Jump to content

Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plimer's name?

What is Plimer's/Pilmer's name? We seem to have two spellings here. Copey 2 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is PLIMER Maustrauser 00:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to University of Adelaide, his new employer. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/phonebook/var?query=plimer

BLP

We must becareful, this is a WP:BLP and cannot source contentious material from blogs. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


The following is copied from RATEL's talk page, as it is relevant to this issue. Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


G'day Ratel. Ref Ian Plimer's article: read WP:V and you will understand why I removed these blog cites. They are not WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable sources and should not be on BLP. I could reference any number of blogs stating that Plimer is correct, but unless sourced correctly (i.e. from a reliable third party source) this would be equally be against Wikipedia policies.

Also, the title of his book is Heaven + Earth, as noted by the sources within the article and the publisher. Cheers, 165.228.93.102 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs by experts on subjects within their purview are acceptable. I suggest you read the rules a bit more closely. ► RATEL ◄ 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have read the rules. Please explain to me how what you say complies with this policy? Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, if you want to raise BLP issues in relation to criticism of his AGW views, we can move the book to a new page and put the critiques and praise there. Ok? ► RATEL ◄ 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK by me. Just as long as the blog cites are removed from his page, as per BLP policies, I'll be happy. Of course, if blog cites are OK for a new page on his book, that goes for both sides of this debate. Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as they are experts, no problem (although ironically Plimer is not a climate expert, but a geologist). Ha. ► RATEL ◄ 13:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll disagree on what constitutes an expert ;-). I'll leave the blog cite removal job on Plimer's page to you. Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Melbourne University climate change expert Professor David Karoly" Who decides who is and isn't the experts in the climate change debate? There is no firm consensus and Karoly could be p*ssing in the wind as far as he theories go, just as Plimer could be. I wouldn't call someone an expert if they are wrong on a grand scale. Suggest calling him a 'theorist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.31.127.161 (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Karoly is a real, pukka climate change expert, as per WP:SPADE. ► RATEL ◄ 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
David Karoly is very definitely an expert and has been for a long time; e.g., Hoskins and Karoly (1981) which introduced the WKB method is one of the classic papers in atmospheric science. Nevertheless, we shouldn't just call someone an "expert" but should instead point to their objective qualifications. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I point again to SPADE. It's ungainly to preface a mention of Karoly in this article with an in depth biog. I suggest you add those details on Karoly to his page. BTW, Karoly is called an "expert" in the cited source. ► RATEL ◄ 06:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does any attempt to remove blatant bias or add information result in an immediate revert? Barry Brook is a biologist who has zero climate science publications. Michael Ashley is an astrophysicist with zero climate science publications. Why are they considered climate science experts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodo7 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Michael Ashley is not considered a climate change expert, but the article doesn't claim otherwise. He is, however, someone who reviewed Plimer's book, and probably is worth using on those grounds. (I'd surmise that he would also be particularly good on atmospheric conditions, given his prior work, but that's just a guess). Barry Brook is a climate change expert. That's why he holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, and has numerous publications on the topic. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Plimer is a geologist dabbling in climate science, seems to me, and he's being commented upon by other non-climatologist scientists. Fair enough, I think. Oh, and Brook is an expert in the biological impacts of climate change. [1] ► RATEL ◄ 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Being an expert is irrelevant because WP:BLP leaves no wiggle room: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." (emphasis mine) Oren0 (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That's why most of the commentary on his controversial opinions was moved to the page on his book a while ago. ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does mentioning the fact that Brook is a biologist or Ashley an astrophysicist result in a revert? Why is it forbidden to mention that Ashley himself makes numerous factual scientific errors in his criticism of Plimer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.98 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry Brook is a climate change expert. That's why he holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, and has numerous publications on the topic. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read Brook's biography. He has zero technical publications on climate science. He specialises in the population dynamics of ecosystems. The title of Brook's position is absolutely irrelevant - it is merely an attempt to legitimise his research. BTW Idi Amin titled himself King of Scotland - it had no relationship to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.98 (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He was formerly listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia whose Federal President, Alan Stockdale, was former chairman of the institute.[2]

- these are weasel words implying chicanery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodo7 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Book title

Before I start a new page for his book, what is the correct title for it: Heaven and Earth, or Heaven+Earth? The publisher's website and Amazon seem to support the former. ► RATEL ◄ 14:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The publisher's site has a picture showing the cover as "heaven+earth", however they list the book as "HEAVEN AND EARTH". "Global Warming: The Missing Science" appears to be added as a subtitle, but it is not listed by the publisher as part of the title, and it is not on the cover of the book. Most online sources entitle the book "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science". The only definitive answer to this is to seek the correct title directly from the publisher or the ISBN organisation. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I would think that the book should be titled "Heaven and Earth". Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

POV on book

This section seems pretty heavily slanted against the author. Additionally, it's way too long, as it's supposed to be a brief summary of the book's page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotebox misleading

The quotebox lead may give the impression that Plimer has spent much of his career in climate science-related work, and/or is best known for that work. In fact, Prof. Plimer has spent most of his career in Mining Geology, and that is his current position. Propose deleting this quotebox as borderline BLP violation. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't know a BLP violation if it smacked you in the head. In point of fact, Plimer is most known in the world for his far-out views on global warming and CO2, as the quotebox makes nicely illustrates. ► RATEL ◄ 02:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
With a suitably moderate amount of respect, that's rubbish. While he may have escaped the attention of climate theorists prior to the publication of Heaven + Earth, Ian Plimer is best known for his work on geology and debating creation science. Work on the AGW theory is a relatively recent addition to his CV. Cheers,165.228.93.102 (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
But I can guarantee you that his book on global warming skepticism is what he'll be remembered for. ► RATEL ◄ 08:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So far, it appears we have two editors favoring deletion of the quotebox, one in favor. Other comments? --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This will need a RFC before deletion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If he is well known for other things as well, this should mean that extra material and quotes be provided for those other things. He is now very well known for Climate denial, so this quote is valid in itself. So the solution is addition of the missing material rather than deletion of the existing, valid, material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.35 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV problems, Monbiot debate

All the sources for our account of this debate are from Monbiot himself, hardly an unbiased source -- except for one, from a blog, which isn't a RS. Tagged accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We'd obviously include all sides of the debate if we could, so this is not deliberate POV editing and your tag is pointless. Nobody can remedy it until another newspaper prints the story. ► RATEL ◄ 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of this debate is that Plimer can provide no sources for his assertions. He has been challenged by Monbiot to do so and refuses to. Since Monbiot has effectively done everything he can to balance the debate by seeking opposing sources, his approach sits within the accepted norms of balanced debate, especially when it comes to sources. A short read of the debate in question would make this clear.

The only possible sources would be secondary sources anyway, the only one I am aware of is the Spectator article which kicked off the debate in the first place, and which is called into question by it. This source.like every other secondary source most likely, was commenting on the debate but did not give sources on the underlying science. This makes this tag meaningless, and it should be removed.

There is no shortage of rebuttals of Plimer outside of Monbiot as this list shows: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer That monbiot refers to many of them shows that he has been thorough, not really a solid sign of bias in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.35 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the link I provided gives two secondary sources in the Media aligned with Plimer, along with rebuttals. These are sources that Monbiot did not provide, so their inclusion would settle this issue:

"Beware the church of climate alarm The Sydney Morning Herald, November 27, 2008

Rebuttals

Silenced Plimer somehow appears on TV, on radio, in newspapers. A lot. Tim Lambert, Deltoid, November 27, 2008


Don’t hold your breath on CO2 The Independent Weekly, March 22 2008

Rebuttals

Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer Barry Brook, Brave New Climate. 1 September 2008"


Following Pete Tillman's removal today I think the section is now a fairly bare description of events. Are there any remaining problems of balance in that section? --TS 18:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Plimer's thoughts on CO2; may we use them in a Quotebox?

The biography page on Ian Plimer, geologist and author of a book that attacks the concept of manmade global warming, contains a quotebox that quotes his thoughts on CO2 (namely, that if you increased the concentration many times it would have no effect on climate). Some editors oppose the quotebox on the grounds that his career encompasses more than his views on climate change, whereas other editors feel that these views are in fact what make him notable. Your comments most welcome. ► RATEL ◄ 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Comments from previously involved editor Ratel

  • Include Plimer may be many things, but the one aspect of his life that has made him notable, more than anything else, is his stance on global warming and the book he published on the issue. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue otherwise, or say that his notability rests on his career as a college professor. The quotebox also includes the core of his controversial belief system on the issue of global warming. Unlike over 97.5% of climatologists, Mr Plimer thinks CO2 has no effect, essentially, on temperature. This is highly notable, and it's the reason why many people in the world now know about him. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from previously involved editor Tillman

Agree with KDP, below. Not appropriate for a wikipedia biography.

Doubly inappropriate, as this is a transcript of a broadcast interview. Off-the-cuff verbal remarks are notoriously unreliable as representing the speaker's more considered, written views. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's views are well known, and are exactly as in the quote. Are you alleging that I am trying to misrepresent him? ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A third-party view of Ratel's comment (above) may be found here. I note without further comment that Ratel promptly removed this notice from his talk page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editor 59.96.31.35

  • Include If he is well known for other things as well, this should mean that extra material and quotes be provided for those other things. He is now very well known for Climate denial, so this quote is valid in itself. So the solution is addition of the missing material rather than deletion of the existing, valid, material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.35 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.35 (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from previously (semi-un-)involved editor Kim D. Petersen

I really don't like quotes on biographies. Unless it can be verified that the quote is A) Not cherry-picked B) highly representative of X's opinion. And finally C) Doesn't steal the picture away from more nuanced discussions.

Quotes are embellishment/illustration much like pictures.

Comments from previously uninvolved editor Martin Hogbin (talk)

Include Plimer is notable for his opinion on climate change and there is a section about this in the article. The quote is a good illustration of his views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editor Tony Sidaway

At the time this RFC was called, I had no involvement with this article.

Actually I know Plimer's name from his failed lawsuit against a creationist minister and the widespread criticism he attracted from his fellow skeptics over this affair, and from Jim Lippard's widely read critique of his debating methods, published in 1991.

Thus Ian Plimer has been in the public eye for some time, particularly in the relatively small field of scientific skepticism. To single out his views on global warming for a block quote would probably produce an unbalanced article in my view. --TS 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, opposing creationists is hardly an unusual position to take, so not very notable. Most sane people disagree with creationism, a belief system that flies in the face of an awful lot of science. On the other hand, when Plimer adopted positions like the one he has on CO2, he became not a mainstream critic of loony beliefs, but rather a promulgator of a tiny minority view in the scientific world. Now that is notable. That's why these statements, in my opinion, are what make him interesting. ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't Plimer's views that attracted attention, but his eccentric ways of expressing his views and (in the case of the lawsuit) attempting suppress views held by others. Indeed the highest number of newspaper articles indexed by Google News mentioning Plimer's name seems to be in 1997, the year his case against Allen Roberts was rejected by Sydney Federal Court. On balance I think attention to global warming and related issues by Wikipedia editors could well have resulted in an overemphasis on this aspect of Plimer's career. --TS 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Tony: Google search for "ian plimer" +warming = 1.14 million hits. Search for "ian plimer" +creationism -warming = 3,410 hits. ► RATEL ◄ 04:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think google testng will help. The count of newpaper articles tells us where he has entered the public consciousness, and this appears to have been predominantly in the 1997 lawsuit. --TS 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is the acid test where he "entered" the public consciousness? And can you find anything quotable he said about creationism? ► RATEL ◄ 04:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
That isn't the acid test. The fact that Plimer was well known long before his comments on global warming is of course relevant. Can I find anything quotable he said about creationism? Surely you jest. Read the first sentence of the section "Critic of creationism" for an electrifying quote. --TS 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ha, yes, but that wouldn't work well in a quote box. I'm really not sure why there is any objection to the current quote box. Plimer has taken on the entire scientific world with the views highlighted in that box, not merely a religious fringe. It is a key, pivotal opinion which, if wrong, could lead to the death of millions if not billions of people (crop failures, rising seas, wars, famines etc). It really irks me that other editors are lobbying against Plimer's most controversial and important contentions being highlighted in this way. ► RATEL ◄ 03:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from grossly POV (have I got that right?) editor William M. Connolley

I think Plimer is known mostly for his views on GW. I agree with R; being critical of Creationism isn't notable. The quote included looks to be entirely typical of his views and doesn't look cherry-picked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: title. Heh. It does seem like re-reading the "keep cool" notice might be appropriate... <GG> Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And I've found a WP:RS for my assertion (it must be an RS cos it is already used in the article, no?). "Ian Plimer is one of the best known mining engineers/geologists in Australia. Not, however, because of his exploration success – although he has had some of that. It’s because he fervently advocates that global warming is not caused by human activity but by natural events." [2]. what more could you want? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This (or a paraphrase) should go into the article. Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tabulation of results of RfC

As of 9/21/09, the following editors have expressed opinions:

For retaining the quote

  • Ratel
  • anonymous editor 59.96.31.35
  • Martin Hogbin
  • William M. Connolley

Against retaining the quote

  • Tillman
  • Kim D. Petersen (Wrong description of my comment - ambivalent is neither for nor against) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Tony Sidaway (Objects to the idea of tabulating RFC comments as votes, !votes, or anything else that amounts to counting without considering arguments)
  • Anonymous editor 165.228.93.102, see earlier discussion

No WP:consensus has been developed in this RfC. If we exclude anonymous opinions (as is normal in formal votes at Wikipedia), it's a tie vote.

Per WP:BLP, if there is no consensus for retention of contested material, it should be removed. As the 30-day WP:RFC comment period has passed, the contested quote should be deleted. --Pete Tillman (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think that we welcome anonymous opinions in wikipedia, which means the preponderance of opinion favors inclusion. ► RATEL ◄ 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
NP. In that case, editor 165.228.93.102 also expressed doubts about this quote, in the earlier discussion that led to this RfC. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop tabulating these things as if they were votes. And if anybody takes my removal of my name from the above tabulation as a sudden appearance of consensus by discounting, I'm sorry but I despair. The whole point is that there is no such consensus. --TS 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The point of this exercise was to clearly demonstrate that (as you said) the RfC failed to yield a consensus; thus (by BLP rules) the quote should be deleted. I struck the "formal vote" business as a distraction. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - but you've misrepresented my position - i'm not necessarily against - I'm ambivalent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested in what you consider libellous/slander/... in the quote, or are you arguing that its a bad source? (since you quote BLP) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
"the RfC failed to yield a consensus; thus (by BLP rules) the quote should be deleted" - please quote the bit of BLP you are relying on William M. Connolley (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from previously univolved Verbal

I see no problem with using the quotebox. Verbal chat 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not settled

So, I've reverted PT's removal [3]. Partly because I think it belongs - it is entirely typical of his views on this subject. But also because the reasons for removal - part BLP, part "no consensus to retain" are spurious. Argue it on its merits William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from somewhat involved ATren

I don't have a problem with the quote. I don't think it's a BLP issue at all (it's his own words), and would only have a problem if there were evidence that he later retracted it or clarified it. ATren (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy on contested material?

Editor WMC asks nearby:

"the RfC failed to yield a consensus; thus (by BLP rules) the quote should be deleted" - please quote the bit of BLP you are relying on William M. Connolley (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


  • "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." --WP:BLP lede
  • "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." -- WP:BLPSTYLE. We have been attempting to build a consensus for (or against) the use of this particular quote, and whether the quote meets this (and other) BLP policy requirements.

My impression (based mostly on the arguments made at the various BLP forums regarding the contested use of the "See also" section under BLP rules) is that contested material is NOT to be kept in the article until the debate over its use (or nonuse) is settled. This was the argument made by administrator Arnold Reinhold, for instance here at BLP talk. However, this situation is different enough that perhaps it should be discussed over at BLP. I think a good case could be made for holding such material in abeyance under the BLP rule that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively". Clearly the WMF board wants special attention paid to getting BLP's done right. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all very well, but completely fails to address my point: which was that your assertion that BLP says that no consensus => removal is false. Insofar as your quotes demonstrate anything, they demonstrate that consensus is irrelevant for BLP issues (we neglect, for the moment, quite how that might be made to work in practice). Please address the issues I've actually raised William M. Connolley (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this doesn't answer WMCs question, and you seem to have misunderstood the results of the "see also" discussion. Verbal chat 08:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems in Political affiliations section

1. Our article currently states:

Plimer was formerly listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.

The citation doesn't mention Plimer, and so doesn't support this assertion. Unless a cite from a WP:RS can be supplied, this assertion must be removed, per WP:BLP rules. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

2. I've edited the Natural Resources Stewardship Project item: their website is presently a placeholder, and the most recent information is the 2007 archived copy cited. Also need a cite for the Skeptics item. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the words "harsh criticism" are appropriate description of George Monbiot's piece

The title was "Spectator recycles climate rubbish published by sceptic". --TS 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Debate with George Monbiot" section meet WP:BLP requirements?

This section keeps growing, and the only published mentions of the "debate" (other than in blogs) appear to be in Monbiot's column, which can hardly be considered a WP:RS for this, since he is personally involved as Plimer's critic. Note that no actual debate has (yet) taken place. This section currently quotes and cites seven(!) Monbiot columns, plus a couple of blogs.

I'm thinking that this section should be placed in abeyance on the talk page, until the "debate" attracts attention from third-party reliable sources. Otherwise we're in the position of publishing contentious allegations about Plimer, supported only by the opinion columns of his adversary, Monbiot.

See WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'm not sure if this strictly applies here, but we should talk about it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that section suffers from recentism. It's just a minor spat between these two guys. Compared to Plimer's books and his lawsuit this is probably small beer--unless Plimer writes a book about it or sues Monbiot. Perhaps we should just remark that the book led to a debate challenge from Monbiot but no substantive debate has taken place. --TS 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Monbiot Plimer debate wikia page
Debate discussed in Green Left Weekly magazine
Over 7,400 hits for "Monbiot Plimer debate" on Google ► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes and I'm sure there have been a fair few tweets about it. If we were to adopt that standard of judgment the recent invasion of Iraq might well figure in importance next to the two great wars of the last century. --TS 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
TS's suggestion, above, would suit me. TS, it would be better if you wrote the summary, as Ratel & I "have issues". Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's see, Tony, you're claiming that this is not important enough to feature on the page, or you want it pared down to less material? Because the only cogent argument for this would be undue weight. I would not call this a "minor spat" but a major argument that has featured again and again in one of the world's most well known newspapers. I see no value in reducing it to a stub comment along the lines that some sort of debate took place and leave it at that. That would simply obscure what actually happened. And it did happen. Monbiot would not dare publish lies, and Plimer has access to the pages of the Australian newspaper, where he has published his opinions before, to respond, if he saw/sees fit. As an inclusionist, I am offended by the need some editors have to remove cited material in a thinly disguised attempt to censor unflattering material. Tillman's pointer to "poor sources" does not apply to The Guardian, so that can be turfed right away.► RATEL ◄ 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, it's undue weight. Recall that when I suggested a couple of days ago that we should probably take notice of the lawsuit because it was an actual public event that happened and was reported in many newspaper articles, you resorted to a google count. Now that I'm suggesting again that this recent event is being given too much emphasis simply because it happened the other day and is still happening, you again resort to a google count.
You appear to be repeating earlier errors.
You also accuse me in a kind of sidewise manner of being someone interested in removing information unflattering to Plimer. No. I am not interested in doing so, and if you thought that was so you were wrong.
You are making false and defamatory accusations.
In my opinion this is a minor spat. Citing google hits won't change my opinion and will probably reduce your credibility with others. I'm not arguing for the removal of all references, but that we should recognize this for a minor spat involving the author of a book and someone who gave the book a poor review.
I suggested a brief one-sentence summary, but I'm flexible on that. However in my opinion the fact that we're spending just eight lines on Plimer's long career debating and sometimes suing creationists, and ten lines on a disagreement with George Monbiot indicates that we're giving undue weight to recent events. --TS 02:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"False and defamatory statements"? Pahleeze, get off your high horse. I'll try to edit the passage down for weight.► RATEL ◄ 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that you must not make misrepresentations of the motives of others; they will tend to object. --TS 13:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ratel, please let Tony edit it down. Save us both some fiddling and unpleasantness. And please calm down. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Too late, Tillman, I'd already changed it before I saw this message. I don't see how it can be shortened further without censorship. ► RATEL ◄ 02:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've shortened it further, to what I & (I think) Tony had in mind -- but left the refs intact, in case readers want the details. See what you think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This looks okay to me, though I'd say it probably won't merit a subsection of its own in the long run, even if a debate actually takes place. The seven references, six of which are to articles by Monbiot in The Guardian, could probably be trimmed a bit--it occurs to me that the Guardian may have provided a single page covering the matter, or may do so in due course. Is Campaigns Wikia a reliable source? --TS 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Not for data on Plimer, but for a discussion of the debate questions, surely yes. ► RATEL ◄ 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. Isn't it a wiki? I would question the suggestion that we treat wikis as reliable sources on anything. --TS 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ironic comment since this too is a wiki. However, replaced it with link to realclimate's page written by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. ► RATEL ◄ 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP vs "Climate Change Denier"

Editor Verbal recently added a "See also" to this page, linking Plimer to "Climate Change Denial".

This is (imo) inappropriate, and doubly so, since there is an active discussion on this topic at the BLP noticeboard. I don't think this is the time to add such a controversial item. Wait til the matter is settled, please. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the BLP noticeboard discussion is so far in favour of making the link, and the editor above who has editwarred it out is one of only two already involved editors who want the link removed, while univolved editors and teh general consensus seems to be to include the link and that there is no BLP issue. I do not see any justification for its removal, apart from the BLP concerns that have been addressed at the noticeboard. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems appropriate. Verbal chat 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
BLP policy regarding See also sections has recently been changed. It now reads:
See also sections are not exempt from the requirements of neutrality and verifiability based on reliable sources. Links placed here do not need to be cited, but may not create implications that are unsupported by the body text [emphasis added]. Additionally, neutrality may not be endangered by needlessly repeating links already given in the body text.
To me, this clearly prohibits use of the "See also" to Climate change denial, recently inserted by editor Verbal, removed by me (citing BLP), and reinserted by Verbal diff, who commented "BLPN is clearly in favour of this link. BLP policy has not changed, no impact"
IB Verbal is incorrect. Policy has been clarified, and this backdoor is now closed. Unless you can provide BLP-quality cites that Plimer is a "Climate change denier", this allegation MUST be IMMEDIATELY removed, per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This is crystal clear. Contentious "See also" removed per BLP policy. Please discuss here before attempting to restore it, as the burden of evidence for this is on you, per BLP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There has been no change to policy, no backdoor has been closed, BLP and BLPN is the same as ever. Verbal chat 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Early career

Ian moved to academia in 1981 not in 1991. He was at the University of New England from 1981-1984, the the University of Newcastle from 1985-1991, and moved to Melbourne University in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landy42 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Do you have a source for this? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a source for "Plimer moved to academia in 1991, first at the University of New England, New South Wales, next at the University of Newcastle, Australia , and then at the University of Melbourne. " which is in there now, so why be picky about changes? Or is it venerable due to it's antiquity? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I copyedited to make the source clear, and realized I'd misinterpreted the 1991 date. Landy42's dates are likely correct, but we should probably wait for a RS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor reference issue

Ratel added this cite (thanks) in response to a RQ for a source for this line: "Scientists involved in climate change research counter that they have, in fact, factored in the influence of natural forces and that there still remains a significant human influence on the Earth's climate system." [citation needed]

This ref is a blog post (although one by a scientist, Barry Brook) -- but the link just gets you to a long list of posts. The first two or three posts there don't seem to apply.

Can someone supply a higher-quality cite? Blog posts are always a bit dubious (at best) as RS's.

Incidentally, this is a hotly-debated topic. Some skeptics maintain that the quality of the historic climate record is too poor to establish an unambiguous anthropogenic effect. Perhaps we should include a rebuttal cite too? --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure this is the correct way to handle this. That effects other than CO2 are included is just bog-std. Attribution of recent climate change for example. Because Plimer's book is worthless non-science (I'm unclear whether you accept that, or argue that you're not obliged to have a position one way or another, or disagree and assert that it is valuable) it isn't going to get replied to in scientifc venues, only in blogs. Plimer is wrong to claim that 'the IPCC has essentially ignored the role of natural climate variability', as natural climate variability is carefully considered in all four of the IPCC's comprehensive assessments since 1990. In its 2007 report, a whole chapter on palaeoclimate focuses on natural climate variations over Earth's history might be what you want, from [4] (found via [5]). [6] also applies if you want any more ripping-to-shreds of Plimer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the claim has to be rigorously sourced (it's just a rebuttal with proper qualification that it is a claim by other scientists), and a blog source would be fine, as long as the blog itself is not defamatory in tone. ATren (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thx to both of you for your comments. I don't have any strong objection to Brooks' blog, so long as we get a link to an actually-pertinent page. But it might be worthwhile to show that Plimer isn't actually FOS in this instance. For once?
So, Wikipedia article-wise, is rebutting a rebuttal considered fair game? It would be a generic ref, not mentioning Plimer per se.... Eh. Arguably SYN. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I counted 8 respected editors who objected to an unadorned "see also", so I've raised the issue again at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ian_Plimer.2C_again ATren (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "I" in this? Who and where are these eight editors? Since when was the administrator's noticeboard the place to resolve disputes? --TS 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have restored a citation that was previously removed by me as superfluous. This was George Monbiot, a long time campaigner for the mainstream view and very much a spokesman for the climate change consensus, describing Plimer's views as denialist. In view of the fact that Plimer himself admits to denying that ongoing climate change is due to greenhouse gas increases, it would be silly not to say that he has been described by prominent proponents of the mainstream as a denialist. Inasmuch as denial of the mainstream views exists, Plimer is a prominent advocate of that denial. --TS 11:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You've also added the "see also" link back in, which, again, is opposed by numerous editors. And it is superfluous now, since climate change denial is now linked in context. ATren (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If denialism is in context, then removing the see also would seem counter-productive. I think we can add further context by referring to Monbiot's specific beef: that Plimer blatantly misrepresents Keller. --TS 12:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The example I used before is this: The Obama article may or may not discuss those who accuse him of being communist (depending on weight and/or RS issues) but even so, it would NOT be appropriate to have "see also: Communism" which would imply unambiguously that he is a Communist, and not just described as communist by ideological opponents. ATren (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And, BTW, I don't think anyone fundamentally objects to including Monbiot's claim in the article, so when the protection expires, we can add that back in. The "see also" is what I (and others) object to. ATren (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have here is that Plimer has made no bones about his denial. It is very much his whole point. He is an open, admitted, and voluble global warming denialist. To say it's only Monbiot is a bit much, frankly. He's doing it himself. --TS 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be yet another of those tedious edit wars that people attempt to win by rhetoric [7] Please don't go against consensus). This never works; it would be rather better if people avoided this sort of pointlessly inflammatory edit comment William M. Connolley (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Plimer/Archive_1&oldid=322675208"