Talk:Paul Reiter

Untitled

Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a respected entomologist who has spent decades studying mosquito-borne malaria, believes that global warming would have little impact on the spread of malaria. But the IPCC refused to consider his views in its third assessment, and has completely excluded him from contributing to the fourth assessment. [1]

Former global warming supporter

Please establish on the page first that Christy has been a supporter - and that he has changed his mind. Otherwise that is WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He used to contribute to IPCC reports, of which, the IPCC maintains a supporting view. (Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health))--Zeeboid 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers are not by neccessity supporters - in fact there have been quite a few of sceptics amongst them (fx. Steve McIntyre is for the AR4, Reiter, Vincent Gray, Richard S. Courtney from the TAR). --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Was he an author on the report, or only a reviewer? Because reviewer is no status at all William M. Connolley 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert reviewer. (at least according to the letter from the 60[2]). Note: i of course meant Reiter not Christy in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So wait... There have been quite a few skeptics amongs the IPCC Reviewers? Why is this not documented anywhere? Paul Reiter was a member of the IPCC was he not?--Zeeboid 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is probably documented by the sceptics themselves - It shouldn't come as a surprise for Gray or Courtney, they've (iirc) been regular posters at john-daly. And it would probably also be documented in the review documents. You can also find it on the 60 scientists letter - where you got the information about Reiters reviewer status - right? --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - do pay attention. One of the badges the septics like to flash is "IPCC expert reviewer" - because it sounds good. The fact that it actually means nothing doesn't matter for their purposes. And what does "a member of the IPCC" mean? William M. Connolley 09:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WMC, Do pay attention. Member of the IPCC I would take as anyone who contributes to the IPCC. Since the IPCC's views are well known, anyone who contributes to the IPCC is a Global warming supporter until they quit or leave or come out against the IPCC. Much like someone who may possibly get some funding form anyone in "Big Oil" is known for being under "Big Oil's" influance.--Zeeboid 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And as far as your POV Pushing, please read the quote from Reiter in this section to note his skepticism of the IPCC.--Zeeboid 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Member of the IPCC I would take as" <- well that is wrong. The members of the IPCC are clearly stated on the IPCC page - or on the various pages for the work-groups. It is not hard to become an "expert reviewer" - in essence it only requires that you request to be one. As WMC has said earlier - this is one of the things that sceptics do - first of all because it provides a preview of the final report - and secondly because it sound official. --Kim D. Petersen 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not on the current list because he left the IPCC. Is this facutally incorrect?--Zeeboid 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any sources (other than himself) for his being there in the first place, and for his leaving? I think its rather sad that this chap - presumably a reputable scientist - apparently now exists (according to wiki) for no purpose other than to snipe at the IPCC. KDP is correct - there should be more about his science in here. Whether he left/joined IPCC is (of course) irrelevant to being a GW supporter anyway - you need before/after quotes to establish that William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and 'notable' - or - too much IPCC too little entomology

I'm sorry but this is getting out of hand. Reiter is a renowned entomologist - one of the worlds top-most experts on this subject (afaik). This means by default that his notability if for entomology. He is known (or has become so) for his scepticism as well - but to say that this is the reason for him being notable is simply going over the edge.

Now someone here is trying to make this article into a global warming scepticism page - instead of about Reiter (the scientist). Try to balance things a bit - there is nothing wrong with noting his scepticism - but it gets too much when almost all of the text on the page is about this. How about doing some research on the Man - the science - and why he is who he is instead? --Kim D. Petersen 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Reiter's quote about the IPCC factually incorrect? Because if its not, I don't see a reason for you to keep that informaiton from his article. If you do a google search for "Paul Reiter" 11 of the top 12 results refrence his opinions on the IPCC (including a link to his wiki article). So I would argue that the info on his wiki article about his disgust for the IPCC dominating is accurate. I will, however, do a larger search on him to find more info on "Entomology" to add to the article. Perhaps you could assist in this task?--Zeeboid 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You are getting blinded by the political side / debate in the US - too many trees to see the forest. (Googlebomb effect) - Try "unbiasing" or widening your search - by only searching on ".edu" sites (which brings other articles to almost 0). Or adding a keyword "entomology" (which gives a more fair (but not much) view).
2. If it really was the case the Reiter only was noted for IPCC malaria scepticism - then he wouldn't meet [[3]] - and he does - which is why he is interesting.
3. Yes the info is correct - all i'm saying is that you have to have a balanced article. The Christy one is still there - isn't it? It is because it doesn't break balance between Christy the scientist and Christy in politics/media. Christy is most known for his Satelitte / Radiosonde work.

Hope this clears it up... --Kim D. Petersen 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then assist me in adding this informaiton, not taking informatoin away because it doesn't fit what you think the article should be. I agree the article needs to be "beefed up" but not at the cost of other reliable informaiton.--Zeeboid 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - i have no trouble with the quote - once the article is "beefed" up. As it stands that IPCC stuff is already taking a too substantial part of the article. (Reiter was for instance in this Movie - which should be referenced.) But i don't have that much time to dig - i'm currently at the deadline of a project. If you really want that quote in - then add balance. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so much of his google ends up with IPCC neatly demonstrates how un-notable he really is, apart from piggy-backing on the IPCC William M. Connolley 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote

Facutally correct, also inline with how he is known.--Zeeboid 13:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - correct - but please reflect on the above talk section. None of this has been resolved - yet. --Kim D. Petersen 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So Flesh out the article instead of removing stuff. go ahead and add to it.--Zeeboid 14:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you? - i'm not the one who wants to overload the page with data that is irrelevant to Dr. Reiters scientific career. I have critiques of Dr. Reiters position - that i do not include because it would be WP:Undue_weight in comparison to the articles current state. We need something on the man's academic carreer - not about his political views. As the article stands at the moment - Reiter doesn't fullfill notability criterias. --Kim D. Petersen 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

this article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it, that doesn't mean removing it, however if you would rather remove an article on someone who you don't agree with then expand it, be my guest. The consensus of informaiton out there is on Paul Reiter's scientific views when it comes to Global Warming and the IPCC. So while some may not agree with someone who has these views, Wikipedia, i'm told, reflects not just the facts, but the consensus of a topic too... and the consensus on Paul Reiter is he spends quite a big of energy on the topic of global warming, which in itself doesn't make it less of an article.--Zeeboid 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid then we may just as well request for a AfD - because Reiter doesn't adhere to the wikipedia guidelines for notability. I had hoped that you could come up with something. And i'm very sorry but Google doesn't define a consensus as you say - thats a Red Herring. The main focus here is first establish Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or Notability in another criteria - and then flesh out the article with all the other stuff.

I've been looking for information on Reiter - and i'm surprised that i can't find any... He doesn't have a homepage - he doesn't seem to have been awarded for anything notable - and i can only find 29 papers/articles that he's been involved in [4] - quite a few of these political/social sciences articles instead of hard entomology stuff.

All in all - i'm not even certain that he is notable. --Kim D. Petersen 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do what you want. Then he would be the only Contributor to The Great Global Warming Swindle that isn't notable.[5]--Zeeboid 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. There are notable scientists in TGGWS 2. Paul Reiter is a scientist. Therefore Paul Reiter is a notable scientist. (see: non sequitur). --Kim D. Petersen 21:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Involvement with IPCC

Wasn't he a contributor with the IPCC? This IPCC 3rd assessment doc has his name all over it. [6] The machine512 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought he had his name removed? Wasn't that the point. And that doc merely has *refs* to his work William M. Connolley 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes me assume it is the draft he was referring to. The machine512 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By "name removed" he doesn't mean refs to his work in the text - he means from the author list for the chapter. But we still only have his word for it so far William M. Connolley 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact Houghtons response to TGGWS, seem to indicate that Reiter wasn't an author.... [7] --Kim D. Petersen 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm raising this tag again, since none of us have been able to find information about his academic career. Currently its only about his views about the IPCC - and nil about his career, what his research is about. What his contributions to science is etc. We need this to establish a modicum of notability.

Please do not remove the tag until this has been resolved. --Kim D. Petersen 08:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its time to put it up for AFD or remove the tag William M. Connolley 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Its been a while since i've looked, but i still haven't been able to find much data on him. --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So... which way are you going to jump? Given that you've just re-inserted the tag, logic says... William M. Connolley 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be an AfD - which would (imho) result in either of two scenarios: A deletion because Reiter ends up being considered non-notable, or an influx of new editors and new information to bolster the article and show Reiter's notability. My gut-feeling says that Reiter has more notability than the current article shows - which is why i didn't nominate immediatly. But currently the only notability item is that he is opposed to the IPCC conclusions. Which (imho) isn't enough. I was considering how to formulate the AfD proposal to address this. --Kim D. Petersen 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added article from CFP which gives a brief CV. Also 700 results at Google Scholar. Iceage77 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Solomon series is not WP:RS. And i've changed the Google Scholar search to remove other scientists (such as the P. Reiter who is a nuclear physicist from Germany). --Kim D. Petersen 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That article contains useful info. If we eliminated every publication that had made errors in the past there would be no sources left. Iceage77 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RS we have to eliminate sources that are lacking editorial oversight. The Solomon series has been shown to lack this several times (in the same series). If it contains useful information - we will have to find other sources instead. Use it as a jumping pad to find these other sources. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blog

I've removed the link to (what appears to be) Reiter's blog. It seems likely that this really is his blog - at least the one posting that is made so far - is consistent with Reiters background. But i'd like some confirmation that this really is his blog. I've checked on the scienceblog site - and there is apparently no background info. So i'm requesting confirmation. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It may just be spam. The same text is at [8]. Indeed the one comment on the blog says "This is simply a test post." and is by Hank, who added this William M. Connolley 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [Or am I being unfair? Maybe. His other contribs are adding blogs, but from all around William M. Connolley 09:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)]

external links

1. 1 ExxonSecrets does not accuse Reiter of being funded by Exxon. The "Funded by Exxon?" is misleading, slanderous, and has no place on an article covering a living person.

1. 2 DeSmog, link number two is a joke. So they're "investigating" Reiter, huh? Their website is pure poetry. Founded and operated by a team running a PR firm in Canada [9]. Whose clients include firms involved in Oil development in Canada [10] and other firms involved in the oil industry [11], add cruiseship firms, tourism firms and fast-food chains and last, but not least, representing a firm involved in road-building projects [12], much to the dismay of a national Union [13]. Throwing stones in glass houses springs to mind.

Any information and accusations against Reiter that are "controversial" must be supported by hard facts. #1 is no hard fact. #2 seems to be a warning (investigating? what have they concluded? anything relevant?) to certain scientists petitioning the Canadian PM, and is politically motivated. It has squat to do with the environment, the bread and butter of DeSmog comes from companies that a lot of environmentalists would accuse of being "climate criminals". I'm removing both as undue weight, borderline slander and not adding anything of merit (except pure imagination and speculation) to the article itself. --Dean1970 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting a bit carried away. "Funded by Exxon?" was wrong; but that can just be removed and leve the link in place. DSB isn't a joke. William M. Connolley 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, investigate the matter yourself. PR company is behind DSB. Look at their client roster. These links are conspiracy, a lifes work undermined by speculating he is in exxons pocket. No can do William! --Dean1970 10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you spend some time *adding* info about his important life work, which is currently rather lacking William M. Connolley 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, his years of experience would indicate to me that his intentions of eradicating Malaria are noble. He would probably come by funding far easier by claiming that Global Warming is going to drive the prevelance of Malaria around the world. His honesty in not invoking GW is admirable, instead pointing out that sorting out, civil war, AIDS, extreme poverty and acute healthcare shortages in poor countries etc etc, is far more important than worrying about the weather in dealing with disease vectors. --Dean1970 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I'll try to expand the article.

DeSmog, a climate activist website created to expose "sceptics" as ignorant lapdogs of Exxon. DeSmog, a climate activist website created by PR firm that proudly represents AMEC, a company involved with Exxon [14]. The "interconnecting" irony here is baffling to me. Howabout you? --Dean1970 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I attempted to engage in a civilised manner the motives behind adding 2 absurd external links. It's a game of 'guilt by association', no matter how weak that association is it'll make it on wiki for some. I'm sure Exxon contributes to many centres of learning, a University here, a University there, does that mean that every student who went to that Uni is in the pocket of Exxon? No it does not. Both external links were created to attack Reiter, "Funded by Exxon?" was NO innocent mistake. Both links are speculation. One undermined by its own gross hypocrisy. --Dean1970 04:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusation with DeSmog as a source were added again, I removed them for reasons also mentioned above: not a reliable source, no reference. --Küchenkraut (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote Question

The quote refers to Global Warming Swindle film. But was it actually made by Reiter? It is not clear to me. Does anyone happen to have a reference? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)