Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about An Inconvenient Truth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Recent mudslinging in the NSTA section.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I was relatively happy with the version of the NSTA section prior to the edits of Gmb92 a few days ago. I don't object to having the points that Gmb92 wants discussed, but keeping the presentation balanced is drawing in quite a bit of additional material which could be considered extraneous to the primary point of the section which was, IMHO, adequately and fairly covered prior to the recent few days editing.

I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts. Quite the contrary. So I felt obligated to keep the record more balanced.

The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists. As I have said before, I have no particular axe to grind with those individuals and I am not seeking to impugn their motives but their opinions as expressed in the piece being referenced are clearly one-sided (i.e. biased). In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece.

Since I feel that the RealClimate piece is presenting only a single side of the issue I feel it is relevant to highlight some of the background of the contributors and the organization actually paying to host the site so that the reader is better able to keep their criticism in context. Highlighting the link to Environmental Media Services differs from the discussion of Exxon Mobil above in that EMS is funding 100% (I assume) of the hosting costs for the RealClimate site whereas Exxon Mobil is funding less than 3.77% of NSTA. Perhaps the best solution would be to remove the reference to RealClimate and simply reference the AAAS piece (and remove the included quote therefrom) as a somewhat neutral assessment?

--GoRight 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts."

You're right. My mistake. I think we've collaborated to correct that.

RealClimate is a valid reference. While we have views from the film producer and NSTA, views from a number of experts who actually study the climate are a valid contribution. A neutral description of RealClimate is available in an earlier section of the article. Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article. Your "background information" is akin to posting an opinion from Fred Singer and saying something like "Fred Singer, who has ties to oil and Tobacco...". Linking to his Wikipedia article is sufficient.

"The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists."

If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are "pro-AGW". There are a few on the fringe who are not. There's nothing biased about including views from those experts who support the scientific consensus.

"In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece."

I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view. Is the article available through other outlets? What doesn't belong are POV statements such as "a less biased assessment".Gmb92 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article." That section is not my opinion, it is merely a statement of relevant facts. Which of part do you consider to be my opinion, the part where I state that all of the contributers at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists or the part where I state that the website is hosted by Environmental Media Services? Unless you can demonstrate where these statements are false they need to stay to provide context to the reader.

"If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are 'pro-AGW'" Why, then, do you object to my pointing this out for context?

"I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view." This is unfortunate and unavoidable, however it is available for free. The AAAS site requires that you create an account but some of their content, including this reference, is free of charge. I didn't realize that this was the case because I had already signed up for the free subscription for other purposes and was not even prompted when I viewed the article. I doubt that there is another venue since this will almost certainly be copyrighted material.

"What doesn't belong are POV statements such as 'a less biased assessment'." I accept that which is why I changed the wording to read "less one-sided assessment". As I said, I don't have a problem with referencing RealClimate as long as the presentation is kept balanced and in its proper perspective. The fact that all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists is a relevant piece of context for assessing their criticism. The AAAS article clearly discusses the issue from both the NSTA and Laurie David's perspectives and is therefore balanced.

I find your insistence on smearing the NSTA as being in the pockets of big oil when at most 3.77% of their funding comes from energy producers and when it has been highlighted that the energy companies have made no demands in exchange for their funding to be quite petty. The fact is that Laurie David was trying to push her film onto science teachers and wanted to do so at NSTA's expense AND wanted to make it appear as though NSTA had endorsed the film. NSTA doesn't provide a free distribution service or product endorsements to anyone else so why should Laurie David and AIT get a free ride? If Laurie David wants her film advertised and distributed through NSTA let her pay the going rates like everyone else. And I suspect THAT is where the rub comes in. So again, I ask you, how much money have the AIT film producers contributed to NSTA with no strings attached as opposed to publicly complaining that they aren't being given a free ride?

--GoRight 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of more reverting, some remarks about GR's latest edit:

Wikipedia is not a WP:RS and not to be used as such in Wikipedia articles.
Whatever "activistcash.com" is, it certainly is not a WP:RS either. And, no, it is not remotely as reliable as RealClimate, which has received positive coverage from a large number of scientific venues, including Science (journal) and Nature (journal).
There is no source for the claim that all RealClimate contributors believe that the current global warming trend is anthropogenic in origin. It also is a misleading oversimplification on several counts - a) in claiming they believe in human causes only, b) in suggesting that their reasoned opinion is "a belief", and c) in suggesting that this is unusual enough to be worth mentioning when the Shannon information content is essentially zero.
The hosting issue is rather irrelevant and certainly sufficiently covered in RealClimate, and the reported to be "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications is even more remotely connected (not to mention missing a RS).

--Stephan Schulz 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why do consider "www.activistcash.com" a non reliable source? Elhector 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Have you looked at the site? --Stephan Schulz 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. I have looked at it, used it from time to time. I stumbled upon it a while back and I've looked up a handful of orginizations on there and fact checked there info and didn't really find any major discrepencies. I haven't looked up every orginization or foundation they list but on the handful I did the info was accurate. Elhector 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses to SS:

I corrected this by simply referencing the RealClimate discussion of the issue. Is this a sufficiently reliable source (for you at least)? :-)
ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate in the context of this discussion. The RealClimate reference that this section relies upon was no more peer reviewed or fact checked (required by WP:RS) than anything found on the ActivistCash site. (Perhaps this is a argument for removing the entire RealClimate portion from this section which would be fine with me?) The parent group supporting ActivistCash.com (The Center for Consumer Freedom) does not appear to have a stake in the whole global warming debate and is at least a neutral party, the RealClimate site cannot make any such claim.
On the point of all of them being AGW proponents, they have been criticized for censuring contrarian comments from their site and all of the positions on their site argue in favor of the AGW position. If you can point out any primary material from any of these contributors which expresses a contrarian position I will be open to changing my assertion. On the points you consider misleading I have sought to address those by a) inserting the word predominantly in front of the claim, b) noting here that their "reasoned opinion" IS "a belief" by definition since it is what they "believe" and my comment is appropriate because their "reasoned opinion" is no more or less valid than that of an equally credentialed contrarian, and c) noting here that the information content is significant because it allows the reader to understand the ideological and scientific opinions of those leveling the criticism.
The hosting issue is relevant because EMS certainly holds an ideological viewpoint which undoubtedly influences their decision to provide the funding to host this site and the ideological perspectives represented there.

Again I would be happy to remove the RealClimate reference altogether to avoid the controversy it is introducing and simply rely on the more ideologically neutral perspective found in the AAAS reference. Given that others felt that it was important to include the RealClimate reference I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to remove it. This leaves me in a position where I need to try and keep it presented in a balanced way.

--GoRight 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that "ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate" is so absurd that it barely merits a response. The contributors to realclimate.com are published scientists writing in their field of expertise, who give their names and capsule biographies. ActivistCash.com appears to be an astroturf organization and gives virtually no meaningful information on who is behind it. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A note on ActivistCash.com, which has suddenly made an appearance in at least one other article [[1]] [[2]]Gmb92 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

None of which affects the accuracy of the information provided there, nor changes the fact that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the AGW debate.

Yes they do. Read the links.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of Kenneth Green being a climate skeptic, since this term is being used as a pejorative in this context it is subject to WP:BLP. Unless you can provide a valid reference from a respected and neutral third party who satisfies WP:RS, let us stick with the characterization actually made in the RealCliimate reference which is simply his name.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Mr Connolley has changed the section to remove the reference to Mr Green. Thanks. Unfortunately the current text reads "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, described the NSTA action as "bizarre", found their defence "unconvincing", wondered if their actions had been influenced by the NSTAs funding by Exxon and recommended that they improve their "paltry" supply of useful educational material relating to global warming."

While this new text summarizes the points made in the RealClimate piece it also contains a reference to a claim of impropriety on the part of NSTA with respect to being influenced by their Exxon funding. As we have discussed already the extent of Exxon's funding was less that 3.77% of the total NSTA budget, a sum hardly considered significant in the grand scheme. I would also like to point out that a charge of impropriety is subject to WP:BLP which requires an extra level of scrutiny from a referencing perspective.

While the contributors at RealClimate may be (indiviudally) authorities on climate change, I question their authority on the issue of the inner workings of the NSTA funding and/or decision making processes. On this topic they are clearly not a reliable source and their unfounded accusation amounts to pure conjecture. Wikipedia is not the place to be spreading pure conjecture as I understand it. Consistent with WP:BLP I would request that the accusation of impropriety on the part of living persons (i.e. the Exxon funding reference and influence accusation) be sourced using an authority that would be able to actually comment on such a circumstance or that this part of the statement be removed from the article.

--GoRight 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of a double standard with respect to referencing people's ideological leanings (especially those of living persons which makes them subject to WP:BLP) as we have seen yesterday there is an objection to my refering to the RealClimate contributors as adhering to the belief that the current global arming trend is anthropogenic in nature (a fact that I have confirmed directly with them here, and perhaps William M. Connolley would like to weigh in on this point as well?). I find it amusing to say the least that these climate scientists who argue in favor of there being a scientific consensus would object to be described as being associated with the fundamental point of that consensus. However, I assert that if it is relevant to point out the ideological leanings of Kenneth Green then it must be equally relevant to point out the ideological leanings of those leveling the criticism. Either the ideological leanings are relevant or they are not. So they are either all in, or they are all out. I don't care which.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nearly all climate scientists have the qualified opinion that the evidence generally supports AGW as is typically defined, then the "ideological leanings" would be the mainstream virtual consensus. It would be close to saying "these scientists, who are pro-gravity, object to..." and you would be stating this as a way to push a POV that they have a bias. Since you began edits here by removing a similar phrase about Exxon, I would think you would understand this point. The argument in the RealClimate piece, as I understand it, is in addition to very little global warming materials promoted on their website, the NSTA has appeared to have no problem promoting contrarian views in lieu of the mainstream. Thus, the POV of Green is relevant to mention. However, I'd prefer to let one of their representatives phrase this part as they'd like.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no more POV pushing than when your side insists on labeling people "Skeptics" and "Deniers" or trying to imply impropriety by association with Exxon funding. When the level of the funding is less that 3.77% one has to question the objectivity and neutrality of those making the charge. I am in no way trying to mischaracterize the position of the people in question, only to describe that position in a neutral manner. Would "climate scientists who agree with the IPCC assessments" be less objectionable? I am merely trying to inform the reader of which side of the debate these particular climate scientists are on. I don't see why there should be an objection to accurately reflecting that position.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is related to WP:UNDUE in my view. You seem to be trying to push the notion that there are 2 roughly equal sides on AGW, which is the goal of adding a phrase like "pro-AGW" (simplistic as it is).

"Skeptics" is generally considered a positive phrase. What true scientist isn't a skeptic? "Deniers" is POV and not a phrase that I've put in any Wikipedia article, although I believe many do deny clear evidence on this topic. Few of them have published peer reviewed studies.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that scientists should be skeptics in the sense of being critical thinkers, however the use of the word "skeptic" in this context is essentially viewed as being the equivalent of "denier", at least in the the popular media, since the terms are used interchangeably. Given the confusion between the two we should seek to be more clear. --GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of discussing the ideological leanings of the group hosting RealClimate. Presumably EMS, which is an environmental advocacy group would not choose to host a site which is expressing opinions contrary to their own. The fact that they exercise no control over the content is irrelevant on this point. The mere fact that they are paying for the sight gives them at least ideological level control over the content, if not the specifics. I am confident that if the contributors at RealClimate were expressing views inconsistent with EMS's goals that they would pull their support (which is NOT a mere 3.77% of the budget for the RealClimate site but the entire budget for the operation of the site).

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support. As such, this provides a valid insight into the ideological viewpoints being expressed on the site and if a relevant piece of context for the reader.

As such, I would propose that we modify the description of the RealClimate site to include "a group blog hosted by an environmental advocacy group and maintained by eleven climate scientists". Depending on the outcome of the ideological leanings discussion started above I would augment this further by appending "all of whom adhere to the belief that the current warming period are anthropogenic in origin". I don't like this clumsy wording but as we saw yesterday there is resistence to referring to them using a more succinct "pro-AGW" tag of some sort. As I said, I explicitly asked this point and receive a response directly on RealClimate here.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support - this is certainly a tortured piece of logic. There is any number of possible reasons why the hosting organization continues to host the site - from the trivial ("commitments are only reviewed once per year" to the highly moral "we encorage a diversity of opinions on principle" to the egoistic "whatever they say, being associated with the blog is a PR coup"). Or put differently: "Clearly the Wikimedia foundation must agree with everything you say - why else would they host your opinion?". --Stephan Schulz 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing tortured about it. EMS is an Environmental Advocacy Group by their own description. If RealClimate was advocating positions which were antithetical to their stated objectives they would pull the funding without question. This is the nature of such groups. They are hardly altruistic as you seem to believe, they are focused and dogmatic in the pursuit of their goals and their support of RealClimate is undoubtedly consistent with that perspective.

--GoRight 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...you make unsubstantiated statements and back them up with more personal opinions, while ignoring what I wrote (I gave two scenarios that don't require an assumption of altruism at all). You also introduce more fallacies. There is a huge space between "being in agreement with" and "being antithetical to their stated objectives" (which are? and why would that be their real objectives?). Hosting a medium-traffic web site like RC is nearly free nowadays - I estimate it could run on my hosting contract, and I don't even know how little I pay - it's certainly not more than single digit Euros a month. Assuming EMS is a perfectly rational agent (big chance, that!), they would withdraw suport if that would be net gain for them. Even a minor PR problem ("EMS tries to silence scientists, closes website") is likely to be more costly for them than the minimal hosting fees. Your conclusion (RC publication furthers EMS goals) may well be right. But your argument for that is completely bogus. And of course RC may further EMS goals even if they do not agree, just like Nader helped Bush win against Gore... --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You can quibble all you want. The simple (and completely substantiated) facts of the matter are:

100% of the funding for operating the RC site comes from EMS, a fact that RC felt obliged to address.
The magnitude of the investment is immaterial, their motives for making it are and those motives are to be an environmental advocacy group.

The FACT that RC is being hosted by an environmental advocacy group is relevant information for the reader. The FACT is not in dispute so why do you argue so strenuously against having it stated? Is there something to hide here?

--GoRight 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The service of providing web hosting is similar to that of purchasing pencils and paper. If somehow this service wanted to exert any control over RealClimate, these scientists could simply find another hosting service with ease. That's why your argument is absurd and the information thus irrelevant, however you view the service. I've noticed that you've been pushing this in other articles recently.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The point, however, is that these scientists are not buying their pencils and paper, they are receiving them gratis from a group with an agenda. I believe that the reader should be informed of that relationship, which is not contested. I don't want to mischaracterize the facts but I do want the facts to be known. If you don't like the phrase "environmental advocacy group" I would be just as happy with listing the group by name and providing a link to the wiki page for them. Either way the facts are known and there is no reason to suppress them. Let the reader make their own judgements.

If RC finds their relationship with EMS uncomfortable, perhaps they should sever that relationship as you point out they are free to do.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they are similar to pencils and paper and are irrelevant. If they conditionally paid their salaries or a significant portion of it, you might have an argument.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: This section currently contains the following statement: "NSTA indicated that they retained editorial control over the content which David questioned based on the point of view portrayed in the global warming section of the video." This statement amounts to David calling Wheeler a liar on the issue of editorial control. Conjecture on the part of David is not proof of unethical conduct, and a charge of unethical conduct is subject to WP:BLP which states that unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed from the article as well as the discussion pages. Please provide a valid reference which complies with WP:RS to substantiate the claim that NSTA did not exercise control over the content in question when they have directly stated that they did. David is not a reliable source in this context because she did not have any direct knowledge or involvement in the production in question whereas Wheeler clearly did. Under these circumstances we should give the benefit of any doubt to the first hand participants (i.e. Wheeler).

--GoRight 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This amounts to an effort of censuring one equal half of the debate. This section deals with the issue of NSTA rejecting offers from the Gore team, of which David is a representative. Her view is largely supported by at least some of the experts in the field. Presenting both of their points of view from parties involved in the issue is relevant to this topic and not a violation of WP:RS. It is not for you to decide who gets the benefit of the doubt.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about POV. It is about presenting credible and verifiable facts. The NSTA is a well respected organization, they have issued a definitive statement on this point, and they are unquestionably in a position to know the facts. Laurie David? Not so much and it is quite evident from the facts that she is disgruntled because should couldn't get NSTA to pay her bills. RealClimate contributors? Respected in their field but not in a position to know the facts being discussed, so their statement amounts to nothing more than conjecture and innuendo (something that objective and neutral parties do not engage in). Wikipedia should not be about spreading conjecture and innuendo.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's say Fred Singer had a qualm with an organization - notable enough to mention on his page or their page. Should we really ignore his opinion of the organization's decisions simply because we have an opinion that he's not credible? Most certainly, his views would be central to the topic. My personal view is that if he had distinguished scientists on his side who had published peer-reviewed studies in the field related to the dispute, it would strengthen his case. If not, his view would be central to the issue, right or wrong. Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: I will abandon the threads above in favor of a new approach. I don't object to RealClimate being mentioned as the place where a particular article has been published, however blogs do not write articles, people do. I would propose to update these references to RealClimate to indicate the authors of the article and mention that they were published on RealClimate.

--GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing. Realclimate is a group blog, which has specified authors - when a posting is without attribution we can reasonably assume that either its an oversight - or its on behalf of them all. There is no specific reason to state which of the authors who are writing a specific thing - you would do that in the reference instead.

Unless you have a specific reason to believe that the authors on Realclimate disagree internally on postings on their blog - its simply crud. --Kim D. Petersen 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing." No, stating that it was anonymously posted is a statement of fact. Do you deny that the post in question is anonymous? To some level that is the point I was making by writing it that way. A statement that "Anonymous = All Contributors" is non-sense, IMHO, for the following reasons:

The list of contributors at the site might change over time, thus an interested reader cannot trust that a perusal of the current contributers there reflects exactly who actually endorsed the article when it was written, and it is only on the credentials of those actually involved that any claim of legitimacy can be made.
Unless I am mistaken, WP:RS doesn't allow the use of anonymous sources which this clearly is. There is no way to know (1) who wrote it, (2) which of the site's contributors actually endorse it, or even (3) whether it was actually written by someone other than one of the publicly acknowledged contributers listed on the site (admittedly less likely but still a legitimate concern).

I would be happy to update the text to include the name of the author, or list of authors, once they have been identified and I no longer object to the statement being included as long as it is clear that the statement was posted anonymously or (preferably) by a set of identified individuals whose credentials can actually be assessed and examined.

--GoRight 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No WP:RS isn't concerned about anon or not. You can find plenty of reliable "anonymous" news-articles. Its concerned about editorial oversight, reliability and fact-checking of the sources. RC has a good (not to say excellent) record on all three. We know who wrote it: One of the contributors to RC - which are limited to a select few. If and when the list of contributors change - this might become an issue - it currently isn't. Do we also need the names of the editors of the WSJ? It appeared on RC - its endorced as at least factually and reliable by the editors of the blog. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Media section

I would ask editors take a look at this series of edits [3] and determine whether it is appropriate for the article. Editor User:rogerfgay added

"A 1 November 2007 commentary in Men's News Daily opines that the film took advantage of growing interest in the use of the documentary style in fictional works such as The Blair Witch Project.[81] Given the backlash against the film the article laments, "It may be generations before anyone can believe, even in real documentaries."

I question whether Men's News Daily is a reliable source (and/or worth quoting) and whether User:rogerfgay has a conflict of interest given that the article on MND was written by a Roger F. Gay [4] who is not, incidentally, a professional film critic. These edits do not appear to me to meet the criteria for citing oneself. Since I have dealt with a similar issue with Mr. Gay on a very different page, it would be good if other editors made the decision here.--Slp1 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not notable I have removed. The PETA stuff which has recently appeared also appears to be undue weight. We don't need sections on every fringe group that has criticised AIT. Iceage77 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate

I see we're disagreeing about how to describe RC. "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists..." is not unreasonable but its cubmersome to repeat and would be tedious to change were someone to leave or join. I would suggest just "RealClimate" - the link is there to follow if you want to William M. Connolley 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also saves the minor inconvenience of changing all occurrences of the text whenever one of the contributors dies, or is bought by Exxon, or, heaven forbid, a new one joins. Or, in case the details at various times become important, consider "RealClimate, a blog maintained by the New York times reas estate editor, but kept by the UN peacekeeping mission for Alaska from 2009 to 2011 and by a group of enemies of the state before that"... I think it is preferable to keep the details in the article. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem referring to RealClimate as a venue where identified people publish their work, but in the end it is the people who provide the content. Readers have a right to know where the content is actually coming from if you seek to use their personal credentials as a claim of legitimacy (which I consider fine as long as we know whose credentials we are talking about on a case by case basis).

I believe that I have offered a good faith alternative which inherently addresses all of the concerns you both have listed above. By referring to the actual people the contributers at RC can come and go at will without affecting the accuracy of the cites here. Without such information the reader may at some point in the future be mislead as to who is endorsing what if the membership at RC changes. (Yes I know that this is unlikely to occur, in total, but it is a fair concern even with small changes in membership.)

I consider my change to be good faith because the Eric Steig modification clearly left a reference to his being a climate scientist and a reference to RC in a relatively clean way which I assume was the desired content and impression based on the previous description. The problem comes in with the anonymous articles for the reasons cited above. I only included the "anonymous author" bit to illustrate the problem. I assumed that the point would be raised here and discussed in full as it now is.

Is there some rationale for why articles at RC are being written anonymously? --GoRight 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Eric Steig reference in particular should be changed to quote him rather than RC because, in context, he makes it clear that he's presenting HIS opinion, not that of RC: "How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research." [emphasis mine] He goes on to differentiate his opinion from that of "his colleagues" (presumably other people at RC, though he doesn't say) in regards to scientific accuracy. I think attributing his opinion to all of RC is disingenuous. link Oren0 20:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

William Gray Quotes

William Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray is also a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming.

He is properly credentialled to be listed in the academic sub-section of the criticism portion of the article. I assert that he must be relevant to the GW debate because there is a lot of activity on his BLP page seeking to discredit him by cherry picking comments out of a number of news articles, self-published sources, and going so far as to rely on individual blog comments from pages in Google's cache.

Given his status as a widely recognized expert in hurricanes, a topic of some discussion in the IPCC assessments, and given that there are numerous press accounts for him within the context of GW his comments are suitable for inclusion.

Claims of undue weight in this case are inappropriate because there is currently only one dissenting voice listed within the academic section of the criticism. As we know there is more than one such voice, so in fact NOT listing additional voices is an example of undue weight, IMHO.

I believe that his comments should be left in tact.

--GoRight 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is in need of another dissenting voice to maintain proper balance. I think Gray's expertise qualifies him, and I think a claim such as him having "no GW-specific expertise" is absurd. Please explain why a PhD in Geophysical Sciences and a professor of Atmospheric Sciences is unqualified to make statements about climate. Oren0 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Gray is listed on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which is fairly tightly controlled on who they allow to be put on the list if you read the discussion pages. --GoRight 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's arguably not that tightly controlled: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." What would help his WP page would be a list of his publications. Gmb92 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Refer to this thread in which the pro-AGW forces are arguing to keep Roger Pielke OFF the list. The people allowed on the list are heavily scrutinized. --GoRight 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't appear to be around Pielke's credentials but more centered around Pielke's unclear view on 1 or more of 3 basic positions declared in the article. Gmb92 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This one comment should make the point nicely:

"Whether P requested inclusion or not (he didn't) is irrelevant. You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in. So we're back to the quote. Ron has a habit of mischaracterising debate in his favour (and it would seem that CE has joined in the same mischaracterisation). The IPCC doesn't make forecasts, it does projections: P is well aware of this William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

WC is obviously trying to keep Pielke OFF the list and he himself terms the list "highly selective". So is it now your contention that WC is not credible since you are arguing a position opposite to his comment here? :-)

--GoRight 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. How are my views in opposition? Are you attempting to build a strawman? Gmb92 01:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me put the relevant commentary in one place for you:

"It's arguably not that tightly controlled," Gmb92

"You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in," William Connolley

I consider these points to be in opposition.

The very fact that Gray is on this list and that WC argues that the list is "highly selective" is sufficient evidence that Gray's commentary is credible in terms of criticizing the basis of this film. As WC points out, they don't let just anybody onto that list yet Gray qualified and part of the qualification is having been published appropriately.

Gray is undeniably qualified to comment here in the academic section of the criticism by virtue of being on this list if nothing else.

So, again, is this conversation going anywhere or is it your intent to stonewall things here and continue to revert my edit?

--GoRight 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. I haven't reverted any edits regarding Gray here or made comments on the Gray content in this article as of yet. You are also confusing 2 sets of criteria for being in that list. The first involves a person's credentials. Repeating this from the article: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." So by this standard, it's arguably not that stringent but certainly more stringent than allowing anyone (you or me for instance) to be included based simply on being asked to be on there. The other criteria is having made statements that oppose one of the 3 positions outlined in the article which is what the topic of discussion is about. By this standard, it's more stringent. Gmb92 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that WIlliam forgot to add WP:SARCASM tag to his claim about selectivity.... --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)