a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts". Being the most notable out of some group isn't necessarily that same thing as what's it's most notable for. Sorry, I realize that I can be anal about these sort of things, but it seems a bit sloppy to me. Perhaps the wording can be tweaked to more closely match the sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a little frustrating when people revert rather than revise (the entire issue seems to be related to whether he is "most notable" for this rather than simply having the attribute), but anyway the wording has been changed and hopefully we can move on. jps (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

I don't think Canvassing is an appropriate action. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You're banned from American Politics, broadly construed. jps (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Watts is not an American Politician. This is not a political article. Climate change is a global issue, not an American Issue. I see your response to canvassing is to try and bully me off the article. I would say that you are in violation of general sanctions for Climate Change articles. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Climate change is an issue in American politics. I can't see how Arzel's topic ban doesn't apply here. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is about Watts and I don't think his political views are known. Climate Change is a science topic. The response to climate change is a political topic. Watts and his blog are known for being skeptical of the science. --DHeyward (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Watts comments a lot on the politics of climate change lambasting various governments and taking particular glee in decrying the politics of Al Gore and Barack Obama. jps (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, you all can make your opinions known as to whether Arzel is violating his topic ban here. jps (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue here

Seems to be that a fair amount of the editors above are climate change deniers themselves and are, thus, trying to minimize the discussion of Watt's denialism within the article itself. Essentially, they are POV pushing their anti-science and fringe denialism on the article. Many of the above editors really should be topic-banned from this subject area entirely. Silverseren^C 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not editors are climate change deniers or not. Editors get banned / sanctioned on en.wikipedia for actions not beliefs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just explaining why all the weasel wording arguments are being made above to not explicitly describe climate change denialism, as sourced, as such. Silverseren^C 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because an editor advocates following WP:NPOV and WP:WTW, doesn't make them a climate change denier. In fact, I personally support doing more regarding climate change, however, I try to check my politics at the door. WP:BLP applies to all living people, even those with whom we disagree. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations removed.

I've removed the following the following WP:BLP violation here.[38] According to WP:WTW, the contentious terms such as "denier" should only be used if it's widely used by reliable sources. So, the key question is, what do the majority of reliable sources say?

In order to answer this question, I examined a random sampling of 10 reliable sources (including peer-reviewed journals), the vast majority used the term "skeptic":

• PBS - "skeptic"
• Scientific American - "skeptical"
• American Thinker - "skeptic"
• New York Times - "skeptics"
• Scientific American - "meteorologist" Note that that the full article is behind a paywall, so I did not have access to the full text. Perhaps this should be excluded from the sample set?
• PBS - "skeptic"
• LiveScience - Uses both "denial" and "skeptics". In specific reference to Watts' blog - "skepticism"
• Fox News - "skeptical"
• USA Today - "skeptic"
• The Telegraph - "science"
• BBC News - No specific label in reference to Watts Up with That, but uses "sceptical" in general

These were the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google. Based on these results, sources refer to Watts or his blog as:

1. Skeptic (or some variation thereof) - 9 sources
2. Meteorologist - 1 Source
3. Science - 1 Source
4. Denier - 0 Sources

I also performed a random sampling (as selected by Google) of sources not behind a paywall in Google Scholar, and here are the results:

• IOPScience - Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 "sceptical".
• The Changing Role of Blogs in Science Information Dissemination - No descriptor used.
• Global Warming And Climate Change "retired television meteorologist"
• Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatte r in an Age of Web n.0 "conservative".
• Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy "“science” (in quotes) and "anti-climate science, conservative"
• Discourses of Women Scientists in Online Media: Towards New Gender Regimes? "Skeptic"
• Exploring Argumentative Contexts "science blog"
• Will Replicated Global Warming Science Make Mann Go Ape? No descriptor used.
• The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication "science skeptic" (in quotes) and "Meteorologist"
• Science Denial and the Science Classroom "skeptic".

Google Scholar Totals:

1. Skeptic - 3 times.
2. Meteorologist - 2 times
3. Conservative - 2 times
4. Anti-climate science - 1 time
5. Skeptic (in quotes) - 1 time
6. Science - 1 time
7. Science (in quotes) - 1 time
8. Denier - 0 times

Based on two completely different random samplings of reliable sources, it seems pretty apparent that the overwhelming majority of sources don't use the term "denier". In fact, the total number is actually zero, let alone a wide majority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you believe that "denier" is such a contentious term, and how does this support the enormous amount of content you've removed from the article that isn't the word 'denier'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Denier is not a contentious term, it is an accurate one. He denies the scientific consensus on climate change. That is a fact. I consider your attempts to not explicitly display that fact to be POV-pushing of one of the strongest types. You should not be allowed to be anywhere near this article with your clear partisanship on the subject. Silverseren^C 03:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is most certainly a contentious term, one redolent of holocaust denial, as has been often discussed both here and in the world at large. Please focus on content and not personalities. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Holocaust is the Holocaust. If someone denies an event or a subject, they are a denier for that topic. That's what the word itself literally means. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it is also a contentious term when applied to an individual. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, but as a tertiary source, we can't use primary sources to determine whether someone is a Holocaust denier, we have to rely on secondary sources; that's what an encyclopedia is. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a reverse reductio ad Hitlerum in a new form, based on a faulty argument and faked taking of offence. "Denial" is a normal English word that fills a useful function [39]. It's been in use long before the Holocaust, and long before Holocaust denial [40]. It's use in the phrase "Holocaust denier" barely registers compared to overall use of the word[41]. "Compare "You can't call me a vegetarian - don't you know they called Hitler a vegetarian?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Wow, are you serious suggesting that editors who follow WP:NPOV to be "POV-pushing of one of the strongest types"? That's absolutely insane. Did you serious mean to say that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, QFK, that it is your opinion that certain edits are to enforce WP:NPOV. I believe it could be reasonably read that what you're saying is that anybody who perceives certain edits you advocate being non-neutral is insane. Please tone down your rhetoric. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements about a dispute. However, that's not what Silver seren said. Instead, they called it "POV-pushing of one of the strongest types". That accusation is not simply highly offensive and a violation of WP:AGF, it's factually wrong. Silver seren is normally pretty level headed and I'm surprised they would make such an accusation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's acceptable for editors to have good-faith disagreements. It's not acceptable to use specious accusations of BLP violations to remove well-sourced material from an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How exactly is it specious? Claiming that is it does not make it so. Can you please explain? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what "well-sourced material" was removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge removed unsourced material about Heartland (at least, I can't find backing in the cited source), and removed undue material about Mann from the lead, but not from the article -- it's still in the section about blogging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article states,

1. blogger Anthony Watts was paid $44,000 by the Heartland Institute for a project on temperature data (photo caption)
2. The documents state (pdf) that in January his company ItWorks/IntelliWeather was paid $44,000 to "create a new website devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public". A total of $88,000 (pdf) is expected to be handed to Watts for the project by the end of 2012. Link to confidential "Proposed Budget" for 2012
3. We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.(quoting from Heartland's "2012 Climate Strategy" document)
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We know what it says. Is any more proof needed that A Quest For Knowledge was correct to remove the unsourced statement that WUWT is a "commentary blog created in 2006 - and for which he has received funding from the Heartland Institute"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. Despite repeated requests that we abide by WP:WTW, nobody has even bothered to attempt to support the contention that "deniar" is widely used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: Edits adding a quote in the lead for "climate change denial blog" have been opposed by (at least): A Quest For Knowledge, Capitalismojo, and me. Your claim about consensus is incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And how many editors support inclusion of the material?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion in the lead?

The silence is deafening

I've reverted the clear and obvious WP:BLP violation.[42] Despite repeated requests, no one has even bothered attempting to prove that "denier" is widely used by reliable sources. The reality is that this is rarely used by reliable sources. Seriously, enough is enough. If there is a legitimate argument for a minority/fringe viewpoint in the lede, why won't anyone provide one? The silence remains deafening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

An attributed opinion by an expert commentator in a book published by a major university press may be all kinds of thing, but neither is it a BLP violation not a fringe viewpoint. Can you decide on "minority" (which should be in the article) and fringe (which should be so rare that we cannot name well-known proponents)? I get the hopefully mistaken impression that you try to conflate the two concepts so that you can use policies about fringe viewpoints to suppress what you think is a minority viewpoint (it isn't, but that's a different discussion). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree it's a WP:BLP violation because I'm in the minority saying Mann is a poor source for labelling Watts and his blog. But in any case, since it's true that reliable sources prefer less pejorative terms, putting Mann's name-calling in the lead is (using a WP:BLP word) "disproportionate" as well as a WP:UNDUE violation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems to gloss over the fact that "climate change skepticism" means "climate change denialism" in common parlance; in other words, that comment glosses over the apparent attempt to conflate the usage of the term skepticism as meaning denialism with respect to climate change discourse with the usage of the term in the sense of scientific skepticism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

But this has been stated in other ways already here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

More sources for "denier", etc.

1. The Inquisition of Climate Science, p. 136 (peer-reviewed, academic press)
2. The climate change deniers: influence out of all proportion to science
3. Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, but anyone can search for sources which specifically use a particular term. Note that you didn't create a list of all the sources which don't use the term. The question we need to answer is, What do the majority of reliable sources say about a topic?. If 9 sources say A, and 1 source says B, we don't cite the oddball source. Instead, we follow the mainstream majority. This is how WP:NPOV works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not how "NPOV works".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not figuring, but I suspect "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" plays into this. We have a number of very good sources for "denier", and I'm not aware of any good sources that disagree. We have many sources using other descriptors, but not, generally, conflicting ones. If Journals A, B, and C say "the thingumi is red" and Journal D says "the thingumi is big", that's not reason to claim "the mainstream is against "big". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That first book ref above is a Columbia University Press imprint, it is not "peer reviewed" in any sense of the word. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian ref is an opinion column. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why Capitalismojo says that the first ref above, (James Powell, The Inquisition of Climate Science, Columbia U. Press, 2011) is not peer reviewed. What's the reasoning here? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Papers in academic journals are peer reviewed. Books are not peer reviewed. There is no indication in the book that it is somehow uniquely peer reviewed. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Books published by university presses certainly are peer reviewed, using the same double-blind system employed by journals. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, that's not universally right. Not all papers in all academic journals are peer-reviewed (in particular, that tradition came late to some of the social sciences), and some books are indeed peer reviewed. But that's quibbling around the edges - WP:RS says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (emphasis mine), so they are in the same general category of highly reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The book is wrongly described as being "peer reviewed", it is not. There is no evidence to suggest it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But that's quibbling around the edges...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aside from the fact that you've ignored Stephan's point about the wording of WP:RS, which says that books from "well-regarded academic presses" (which Columbia surely is), you have presented no evidence or argument that this book is not peer-reviewed. Books published with university presses typically are peer-reviewed; here's a page about the review process at Duke U. Press. Here's a general article about the review process at university presses which takes it as a given that manuscripts submitted to university presses will be sent to anonymous reviewers: William Germano, "Surviving the Review Process," Journal of Scholarly Publishing 33 (2001) 53–69. This article was reprinted as a chapter of Getting it Published: a Guide for Scholars and Anyone Serious about Books (U. Chicago, 2008)--Germano is an authority on academic publishing, so if he treats peer review as the norm for academic books, I can't see why we'd do anything different. So I'd say there's no reason to assume that this book isn't peer-reviewed unless we have evidence that standard practice wasn't followed in this case.

As Stephen has pointed out, however, whether this book is peer-reviewed or not is quibbling. It's a high-quality source nonetheless. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd also point out that the ref doesn't say that the subject is a denier. It says he is the former meteorologist behind the argument that many deniers use about surface station reliability. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an errant reading of the text:

In a related argument, deniers say that the U.S. historical temperature record is unreliable because... The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts..."

He is being described as the leading denier motivating that claim. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the quote explicitly says. Sorry. "The person most behind this claim is Anthony Watts" That doesn't say he is a denier, that says he is the foundation upon which deniers base their arguments. Which, given his creation of the surface stations project, is entirely accurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire context of the section on WUWT in that chapter contradicts your assertion, which is basically a misrepresentation of the text.

In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStationsorg... By early June 2009, thanks to a grass roots network of volunteers, SurfaceStations.org had examined about 70%...enough to find out if there is anything to Watts's claim." --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not lose track of the central issue. "Deniar" is specifically cited as a word to watch, and states that it should only be used if widely used by reliable sources. Has anyone presented any evidence which demonstrates that this term is widely used by reliable sources? If so, let's hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not "the central issue", so stop trying to wikilawyer and game the system when consensus is clearly against you. WP:WTW is obviously flawed, and the guideline does not override policy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it's the central issue; in fact, it's the only issue. But I'm glad to see that you've finally admitted - if only partially -- that the edit you favor goes against Wikipedia guidelines. That's progress I suppose. But contrary to what you imply, there is no conflict between WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. They say essentially the same thing: what do the majority of reliable sources say about this topic? You have repeatedly argued against the majority viewpoint in favor of the minority/WP:FRINGE. That's where we stand. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No amount of spin is going to change the consensus on this, because more than one editor has already broken down the semantics of "skeptic" in this context, and the dictionary definition of denialist has also been provided, derailing the misguided attempt to equate the use of denial in "climate change denial" with "Holocaust denial", etc. The recourse to "FRINGE" to support the forced interpretations of the definitions and use of these terms in RS is indicative of the fact that you don't understand that policy, either.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Why would spin even be required when the sources speak for themselves? Again, the vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use the term 'denier'. Your argument is based on cherry-picking a handful of sources while ignoring the vast majority.

Now, let's try to stick the issue: Do you acknowledge that that vast, overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't use this term? Yes or no? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Arguing over using "terms" "skeptic" or "denier" is not going to get us anywhere. We need to be describing what Watts thinks, believes, and does rather than trying to find the right way to label him or his blog. Right now, the lede of the article does not describe what his perspective is at all; a reader coming to this article would not be informed as to what his notoriety is actually for. This needs to change. jps (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to climate change denial.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Who keeps on removing the fact that he's a climate denier? Stupid removing it: he is one of the most prominent climate deniers out there. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any why have I not even heard of this person? He is a prominent climate denier - but only within the realm of the Great Battle against Pseudoscience. -A1candidate 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the lengthy discussions above. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Workshop a sentence

We currently have a pretty weird sentence this article:

“ WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog. Morello, Lauren (December 14, 2012). "Early Drafts of Next Climate Report Leaked Online". Scientific American. ... a popular skeptic blog, "Watts Up With That?" Samenow, Jason (May 12, 2011). "Say goodbye to the sunshine". Washington Post. The conservative/skeptic blog WattsUpWiththat ... Schneider, Birgit; Nocke, Thomas (2014). Image Politics of Climate Change: Visualizations, Imaginations, Documentations. ... on Anthony Watts' skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" ... Moran, Michael (February 3, 2010). "Eureka's Top 30 Science Blogs". Times Online. Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts: One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs ... Coady, David; Corry, Richard (2013). The Climate Change Debate: An Epistemic and Ethical Enquiry. ... the well-known skeptic website wattsupwiththat.com Hayward, Steven (August 21, 2013). "Climategate II: Sequel as ugly as the original". Orange County Register. ... WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website Lott, Maxim (March 5, 2015). "Google works to rank sites based on 'truthfulness'". Fox News. ... Anthony Watts, who runs Watts Up With That, a popular blog that is skeptical of global warming claims ... ”

First of all, the sentence is false. The characterization is a lot more complicated than simply being a "skeptic" blog. A "skeptic" blog which would, if taken at face value, include a lot more than just commentary on climate change denial. Secondly, the laundry list of sources is not very inspiring. In fact, it looks a little bit like a quotemine without much context provided for many of the quotes. Some of the sources aren't particularly reliable either (I'm looking at you FoxNews). I think we can do better.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is true -- every one of the cited sources calls WUWT a skeptic blog. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The third source is misquoted, as it says "Watts' climate skeptical blog". I agree that it is a quote mine without adequate context; obviously, "climate" should be included, as that is what all of the articles are about.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The first time that I gathered somebody was objecting that a source said "skeptical" rather than "skeptic", I changed the text to ["skeptic" or "skeptical". That turned out to be a misunderstanding, but here's the objection again, so I've redone that change. The fact that most reliable sources call the blog "skeptic" or "skeptical" is relevant and important, as we have discussed before on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you think these sources are trying to say that Watts is writing a blog that is promoting scientific skepticism? Because that's how the sentence reads to me. jps (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

So is there a way for us to rewrite the sentence to avoid this unintended meaning? jps (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It requires contortions to read it that way. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily, and "climate skepticism" is the overall import given the context, so other alternatives include "climate skeptic blog", "climate change skeptic blog", or "blog skeptical of climate change", etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence as it currently is written contains little content other than X says Y is Z (or W). Can we try to explain what the sources are actually describing here? jps (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we need editors to stop advocating giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE/insignificant minority POVs into the article. We need to resolve that, otherwise it's difficult to move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than complaining over semantic arguments, please just try to write some prose which actually communicate something to the reader. jps (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is simply a matter of semantics. But if you think it is, how about you backing off your insistence that Watts be described as a "denier" in the lede? I'm perfectly fine with it being in the body, but by putting it in the lede, we are portraying a minority/fringe POV as mainstream. If you're willing to back off from this, then we can move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't understood my position at all, and I'm not interested in changing subjects. We disagree on some fundamental editorial stances and your argumentative insistence on turning WP:FRINGE on its head is simply baiting. It's not very becoming. If you don't want to talk about this sentence, feel free to stop contributing to this section of the talkpage. jps (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about something like, "WUWT is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Can a website be anthropomorphically skeptical? I think we need something more like "WUWT hosts content that rejects the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming". I'd like to move away from the word "skeptic" if we can. jps (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems fine. Some wordsmithing might be in order, perhaps replacing "rejects" with "opposing" but otherwise seems fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too fond of "reject" either. "Opposing" is also problematic. Basically, it's a pick-and-choose operation over there and that's what a lot of the sources for the sentence are getting at. Certain conclusions they seem to agree to and then in other posts they reject those conclusions. The general editorial bent is to criticize, but not in a necessarily consistent way. How do you put that in a single word? jps (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

How about, "WUWT hosts content which is critical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming"? Would that work? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's getting there (certainly better than what we currently have) but it would be nice if it was a bit more descriptive than just "critical". HOW is it critical? The sources we use describe that a) SciAm says it tends to make declarations with which climate scientists disagree, b) WaPo simply labels it "conservative", c) Schneider says it uses outdated graphs. The final four sources are not particularly good ones (I think they probably should be removed from the article, but let's wait on that discussion until after we get the sentence right). jps (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That would not work. We currently have a true statement that is definitely supported by every one of the cited sources. We should not replace it with it with a speculation that might arguably be supported by some of the cited sources. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. What exactly is speculative about AQFK's proposal? jps (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Another possible alternative: "...as a "skeptic blog" that hosts content challenging/questioning the scientific consensus on climate change".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already stated in the preceding sentence that the blog "hosts material presented by Watts in support of his belief that the human role in global warming is insignificant", with a citation (i.e. there apparently is a source for that). It would be speculative to add material in this sentence based on what its cited sources probably mean, rather than just what the sources say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming a moving target, but the main point that the sentence is rather devoid of meaning stands. I'll remove it. jps (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I undid that. As explained, the sentence 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog.' is a true and relevant statement with multiple reliable sources. I added another. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"True and relevant" is not the standard of inclusion at Wikipedia. The sources you are trying to add are not reliable enough. They are, in many cases, pretty poor. I reverted as a naked example of POV-pushing. jps (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@jps: Sorry, I've been offline the last couple days and lost track of the discussion. However, I agree with your suggestion that that article explain "HOW is it critical?" Can you think of a good example? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the first three sources do a pretty good job of illustrating the issues: that climate scientists disagree with the claims made in the blog, that the blog takes a conservative political perspective, and that the blog has presented outdated graphs as though they were correct. These are particular criticisms that these sources make of the blog which can elucidate exactly how WUWT is critical of scientific consensus. Can we write a sentence that will incorporate these points? I'd be happy if we could. jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

jps: I'm not as willing as you to dismiss truth or relevance, but let's just look at the cited sources for the sentence 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog': three academic-press publishers (transcript Verlag, Palgrave Macmillan, Elsevier), one magazine (Scientific American), and four mainstream media (Washington Post, Times Online, Orange County Register, Fox News). Every one fits the reliable-source criteria for cases like this, and every one is verifiable online, and every one does what the sentence says: characterizes WUWT as "skeptic". I'll have to listen to real explanations why people think they cannot be accepted, but there's no support for your claim they're not "reliable enough", and no support for your claims about my purpose for saying the sentence belongs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Peter, why does it feel to me like you haven't read this thread? The entire section is devoted to explaining why the sentence, in particular, is problematic. As for the sources, some are good and some are pretty weak. As you pointed out, the previous sentence basically says what we want to say, so I'm unclear why you think this sentence is so important except that maybe you think it's important to identify the blog as "skeptic" (even though it's not "skeptical" in the sense of scientific skepticism).jps (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

jps, This thread is devoted to your constant attempts to suppress the fact that the sentence expresses: 'WUWT is characterized by several sources as a "skeptic" blog'. I will disregard your claim that I pointed out that the previous sentence says what we want to say, since that's false. What remains is your claim that some of the sources for the sentence should be regarded as poor. Do you have any evidence? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm finding your intransigence very tiresome, but okay, do you think the Weekly Standard is a reliable source? jps (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question, WP:RSN has generally found the Weekly Standard to be RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess you're objecting to the Orange County Register republishing from a lower-prestige source. Okay, I removed the Orange County Register reference when replacing the sentence in the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is quite simple: the Orwellian use of words by the right in US politics. It is not a skeptical blog (those are written by skeptics, people like Michael Shermer). Climate skeptic is the technically correct portmanteau term referenced in these sources, but climate skeptic is semantically equivalent to climate change denier. I don't have a problem with using the term climate skeptic as long as it's linked ot the article on climate change denial, or balanced by a reality-based commentary demonstrating that the blog is indeed denialist not skeptical in the scientific sense. What Wikipedia doesn't do, per WP:FRINGE, is pretend that wilful contrarianism is the same thing as legitimate scientific skepticism. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that argument, the RS support the term "skeptical". (Scientific American, Washington Post, etc...) The theory that it is not a "skeptical" blog is , I gather, an ideological position not supported in the refs above, nor is the use of denialist supported by WP:WTW. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. The topic of this thread is a particular sentence that cites several reliable sources saying "skeptic", and jps's claim that some of those sources are not "reliable enough". I addressed the specific matter that jps wanted to argue about. If there are other complaints that are on topic, I hope they too can be addressed here on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Mann's opinion of the blog (in lede)

Mann's opinion of the blog is perhaps notable, but it is clear from the (near) edit warring that there is no consensus whatsoever that it be in the lede. If it is to be included, I suggest that it should be in the section on Watt's blog. The lede summarizes the important parts of a biography subject's life that occur in the body of the article. The opinion of one of Watt's intellectual opponents about his blog is not a seminal part of Watt's life, nor does it summarize the material below. It just doesn't. It is interesting enough to include in the paragraph on the blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It does, in fact, summarize the entire debate also encompassing "climate change skeptic", as per the link to the climate change denial article in the sentence.

Mann is not an "intellectual opponent" of Watts, because Watts is not in the same league as Mann. Mann is a highly regarded academic climate scientist published by a high-regarded academic press, whereas Watts hosts FRINGE theory on a blog with significant backing from corporate interests opposed to government regulation of carbon emissions.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, no POV in that. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a POV. It's called the neutral POV. Climate denialism is driven by vested interest, the scientific consensus is driven by the data. Global warming is the inevitable conclusion from the observed facts, which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts it as fact and almost the entire relevant professional community accepts that it's primarily driven by human activity. It's as scientifically controversial as gravity, thermodynamics or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Mann's statement is appropriate and properly attributed to a leading credentialled expert in the field. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, get off the WP:SOAPBOX. Secondly, it's not Wikipedia's job to trash people who's views go against either the mainstream consensus, or your personal views, hence the WP:NPOV policy. So please stop trying to label the subject of the article with a pejorative political term ("climate change denier") in Wikipedia's voice, and forcing WP:UNDUE credence to the subject's critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to document the world as it is, and not as people blinded by dogma would wish it to be. That's why we reflect evolution, anthropogenic climate change and the laws of thermodynamics as fact. Pointing out that denialism is not skepticism, is not trashing anybody. Watts is a climate denialist, that's a simple statement of fact. He's not a skeptic: he credulously accepts discredited and conflicted material and refuses to change his view in response to evidence that he is wrong. He's not merely a contrarian, because he actively sets out to produce data to support the commercially-driven agenda of his friends at the Heartland Institute. He is an active denialist. So that's what we say. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "fact", it is your opinion. "Climate denialist" is a political label. He disagrees with you. He is effective at getting his message across to a suspicious public. Tough. Wikipedia is not a place to right WP:GREATWRONGS or for exposing "The Truth" and Watts is as entitled as any man to have his work and views explained fairly and impartially without WP:UNDUE weight being given to his critics. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I really do not understand the assertion that "Climate denial" is a political label. If instead he was described as denying man-made climate change, would that be better? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a political label because it's clearly a term invented by advocates of political action on climate change to smear political opponents. The term "denier" implies willful malevolence on his part, which is not Wikipedia's place to comment on given the politics involved. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the word deny has any such connotations of willful malevolence. I honestly am puzzled that you appear to place such strong emotional weight on this term. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The beauty of working on an encyclopedia is we don't have to believe, we can check! From Denialism: In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Sounds pretty negative to me - what do you think does "PeterTheNorth chooses to deny reality" sound WP:NPOV to you? 104.156.240.168 (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"skeptical view"

Capitalismojo prefers:

• Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic {{CO2}}-driven global warming

I prefer:

• Watts has expressed a [[climate change denial|skeptical view]] of anthropogenic {{CO2}}-driven global warming

I think that there is little dissent from the view that climate change "skepticism" is actually denialism, not scientific skepticism, since the scientific consensus view from which he dissents embodies, by its nature, an appropriately skeptical analysis of the facts. I know that a lot of people don't understand the difference between dogma and science, and can't accept that a scientific consensus emerges only when the theory properly explains all observed facts. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo is right, scientific consensus is general agreement within the scientific community. Denialism is SBM advocates denying the validity of CAM therapies, contrary to scientific consensus. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and learn to compromise. -A1candidate 21:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh do grow up. Minchin's Law: alternative medicine, by definition, either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.

I think Wallace Sampson was right to call SCAM "sectarian medicine". Real medicine, and certainly science-based medicine, does not give a toss what the origin of a treatment might be. Most new drugs are synthetic analogues of natural compounds. The quackosphere would have you believe the natural version is "better" because natural (you know, like botulinus, anthrax, cholera and the rest, all natural so obviously beneficial). Meanwhile back in the real world assays of "natural" products find they are an unpredictable dose of an unquantified substance with unidentified adulterants. If they contain the pruported active ingredient at all, it's unclear how much of it, and with what other active ingredients.

Lots of people took aristolchia as a "natural" weight loss product sold by the usual band of SCAM charlatans. Turns out it is both toxic and carcinogenic. But at least their kidney disease and cancer was natural. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with JzG. The term "skeptical" in this context (climate change) should only be used with respect to the commonly accepted reference to denialism (the definition of which includes the statement added by A1candidate) so as to avoid conflation with "scientific skepticism, as numerous editors have indicated.

Accordingly, it is the group of Watts advocates that need to WP:DROPTHESTICK, not the other way around.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact the context is Anthony Watts (blogger), or at least it's supposed to be (the off-topic deviations sometimes get extreme on this page). Wikipedia can't just assume that the detractors of Anthony Watts (blogger) are correct, so Capitalismojo is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for labeling people "deniers" WP:WTW. It is a controversial term. This is a BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)