Talk:RealClimate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Involvement

I understood that we were not to create articles about organizations of which we are part. --Wtshymanski 05:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I don't think there is any such hard ban: what precisely are you referring to? Also, I've removed the attention tag, which doesn't seem to be justified: its a stub, but no more in need of attention than many another stub.

WMC pushing his pet Blog here ... tsk, tsk, tsk. J. D. Redding 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And you're stalking, which is rather frowned on. Has the arbcomm taught you nothing? William M. Connolley 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy WMC is rather frowned on too (don't stalk if you don't want to be stalked).

Anyhoo ... I'm not stalking ... I am reviewing edits ... are you paranoid? guilty conscious?

now ... why are you pushing your blog, cutting out relevant info about your co-bloggers and subjects you don't like, and editing in a POV fashion? Nothing unusual since my earlier interaction with you but I thought I'd ask. J. D. Redding 11:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Some posts...

WMC, my concern about that list basically is aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. The first discourages people from writing about themselves or organizations to which they belong. The second says that Wikipedia should only on rare circumstances be referenced from within Wikipedia, in part, getting at the notion that what is done in one part Wikipedia should not be given as a reason for justifying what is encyclopedic in other parts of Wikipedia.

I feel that your creating that list would be a little like my creating a "list of important climate data" and then seeding it with many of my plots, and claiming that they are obviously important since they appear in Wikipedia.

(William M. Connolley 19:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) I don't think the comparison works. The RC posts have been added because they are useful, not for any other reason.

So you presumably you are saying that both my figures aren't useful and admitting that the only useful RC articles are the ones that get into Wikipedia. Is that how it is?  :-) Dragons flight 05:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) You seem determined to misunderstand. However, I'm crippled in this.

The above short comment is sarcasm. The bottom one is serious. Dragons flight 16:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Things shouldn't work that way, and even if you dropped the self-reference, I would still object to your creating that list because I think you are too close to it. What you think are the most important articles on RealClimate may be totally different from what a unaffiliated reader might think. For example, a naive reader probably cares more about the meta-posts where you introduce RealClimate and say what it is about, then about the more technical articles. And why should a series of articles of global dimming, a concept most people have never heard of, be considered more important than posts on glacial retreats or ozone loss, which are widely recognized phenomena. These are just some examples of ways people can disagree, and I don't want to bicker about the details of what would make a good list cause that argument could go on forever.

Instead, what I would like to suggest you do is not include any links to specific RealClimate posts, except perhaps to posts that explain what RealClimate is, and rather than selecting certain posts you like, you create some navigational aids pointing to the most important categories of posts on RealClimate. That way you are helping people find what they are looking for without getting too caught up in the personal and POV trap of what makes a good RealClimate post.

Dragons flight 19:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) The reason I didn't write a list of top posts was precisely the selction criteria problem. Which is neatly avoided by using only those used in wiki. If you object to the explicit self-reference, how would it be if we simply listed those used on wiki, but without explicitly stating that is the criterion?

It is only "neatly avoided" up to the point at which you chose the "objective" criterion, and frankly I think that relying on which posts find their way into Wikipedia is a fairly poor criterion. For one thing, it potentially misses many important RC articles that don't neatly fit into any wikipedia space. For another, it only serves to enhance one of the basic fears of Wikipedia:Autobiography, that you would be pushing RC content into Wikipedia to boost your own ego or agenda. Your site has credentials and press coverage and a following, but it is not that far removed from any crackpot with a website and an agenda trying to push content on Wikipedia and I certainly don't want to encourage the crackpots.

Let's think of it another way, would you judge the important/useful posts of the NY Times based on what Wikipedia cites? How about the important articles in Science? or Scientific American? or even for that matter http://www.climateaudit.org? At its base, it is a poor criterion, as I would think virtually any Wiki referencing criterion would be, and making it a stealth criterion would only make it worse not better.

If you want to create a list of important/useful RC posts, I would think that the way to do it would be to create such a list on the RC site itself and then add a link to it from here. You need to be careful not to use Wikipedia as an extension of RC. If a third party wants to create a list of useful RC posts in the wikipedia article, then fine, but I don't believe you should make such a list, and a really don't think you should provide a poor quality list in an attempt to avoid your own subjective biases. Dragons flight 05:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

CA

You can't create an entry in wikipedia on Realclimate without mentioning Climate audit. Hans Erren 12:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooooooohh yes you can. RC is general; CA is very focussed on minutiae; RC as far as I can tell doesn't engage with CA. I don't know what CA does. Implying that there are only two climate blogs is absurd... William M. Connolley 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

RealClimate doesn't engage with Climate Audit for the very good reason that RealClimate is afraid to engage with Steve McIntyre and heavily censors comments that don't fit the party line. Having lost the Hockey Stick debate (not even the Democrats nor Michael Mann dared defend it to Congress recently after the Wegman Report confirmed that the Hockey Stick is a statistical crock of shit), RealClimate spends much of its time dealing with politics and not science. CA is very focussed on minutiae, like how three climate scientists fabricated a reconstruction of past climate and got it inserted into the IPCC TAR. And then censored all criticism by blocking publication of refuting papers.

There are more climate blogs out there, but RealClimate is not a climate blog - its a political blog for a radical environmentalist agenda - and you are promoting the blog that you administer in defiance of any ethical considerations about conflict of interest or rules about self-promotion on Wikipedia. But then who needs ethics when you're trying to save the planet? Certainly not you Bill --86.138.65.171 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased

Mr Connolley decided to remove this line:

The blog, however, is strictly moderated and has frequently prevented scientists from posting on topic.

Well Stephen McIntyre and Ian Castles wouldn't count as scientists then? I wasn't allowed a single entry on the Luterbacher thread.

Try posting something that contains "bristlecones" or "R2 statistic"... Hans Erren 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is this Mr Connolley of whom you write? Castles has many comments on the blog, many of them critical. William M. Connolley 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

In internet debates I learned that the most important part of an answer is that part that is not addressed. Now, who did you leave out in the above line, Doctor Connolley? Hans Erren 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Search me guv. Please don't play silly games. And if you don't want to type my username, "WMC" is quite acceptable. William M. Connolley 11:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

We'll mention your name when Michael Mann actually uses the names "Stephen McIntyre" and "Ross McKitrick" in any post. --86.138.65.171 09:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

verifiable proof

[1]

RC’s efforts to prevent any links to climateaudit.org can lead to farcical situations, such as that at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=199 :

To their credit, RC had finally gotten around to mentioning von Storch’s and Huyber’s published comments on M&M. On that RC page, they provided free links to vS and H’s comments, but no links to M&M’s replies, although they at least mentioned that the replies existed! When queried about this (comment #1), Gavin posted links to *subscription-only* versions of the M&M replies, ensuring that most would be unable to access them, and claimed he couldn’t find any non-subscription links. Michael Mayson then posted a comment pointing out that the replies were freely available to all at climateaudit.org, and the RC moderators even commented on it. Shortly thereafter, a higher authority at RC then decided that either (a) perhaps M&M’s replies were too good for public consumption or (b) that having posted links to climateaudit.org just wouldn’t do, and deleted Mayson’s posted comment and the RC reply! (See comment #23 here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419) The later ruckus about RC adhering to its own posting policy shamed them into allowing my much later repost of the links to the climateaudit.org M&M replies.

Similarly to TCO’s experiences, my questions about why postings don’t appear have been ignored. As for “I wonder if what you calling censorship is just things falling through the cracks…”, I don’t consider my posts as censored until 3 business days have passed, and many other posts & moderators’ replies have appeared.

Hans is spot-on in post #91 about the effect this has on serious discussion at RC: why bother investing serious time and thought in a comment when chances are high it either won’t appear or will be ignored if the RC moderators can’t quickly dismiss it without spending much time on it? The RC staff seem most comfortable with a lecture-type model where they impart wisdom as set-piece presentations and avoid engaging very deeply with the readers.

Comment by Armand MacMurray — 2 January 2006 @ 2:23 pm

Hans Erren 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

RealClimate as PR tool

Realclimate is a PR blog, paid for by a PR organization Environmental Media Services that is run by scientists acting as PR hacks to get the public scared so money continues to pour into global warming research. I have a low opinion of Michael Mann, one of the lead contributors, due to his well documented lack of openness. Mann disregards policies requiring data archiving and data sharing. Congress, through the Barton Committee, had to investigate Mann to get him to turn over his data and methods. Science textbooks describe a lack of openness as Pseudoscience. Also, note the Hockey stick controversy and the fact Michael Mann claimed his Hockey Stick results were robust and not dependent on any proxy. Steve McIntyre discovered the "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED" folder on Mann's ftp site. This folder showed Mann knew his results were not robust without the bristlecone pine series and yet Mann still made the claim for robustness. You can read about it here. Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics The story is by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005. Also, Realclimate censors questions it does not like so it can avoid questions it cannot answer. Just try to ask Michael Mann a question about his "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED" folder and see if it makes it onto the blog. RonCram 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review the talk page guidelines and use this page to discuss specific changes to improve the article, rather than using it as a forum to expound on your personal opinions of the subject. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you're foaming at the mouth again. Try to stay on track William M. Connolley 08:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he is actually just stating the obvious. It is becoming increasingly difficult to balance the content of these articles under the predator tactics wiki uses... Fortunately, the facts are coming out to show your bias. How in the world are you going to go back and revise your positions in all of the articles and discussion pages to save any credibility ? 68.56.93.169 (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP edits

This edit has now been inserted twice by 76.30.69.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's a clear violation of neutral point of view and verifiability, and the user's edit summary makes me think they've seen a few of our user-warning templates before. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The current edit by MastCell and another are NOT neutral point of view, they are biased and imply that realclimate is the ultimate source of truth for this politically biased issue, thus your edits are in fact non-neutral politcally personal POV, so why are you still at it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.69.39 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 July 2007

You may want to (re-) read the neutral point-of-view policy and the verifiability policies, or look at some of our more successful articles on "controversial" topics, to get a better sense of why the edits you keep inserting are inappropriate. Basically, inserting your unsourced belief that "the blog owners are certainly biased toward the pro-AGW beliefs of the liberal politically focused media and Hollywood stars" is inappropriate. Please stop. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Since the article as-is is a very one-sided promotional POV piece on this topic, I attempted to balance the information presented by inserting some material describing a few of the controversies surrounding RC, along with relevant publication links. A user saw fit to simply revert my edits without discussion... so let's start the discussion!

Here are the two edits I introduced. Wikipedia policy is biased towards including more info on both sides of a controversial topic, rather than simply dumbing down to avoid controversy. If you disagree with the idea that the following edits make the overall article more neutral, please explain what additional material should be added to make the article neutral. Mr Pete 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not hide the real nature of RealClimate's support infrastructure

As is, the article states RealClimate's corporate support this way:

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public-relations firm.

That statement is very POV -- attempting to make a blatantly POV organization (EMS and its sponsor, Fenton Communications) sound boringly neutral. That's hardly the real situation. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? I posted an edit that tells the real story. What I posted (with links) is hardly a secret: Fenton Communications is quite proud of their stance in many arenas; they make public most (but not all) of their clients. And, RealClimate does not hide the fact of their relationship with Fenton and EMS, which is Fenton's environmental PR arm.

Here's my suggested version, with a minor edit to move the details into a footnote, thus keeping the main article nice and short. What would improve this even more? Mr Pete 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The web hosting for RealClimate is provided and paid for by Environmental Media Services, though they exercise no control over the content.

---

Saying that it is provided by it is enough. Paid for is redundant and introduces POV since it makes it seem like money is being moved around the blog, which I have no reason to think it is. Also saying that EMS is the "PR, left-supporting..." who are we to make such claims? In order to do that you have to find an external reliable source that puts all these things together, otherwise its synthesis WP:SYN.Brusegadi 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Provided is not enough; it leaves open the question of whether EMS is paid for this service. They are not. "Web hosting for XYZ is provided by Hostgator, though they exercise no control over the content." -- A hundred thousand clients "receive" that service from Hostgator. And pay for it. How do you intend to communicate accurately that EMS is paying for the hosting? It's called gift-in-kind. According to the IRS and FASB, such non-cash gifts (gift-in-kind) have real value, are to be accounted for and are the equivalent of "money being moved." The same goes for pro bono professional time donations. Mr Pete 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"In order to do that you have to find an external reliable source that puts all these things together, otherwise its synthesis WP:SYN"

How about Richard S. Lindzen (arXiv:0809.3762), who wrote: "Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying." --bender235 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen is an expert on climate (albeit a weird one), but not on web sites, hosting, and the history of RealClimate. arXiv is a useful resource, but not a reliable source. They exercise no editorial control, making this a WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

…which means you're looking for an expert on website hosting who made that exact comment (or kind of) in a peer-reviewed scientific article? You could've said in the first place that you want to keep this article free of "negative" comments. --bender235 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the semantics of "and", "or", and negation, and also take a look at WP:RS? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is enough. The word "provided" captures the meaning of 'gift-in-kind'. If it were not 'provided' it would simply state 'they are hosted by' or it would not say anything at all per undue weight. Brusegadi 03:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"We" don't need to make any claims about Fenton. There are plenty of sources. I only listed one... his own website. You want better sources? No problem. How about this, or this one, or perhaps this one

This article isn't really about Fenton, it's about RealClimate. But I do agree -- let's include sufficient alternative perspectives to balance the vapid hype. These three additional sources defining the bias of RC's support infrastructure ought to do just fine.

No. I did a Ctrl+F search on each of the 3 sources provided for the word climate. It never appeared in the word 'realclimate' so the blog in question is never even mentioned in your sources. You see, we cant simply put these things together in this page. If you read WP:SYN you will read: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." You are trying to join the fact that RealClimate is hosted (A) at some server and that the server is owned (B) by some guy to advance the position that Realclimate is biased (C). Thanks and happy editing, Brusegadi 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not suggest RealClimate is a neutral, non-controversial information source

Again, the article as-is is quite misleading. It refers to glowing press releases and commendations, while completely ignoring the more controversial aspects of this topic.

I could have asked to have all the promo and hype removed to make the article more neutral. But in accord with Wikipedia policy, I added some balancing material, with references.

My suggested additions are here. What would make these additions better? Mr Pete 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The RealClimate blog is the subject of an ongoing series of controversies, among them:

• Noted for selective censorship. The blog is claimed to frequently prohibit substantial commentary by qualified authors who disagree with the blog authors' POV.
• Noted as having alarmist bias. The blog is noted as adhering to a particular POV, to the extent of linking to an unscientific political video, while avoiding mention or linkage to Stephen McIntyre's widely recognized Climate Audit site, whose purpose is to carefully analyze the data and mathematics undergirding climate science.
• Avoiding relevant topics, e.g. "middle way" perspectives, Bristlecone Pine issues, the truthfulness of Al Gore's movie, papers presenting views that debunk their own, etc.

RealClimate opposes all such assertions, either through silence or active disavowal.

---

Blogs are not reliable sources unless it is to say something about the blog itself or something about the author of the blog. There are always exceptions but I dont think this is one of them. In my opinion many of the sites you site are not reliable. For example, most commentary I have heard says that Gore's movie had the facts pretty much straight. To get to the point, I think these edits would violate NPOV. Brusegadi 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You may have heard that Gore's movie had the facts straight... but you'd be wrong. The problem with your POV on this is that the MSM is toeing the line, while blogs are digging up the facts. Here we have a Wikipedia article on a blog, and you don't want to quote what other blogs say about it? Makes no sense. Mr Pete 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gore still had the facts right. He reported what was given to him; besides, the US correction does not affect world temps and even in the US there is no statistically significant hottest year, or so I have heard. Concerning blog on blog; it is not something we came up with, its just the way things are done. Brusegadi 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the problem is sources. Criticism needs to be properly sourced and attributed. See Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources for guidance - criticism from the blogosphere is generally not notable in an encyclopedic sense (though there are exceptions where self-published sources or blogs are considered reasonably reliable sources, the sources you've cited do not appear to be among them). Also see the policy on original research and original synthesis. Essentially, criticism can certainly be included, but needs to be better sourced and attributed. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Do sources need to be notable? Mr Pete 03:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Note the sources I used. Mr Pete 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

   RealClimate. If the RC blog is not a notable, reliable publication, why is this article in WP in the first place?

   Climate Science. The official publication of an academic climate research group at the University of Colorado. They're not reliable?

   (OK, so Lubos Motl is not "notable"... neither are the individual RC authors. Not sure where this goes.)

3. Yes, we can pull up more sources. Be careful about POV when publishing "consensus hype" while diminishing skeptic perspectives. Perhaps you might learn something from the retraction published by Newsweek: "Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society." Mr Pete 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Your sources appear to be blog comments, not even blog entries, unless I'm missing something? You need to produce a notable source actually making the criticism you'd like to insert. Not just cite a page from RealClimate and say, "Look, they didn't mention X, so they engage in selective censorship." MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Left-Leaning

Calling a duck a duck, I added the "left-leaning" in the title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.140.125 (talk • contribs)

Thats POV. Brusegadi 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it alloud on other wiki articles, but not this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.140.125 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It qualifies as original research as well as POV. Please be aware of WP:3RR. Vsmith 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Political Alignment and Censorship

These are legitimate topics of criticism from people notable enough to have a pre-existing BLP page. Using direct quotes is preferable to paraphrasing. Paraphrasing violates WP:OR whereas quoting does not.

3 quotes of criticism is not a WP:WEIGHT violation. By MastCell's own argument the recognition section already lists Science and Nature whereas my source are individuals. This should more than address any WP:WEIGHT concerns.

--GoRight (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No. My point regarding relative WP:WEIGHT was this: the "accolades" cited are from highly respected, third-party independent reliable sources like Scientific American and Science. On the other hand, the "criticism" consists of blog postings. Pielke is notable and is a published authority in the field, so his blog writings may (repeat, may) be acceptable as sources. The other blog author is not an expert in the field of climatology, and while she may be notable as an individual, her blog postings on the topic of climatology are not reliable sources. The bar is actually quite high for blog postings as sources. Additionally, WP:WEIGHT comes in thus: you're giving positive reviews from Sci Am and Science the same weight, or less, than a few isolated blog postings which are critical of RealClimate. Even if we accept that these blogs are reliable sources (I'm OK with Pielke but not the other one), WP:WEIGHT mandates that they not suddenly take up 1/2 the article. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your WP:WEIGHT point regarding the disparity in the "weight" of the accolades coming from source like Scientific American and Science whereas the criticism, at least for the examples discussed here, are coming from individuals. This is a fair point but one that I simply turned around on you. I would assume that your position is that the accolades far outweigh the criticism "over-all" and hence the same "weight" should be afforded in the article. My point in turning your observation about was that the disparity in "weight" of the sources basically matches the the disparity of "weight" in the criticism, if you follow my meaning here. Simplistically put, accolades from "big sources" = big accolades, critcism from "small sources" = small criticism.

I have decided to accept your point on "volume of text" which leaves us to paraphrase as has been done. I will note that I have seen such paraphrasing having been argued to be WP:OR which is the only real reason I prefer to use actual quotes which are not susceptible to such an attack.

I understand your reaction to Ridenour in general, but in this case her commentary is (1) not on the topic of climate science but rather recounting a specific event, and (2) while it is a self published source the topic is directly related to accusations against her organization and thus should still be considered WP:RS (in other words even a self-published source is considered WP:RS for issues regarding themselves). The current state of the WP:BLP even allows this exception and that policy is intended to be stricter than simply WP:RS and WP:V.

I think the fair and honest question is did the events being discussed by both Pielke and Ridenour actually happen? They certainly seem to have because they provide links to specific comments still on RC. Are their accounts accurate? I have no reason to believe that they have not been truthful in this matter, your suspicions aside. Has RC denied making the changes being alleged? I am not aware that they have. They may have explained the rationale for having done so, but they have not denied that they have occurred to the best of my knowledge. There is, of course, someone who monitors this very page that could clear this point up for us. Mr Connolley, did the events described by these individuals actually occur? If these thresholds are met then even if you have a general WP:RS concern about Ridenour the spirit of WP:IGNORE would still argue that a single reference to a single page to note the event is not out of line. Perhaps this is just my opinion though. --GoRight (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appeal to your collective integrity on the point of mentioning the removal of commentary from RC. In the case of the Fred Singer article, which is a BLP for an actual person as opposed to a blog, you all argued strenuously in keep the George Monbiot quotes in the piece and even included it in a section titled "Accusations of Conflict of Interest". While the quote remains the title at least has been removed. If RC wants to be viewed as the premiere resource on climate change should they not be able to stand up to two points of criticism on a wikipedia page when, in fact, that criticism is being fairly and honestly described? --GoRight (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appeal to you not to cast this as an issue of integrity nor of being "man enough" to take criticism. Those are actually not the issues here. The key issue under debate is not "Were posts removed?" The issue is: "Is this a notable issue deserving encyclopedic coverage, based on the sources available?" Drawing a comparison to Monbiot underscores the weakness of this argument. Monbiot's piece was published in The Guardian - a reliable third-party source with editorial oversight, legal vetting, fact-checking, etc. To compare that to a blog posting is apples to seashells. WP:IGNORE does not say that we can include poorly sourced material if we believe it to be true, or if it has not been actively denied by the article subject. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Well then I would simply restate the points above: Did the events occur? Are they accurately described in the sources cited? I believe that the events occurred as described. If RC has explicitly denied the events occurred as described then there is cause for concern, otherwise why should we object to a truthful accounting of the events as described by the individuals involved/affected? --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not notable. Every blog moderates commentary, particularly those that are high-profile and deal with controversial issues. Whether or not another blogger alleged that RealClimate did this, it's just not notable. If Scientific American said, "RC is a decent blog, but they censor people they don't agree with..." that might be one thing. But right now this discussion gives the impression of digging around for negative information to insert in the article, and this particular negative information just doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable, regardless. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a site that claims to care about the science and only about the science, and setting the record straight being accused of censorship of opposing views IS notable in its own right. They claim to be providing the whole story and being above the fray (i.e. not political) but if they are squashing even valid scientific commentary to promote their own scientific view this is notable. I really don't understand how you can claim that censoring opposing views is not notable in this context. It seems there is a claim on ClimateAudit to this effect as well [2]. McIntyre is published in this area as well, so this is now a second instance from a credible, by wikipedia standards anyway, source. Here is one from SEPP ([3]) whom I know you don't like but it is associated with our good friend Fred Singer who, as you know, has relevant publications in the area, so that is arguably three references from published authors. Here are a couple of accusations ([4], [5]) from a source you won't accept, but are they fabricating these things?

You charge that I am just looking for negative material to put into the article. Well, in this instance that is, in fact, true. Here we have and example of a GW related page which contains no criticism? That is completely unprecedented as far as I can tell. So in order to reflect a NPOV it seems prudent to provide content to cover what has to be the other side of their story. My goal, of course, is to preserve a NPOV in the face of this disparity. Nothing more.

It is clear that I will not convince you with argumentation alone so let's see what turns up in the RFC. --GoRight (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability, here, is not defined by what we as editors think is noteworthy. It's defined by what has been covered by reliable secondary sources. In this case, there appears to be no significant coverage of this issue by reliable secondary sources - hence it is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. You or I may find it "notable", but Wikipedia's definition of notability is specific and a bit unintuitive. MastCell ^Talk 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say that too. NN goes with sourcing, not out opinions. Brusegadi (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer you both to WP:NNC. Having established RealClimate as being notable (by virtue of its having its own article), you cannot limit the content of this article based on WP:N. The things being said in WP:RS and WP:V sources about RealClimate now become fair content to be included, observing WP:WEIGHT obviously. --GoRight 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The point, again, is that these blogs are not reliable sources. Even if we accept them as such, which is a big, big stretch, the issue of how much weight to assign a couple of posts in non-notable blogs is relevant. That's what I'm getting at. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:SPS:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Emphasis in the original. Both of the individuals discussed below meet this standard. --GoRight 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All procedural gamesmanship aside, this seems a rather straight forward matter to warrant so much discussion. MastCell, you had made an attempt at a good faith edit to include the only remaining point which is the accusation of removal of opposing views from the site. Are you still willing to work on a good faith version of that point or has the above discussion somehow affected your willingness to do so? Given the participant's bias against Ridenour in this case, and given that I have uncovered examples from McIntyre would you object to wording similar to the following as an additional sentence?

Both Roger Pielke, Jr. and Stephen McIntyre have criticized RealClimate for removing comments, even those from other scientists, with which the site's contributors do not agree.

As you are aware both individuals have publications in relevant areas, and as such the WP:SPS nature of these blog entries is still considered WP:RS for inclusion in general articles such as this. This is a good faith attempt to simply get this valid criticism into the article in a manner consistent with your WP:WEIGHT concerns, as well as your assertion of WP:RS objections to Ridenour.

I think that would be fine, though I would change "even" to "including" ("even" sounds a bit leading). Otherwise I don't have a problem with it. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So agreed. Let me then be WP:BOLD and reinsert this as I am now well outside of any 3RR window and see if there are any remaining objectors. --GoRight 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If KDP, Gmb92, SS, and perhaps WMC are not opposed to the current addition then I would like to close out the RfC below as its purpose will have become moot. Are you all so agreed? --GoRight 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly am opposed. Let me make a couple of comments first: your apparent assertion of probable agreement is irritating. So is your use of "Another good faith attempt..." in the edit comments. All edits are assumed to be in good faith, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Calling them IGF doesn't help. Don't do it. As to the substance: McI is far from a neutral source and should not be quoted as such. RP Jr, too, is pushing his own meme and using RC only as an example, and is not neutral William M. Connolley 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the AGF points, fair enough. It was not my intent to cause controversy on that point, but quite the reverse. None of these were an accusation, BTW, but a characterization of my intent - strictly for emphasis to try and move beyond this rather straight forward matter.

A point of clarification. I did not characterize the agreement as "probable", I believe that I characterized it as "limited" and then explicitly sought your input, as well as the other editors involved, on the matter.

Whether McIntyre or Pielke are neutral sources is quite irrelevant, especially in the context of their leveling criticism. What neutral parties level criticism? Once you level criticism you kind of cease to be neutral do you not? Where is it written that those who are quoted as having criticized something have to be somehow neutral?

By your logic here should all of the places in the GW pages where RealClimate criticizes those with whom they disagree be stricken from the record as it were because they were not neutral? --GoRight 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll join with WMC here - can you please stop assuming. And i am opposed to stating "including scientists" when this isn't supported by anything other than a Pielke Jr. --Kim D. Petersen 17:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What am I assuming? MastCell and I have reached an agreement, ergo we have a limited agreement on this issue. I explicitly asked about your concurrence above so I clearly was not assuming you concurred. --GoRight 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

On the point about "including scientists" it does not have to be supported by more than just Pielke Jr. and it is highly appropriate given the claims being made by the site itself in terms of welcoming scientific discussion. Are you saying that this statement is somehow being misrepresented here based on Pielke Jr's reference? If so we can certainly work to address such a concern, but simply removing it would be inappropriate under the circumstances. --GoRight 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I find you singlehanded closure of RfC's quite a bit odd. I had decided not to comment until this was closed, so as not to influence the discussion unduly. But this forces me to comment. --Kim D. Petersen 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect I have not closed the RfC. I have updated it to reflect the currently proposed text based on our limited agreement which seems completely appropriate under the circumstances, and I have made reasonable effort to make note of the fact that both of these are part of the same discussion. Since I opened the RfC I felt I was within my rights to update it to reflect these realities. If there is some policy or guideline that forbids this, or even considers it controversial, please being it to my attention as I wish to adhere to the rules of the site.

I will note that I have participated fully in the discussion here and have made substantial efforts to address the concerns cited above. Since MastCell was the only other editor that was engaging in the attempt to reach consensus and I had reached an agreement with him it seemed reasonable to consider that we had reached a limited agreement. If you have concerns with the currently proposed text then please voice them here on the talk page and attempt to resolve this rather straight forward matter rather than simply continuing to revert edits made based on substantive discussion here. --GoRight 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since one of the two currently stated objections is related to Pielke and McIntyre as being WP:RS I have created a section at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RealClimate_criticism to ask for some independent comments on that specific issue. --GoRight 19:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By my accounting the current edit summary + internal + RfC results on the issue of including the compromise language stand at:

For:

1. GoRight
2. MastCell (by compromise agreement)
3. Itsmejudith (RfC)
4. Marvin Diode (RfC)
5. 199.125.109.45 (RfC)
6. 199.125.109.58 (RfC)
7. Elhector (RfC) [UPDATED]

Against:

1. WMC
2. KDP
3. Brusegadi
4. Dragons Flight ("leans" towards no commentary)

Given this I would like to include the proposed compromise text and then adjust it to reflect some of the points raised by the RfC if we can agree on how best to do that. --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from other concerns and problems, I bet you Euros on Dollars that the two IP's belong to the same user - not only are they from the same subnet, they also have strongly overlapping contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Which makes it an 5:5 exactly equal straw-poll (assuming that Stephan is on the against list) - otherwise a slim majority of one - and quite far from consensus. Which means that either it should be discussed more - or left out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I had considered that possibility but I have no means to determining such. If you have a definitive way to show that they are the same then we can combine them, but not until. Regardless Elhector has now weighed in which makes the count 7:4 or 6:4 depending on how you count the two IP addresses.

If Stephan cares to make his opinion known these 4's become 5's, but not until. --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How about reacting to his comment? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a matter of votes, then count me as "For." It seems pointless to attempt to edit or improve this article, given the obvious bias of many of the editors. In my opinion, the issue of William Connolley's association with RealClimate.org was never adequately addressed. It would be best for the wiki if he recused himself from edits to this page. I'm also confused why the Global Warming proponents do not want to allow any links to criticism of RealClimate.org, or any language that might point out they are not, in fact, neutral or open to dissenting opinion. The first paragraph includes the sentence "It aims to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." Well now, that's a nice spin. Some might argue that RealClimate avoids the scrutiny of their peers and declines to have their criticisms of dissenting scientific study published because their object is not advancement of scientific thought. The blog, for all practical intents and purposes, would appear to be an attempt to sway public opinion, and often contains serious errors in methodology. To that point, John Christy has recently weighed in on their criticism of the Douglass, Christy, Pearson and Singer study. The result was a number of revisions to their rather hastily slopped together hit piece. By continuing to obstruct any changes that may improve the objectivity of this page, the Man-Made Global Warming proponents have tainted Wikipedia. It's to the detriment not only of your cause, but this entire community. That's just my 2 cents. --DocHolliday 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the neutrality just oozing from your statement... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooze, schmooze. There is considerably more criticism of RealClimate.org than just Pielke. A number of sites point to the fact that they edit comments and decline to post any sticky questions or challenges. Real science welcomes debate and opposing points of view; RealClimate does not. To continue to maintain that RealClimate.org is "a focused, objective blog," "restricted to scientific topics" without a political bias or agenda is so patently false that it makes this page little more than a powder-puff advertisement for the site. --DocHolliday 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the three quotes of criticism below a violation of WP:WEIGHT?

NOTE: I am updating the RfC to reflect recent changes in the language being proposed. See the revised RfC at RfC: Should the following criticism be included?. Both of these RfC's are part of the same discussion.

The proposed additions are:

Political Alignment:

In a posting titled The Uncertainty Trap Roger Pielke, Jr. makes the following observation regarding the implied, even if explicitly rejected, political alignment of the RealClimate blog:

"The experiences of a new weblog run by a group of climate scientists, realclimate.org, provide a great example of this dynamic. The site claims to be "restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science." This is a noble but futile ambition. The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change. And by trumpeting certainty and consensus, and attacking claims to the contrary, it has fallen squarely into the uncertainty trap."

Accusations of Censorship:

In a posting titled A Little Testy at RealClimate, Roger Pielke, Jr. details a case where his comments on the site were edited and states:

"Based on my most recent interaction, the folks at RealClimate seem less interested than ever on an open exchange of views on scientific topics. But I guess that is what might be expected when one points out that the they are spreading misinformation. [...]

Heaven forbid a discussion of actual substance over there. If we did we might have to discuss Kossin et al. and how SSTs don't covary with intensity in all basins, and the fact that Emanuel signed on to the WMO consensus, and well, a whole bunch of stuff that is fair game to discuss in scientific circles, but not apparently at RealClimate."

In a posting titled RealClimate's Touchy Censors, Amy Ridenour writes:

"The RealClimate blog, run by guys who make their money promoting the human-caused climate change theory (and by creating hockey sticks), has a reputation for censoring comments to its posts. It's not uncommon for folks to share with others comments that got censored at RealClimate -- comments that seem quite reasonable, but have one thing in common: They don't argue in favor of human-caused global warming."

--GoRight (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit [6] is manifestly absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC commment

If Wikipedia is to have an article about a blog, than these criticisms are certainly worthy of inclusion. The other option worth considering is article deletion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

comment: But unfortunately if you read the articles by Pielke - then you will find that the above quotes are cherry-picked. Pielke's definition of political is quite a bit from what we normally assume as political. Why a blog posting by a non-scientist political lobbyist is even considered as valid criticism is quite a bit beyond me btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to let our internal bickering bleed into the RFC section too much, but please do read Pielke's piece. There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about his use of the term political. He explicitly cites a number of exemplars for the political group to which he is referring: "folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell." As for the other quote, is it your contention that only scientists are capable to documenting examples of censorship? Her piece provides all of the relevant references to specific RealClimate comments and her commentary is directly relevant here because she is defending against accusations made on the RealClimate site regarding her organization. --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this in the above section, and leave this space for uninvolved users to comment. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem here is how does one go about writing an article about a blog? Outside of the blogosphere, there really isn't much significant discussion about RealClimate. Aside from the few "welcome bloggers"-type proclamations and a few "best of" awards, the mainstream news doesn't talk much about RC, for either good or ill. So there isn't a lot of traditional material from which to base commentary on. Given that, should we turn to notable bloggers to generate commentary? Personally, I'm leaning towards prefering no commentary rather than embracing that view that bloggers writing in blogs are best source of commentary on other blogs. The latter feels very awkward to me, sort of like a dog chasing its own tail, and unlikely to generate much in the way of quality content. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The quotes are way too long for inclusion. They should be summarized as a single sentence with a link to reference them if anyone is interested in reading them. Create a section titled "Criticism" and summarize the viewpoints with appropriate references. 199.125.109.58 06:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Should the following criticism be included?

NOTICE: I have placed identical and neutrally worded friendly notices on the user talk pages of Marvin Diode and Dragons flight in case they wish to comment further based on the revised language. This RfC is related to the prior RfC found at Are the three quotes of criticism below a violation of WP:WEIGHT?. Both of these RfC's are part of the same discussion.

At least two of the editors involved have now agreed to the following compromise language which attempts to address the concerns expressed thus far (i.e. at the time of this writing) at Political Alignment and Censorship:

Both Roger Pielke, Jr. and Stephen McIntyre have criticized RealClimate for removing comments, including those from other scientists, with which the site's contributors do not agree.

Should this revised language be included in the criticism section of the article?

• Response from uninvolved user. I'd say include but it would need to be made clear where the criticisms were made. If made on the RealClimate blog itself then many would take that to mean that the blog is not censoring dissident POV. If in other media, then the implications are different. And I think the wording is problematic. "A criticized B for action C" implies that B actually carried out action C. So I think a better wording would be "A and B, writing in ..., said that RealClimate had censored comments". You could give the dates that the comments were made too. Itsmejudith 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith's comments seem reasonable, and I would like to add one additional suggestion: specify the POV that is allegedly being censored. For example, "A and B, writing in ..., said that RealClimate had censored comments that dissent from the human-caused climate change theory." --Marvin Diode 22:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Too wordy. Just use:

  Roger Pielke, Jr. and Stephen McIntyre have criticized RealClimate for censoring theirs and other scientists comments.

There is no need to explain that they were censored because they didn't agree with them, and you definitely don't need to list two people and start in by saying "Both". However, saying why they don't agree is fine. As an aside does anyone else think it is pretty bizarre to have an RFC and 55 kB of discussion over a 4 kB stub article? 199.125.109.45 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia's wonderful World of Warming. --Stephan Schulz 08:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think the above is a fair and factual description of the criticism of RealClimate. Elhector (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• No. Both Pielke Jr and McIntyre have been accused of similar things (by RabettRun and Deltoid)- and frankly any blog that isn't a free-for-all food fight on these kinds of issues retains editorial control over the comments - and yet no mention is made on their pages. These criticisms smack of a 'poisoning the well' argument. 74.64.100.223 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  A couple of follow-on questions regarding your claims above: (1) Can you please provide direct references to the criticism claimed rather than generic links? (2) Are the claims in question made by notable individuals in sources that meet WP:RS guidelines? (3) Is this not a argument for including such references in their wiki pages rather than a argument against including relevant criticism here? --GoRight (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  The fact that both Pielke and McIntyre have been accused of the same thing isn't really a valid reason to keep this crticism out. If you have sources meeting WP:RS backing up your claim above then you should add that criticism to there articles. Elhector (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  The trouble is that we haven't got WP:RS sources to meet that criticism here. I can buy Pielke Jr. as a reasonable exception under WP:SPS, since he is talking within his field (political sciences/climate change policy) - but McIntyre? Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  I picked those two examples because they were relevant to RP Jr and SM, not because I think they should be included in criticism anywhere. Editors retaining editorial control on their blogs (or newspapers, or talk shows or any other media) is just not that interesting. Whenever someone doesn't like an editorial stand by Realclimate or the Wall Street Journal there is a complaint that their point of view is not being adequately represented. The current inclusion of Pielke's critique is better, but it is still misleading. The nuance is what Pielke thinks 'political' means - he doesn't mean partisan, he simply means a desire to engage in public, by which definition anything that anyone does in public is 'political'. 74.64.100.223 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment: User:Itsmejudith's comment is very perceptive. The critical sentence implies the act that underlies the criticism. In reality, we're relying upon them for both reporting and criticism, so Itsmejudith's proposed rewrite is necessary. Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it time for another RFC?

Mr. Connolley appears is intent on starting escalating an edit war, [7] and [8], over the criticism which stood on this article for more than 6 months and he now claims that I am only pretending that there was an agreement at the time [9] despite fact that he was the one that made the final edit [10]. I guess some recent additions, [11], now threaten to open up the discussion again.

Personally, I am fine with simply going back the the version that lasted for 6+ months but obviously I think that the other comment by Pielke has merit in its own right. If we cannot quickly agree to, at the very least, reinstate the long standing criticism section then I recommend we simply open up a new RFC to get outside perspective, yet again. Deleting long standing material such as this is disruptive, IMHO, and rehashing the old discussion is a waste of time for those that already participated previously. If we have new people who need to be brought up to speed and the discussion reopened for them then I suggest that they begin by reading the following sections of the talk page: [12], [13], and [14].

Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should make some feeble attempt to get your fact straight. I can give you a clue: you've made two errors in your first 6 words. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Better? --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep going. Any reason why you're not talking to Bozmo? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should I talk to Bozmo? He/she didn't edit war on this content. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like WMC could try to be a little more polite. For the sake of his audience, he should attempt to point out factual mistakes. I think a compromise in favor of including a mention to Pielke is necessary here. II | (t - c) 21:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I get bored of the inaccuracies. Ah well. What sort of compromise do you have in mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A sentence noting Pielke's criticism with a note of where he is coming from and what his background is. Example: "Political scientist Roger A. Pielke, who believes that greenhouse gas emissions should not be controlled, has criticized the site, claiming that it avoids dissenting views and censors comments". II | (t - c) 23:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be odd. What makes you think RP thinks that GHG's shouldn't be controlled? Why indeed is it relevant? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you object to reverting to the version that you, yourself, last agreed to and which was left unchanged for over six months? --GoRight (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mu William M. Connolley (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is too cryptic for my feeble brain to decipher. Can you please clarify? --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

His article states that, and it offers some background on his position to the issue. That said, it can be excluded. What do you feel about the rest? What's your compromise offer? II | (t - c) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions says exactly the opposite. What are you paraphrasing? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. He doesn't think reducing emissions will have a meaningful impact until decades later. Misread him, especially after noting that he worked with Cato. Anyway, after reading his blog post, I think he was misrepresented in the earlier selections.

The experiences of a new weblog run by a group of climate scientists, realclimate.org, provide a great example of this dynamic. The site claims to be "restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science." This is a noble but futile ambition. The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change. And by trumpeting certainty and consensus, and attacking claims to the contrary, it has fallen squarely into the uncertainty trap.

So if opponents to action on climate change want to distract the attention of some prominent climate scientists, they need simply write the occasional opinion article or give a speech in which they invoke uncertainty about climate change. Meantime, business as usual pretty much gets a free pass.

I'm not sure anymore that a compromise in favor of including it is necessary; his point is hard to read, and it is a blog post. II | (t - c) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise seems to have been reached after the previous RfC had no or few responses from previously uninvolved editors - apart from mine. And I never felt particularly strongly about the point; I was just putting in a tuppence-worth to broaden out the discussion. So, please go ahead and reopen the question. Unfortunately, I doubt whether you will get many responses from a second RfC either. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

The operative part of the entire article is the following:

"Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change. And by trumpeting certainty and consensus, and attacking claims to the contrary, it has fallen squarely into the uncertainty trap."

He is saying that, whether they intended to or not, they have become politically aligned and that is the point that is worth noting in the article, IMHO, since we are discussing legitimate criticism here.

His own position on GHG and taking actions to limit them, or not, is irrelevant to this point.

Even so, as I have said earlier, I won't object if the Uncertainty Trap part is removed so long as we retain the long-standing criticism that existed before these recent changes. I am still awaiting a reply from WMC on that point which is understandable to simpletons such as myself. --GoRight (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

His position seems to be more complicated than that, and I don't really get it, so I don't think it should be included. II | (t - c) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I assume your comment is in reference to the Uncertainty Trap bit that was recently added. Where do you stand on reinstating the long standing criticism that was also removed? --GoRight (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"They exercise no control over content"

"The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services, a non-profit public relations firm, though they exercise no control over the content. The contributing scientists are not paid for their time.[1]" Your first reaction should be "yeah, right". Leaving the "no control" stuff in hurts the overall credibility of the text. The Heartland institute also claims on their web site they are not influenced by any company's support. Don't blindly reintroduce the above line without thoroughly analyzing what independent evidence you have. Leaving it out doesn't weaken the article content or make it less informative. Thoughts?--Unconcerned (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that challenges this statement? We rely on WP:V and reliable sources, not on editorial opinion. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An opinion group's own statement of neutrality is no reliable source. The onus to prove such a statement is on the person making it. Does the article read any worse by not including the statement?--Unconcerned (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An opinion groups own statement of neutrality is an acceptable reliable source for an article about the group. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and self-revert. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS#Self-published_sources: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (emphasis added)--Unconcerned (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You're on the wrong page. The link you are looking for is WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources." Now, please self-revert. Viriditas (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"not unduly self-serving"... "not involve claims about third parties"... sorry, they are doing exactly that, "the article is not based primarily on such sources"... which is why I can't self revert. Feel free to revert as you wish but there is no guarantee I will not come back. --Unconcerned (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is Uc entirely happy to accept that "The web hosting for RealClimate is provided by Environmental Media Services" based only on a post from RC, but not any of the rest? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why:

whois record showing the RealClimate domain registered by EMS collapsed for readability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
~$ whois realclimate.org Domain ID:D105219760-LROR Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC Last Updated On:29-May-2009 12:45:52 UTC Expiration Date:19-Nov-2010 16:39:03 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR) Status:OK Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012 Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services Registrant Street1:1320 18th St, NW Registrant Street2:5th Floor Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Washington Registrant State/Province:DC Registrant Postal Code:20036 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.2024636670 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:betsy@ems.org Admin ID:B133AE74B8066012 Admin Name:Betsy Ensley Admin Organization:Environmental Media Services Admin Street1:1320 18th St, NW Admin Street2:5th Floor Admin Street3: Admin City:Washington Admin State/Province:DC Admin Postal Code:20036 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.2024636670 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:betsy@ems.org Tech ID:B133AE74B8066012 Tech Name:Betsy Ensley Tech Organization:Environmental Media Services Tech Street1:1320 18th St, NW Tech Street2:5th Floor Tech Street3: Tech City:Washington Tech State/Province:DC Tech Postal Code:20036 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.2024636670 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:betsy@ems.org Name Server:NS1.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS2.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS3.WEBFACTION.COM Name Server:NS4.WEBFACTION.COM

--Unconcerned (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OMFG Just realized WMC is an insider to RealClimate with his own WP page. Go for it my friend, sorry for having stood in your way --Unconcerned (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Address the article, not the editor. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article and the editor are inter-connected in unfortunate ways: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Campaigning Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Close_relationships Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits This will need to be fixed somehow. Regards. --Unconcerned (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of address the article not the editor are you having problems understanding? That's what this talk page is for. If you have a complaint about COI, take it up with the editor and/or report them in the appropriate place. This isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes? And? EMS registered/owns and pays for the domain-name. Nothing there which isn't in the text. (hint: sponsor) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mann censors skeptics on RealClimate

Found here among other places http://www.examiner. com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner blocked by wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.58.49 (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

said quote,

"Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.58.49 (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, examiner.com is not a reliable source it consists of blog like posts and lacks editorial oversight. Also, we cannot quote the contents of the e-mails since that would be a copyright violation.
—Apis (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary administrator. These emails are all over the web and since when are emails copywrited. What BS. Stop vandalising the page you bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.239.99 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Emails (as most other creative works) are copyrighted (in the US) since March 1, 1989. However, I would disagree that using short quotes in a discussion of the topic is a violation of copyright - they fall under the fair use exception. However, what it is original research and improper synthesis. The emails do not say what is claimed they say - that's only a bad-faith interpretation. And RealClimate has always been open about screening emails - not for criticism but for pointless and uninformed rants and attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I might have been wrong about copyright and I'm not going to pretend I know US copyright laws; apparently linking to the e-mails or including more than necessary from them is what would be considered a copyright violation?

But the references provided isn't reliable sources. And many (if not most) blogs or similar sites moderate comments, it's not notable information, and it could be found out simply by reading at the actual website: RealClimate comment-policy.
—Apis (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail is in fact not subject to US copyright laws. This is an incorrect interpretation. BeachedOne (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[blocked as a scibaby sock Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

Cite? The Usenet copyright FAQ says otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong application! Please read the law! BeachedOne (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[blocked as a scibaby sock Kim D. Petersen (talk)]

1. There is no doubt that E-mails are copyrighted from the moment of fixation (which may be before they are sent). In this instance, the copyright may be held by the employer as a "work for hire" (even if that employer would rather it had never been created), but they are all copyrighted. If you feel otherwise, please point to the law.
2. Whether or not it is a violation of copyright law to link to a page containing a stolen (i.e., distributed in violation of copyright) copy of an E-mail, it seems to be forbidden by Wikipedia guidelines on external links.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)