Talk:Richard Lindzen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Meteorology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics / Biographies  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen[edit]

This section draws heavily on third party references from individuals quoted in other publications such as the New York Times. It is inappropriate in a biography. The first paragraph starting with “…The April 30, 2012 New York Times article included the comments of several other experts…” is unacceptable. It is unsupported opinion by advocates having different viewpoints and opinions and is simply unacceptable in a Wiki biography. The New York Times, and especially Andy Revkin and Justin Gillis, are well known supporters of anything and everything coming out of the IPCC and the liberal political establishment in re to climate change. What Lindzen does say (correctly) and what is missing from all this is that the climate advocates are strongly motivated politically and this compromises their role as scientists...what does IPCC stand for … it stands for InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. All of the pieces in the New York Times are favorable to the IPCC and so called “self appointed” consensus. There is a large group of scientists like myself who do not accept the IPCC / consensus story line which officially says (including in the AR5) that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change. One of the big weaknesses of the climate story line is verifiable attribution of cause and effect for manmade forcings. I, like Lindzen, accept the Arrhenius/Tyndall effect that says certain chemicals owing to their electronic structures trap infrared radiation and therefore promote warming. But there are other important forcings besides the GHGs, especially natural causes. Even the AR5 does not provide any reasonable explanation of the cause of the temperatures dropping over thirty years from the 1940s to 1970s and the current hiatus since 1997/1998. Including opinions whether or not they appear in mainstream publications like the New York Times is unacceptable … they have no place so just get them out of this Lindzen biography. That includes the entire paragraph that says “Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." Has been characterized by whom … and which graduate students – all of his graduate students over all time? This is nothing more than cherry picking statements out of the universe that support the writer’s objectives. I will follow this closely and if it not changed I will go ahead and make the change and followup to make sure that it gets corrected. This stuff should not be going on in Wiki.Danleywolfe (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not really read through the article in a long time. However the policy on Wikipedia is expressly to rely on as many reliable third party sources as possible (see WP:SOURCE). The point, of course, is to present the subject in proportion to the significance of the view, not in proportion to whether it is correct or not in our estimation. Wikipedia is not really the place for discussion about the correctness or flaws of the IPCC or Lindzen's views; we need to report on the general published and verifiable views. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


Lindzen is no longer prof; he's Emeritus. And he's no longer APS prof. William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing to clarify that a cite is from a blog[edit]

I have changed the words "Dana Nuccitelli, writing in The Guardian, expressed the view that Lindzen" to "A 2014 blog post hosted by The Guardian, written by Dana Nuccitelli, stated that Lindzen". The Guardian is (quoting Wikipedia) a "a British national daily newspaper", but the article is not referring to a statement that appeared in that newspaper. In fact it occurred in a blog post, and the words "hosted by The Guardian" are in the blog's headline. I know that ThePowerOfX objects to this change (he/she/they reverted my change once), but do not understand the objection, and would appreciate a more detailed explanation. Perhaps it would be acceptable to say merely "Dana Nuccitelli expressed the view that Lindzen". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard re "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli"[edit]

This is one of several BLP articles which refer to a blog post by Dana Nuccitelli. I have described an issue on the BLP noticeboard in section "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: The reference to Nuccitelli is now gone, and I have removed the BLP-noticeboard template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that the quote used here is the opinion of a partisan blogger, and it's not at all clear if his opinion is WP:Notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If the quote is used at all, then it must be cited as opinion. The issue of the notability of the blogger was not the issue at WP:BLP/N and is a fair question. Collect (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems undue to include Nuccitelli's opinions at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I created a story for him , Dana Nuccitelli but there was nothing to report, he is a hobby blogger about climate change without independent notability, I agree with Tillman, his opinion is not WP:Notable - it is citable but not notable - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If a non-notable person has an opinion, and actual opinions from specific notable people are already used, the non-notable one is the one which is superfluous. Collect (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

NYT article[edit]

Using a single source (one NYT article) as a source of criticism in multiple places in a BLP is overkill -- the one primary section devoted to it is sufficient. Collect (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to summarize scientific consensus well, and addresses Lindzen's theories in this context. In this light, the repeated use may meet (or be required by?) WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically the same material was used three times in the article -- which seems not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Which policy? --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Try WP:NPOV for example, and WP:BLP. Making three sections all using the same source with the same basic criticism to criticize a specific living person violates both quite adequately. Do you have a reason you wish to make the same point about a single person three times with the same source? I would love to see the justification. Collect (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that point. If any given source should be given a particular amount of weight is open to debate, of course. But the mere fact that it is used in different sections is entirely irrelevant - that's just an artefact of the way we structure our article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lindzen's wager[edit]

The article currently cites Reason magazine's interview where it was said that: "Lindzen is 'willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.'", however, Source Watch (also here) reports that when Annan attempted to take that bet, Lindzen wanted 50:1 odds, meaning that Lindzen apparently believes that warming is more likely than not warming. As is pointed out in that article, if you think the odds are 50:50, then you should be as happy with 3:1 odds as some who thinks warming is essentially guaranteed (taking the bet on the other side). That said, rather than making what might appear to be a POV edit, I'd like to see if consensus can be arrived at. As a starting point, a mild edit I suggest is to change it to add a follow up sentence (with citation) saying, "when contacted by James Annan, Lindzen stated that he would require odds of 50:1 in Lindzen's favor before he would take the bet." Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There once was a mention of the non-bet, at 2:1 odds. Theblog (talk · contribs) removed it in 2012. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to work that in somehow, too, but I admit that it would be difficult for me to do so without being accused of "original research" by pointing out that the wager that Lindzen is asking for is assuming that a warming of 0.3º C per decade is the point around which such a wager should be placed. It seems odd for someone who has been championed by global warming skeptics to create a bet where he would still win if the IPCC's (AR4) estimate of 0.15-0.3ºC was right. Well, he would "win" and the projection would be "correct" if it were 0.15-0.2ºC. He would not lose unless it underestimated the warming enough for the warming to reach 0.4ºC. Hardly sounds very skeptical, though I agree Lindzen likes to paint himself that way. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)