Talk:Joe Romm/Archive 1

Significance

The article doesn't establish why the author is notable Wikipedia notability criteria. Alot of people can claim they've written a few books and have been a PI on a Federal grant.--PotomacFever 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article notes that he was Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy of the U.S., in charge of the renewable energy and energy efficiency research programs at the U.S. Dept. of Energy. He has written a half dozen books on global warming, energy efficiency and energy technologies, and he is a frequently quoted expert for major news outlets. Plus he has written dozens of articles for respected jounals, like Science and Atlantic Monthly. -- Ssilvers 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have been acting a/s of some DOE office. You give no cites for Science articles by Romm. Hundreds of persons have written Atlantic articles and they're not peer reviewed anyway. Most important, we are playing by Wikipedia's rules--or I am, at least. You have not addressed whether this article passes or fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you want to follow your own rules, instead, set up a web site of your own. Maybe you have?--PotomacFever 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

True, and even if we accept notability to the point of having a Wiki article, the length of this particular entry certainly seems to exceed the importance of the subject. It's also riddled with trivia and minor points the average reader isn't interested in (a bio of Romm's brother? The fact that Fox interviewed him twice?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Wikipedia had stooped to allowing self-published resumes to be published. Amazing. There's not one item of significance about any of the controversies he might have been involved in (beyond the relatively trivial one about the Minneapolis bridge collapse), and nothing that discusses how his ideas may not have always been correct or verified. (I'm currently preparing a policy paper for an major environmental group, and I was checking this site to see if a citation was worth using. It turns out he doesn't have the expertise in the area that he's being cited for so I'm not going to use the reference.)

Publications

It is correct to discuss a person's most important and notable works both in the body of the narrative biography section and in a list of works or publications. Please see Bernard Williams, which is a Featured Article, for an excellent example of a biography article where this is done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is correct to *discuss* those works, but merely duplicating a list twice is poor literary form. Also, given other editors concerns over the notability of this subject, there are many concerns over the article length.FellGleaming (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not other editors, just one. All editors except PotomcFever found the article highly notable. Read the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia, Tangential, and Duplicate Information

There is a trememdous amount of such material in this article that has no place in an encyclopedia entry, such as what Romm's brother does for a living, entire paragraphs on projects he mere "assisted with" at the US DOE, and unverifiable peacock phrases like "world's leading expert". I have tried to remove the most egregious of these, over the objections of a POV-pushing editor.

Additionally, the namecalling and Meat Puppetry by user:Ssilvers, as well his misuse of terms such as vandalism for edits which are clearly not is an abuse of Wikipedia policy. I urge him to moderate his actions and work with other editors to make this a better entry. FellGleaming (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only POV-pushing editor is you – you're a global warming denyer, so you are attacking the bio aricle of a strong advocate for government action to control global warming. A review of your edits shows that you have been edit warring on numerous other articles to push your POV there. When Romm was the acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, he was in charge of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. When he was Deputy AS, he "helped" run the office, but he was the #2 guy for those periods. This office is the DOE's billion-dollar energy efficiency and renewables research and applications program. Since this is Romm's bio, describing his activities at this important government job would seem to be worth a paragraph. I'm not sure what the basis would be for excluding it. If you have any reasonable suggestions about editing this article, I am happy to work with you, but you just want do delete information that is appropriate for this biography article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The word is spelled "denier", and I would appreciate you stop namecalling, especially without evidence. The mere fact I don't think a reader wants to know the name of Romm's brother's dog in Romm's article doesn't make me a "denier". The reasonable suggestions I made in article edits. Instead of looking at them, you and your Meatpuppet preferred to label them "vandalism" and perform mass rollbacks. FellGleaming (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I think removing it was the right thing to do (diff here) - the first cited reference is to a rather sarcastic opinion piece on what appears to an advocacy organization website; the second is to an offhand comment from a blog of unknown reliability, and the third assertion is unsourced. If these are valid criticisms then there should be better sources for any and all. I also think it would be helpful for editors - particularly relatives of the article's subject - to lay out these observations in Talk pages rather than reverting with unenlightening edit summary comments. JohnInDC (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the first criticism but tried to make it less POV and also included a cite to Romm's response. I also moved the section down to a more appropriate position in the article, although I think perhaps it should go after publications. The second statement was false. Romm has no connection to any commercial seller including any seller of Photo-voltaic technology. The third statement was silly. Romm has published many peer-reviewed articles, and his books have been widely reviewed by professional and industry reviewers (see the bluelinked book articles). I added citations to Romm's peer-reviewed articles and added more references to the publications named in the publications section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the re-write was good. It captured the dispute and left the reader to decide what to think. I had the same thought re placement (i.e., after publications) but didn't and don't feel strongly enough about it to move it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it in the first place because this is a wiki of Dr. Romm, not of his blog and not of anyone's political agenda. It is an inappropriate addition. While the edit is certainly a better researched contribution than the first one, if anyone wishes to discuss specific blog entries they should do so in the blog. I'll let Ssilvers delete his own addition. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Baron Dave. The article cited is criticism of Romm, not discussion of his "blog". It appears that the criticism of Romm on this issue got some press, and so it is notable to discuss it here. I contacted Dr. Romm, and he confirmed that it was an appropriate discussion. Ironically, the discussion of this criticism makes this article stronger, because it illustrates how Romm's critics take positions that are not credible and shows balance in the article. I think that experienced Wikipedia editors would confirm that this section is helpful in this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I live about three miles from the collapsed bridge and pointed Dr. Romm to the issue and to several articles in the local press that hadn't gotten national attention. I don't think one blog subject that "gets some press" should be part of a wiki bio, but I'll defer to you and him. Adding links to articles and interviews strengthens te article, so thanks for that. I fixed the link to my interview with him, so you can put that back. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for fixing the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be stated plainly that Dr. Romm's viewpoint on this really hasn't got much bearing on the issue of whether a particular edit is properly included or not. It is good that everyone seems to agree here (more or less), but if they did not, the matter would be resolved by reference to principles of Wikipedia and not the subject's opinion. JohnInDC (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Of course you are right. However, see WP:BLP, which says "While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." Romm was able to point me to a reference that is cited now in the Criticism section. WP:BLP has a lot of excellent information about how to proceed with this article with respect to the criticism section and other content. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

As requested by SSilvers I have looked at the current and recent versions, and to my lay eye the present version looks well-balanced, properly giving both sides of the matter. (A European and non-technical viewpoint, but I hope it is of some use) Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. As I've said above, I don't think this section belongs in a bio at all. If you want to disagree with a specific blog entry, do so in the blog. Global warming deniers are a small but vocal minority, and too many are just PC Police, making sure everything toes the party line without regard to fact or netiquette. --Baron Dave Romm (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The rebuttal in the criticism section merely references a blog entry by Romm. That's not really good enough. Please find another source. Steve0999

Dear Steve: The reference is to Romm's direct response to the specific criticism. You are correct that it is published in Romm's award-winning blog, recently named by Time magazine as one of the top 15 environmental sites on the internet (The criticism was also made in an organization's blog). Citing Romm's direct response is entirely appropriate under Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Visiting Wikipedia is like traveling to an alternate universe. No wonder it's the butt of so many jokes. Steve0999 —Preceding comment was added at 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientist?

I don't think Romm is a scientist. He certainly isn't *now* and I don't see anything here to suggest he ever was. The article in Science [1] for example is policy, not science. His own blog says Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress. Joe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration. In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies.” Read what Wikipedia has to say about Joe. [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Joe Romm's brother User:Baron Dave reverted my changes [3], but I've reverted them back, ha ha, two can play at that game. BD has a fairly obvious WP:COI but I don't care too much about that. Claiming that pubs are peer-reviewed requires some evidence; it certainly isn't acceptable to list a whole pile of stuff and then say "some are p-r, put the others in a different sections". The burden is the other way around; please put any that are clearly PR into a PR section. "Annual reviews" [4] for example doesn't look PR; I don't see any instructions for reviewers, for example. And as for "scientist"; publishing a P-R article doesn't make you a scienits; what does isn't clear, but I don't see anything to justify the tag: if you're reverting it back, what do you see? Note by comparison that James Hansen doesn't say he is a scientist, because it isn't necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your original changes were foolish. You claimed (and still don't demonstrate) that some articles are not peer reviewed. And then take your own preconceived notions and claim he isn't a scientist because all his published articles aren't peer reviewed. Shame, shame. A PhD in Physics and a continuing practice in the field earn one the right to be called "scientist". Deniers love to tout their own credentials and discredit others, and we have to keep the record straight. Joe might be writing more about policy than doing labwork, but research scientists have a long and honorable history. The record should be kept straight, and I'm going to put the article back to the original. [Posted by Baron Dave].

Hello, guys. Baron Dave, I have no problem calling Joe Romm a "blogger". His blog has become very notable in the energy efficiency and climate blogosphere. In the article, we clearly note that he is a PhD physicist who writes and speaks on science and science policy. It is not worthwhile arguing about whether he is a "scientist" - readers can draw their own conclusions, since the facts are stated. FYI, Connolley is a well-credentialed climate scientist who has worked extensively in the field, and he and Joe Romm are on the same side; so I would give Connolley's suggestion much consideration. Connolley is also a very frequent Wikipedia contributor and has done much to make sure that the coverage of climate science on Wikipedia is accurate. I welcome Connolley's (and other independent commenters') input on this article. By the way, William, I had checked, some time ago, to make sure that all of the articles listed under the PR heading were from peer-reviewed publications, but I could have made a mistake. If you know differently with respect to any of them, we can certainly move them out of the section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BD: I wonder if we can keep the discussion civilised? If you find yourself getting too involved because JR is your brother, permit me to remind you of WP:COI which strictly interpreted prevents you reverting at all. I've changed "peer-reviewed" to "journal", which is alos stretching things a bit, but less of a claim. "Future Directions for Hydrogen Energy Research and Education" (Principal Investigator), Report to the National Science Foundation, November 2004 doesn't look P-R to me. Nor does "Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond", Interlaboratory Working Group, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 1997) And "Greening the Building and the Bottom Line: Increasing Productivity Through Energy-Efficient Design" (with Browning), Rocky Mountain Institute, November 1994 (peer-reviewed by U.S. Green Building Council) is odd: what does P-R by the building council mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

These changes look OK to me. Note, however, William, that the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, writing in The New York Times today, calls Romm a "physicist".[5] -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Romm has recently changed his blog's official bio to emphasize his science background. Given the description by Friedman; Romm's MIT Ph.D. in physics; the fact that he was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; his oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs; his authorship of a number of scientific reports; and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS, I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be hasty about this. I have some quibbles I'd like resolved. Could we start with the least impressive (form a being-a-scientist pov), the AAAS fellow bit. An honour,no doubt, but the citation Romm quotes is distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies which is primarily communication, not science. Fellow of the AAAS currently incorrectly states that it is an honor accorded to distinguished scientists. I'm going to correct that: the AAAS themselves say something rather different; the fellows category includes people who have been communicating and interpreting science to the public and I put it to you that this is most likely the category that Romm belongs in (if you think otherwise, I challenge you to nominate any other significant contribution he has made in the past 5 years). [In support of this, [6] lists him among "General Interest in Science and Engineering" rather than, say, the "physics" that F claims for him].

No problem, but I moved this detail and the citation lower in the article, where more detailed information ought to be. The WP:LEAD should just present an "overview" of the detailed sections below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see I'm too late. Well, I can't really complain about the F quote. It is a real quote from a RS, and it is in quotes, so fair enough.

As to the publications... weeeellll... take the 2004 one on "Future Directions for Hydrogen Energy Research and Education". I found [7] which I think must be the thing concerned. It looks like a conference, not a publication. The grant proposal says "submitted as an article for publication in a journal such as Science or Nature, planned to make the impact to the largest members of society with interest." clearly that never happened (or it was submitted but never published). It doesn't look like a peer-reviewed article, which was the original claim. It looks like an unreviewed unpublished conference report. So I think there is a certain amount of boosterism going on here.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll check that out and find out where it was published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that this is my fault. You are right - it was a report to the National Science Foundation and was not otherwise published. I've changed the the heading to "Selected journal articles and reports." Sorry for the confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridge; 60 Minutes

I tidied up the first line ("scientist" doesn't need to be in quotes if you have a source, and we have many), added the 60 Minutes appearance 4/27/09. Including the final NTSB report of the Bridge (in Crticism) seemed reasonable but hastily added on, so edited and rewrote the last section. However, I couldn't figure out where you had put the references. The last line (about 70,000 bridges) should be connected to the Guardian article just under the Notes section. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Baron Dave, did you save your change? I don't see it. I agree with the editor who removed the additions to the Criticism section: What later happened with the bridge does not seem relevant to Joseph Romm's bio. It should go in the bridge article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ssilvers: Hmm... I must not have saved. Hope this one took. I like my second attempt better anyway. Still, all the cites aren't in place. The concerns about the final NTSB report should be linked to the NPR article, the 70,000 bridges at risk is from the Guardian article and the 700 bridges with similar design flaws as noted by the FHWA is from the wiki article on the collapse. Do we need a cite for the 60 Minutes appearance? Please fix, as my wiki-fu is lacking. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Baron Dave. A couple of comments: The 60 minutes appearance should be mentioned further down where it says that Romm is "often cited, quoted or interviewed by journalists to explain the impact of public policy and energy technologies". Also, you need to link the 60 minutes clip or transcript. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any changes re "sci". Perhaps just as well. I've reverted the changes re the bridge: BDR, you have a WP:COI. You cannot revert anything controversial. You're welcome to persuade us on talk, but you can't do it yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ssilvers: I'll trust you to put the 60 Minutes mention where you think apt. A clip that features Joe is at http://enviroknow.com/thesource/2009/04/26/60-minutes-powered-by-coal-video/ . William M. Connolley: I don't think the Criticisms section should be there at all, but it got put back in after I deleted it. It's whining about one subjects, and criticisms of individual issues are handled in the blog, not the bio. Still, if it's going to be in, then the controversy should be played out and include the final NTSB report which pretty much agrees with what Joe said: The bridge fell due to poor design, but climate change is an issue that should be addressed and will be a stressor for the huge number of bridges that no one looks at regularly. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I agree, the section is cr*p. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a cite for the 60 minutes appearance and have now moved the information further down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, BDR, with the 60 minutes link. Plus there is a short video on Chinese coal plants; plus, Romm is quoted in the 60 Minutes article from April 23, so I cited them all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a physicist

Romm isn't a physicist. He certainly isn't now - he is an author and climate blogger. I don't see any evidence he once was, either. He has no peer-reviewed papers published on physics in any kind of recognised physics journal (and no, having a degree and doctorate in physics does not make you a physicist) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

William, this description, as you know, is right out of the New York Times, and the citation is right there. I have put back the quotation marks (which is unnecessary in the Lead), if that helps you, but you had previously agreed that these descriptive words, directly out of the New York Times and plenty of other major media sources, are appropriate (See above, where you wrote "I can't really complain about the F quote. It is a real quote from a RS, and it is in quotes, so fair enough"). I don't see why we need all these citations and quotation marks in the Lead, when they appear again further down in the article, but if that's what I need to do to satisfy you, fine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said: with quotes, it is acceptable, because it makes it clear that it is someones view of reality, rather than reality, which it clearly isn't. Who took the quotes out, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Twas BaronDave [8]. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Romm lead

Ahem. It's correct in the body (Thomas L. Friedman wrote…), but not in the lede. It's controversial, which makes it a WP:BLP violation, unless a real reliable source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not controversial. Romm has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. PBS calls him a physicist here. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, calls Romm a "physicist" here. Scientific American calls him a physicist here. Physicsworld calls him a physicist here. WNYC's "On the Media" calls him a physicist here. US News & World Report calls Romm "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings". He was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; He had oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs; he wrote a number of scientific reports; and he was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS. I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm. Would you rather quote US News? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is controversial, and USN calls him a phony. How about phony[USN] physicist[Physicsworld]? No, I suppose that would be a WP:SYN violation.

• Sorry, that was a mistake, it wasn't USN who called him a phony, but I'm sure we can find reliable sources that would, and it's too good an alliteration to pass up.

And I still don't yet see a reliable source calling him a physicist, although I'm now sure that such sources exist. Friedman is not an expert in qualifications, and all the others are "about the author" blurbs. USN does say "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues", so I suppose that might count, but it could mean "oft-cited as an expert" rather than "Off-cited and an expert". Perhaps we should add the scare-quotes back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek calls him a physicist here. So does The Washington Post here. And the Wall Street Journal here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant you Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, if those are articles, rather than editorial pieces. The Washington Post is probably just advertising copy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If WMC says it (that he is a physicist) is not so, then it's controversial. No doubt about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely say, based on the numerous links provided by Ssilvers above, that Romm is a physicist. This looks like edit-warring to me. We work by concensus here, and I for one agree with Ssilvers. Jack1956 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if WMC, speaking as a climate change expert, says that Romm is not a physicist, then it's controversial in the real world. That is clear. That being said, it being in quotes in the lede seems satisfactory to me until such time as we can find a reliable source that Romm is not a physicist. I'm sure that that source could also be found. I consider, though, "physicist" or "expert", not in quotes, to be a BLP violation, and will revert if I notice it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm isn't a physicist. However, if Ss can find enough erroneous sources that say he is, and is determined to push unreality into wiki, the rules say he gets his way. this isn't good, but there is nothing to be done about it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas L. Friedman, Physics World, etc, are all wrong and you're right. Can you provide sources to support that? Ssilver has provided sources and that's how things work here. Jack1956 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, only Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal provide reliable sources that he's a physicist. Friedman is not reliable per se (per WP:BLP), and the others are quoting background material which was probably supplied by Romm without further checking. But that's still adequate for inclusion in the article (with quotes), until and unless reliable sources can be provided that he is not a physicist. WMC, it's your move, if you can find real-world sources that he is not a physicist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically saying that ... are all wrong and you're right. Yes. WMC, it's your move - I don't intend to do any more William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for "physicist and climate expert"

Collecting all the cites above in one place:

• Romm has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; he had oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs under Clinton; he wrote a number of books on energy and global warming as well as scientific reports; and he was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS.
• PBS calls him a physicist here.
• The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, calls Romm a "physicist and climate expert" here and in his recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded Farrar, Strauß and Giroux, Macmillan, 2008, pp. 115, 160 and 188 ISBN 0374166854. I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm.
• The Wall Street Journal calls him a physicist here.
• U.S. News & World Report calls Romm "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings".
• The Washington Post calls him a physicist here.
• Newsweek calls him a physicist here.
• Scientific American calls him a physicist here.
• WNYC's "On the Media" calls him a physicist here.
• Physics World calls him a "physicist and climate expert" here.
• Guernica Magazine calls him a physicist here.

-- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re the Friedman cite: No per Wiki standards it would only be fair to state that Friedman has characterized Romm as a climate expert. To state that he is one, we need to point to demonstrated contributions in the field of climate science (I don't contest physicist) accepted by peers. His blog does not meet that standard.--173.79.138.229 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of those are "about the author blurbs" (which I, for one, do not consider credible, even in peer-reviewed journals — but there isn't a clear Wikipedia consensus), news background (which is rarely cross-checked), and the event listing is hopeless, as it's almost always taken from the principal. However, there are enough (2 for "physicist", and 1 for "climate change expert") for it to be retained in the lede. I'm heading out shortly, or I'd refute the claims individually. As an aside, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have been caught lying in print before, and here my only problem for the book is that we don't know which imprint it's under, whether non-fiction or pseudo-non-fiction. The matter is controversial if WMC (speaking as a real climate expert) disagrees, so we can only use sources from reliable publishers, a further restriction of our WP:RS criteria. An individual, even if an expert, may not be used to source a controversial statement about a living person, so we can neither include Friedman's word in favor or WMC's word against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "about the author" blurbs are often provided by the author. Romm is not a published journal author on climate, he is no more a 'climate expert' than Freeman Dyson is a climate expert, less so in fact, as Freeman is published on nuclear winter.--173.79.138.229 (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm has written an entire book about climate: Hell and High Water (book), and his blog is all about climate. It doesn't say he is a "climate scientist", it says he is a climate expert, and there are plenty of sources that call him a climate expert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing a pop sales book does not qualify one as an expert, even a good one. The book is largely about the politics and policy of climate. BTW, did you read that Wiki link on the book and the Romm bio there?

...one of the world's leading experts on clean energy, advanced vehicles, energy security, and greenhouse gas mitigation.

'worlds leading' is hyperbole, that aside it is supportable from Romm's professional work at the US Department of Energy. That bio does not use the word climate (and I suspect he wrote himself). Also writing a blog, even a popular one, does not make one an expert, or we're all instant experts. There are not 'plenty' of usable sources that call him a 'climate expert' - we have here the news sources: the US News piece and Friedman, and the physics world 'about the author. These do not meet the WP:RS standard of Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, rather they simply assert it. Since you agree 'climate scientist' is not appropriate how about a change to 'climate policy expert'? That removes ambiguity about what aspect of 'climate' in which he's expert. Even that change I think is less than the best we can do, as Romm's professional training/work has been in physics and then at RMI and the US DoE. Thus he'd be best described as an 'energy expert' (as in the '..High Water' reference), as his climate work is not as professional scientist. Order of preference then for the change: 1. 'and energy expert', 2. 'and climate policy expert'.--128.29.43.2 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What does a person need beyond a doctorate in physics to qualify as a "physicist"? Are there licensing requirements, like psychologists or social workers? Residencies, like doctors (well, physicians who claim the title "doctor", as medical professionals)? Wikipedia's not a WP:RS of course but the qualifications described in physicist seem pretty flexible. Professional physicist does not seem to set too high a bar either - though, that's not being asserted here anyhow. I think it would help to agree on terminology. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I take it the nub is whether he's a "scientist"? JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A physicist is someone who does physics. Romm doesn't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to be dense, but you can be a lawyer and not practice law, a doctor and not practice medicine. You take the label by virtue of your training and qualification, not your employment or vocation. If you can't call yourself a physicist after you graduate with a doctorate in the field, then when can you? What has to come next? JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(I appreciate that for purposes of the article, the issue is moot, for now; my interest is pretty much academic at this point.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a doctorate in maths (or technically numerical analysis) but I wouldn't call myself a mathematican. If you were a lawyer but are no longer practicing law you're probably a retired lawyer. Just like if you were a soldier but have stopped. Or a roadsweeper. But as you say, all this is academic William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that Connolley has been critical of Romm on Connolley's blog, and that Romm dispute's Connolley's statement that Romm is not a physicist. See this. Connolley and Romm also have an outstanding bet about the progress of ice melting due to climate change. See here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All part of the robust give-and-take among people who inhabit the same general (and public) field of endeavor. WP:AGF! JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vair exciting "notes" but if you have a point, it would be better made directly rather than through insinuation. Though thank you for reminding me about the bet with Romm; shame he wouldn't pony up more. You interested? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to insinuate anything. I am just pointing out that Connolley knows Romm and is critical of him, and so I think that clouds his judgment on this issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I said. Are you interested in the bet? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks, and I don't think discussion of a bet is appropriate for article talk space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So why did you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Lead

Copying from above discussion for convenience and adding a few new ones. Please try to discuss in chronological order, so it is easier to follow the discussion, instead of just sticking comments into the previous discussions:

• Romm has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; he had oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs under Clinton; he wrote a number of books on energy and global warming as well as scientific reports; and he was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS in December 2008 for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies." Other scientific credentials are discussed in the article.
• PBS calls him a physicist here.
• The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, calls Romm a "physicist and climate expert" here and here and in his recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded Farrar, Strauß and Giroux, Macmillan, 2008, pp. 115, 160 and 188 ISBN 0374166854. I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm.
• The Wall Street Journal calls him a physicist here.
• U.S. News & World Report calls Romm "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings".
• The Washington Post calls him a physicist here.
• Newsweek calls him a physicist here.
• Scientific American calls him a physicist here.
• WNYC's "On the Media" calls him a physicist here.
• Physics World calls him a "physicist and climate expert" here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New ones:

• Scientific American calls him a climate expert here.
• The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies calls Romm a climate change expert here.
• Toronto Star: Romm is "widely recognized as a climate change and clean technology expert". See this.
• The New York Times states, in December 2009, that Romm is a physicist here.
• The American Spectator calls him "a giant among environmental experts".
• TreeHugger calls him a physicist here.
• U.S News & World Report introduces Romm as a "physicist and climate expert".
• Boston Globe call Romm a physicist.
• Andrew Revkin of The New York Times call Romm a physicist.
• San Francisco Chronicle calls Romm a physicist.
• The Sydney Morning Herald calls Romm a scientist.
• The New Yorker calls Romm a physicist.
• The National Wildlife Federation calls Romm a physicist

• I could keep adding more. There are thousands of google hits on Romm and the words scientist, physicist, climate expert, energy expert, etc. because Romm is a leading expert, invited several times to testify before the Congressional committees on science and technology, author of a book (Hell and High Water) that explains, in extensive detail, the scientific understanding of climate change, and other books and numerous articles on related subjects, etc. Romm's blog is often named as a leading climate blog. He has written extensively on the subject in various national magazines and journals. Because of challenges to these well-supported assertions, I have been forced to keep adding footnotes to the Lead. WP:MOS suggests that the Lead section shouldn't be bristling with footnotes; rather, the well-cited discussion in the body of the article below is ample support for the description of Romm in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, and you will see that these national magazines and new sources qualify under Wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources. A consensus was reached for this language several times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion is that the article is fine as it stands. We have been over this repeatedly. It is my opinion that all the major national news magazines and newspapers cited for the propositions in the Lead, together with the detailed information in the article, are adequate to support the statements made in the Lead. Why do we need to keep coming back here every other week to argue these same points over and over again? The case for Romm being a climate change expert has been made repeatedly and should stand. I myself added several links to substantiate this, but these were reduced to one. People need to stop pushing their own POV on this and move on. Jack1956 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Although I doubt a complete and honest investigation would find him to be a physicist or climate expert, we have adequate sources for it to appear in the article, and in the lede. (I'd use "climate policy expert" if even one source used that term, but I can't find justification.) In other words, although I think the article inaccurate, it accurately reports the view of reliable sources, so should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Romm is neither a physicist nor a climate expert. However, enough people are determined to deny reality and use inappropriate sources as a bludgeon that the entire exercise is too tedious to correct William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Romm's book, "Hell and High Water", contains an extensive survey of climate science. His earlier book, "Cool Companies" is a survey of how large companies could cut emissions using current technology. He has written numerous articles about climate science. Moreover, Romm's blog has received much attention as a pioneering climate blog. The blog often posts information about climate science as well as all other climate change issues. Romm was recently elected to the AAAS. The article quotes Romm being praised specifically for combining a "deep knowledge of technology, policy and science". Romm is a well-rounded climate expert, and the statement of that fact by various major media is fair to note in the Lead of the article. I think the Lead as drafted uses words scrupulously and with precision, and ought not to be the target of tendentious attack. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim Riley: The issue at hand is the authority with which to label Romm a 'climate expert', as opposed to say a policy or energy expert. Thus a book about companies cutting emissions lends little support. Membership in the AAAS lends no support. Indeed Romm's membership in AAAS was awarded with the statement for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future" - again lending support for the title renewable energy expert but not climate expert. The "deep knowledge of technology, policy and science" does not make one a climate expert, any more than it makes one an 'expert' on any other specific field. A blog has no critical review and lends no support. There are literally millions of books available from people who publish reviews of some scientific, engineering, or policy issues - especially in alternative energy areas. Such a book does not earn one the title expert, despite the far too commonly self imposed label of expert by authors of the lowliest books. Wiki would be complicit in this trend by simply saying 'he wrote a book, he's an expert'. From all this we end with merely the assertion Romm is a 'well rounded climate expert'? We don't need assertions, we need backup. I suggest rather that these red herring arguments are tendentious. There are many cites that would lend support. A climate textbook would make the case. Peer reviewed work, in climate, would make the case. An academic position teaching climate science OR policy would make the case. A professional position studying the science or policy of climate, such as Romm held at the US DoE in renewable energy would help make the case. But not the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.3 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Romm ...

Section suggestion: addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ... 99.37.85.89 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What controversy? Romm fully supports McKibben, as his frequent recent postings on his blog show. Their only disagreement, if any, is regarding the exact number that is achievable, and as to that, Romm says only that the facts are not yet certain. But Romm has been praising the goals and methods of McKibben's organization and McKibben himself very consistently lately. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Romm's blog postings

William is right that the posting about the C02 concentration was written and posted by Romm. However, it does not belong in the section on journal articles. Indeed, Romm writes and posts numerous entries to his blog every day, and I see no reason to single this one out. In fact, I think Romm has written more recent postings on the same subject. The article generally does not mention publications unless they were published outside the blog by a well-known publication. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote feeding controversy related to Superfreakonomics criticism

I wonder if Joseph Romm's page should contain a section devoted to some of the criticism leveled at him? A google search of "Romm feeds quotes" leads to several blog posts critical of Romm from climate scientists (Pielke Jr's blog, for instance), some with few direct disagreements with Romm. This page currently sounds like a vanity piece, and I'm not surprised that it was written by someone very close to the subject. Injecting some references to Romm's controversial statements might make the page more balanced and neutral. best regards, Tmasser Tmasser (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Romm was one of the first people to assert that Superfreakonomics misrepresented Caldeira's views, and I think you probably could find some major media sources that refer to Romm's criticism of the book, the authors' responses, Caldeira's responses, and other people's commentary on the subject. If you think the disagreement is of interest to readers of the entry and wish to do the research to write a good description of the disagreement, referenced with WP:Reliable sources, be my guest. See also WP:BLP. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph J. Romm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: found fifteen, repaired for and tagged eleven.[9] Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article could benefit form the addition of a suitable infobox (NOT a GA requirement)

   I disagree. I think infoboxes are merely repetitive and that is why they are not required. For my money, the smart projects are those that do not use infoboxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   That is one way of looking at it. If you broaden your perspective, you'll see that on the plus side, infoboxes offer the general reader (we are not writing for editors) a crude interface to facilitate chunking, and offer the potential for inhouse or external bots to collect and collate infobox data. The former is more what we are aiming at, while the latter has only been tested without any major rollout or adoption. Ideally, we would allow the reader more control over the view, such that one could use the preferences to control the infobox display in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well, as I said infoboxes are not a GA requirement, although I personally favour them, that is irrelevant to this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

   I have 70,000 edits on Wikipedia, and I have been a primary contributor on 20 GA-class articles and several FAs. My perspective is plenty broad; I just disagree with you, Viriditas. Infoboxes take up space at the beginning of an article that is better used for a well-written Lead. There is no consensus to add one here. It is quite offensive for you to keep lecturing me on this page. Feel free to state your opinions, but stop trying to characterize my views as narrow, or my attempts to maintain the quality of this article as WP:OWNership. That is just name-calling. I see that you have been around WP for a long time too. Let's just focus on the work at hand. If you can do some research to add encyclopedic information to this article, by all means, please do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

   Will do, but looking at things from one view only and only that view, is generally described as narrow. Also, you've said on this page and on the talk page of the reviewer that you are "the only editor who does any research and maintenance on the article" and that editors should be required to commit to all articles they edit. I explained below that this is not realistic, and instead of meeting me halfway on any points I've discussed, you've maintained that your view is the only correct way, and everybody else is wrong. So, I stand by everything I've said. Personally, I don't like infoboxes either, but I add them for the benefit of the reader, not to conform to my own personal preferences. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The section Recognition and personal life is an odd juxtaposition. Perhaps the personal life stuff could be incorporated into a renamed Early life and career section.Y

   Well, I broke it into two sections. The personal life stuff does not go in early life and career - it is all stuff from AFTER his early life and career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   Otherwise reasonably well written

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Eleven dead links found and taggedY

   I dealt with the dead links. Thanks for pointing them out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   Available sources check out OK. I assume good faith for off-line sources

   I am concerned about the MSNBC [10] and Youtube [11], [12] clips. All posted by Romm's organisation, but no evidence that MSNBC or Fox News have released the copyright.

   What's the concern? We are just linking to them to support the assertion that they exist. We're not displaying the clips in the WP article. The Fox News clip has been on the Climate Progress site for almost 4 years without any complaint from Fox, so I think it is unlikely that Climate Progress or YouTube will take these down. If they do take them down in the future, no problem, we'll simply give the date of the news segment without the link to the clip. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

   We can't "just link" to them, and as potential copyright violations, they need to be removed. It is reasonable to replace them with text-only references to the programs. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

   They're not copyright violations. They're fair use for Climate Progress, because they are brief excerpts of a non-fiction work used for a non-commercial purpose by a non-profit website. We could not post the video clips in the article itself because of WP rules, but we can link to them on other sites where they are used under the fair use doctrine. See: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

   Please notice the word "potential" that you omitted. They are potential copyright violations. Per WP:LINKVIO we do not link to them. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

   WP:LINKVIO says just the opposite of what you are saying: "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

   The relevant guideline here is WP:YOUTUBE#Linking to user-submitted video sites. The news broadcasts are copyrighted and the YouTube postings by Climate Progress are copyright violations. As Viriditas says, references to the programs themselves in text would be acceptable. I also note that WP:LINKVIO#Linking to copyrighted works says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." If the vidoes were hosted on Fox News' or MMSNBC's official Youtube chnanels that would be a different matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

   I've replaced the Youtube clip and deleted one of the other clips. The only remaining link is to climateprogress, and we have no reason to believe that climateprogress "is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". So this should now be OK under WP:LINKVIO#Linking to copyrighted works. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

   Romm has confirmed to me that he displays news clips on ClimateProgress.org under the "fair use" doctrine, and he believes that that doctrine properly applies to each video posted, so there is no copyright violation. Romm says that in four years, no one, not even Fox News, of whom Romm is critical, has ever objected to his displaying a news clip. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I take that point, but please don't be surprised if others dispute this. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   refs #3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 20, 24, 31, 32, 64, 85, 87 need publisher details and or author details, also access dates for consistency.

   OK, added publisher/author/date details as available. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

1. Fair representation without bias:

   Are there no sources that criticise the views of the subject?

   Lots of them, but none are from reliable sources. Editors have tried, on two occasions, to add such a section, and both times, after arguments, it was found to be devoid of reliable sources and removed. In the first case, I tried to rewrite the section, but the criticisms dealt generally with topical issues that were, in themselves, of little interest. One of the other editors deleted the section. Some time later, it was re-inserted, but filled with OR and again devoid of reliable sources. Again, the other editor deleted it, as you can see from the talk page and talk page archives. Often, Romm and the webmaster at "WattsUpWithThat" argue over current issues, but it's a he-said, she-said, with lots of unpleasant personal invective. In short, I don't think there's any really encyclopedic criticism available to discuss. Do a quick google search, and I think you'll see what I mean - lots of people blog about how Romm is wrong, and Romm replies that, no, the other guys are wrong. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   Ok, point taken.

5. It is stable.

1. No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensed and tagged

   I had previously included some of the covers of Romm's books, under fair use, but they were deleted. See, e.g., Hell and High Water (book) and Straight Up (book). Do you think that at least one of these book covers could be included? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

   Well if adding them is going to cause disputes, it is probably not a good idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

1. Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, just the copyvio video links issue remains. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

   I am asking for second opinion on the video link issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

   I have asked for input at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

   OK, no input from from elsewhere so I will pass this this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To GA or not to GA, that is the question

I wonder why someone nominated this article for GA. I've done 99% of the work on it, and I had no ambitions to promote it to GA. This article is often the focus of attacks by climate change deniers, and bringing it to GA will just make it a juicier target. It seems unfair for someone to nominate the article who does not work on maintaining it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers, I would like to answer your comment: I nominated this article for GA because I felt the quality of the article deserved to be recognized. You may have done 99% of the work on it, and you may have had no "ambitions" to promote it, but this is a collaborative project, and regardless of the work you've done here, nobody owns an article. In what may be considered an unusual approach, I sometimes nominate articles for GA, articles that I've had nothing to do with at all. I also participate in the work, if any is required, with or without the primary contributors. Since you've beaten me to the punch, I assume you've taken the bull by the horns and intend to complete the tasks at hand. As for your position that nominating an article is a Bad Thing, I have to strongly disagree with you on that point. This is an extreme form of risk aversion that is not conducive to a collaborative environment where we are trying to improve articles, not avoid improving them. The page history shows that this article has not been the focus of attacks by climate change deniers for some time, and its last major attacker left the project some months ago. I notice that this article does not have a climate change sanctions notice, so I'll be adding it now as a warning to anyone who attempts to disrupt this page. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I didn't say that GA is bad, I only feel that it is unfair to select an article that you have not worked on regularly for nomination, unless you plan to help maintain it over the long term. You say that "we are trying to improve articles", but nominating them does not improve them. I am very happy for anyone to help improve this article. So far, however, in the article's long history, no one has done any research to improve this article other than me. You should NOT "assume [that I] intend to complete the tasks at hand." This is exactly what is unfair here! However, I hope you do intend to help, as this article is periodically attacked by climate change deniers, and I would certainly welcome experienced editors to assist in improving the article and ensuring that all changes comply with WP:BLP and are based upon references that satisfy WP:RS. The only reason that the article has not been attacked lately is that its most recent attacker, User:FellGleaming, is currently topic banned. I expect that when his ban expires, he will be back here, because his MO is to try to degrade the articles of mainstream climate scientists and experts in order to introduce doubt throughout the encyclopedia that climate change is anthropogenic and to minimize the evidence that it is a grave threat. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, but nominating an article for GA does improve it–that is the whole point of the process. I would be happy to collaborate with you on getting this article passed, but I would like for you to consider softening your position, as it could be misconstrued as ownership. Further, your personal criteria that stipulates that one who works on an article must also help maintain it over the long term is quite unreasonable. In an ideal world, that would make sense, but on Wikipedia, many editors play "catch and release", donating their valuable time to improve an article over the short term and then releasing it back to the community. Many editors who do this are often surprised at how well coordinated and protective the community can be of such articles, and when you watch the flowing waters of recent changes feeds, you will see a pattern of editorial roles emerging: one editor might fight vandalism, another BLP violations, and yet another might perform grammar fixes and gnomish copyedits. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing something about GA and FA articles being watched on special priority watchlists for vandalism and disruption. If, however, this is not true, and I am mistaken, then it should be implemented. Please do not continue to think and feel you are alone here. We are all interconnected on this site and in the real world, and we will all do what it takes to help our fellow editors. Remember, it is always darkest before the dawn. The necessity and beneficial nature of conflict and dispute on Wikipedia only becomes apparent when you realize what it would be like without it. Your worry of increasing entropy, where all articles will degrade into penis vandalism and broken links is legitimate. But please, try to have faith in your fellow editors. The vast majority of us are here for the same reasons and have the same goals. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, look. I disagree with your opinions and your methods. It seems rude to me to nominate without notifying the editor who has done all the work on the article and asking if that editor thinks the article is ready for nomination. And, as I said above, I don't see why you are lecturing me and calling me names. Nevertheless, you have nominated this article, and there is nothing I can do about it, so fine. Let's just work on improving the article. I'd appreciate if you would just focus on the article now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any disagreement from you. I've only seen "I'm right and you're wrong". You've made it clear that you don't want this article to be a GA, and you've made it clear that you "own" this article and don't want other people editing this article or working on it. What you haven't made clear is your admitted COI and relationship with Romm, but that doesn't concern me. I just want you to know that your COI is reflecting badly on your position in regards to the good faith contributions of other editors. You've done nothing but assume bad faith in every interaction, so tell me why I should even spend a minute of my time here? Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

May I say that I have worked with Ssilvers on a large number of articles up to and including FA level, and always find him a pleasure to co-operate with. I do not recognise the picture painted of him in the above paragraph. I feel sure there must be a misunderstanding. Tim riley (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He has previously admitted that he is a close friend of the subject. There is no misinterpretation. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made myself clear – sorry. (Ssilvers's friendship with Mr Romm is a matter of record, very properly available to all Wikipedia users.) I meant that supposing Ssilvers to be obstructive – let alone prone to asserting "ownership" of an article – is, in my four years of working with him as a fellow Wikipedian, the exact opposite of the truth. I know nothing of the technicalities of this particular article, I must stress, but I am sure that anyone editing it on proper WP lines, neutrally and with reliable citations, will not find our colleague obstructive – quite the reverse. Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed criticism section

It is not controversial for Romm to delete comments to his blog posts by commenters who wish to push climate change denial. It's Romm's blog, and bloggers often moderate comments to their blogs. If you want to write a "criticism" section for this article, do some research, find some WP:Reliable sources, and write something. Please see, in this regard, WP:BLP. My impression from the research that I have done is that criticism of Romm appears in some blogs, but not in reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Just because some editors do not agree with Romm or do not like Romm's opinions does not mean they can come here and use this as a forum to 'bash' him online. All additions must be fully referenced using legitimate and recognised sources. See the discussion above. Jack1956 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is [13] a COI? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I believe SSilvers should disclose his close personal connection to Romm; there is a clear issue of WP:COI in this article, and the article viewpoint is severly biased. FellGleaming (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that I know Joseph Romm and have been a friend of Romm's for many years. Now, in what way is the article biased? What language in the article do you question? Please be specific. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Um well this is certainly news to me. I've had numerous problems with this article with Ssilvers "defending" Romm, and knowing he was Romm's friend would definitely have affected that debate William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

-- redacted--

William, I have previously confirmed that I am a frend of Romm's since 2006. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph J. Romm. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So you have. But that page isn't on my watchlist (or indeed that of many other people) so I didn't see that. Nor, I think, will most people be aware of that edit of yours. I don't think you can rely on such a declaration to come to sufficiently wide notice William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also had issues with POV and bias on this article. At the time, I wasn't aware of the connection either. FellGleaming (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article and cannot see any COI. Where and what exactly are you referring to? The fact that Ss knows Romm does not mean that his edits are biased or COI. Can you point out specific instances please that we can discuss? Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, please don't unilaterally rv COI tags. Both myself and WMC have indicated problems. Romm is a pundit who is generated much controversy, and made a large number of dubious claims. I once attempted to use a more neutral language throughout the article, and insert a standard "controversies" section, only to have Ssilvers instantly revert out anything that he considered less than highly praiseworthy.

Jack - at this stage, I'm not accusing Ss of having made any bad edits here (he has made edits I disagree with, of course, but that is another matter; FG has a somewhat different view). But that is not the same thing as a COI. I hope you can appreciate the difference William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

When the primary editor of an article has a personal relationship to the article's subject, that is the very situation the COI tag was made for. When that editor is censoring anything even faintly negative, there is even more reason to use the tag. FellGleaming (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So... how to proceed? From my own personal experience I can attest that attempts at over-strict interpretation of the COI rules can be vexatious. Ss: suppose I was to propose that your COI was sufficiently serious that you should accept that you should not make any contentious edits here, but should restrict yourself to the talk page if you disliked a particular edit (just for the sake of symmetry I'd agree the same, though you would proably feel that doesn't help you much). Would you accept that? The problem I see here is that although you've said you're "a friend" you've said no more: if we need to establish the degree of COI you have, inevitably you're going to have to be more forthcoming and you might be unhappy with that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider to this topic may I say that I do not think a case for a charge of COI has been made? I am commenting here because I have worked with Ssilvers on unrelated articles, and know his scrupulousness in avoiding bias and in insisting on proper verification of statements. That Ssilvers knows the subject of the article (a fact publicly notified in Wikipedia) does not, in my reading of the COI guidance, mean that he should refrain from editing the page. "If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article." The first of those two pieces of advice should be considered. The guiding principle at the head of the COI guidance is, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." As a non-expert on the present topic I have carefully read the article through, and I detect no statements or phrasing that could be interpreted as biased or showing evidence of an approach as defined above. I have also looked at a random sample of disputed edits earlier in the article's history, and so far as Ssilvers' contributions are concerned, the same comments seem to this layman to apply. - Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree totally with Tim Riley's comments. I have also worked with Ss on a number of articles unrelated to Romm, and I find him meticulous in his writing and in the referencing of his edits. If there is no independently verifiable source then it doesn't go in. I find his same care and attention to detail in this article. I see no evidence of POV or COI. He has always maintained that he is a friend of Romm...he first stated this in 2006, I believe. There is no secrecy here - nothing underhanded. Clearly he knows about Romm and his work and his edits on the subject are vaild and unbiased and important. Jack1956 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"I know his scrupulousness in avoiding bias". Where is the controversy section that originally existed in this piece? It's gone, deleted by Ssilvers ... along with anything else which he believes reflects badly upon Romm. The article wrongly promotes a view that no one notable has ever criticized Romm or any of his many controversial statements. Further, the length of the piece is entirely out of proportion when compared to other subjects of relatively equal notability. It reads like a puff piece, and it is.

There is a vast difference between "carefully sourcing inserted comments", and censorship of material to promote a certain viewpoint. FellGleaming (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming, you are wrong. William Connolley deleted the controversy section regarding the bridge in Minneapolis. See here. The article is long because it is comprehensive. I have been involved with 18 FA and GA articles on Wikipedia, and the FA guidelines say that articles should seek to be comprehensive. Just because other articles are not complete does not mean that this article should be made incomplete. By the way, William has disclosed here the criticisms that he has made of Romm on his blog. And Fell Gleaming should disclose that he is a global warming denier. Indeed,both of you have a POV here, and so, in my view, we are all in the same position regarding the editing of this article. William, FYI, I live in a different city than Romm and I see him approximately once every two years. True, I wish him well, but we all edit articles of people we wish well. I welcome adding serious critiques of Romm to this article if properly sourced, but Fell Gleaming certainly has not come up with any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the WP policy on Conflict of Interest: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest."

My random check of disputed edits included the one mentioned above, and the arguments advanced at the time. My conclusion that there is no COI, as set out above, was reached after reading that and other exchanges. - Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Um. I'm not very convinced by this, but OTOH I can't recall anything terrible either. Is [14] the disputed crit section? If so, then I agree it shouldn't be in William M. Connolley (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming, I repeat the question: What do you think is wrong here? This article is referenced to WP:Reliable sources. If you have specific criticisms of Romm made by WP:Reliable sources, by all means, let's add them. I have actually looked for criticisms of Romm, but all I have found are rants on the blogs of global warming deniers or hydrogen car dealers. These do not pass the requirements of WP:BLP -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expressed these concerns to you before Ssilvers; and when I last formally requested editorial assistance, the consensus agreed with me. This reads like a puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry, and is overly long for the notability of the subject, and finally censors any criticism or controversy regarding the subject. I'm taking an initial stab at putting some balance to the piece. FellGleaming (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a highly critical review of one of Romm's books from some very well known transportation experts, that I added to this article but which Ssilvers, (who was best man at Romm's wedding, BTW) deleted: Ogden, Joan, D. Sperling, and Anthony Eggert, “Is there hope for hydrogen,” Review of Hydrogen Hype by Joseph Romm, Chemical and Engineering News, Volume 82, Number 41, pp. 48-49, October 2004.--PotomacFever (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this article, FG. I will certainly carefully review your new additions. I disagree, though, that any consensus ever agreed with you regarding this article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Scarlet Letter

I request that the COI tag be removed, because the article does not "require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As Ss has correctly pointed out, it was *me* that deleted the controversy section and if you look back over the edit history you'll see I haven't been too kind to Romm. I think the best solution would be to move the COI tag to the talk page - I don't think it is reasonable for new editors to know about Ss's relation to Romm by reading the AFD, and this stuff here will get archived in time. There must be a tag for "X has a potential COI on this page as decsribed by Y" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of brand you want to put on my breast. I believe that my editing on this article is fair and neutral, and also modestly believe that the article is pretty well-written and accurately describes Romm and his views. I would be happy to include a well-written, reliably-sourced criticism section, if someone can write one. I am also happy to periodically confirm here that I am a friend of Romm's, if that makes everyone feel better. You are not arbcom, and you cannot impose requirements. Let's focus on the content, eh? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just read thru the entire article and looked at most of the references, which appear to be RS throughout. I agree with the general consensus that the article is well written from a neutral view and exhibits no visible conflict of interest. Keeping the tag displayed would be misleading, and would serve as a detriment to the article itself. I do note, however, that the reference 46 link (StraightUp) needs to be updated or replaced. Smatprt (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Jack has removed the tag. That is OK by me; I can't see any *actual* COI issues with the article. @Ss: I'm not saying your editing has been unfair. But you've been defending Romm, and it would be reasonable for people to know your connection William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The book comes out on Monday, April 19, so Island Press moved the link here. We could also use the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Straight-Up-Americas-Politicians-Solutions/dp/1597267163 here]. I'll fix the tense of the text once the book is already out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments incidental to GA

Two minor points. In the Bibliography section, second para, Romm is quoted as using the word "modelled". Did the English publishers really Anglicise his spelling? (Shame on them if they did!) And I wonder about the section heading "Recognition". I wonder if "Reputation" or some such might be a more neutral heading. Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote is correct; Romm just spelled it this way. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary says that both spellings are correct in the U.S. Good idea about "Reputation". I'll make the change. Thanks for the comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead description of Romm

AmericanProgress.org lists Romm among its Energy Policy experts, with "Area of Expertise: Climate Change" [15] - I have edited the page accordingly. mmorabito67 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this adds anything. The description in the article already encompasses this idea. Given the lengthy discussions above about the first sentence in this article, editors should not change it unless a consensus to do so is first built on this talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly given all the discussion about how to define Romm, shouldn't we use the same words as his employer (in quotes, perhaps)? If American Progress considered Romm a generic "climate expert" rather than an "energy policy/climate change expert" they would have written that themselves, no? mmorabito67 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. American Progress is not Romm's only activity, and I don't know why you are referring to their Experts page, which is obviously not intended to be a comprehensive description of their bloggers. He blogs for them, but he has many other activities, including writing books and articles. He is a climate expert, encompassing all aspects of this: climate science, energy technologies and policy. What we have there now is the best description. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would "climate" encompass "climate science, energy technologies and policy"? Possibly, you could argue that for "climate change" instead of "climate" [16], thereby making Romm a "climate change expert", exactly as defined by American Progress. Actually...is there any place apart from journalistic pieces where Romm is defined as "climate expert"? Especially, any place where he could control the exact text. For example Romm himself at ThinkProgress avoids completely the use of "climate expert" [17]. And the front flap of Hell and High Water (hardback) has him as "an expert in the science, business and politics of climate change". Once again, it's "climate change" and not just "climate". And if his employer uses it, and Romm uses it, of course we should use it too. If you prefer, we could just get the Hell and High Water text verbatim. mmorabito67 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

NY Times, Scientific American and U.S. News and World Report all call him a "climate expert". Romm does not avoid the term - he quotes Friedman here, who calls him "a physicist and climate expert". What is it that you wish to accomplish here? Why do you wish to limit the description of his expertise to climate change instead of climate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your hostility to do something as obvious as defining Romm the way Romm has time and again defined himself in first person is unexplicable. As Romm and American Progress know, "energy policy/climate change expert" is not limiting Romm's expertise any more than eg defining David Reay as "climate change scientist" [18] is. They both developed their climate-related expertise in the context of climate change, even more so for Romm. Even your quote only shows he has always put the generic "climate expert" in quotes, something said and written by somebody else: not one of the articles and other publications authored by Romm linked in his Wikipedia entry ever defines him as "climate expert". Such an expression perhaps could be acceptable in journalistic terms, but surely not in Wikipedia? Would Romm be writing about climate in the absence of climate change? Has Romm ever written anything about climate outside of the context of climate change? mmorabito67 (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"energy policy/climate change expert" is clearly more limiting than "climate expert", and we cannot take Romm's word for where his expertise lies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit more criticism of Romm

I see that an earlier attempt to add criticism of Romm failed, because of RS problems (blog sources). I'll post a few non-blog articles here -- I don't follow Romm, and have no real knowledge of him, other than to observe his tendency to put his foot in his mouth pretty regularly.

• (1) Joe Romm’s strategy to lose the clean energy race a rebuttal to one of Romm's Grist columns, interesting in that it is from people you would expect to be Romm's allies.

• (2) www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/global-warming-malaria-and-joe-romm-s-logic-fail-and-downright-dishonesty "Global warming: Malaria and Joe Romm's logic fail--and downright dishonesty", by Thomas Fuller, who writes (or wrote) a regular "Liberal Skeptic" column for Examiner.com -- which is blocked by WP's blacklist, though Fuller is generally well-thought-of in the Climate-skeptic community.

-- and that's all I saw in the first nine pages, googling Criticism "Joe Romm" -blog Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for these, but I'm not sure what we can write about them: (1) Jenkins and Norris say that Romm's criticism of *them* was factually wrong. Of course, Romm disputes this. Romm was in favor of the Waxman-Markey bill, writing on his blog and everywhere else that it was (a) better than nothing, (b) a good first step, and (c) the only game in town. BTI, Jenkins and Norris opposed the Waxman-Markey bill, writing here that Congress "must strengthen the Waxman-Markey bill". But the Senate did not strengthen or approve the bill, and now we have no climate bill, exactly as Romm feared. So, what is there to say about the criticism of Romm based on this Grist piece? How would you put it? (2) If the Examiner is blocked by the blacklist, it's definitely not a WP:RS. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New criticism section

Fell Gleaming has added a new criticism section. William, before I comment on this, do you want to deal with the items that have previously been discussed here? Also, I suggest that the section on Romm's view should go before the criticism section. That would seem more logical. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the new crit section [19] is unsalvegable on BLP grounds, so I've removed it entirely. It looks like a pile of misc dirt backed up by very dubious blogs. Quite what FG was thinking of I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The National Post is a "dubious blog" now? What's your rationale for deleting opinion from that source, but blithely adding op ed sources from similar or even less notable sources? FellGleaming (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

FG, Where did you cite the National Post? I think it is very important for you to review WP:BLP. I have no problem with adding a balanced and well-referenced criticism section here, but what you wrote was just a bunch of out-of-context accusations. The Minneapolis bridge thing was discussed here before, and you participated in the back and forth. Plus I referenced it above in my recent response to William. Romm's response to the Minneapolis accusation is easily accessible to you; yet you ignored it. You are certainly testing the limits of WP:Assume good faith here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not "ignore" Romm's response; I haven't seen it. Why not insert his rebuttal to the claim in the controversy section, rather than whitewashing out any possible criticism of the article's subject? I spent all of 5 minutes and found 3 such issues...its not like he hasn't generated a great deal of controversy. FellGleaming (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone besides William have a problem with the controversy section? His object to the sources clearly is inapplicable in this case. A source must be sufficient to back up the claim. If the claim is, "y is true", then an op ed piece has problems. But if the claim is "a person's opinion is y", then an opinion source written by the person himself saying "y" is not only sufficient verification, its the golden standard. FellGleaming (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Errm, what you wrote was just a bunch of out-of-context accusations. does indeed rather suggest that Ss does. Since you've replied to that comment, we should assume that you've read it. Which makes what you've written at 21:03 incomprehensible William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer FellGleaming - I have some problems with the section, as well. The refs to 'blogs' are clearly inappropriate. How can they be described as remotely RS? Some of the National Post information might be salvageable. But the quote is not. It is inappropriate and unduly harsh. But mostly - and especially when dealing the BLP - please keep the "opinion" quotes out of it and stick to quoting facts. That would be more in keeping with the applicable policies and guidelines. Smatprt (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"How can [blogs] be described as remotely RS? " The touchstone here is verifiability. If the statement is about the opinion of a blog writer, their blog is the gold standard of authority. In nearly all other cases, yes a blog is not a RS. But in this particular case, a blog is the very best source.

As for the idea that criticisms by notable figures have no place in the article, I dispute that...and WMC himself has made many thousands of edits inserting critical opinions into other articles. If it would help, would you like me to list a few of the countless Wiki BLP articles that have opinion quotes in them? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"what you wrote was just a bunch of out-of-context accusations." What do you feel is the proper context for "Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have accused Romm of "Climate McCarthyism", saying he attempts to intimidate journalists and squash the debate over climate change". Out of context implies I have misrepresented the statement; do you believe I didn't accurately capture their viewpoint? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the Al Gore article can serve as a guide with respect to any proposed criticism section. Gore has critics of his environmental views, and that article shows how to cite major media in order to discuss criticism of the subject's views, and also how to describe the subject's responses to that criticism. Certainly Romm has strong views, and he has been criticized by, and has criticized, bloggers with other views; and Romm has often answered his critics on his blog. I don't think it's notable to give the he said/she said debates between Romm and other blog writers which, after all, is just the debate between those who believe AGW must be combatted with immediate action and those who disagree with that. Otherwise Gore's article would have a list of criticisms of his views, which it does not. But there was some major media reporting, I think, on Romm's criticism of the global warming chapter of the book Superfreakonomics, the authors' responses, and Romm's responses to them. Romm himself is not very controversial: he practices what he preaches. For example, he long ago installed solar panels on his home and drives a Prius. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit off topic perhaps, but I've never understood how someone who drives a Prius 40K miles/yr is helping the environment more than someone who drives a Tahoe 5K miles/yr. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, completely off topic. Please delete you post, and my reply William M. Connolley (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's futile. Back in 2005 I added a criticism section to the article that was promptly deleted by ssilvers (who as you know was best man at Romm's wedding). Romm's book on hydrogen was given a very negative review by Dan Sperling who is a member of the California Air Resources Board. [See Ogden, Joan, D. Sperling, and Anthony Eggert. “Is there hope for hydrogen?” Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 82, no. 41, pp. 48-49, October 2004] Later that same magazine printed a point-counterpoint with Romm and the principal deputy assistant secretary at Dept of Energy, the person in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs there, that noted "Romm exaggerates." Roger Pielke, Jr. a professor at CU (that's Univeristy of Colorado at Boulder, in case you are a lawyer and didn't know) has written articles critical of Romm's quote feeding tactics. And it goes on . . . . --PotomacFever (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Scientist?

BTW, I would note here that Fellgleaming just wrote at Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States that J J Romm "is not a scientist", but a policy wonk, and removed his name from the entry because of this opinion. Statements such as these by editors are one of the worst features of WP. If a person that earned a Ph.D in physics from MIT, and also held high positions at the U.S. DOE, one of the world's most advanced R&D agencies, cannot occasionally be termed a "scientist" on WP, then who can? And it's funny then that this WP editor won't disclose their own "qualifications" to screw around with perfectly good science entries (and more importantly, this editor's lack of tack should be well-known by now). So Fellgleaming, do you hug test tubes or run NMR every day and does that make U a scientist? is that what a "scientist" is? Was Albert E. not a "scientist" either, as he only sat in an office at princeton and smoked a pipe for 30 years, and did only thought experiments and some math? How silly. Jack B108 (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a PhD doesn't make you a scientist. Many people with PhD's are not scientists. There is no good definition but, broadly speaking, you're a scientist if you (currently) do research and write papers. Romm doesn't William M. Connolley (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As we've discussed several times before on this page, William's opinion on this subject is contradicted by the following evidence:

• Romm has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. He was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; he had oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs under Clinton; he wrote a number of books on energy and global warming as well as scientific reports; and he was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS in December 2008 for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies." Other scientific credentials are discussed in the article.

Here are some publications and organizations that call Romm a "physicist":

• Scientific American calls him a physicist here.
• National Geographic calls him "a physicist and climate expert" here
• The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, calls Romm a "physicist and climate expert" here and here and in his recent book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded Farrar, Strauß and Giroux, Macmillan, 2008, pp. 115, 160 and 188 ISBN 0374166854. I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm.
• The Wall Street Journal calls him a physicist here.
• The Washington Post calls him a physicist here and here.
• The New York Times states, in December 2009, that Romm is a physicist here.
• Businessweek calles him a physicist here.
• PBS calls him a physicist here.
• U.S News & World Report introduces Romm as a "physicist and climate expert".
• Newsweek calls him a physicist here.
• The Boston Globe calls Romm a physicist.
• Andrew Revkin of The New York Times calls Romm a physicist.
• San Francisco Chronicle calls Romm a physicist.
• The New Yorker calls Romm a physicist.
• The National Wildlife Federation calls Romm a physicist
• The Sydney Morning Herald calls Romm a scientist.
• Scientific American calls him a climate expert here.
• U.S. News & World Report calls Romm "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings".
• The Guardian calls Romm a "Physicist and climate blogger". See this and this (the second added Nov. 17, 2015 by Ssilvers).
• Toronto Star: Romm is "widely recognized as a climate change and clean technology expert". See this.
• Physics World calls him a "physicist and climate expert" here.
• The American Spectator calls him "a giant among environmental experts".
• TreeHugger calls him a physicist here and here.
• The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies calls Romm a climate change expert here.
• Truthout calls him "a physicist and editor of the climate-science-focused blog Climate Progress".
• WNYC's "On the Media" calls him a physicist here.
• Dr. Michael Mann at George Mason University calls Romm "a respected scientist ... many leading climate scientists in the U.S. and abroad read the blog regularly, in part because Joe covers the science—and its implications—comprehensively." Mann praises Romm's 2010 review of climate science.
• Point of Inquiry calls Romm a scientist.
• The Atlantic calls him "an MIT-trained physicist".
• Slate calls him a climatologist. (see Plait, Phil. "Years of Living Dangerously", Slate, March 28, 2014
• Centre for Research on Globalisation calls him a physicist.
• The Weather Channel calls him a physicist. **Added June 15, 2015 by Ssilvers
• Public Radio International calls him a scientist. **Added August 11, 2015 by Ssilvers
• CNN calls him a physicist. **Added August 20, 2015 by Ssilvers
• Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists calls him a physicist. **Added November 12, 2015 by Ssilvers
• The Daily Beast calls him a physicist. **Added January 11, 2016 by Ssilvers
• WBUR-FM calls him a physicist. **Added September 20, 2016 by Ssilvers
• The Independent calls him a physicist. **Added June 30, 2017 by Ssilvers
• The Courier-Mail calls him a physicist. **Added June 30, 2017 by Ssilvers
• Yale Climate Connections calls him a physicist. **Added June 5, 2018 by Ssilvers

There are thousands of google hits on Romm and the words scientist, physicist, climate expert, energy expert, etc. because Romm is a leading expert, invited many times to testify before the Congressional committees on science and technology and author of the book (Hell and High Water) that explains to lay readers the effects of global warming based on Romm's review of the scientific literature, which is extensively footnoted in the book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: the above comment was edited by Ssilvers (talk · contribs) at 17:08, 15 June 2015 to add The Weather Channel and remove the words "I could keep adding more." Please do not edit out of sequence without dating later additions or changes, . dave souza, talk 19:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK, good idea. I'll date any later additions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The NSF Research you cite was in fact a workshop. Romm was the meeting organizer. --PotomacFever (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobel laureate and NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls Romm "an influential blogger," but not a scientist or physicist. --PotomacFever (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You could add more. But they are all recycling each other without really thinking. At the moment, the article calls him a "physicst" based on a NYT piece that says "That's about double the mean model projection," notes physicist Joseph Romm, author of a new book on global warming, "Hell or High Water." But he isn't a physicst. He is a person with a PhD in physics, which is very different. Nor is your understandnig of HaHW correct: it does *not* explain in scientific terms Cl CH: it is very much a populist book, and spends most of its time on politics and polemic. If you want to see a (still populist, but far more science-slanted) book, then John Houghtons "global warming, the complete briefing" [20] shows a clear contrast to Romms work.

I picked a few off your long list above, and they all seem to say "scientist" as a lazy drive-by sort of way, eg [21]. Not a single one of them has *anything* to say about his actual scientific work William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, and in fact that ref I've just quoted contains another excellent example: "If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes, said NASA's Gavin Schmidt. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no - at least, not yet." That is a scientist speaking. Here is Romm speaking: [22]. can you spot the difference? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)