Jump to content

Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creationists

I'm sure all right thinking people agree that Creationists are wackos, etc etc, but is Creationists claim Plimer makes numerous scientific errors.[1] considered controversial? I mean, just because they are Creationists doesn't mean they are wrong about everything, and just because Plimer isn't, doesn;t mean he is right, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is, it's not reliably sourced. It's a website. It's making negative statements about a living person. Ergo, it can't be used. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not quite right. I've edited the sentence to give it context, which is that this is their riposte to his book attacking them. In context, it's most enlightening. It's not a gratuitous attack by any means, but a response to an aggression from Plimer aimed at them. That changes the ballgame. ► RATEL ◄ 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the material has been restored to the text again, as usual, and without any interest that it is not reliably sourced. So what's that about? Ratel's opinion on what's enlightening is not relevant. The fact that scibaby tried to remove it doesn't stop it being a BLP violation. Do I need to escalate this -- you both know you can't win this -- or would you like to agree to abide by the rules? This will avoid wasting more of the community's time. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It's reliable for what it is: a reaction to a book, by Plimer, attacking them. They are personally involved. This is not some gratuitous opinion off the web. The organisation is run by a long list of respected people, including scientists and many with doctorates, even lawyers — not to be dismissed without debate. Is this a cue for you to go forum shopping again because you are against consensus here? ► RATEL ◄ 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Which part of Never use ... websites ... as a source for material about a living person are you unable to understand? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You left out "self-published" in your quoted sentence. Is creation.com a "self-published" website? Not really, given wikipedia's description WP:SPS. And you do realise that we can simply fork a page on his book, Telling Lies, where the source would perfectly acceptable, don't you, since the book itself references the site? Is that what you're seeking? ► RATEL ◄ 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I left out self-published because I was trying to keep it simple. Anyhow, you seem to be saying that the creation.com website, published by "Creation Ministries International", is not "self-published" because "Creation Ministries International" is not a "self". Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
More or less. Is calling a website of a large (multi-thousand member), multinational, religious organisation a "SPS" that is not reliable even when responding to charges directed specifically at it? Not an open and shut issue. ► RATEL ◄ 07:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you're saying creationists are likely to be more reliable (=less biased) because they are responding to allegations made by an anti-creationist (Plimer) against themselves(???). And you want to claim further that a creationism website has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such that it is the sort of high-quality reference suitable for disparaging remarks against living people in BLPs. These are seriously the arguments you want me to take to WP:RS/N? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, here it is straight: Plimer wrote a book attacking the CMI and they responded to that book with rebuttals on their website. It stays because without it we're getting half the story. And if you manage to forum-shop it out, it will go to a page on the book. Note: their site does not attack Plimer, only points out his errors. This is not libellous, BLP-sensitive stuff. ► RATEL ◄ 13:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have raised the second objection at RS/N; the first probably needs to go to BLP/N and I'll do them one at a time Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#creation.com_website.... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Plimer the plagiarist

This is fun: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/plimer_the_plagiarist.php

William M. Connolley (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An completely unreliable. WVBluefield (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But that is the great virtue of it: it can be trivially checked. Did you bother, before calling it unreliable? Or would you rather just not know the truth? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Its my understanding that Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. WVBluefield (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's obviously true. Plimer's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is he notable enough for RSes to pick it up? Monbiot, where are you? ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And, um, who cares? What has this got to do with writing a neutral presentation of the reliable sources with respect to Ian Plimer? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If its obviously true, you should have no problem finding a WP:RS that complies with WP:BLP that makes note of it. WVBluefield (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I care that he has plagiarised someone. And I suspect many others do too. If this is reprinted in an RS, in it goes. ► RATEL ◄ 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The source will need to be particularly reliable, though. Strong claims need strong sources. In this case, I can confirm that Engelbeen and Plimer did make an error, rather than Pieter Tans - I've analysed the data as well, and the figures I got were a duplicate of Tans'. However, it isn't clear who derived the figures from who, as the data is from 2004, and thus Plimer may have analysed the data (and perhaps published it elsewhere) before Engelbeen posted it. Equally the data that Plimer and Engelbeen used may have been a different data set than that used by Tans and myself. And finally, I don't know why Plimer and Engelbeen made that error - it may be that they used a different methodology than Tans (and I) went for. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If find it interesting that AH and WVB don't even *care* about this issue. They are interested in writing a good biog of IP, not a hagiography, I would hope William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed interested to know if the story is true but this WP:TALK page is not the place to discuss it. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. IT must have been your "And, um, who cares?" that made me think otherwise; I hope you'll admit that it is easy to read that as you not caring. I'm puzzled by your assertion that this talk page isn't the place to discuss it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It never ceases to amaze me the varying threshold for notability and sourcing requirements from article to article. WVBluefield (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And again here: [2] "Horn: Mr Plimer, how do you respond to people who are continually saying that you in fact have plagiarized most of your book?" ► RATEL ◄ 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow. A Google search for "Ian Plimer" plagiar* brings up a lot of interesting links... I had no idea. Some of this may be include-worthy. ► RATEL ◄ 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And Wow, none of them are reliable sources. WVBluefield (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the Bible

It says: "In the book he also attacked numerous aspects of the Bible,..." I suspect that he didn't attack the Bible, but "attacked" (if you want to use that word) the idea that the Bible is literally, scientifically true in all aspects. There is a big difference. I love the Bible but I don't think you can take every story in it at full face value. I would be very offended if someone said I had "attacked the Bible." Steve Dufour (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That could be changed to "numerous aspects of traditional Christian belief". ► RATEL ◄ 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to be written in a encyclopaedic neutral way, and supported by reliable citations. I support Steve here , keep the wording mellow, also numerous is a bit weasely. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Rephrased in an attempt to answer these points. ► RATEL ◄ 23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ratel. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Resources

David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell, deconstructs H+E ► RATEL ◄ 08:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Plimer accused of plagiarism. [3] Keep an eye out for follow-ups on RSes. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer's mining connections. [4] ► RATEL ◄ 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author and politician Clive Hamilton discusses the denialism represented by Plimer. [5] ► RATEL ◄ 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And, as ever, Blogs are not RS. They, in fact, tend to be editorial in nature rather than actual journalistic endeavors. Nor is PRWatch.org a RS as near as I can tell for WP. In fact, it is a very highly POV site indeed. As for the "plagiarism" claim -- numerical facts are not susceptible to copyright, hence repeating them is not plagiarism. Surely that is elementary. "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." (RHD) As the claim was not made that the language was in any way the same, the assertion of "plagiarism" is just a POV attack. "The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis [2902,2903]. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. [p 416 of Heaven and Earth] The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour but were used in the official figures and 866 had large hour by hour variability and were not used.[2102] [p 418]" does noot read anything remotely like "For 2004, 8784 hourly average data should have been sampled, but: 1102 have no data, due to instrumental errors (including several weeks in June). 1085 were flagged, due to upslope diurnal winds (which have lower values), not used in daily, monthly and yearly averages. 655 had large variability within one hour, were flagged, but still are used in the official averages. 866 had large hour-by-hour variability > 0.25 ppmv, were flagged and not used." Absent any cogent assertion of plagiarism, all you can do is cite an opinion of an author as opinion. Collect (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Right-wing blogs promote global warming skeptic who falsely claims volcanoes to blame for CO2 in the atmosphere. [6] ► RATEL ◄ 17:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Opinions about "right wing blogs" are not relevant to this article. Collect (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lateline link for external sites perhaps?

Please can I suggest adding the following link to a transcript of aninterview with Plimer here from ABC-TV's Lateline news program to Plimer's Wikipage &/or the Heaven & Earth page too? See : http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm 124.182.226.16 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)StevoR

list of BLP and other violations

This list is probably incomplete but I'll set the agenda here in the hope that the editors who inserted the problematic material might agree to remove it again.

  1. lead -- a "denialist poster-boy" (Phillip Adams).[2] -- WP:UNDUE weight with elevation to lead; source is an op-ed and unsuitable for disparaging labelling of living person as a "denialist"; wikilink to "climate change denialism" therein, implying by stealth that Plimer is the sort of bad faith "denialist" described at climate change denial.
  2. In 2007, Plimer was listed as an "allied expert" for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian anti-Kyoto Protocol advocacy group [9]. This is not based on a reliable source, and is a guilt by association type claim, may or may not be true, NRSP may or may be really nice people, and so on.
  3. The climate change denialist attack by Monbiot is sourced to Monbiot's blog, is Monbiot's Opinion, and needs to go.
  4. The line Before writing the book, Plimer stated that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[17] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[18] appears to be editorial sarcasm and needs to be toned down or removed. It may be original research & synthesis too; I haven't examined this closely yet. Plimer made one of his famous mistakes here, right?
  5. In the sentence Gish accused him of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life".[25] is way over the top and seems that WP:UNDUE emphasis is given to this incident and poor old Gish's trauma. (Is Gish okay now or is he still undergoing psychotherapy after Plimer's debating theatrics?)
  6. Telling lies for god (still being discussed at RS/N).
  7. He was criticised for making false claims and errors in his debates with creationists by skeptic Jim Lippard.[33] This doesn't seem to be balanced criticism and more like another editorial excuse to mention someone's view that Plimer makes a lot of mistakes.

Other less serious problems:

  1. Scare quotes used in Plimer has said that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry,[5] and "probably destroy it totally",[24] as well as creating "massive unemployment".[24]
  2. Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs,[6][7] a conservative think tank with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia.[8] is WP:SYNTH and appears to be advancing a view that Plimer must be a Liberal voter. (Presumably by applying the logic that All Climate Change Skeptics are Rightists; Plimer is a skeptic; therefore Plimer votes Liberal.) An actual connection with the Liberal Party seems to be unsourced. Being a member of IPA doesn't imply that you're a member of the Liberal Party, or even that you're a Liberal voter. Is there evidence that Plimer is actually a Liberal voter rather than, say, a swing voter or a Labor voter? If not, this needs to be removed.

Responses:

  1. Plimer has been called a denialist by more than one source. He does use denialist arguments throughout his book. But because of the particular meaning attached to the word in wp via the wikilink, I am not averse to removing the wiiklink.
  2. The link to the NRSP is pejorative in what sense? Are they not good people? The organisation's own website archive is unreliable?
  3. You won't be able to exclude the Monbiot stuff. Plimer engaged with him personally, so he's not an outside commentator but an involved party, in the same way the CMI was.
  4. This may be SYN, I'll check. It is correct, nonetheless, but I'm not averse to removing the comment about the normal scientific view.
  5. The Gish thing can be expanded to justify the inclusion. Plimer goes to great lengths to attack Gish personally in his book, even making a play on his name ("Gishing", IIRC). Perhaps more of that attack can be included.
  6. Dead horse, beating.
  7. Comment is apposite in that it underlines other such comments from the CMI and the many critics of H+E. Lippard is an expert skeptic and published his criticisms of Plimer.
  8. Remove quotes, but leave words.
  9. The IPA does have close ties to the Liberals, that's uncontested anywhere. Plimer's politics are pretty clear here. ► RATEL ◄ 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. We go round in circles a bit, don't we. If you like including negative statements about living people, you need high quality reliable sources. And this is what you don't have. What you have instead are opinion columns. Wikipedia does not endorse name-calling. Name-calling is actually very silly. And what's silly is not encyclopaedic. Although you can't see it, quoting Philip Adams' comment out of context makes him sound silly too. The reader doesn't realise that Philip Adams, a very amusing journalist, was writing comedy. What was funny in its original context, sounds childish and silly in its new context. If you respect Philip Adams, as I do, don't mine for quotes in his columns. If you respect Wikipedia, please follow its rules about reliable sourcing.
  2. I didn't say the link was pejorative. I said it was not based on a reliable source. You already know this, and agreed in an identical context on the Paltridge page.
  3. Plimer engaged with Monbiot "personally" so that means anything on Monbiot's blog is now fair game for inclusion? If you're trying to make an analogy with the open RS/N discussion, there isn't one here. You're not presenting Monbiot's response to an attack by Plimer. You're just presenting Monbiot's gratuitous unprovoked personal attack. (Assuming you aren't also distorting the original context; I haven't looked.)
  4. The bigger problem is that you have misquoted Plimer again (I've looked at it now). You are presenting Plimer's view as a dogmatically held view. The source on the other hand shows Plimer as suggesting this as a possibility. A bit of googling shows that peer reviewed researchers have also put forward similar views. The cause of the El Nino is still not properly understood.
  5. Gish, so you're saying you feel that you can prove (=original research) that Plimer is a real nasty person by analysing all his attacks on Gish?
  6. Dead horse beating, well yes. So far there are four editors supporting my view, while two suggest that perhaps you could include this if you fixed weighting and toned it down. Let's wait for the discussion to finish.
  7. Lippard might be relevant if it was in the context of a properly balanced criticism/discussion section of Plimer's anti-creationism views. Presently, it is not.
  8. Okay, but I have subsequently found that you have also distorted the original source... that will need to be fixed too.
  9. I didn't say that IPA didn't have ties to the Liberal Party; what I said is this is not relevant. It is WP:SYNTH. Your new link doesn't say anything about Plimer being a Liberal voter. Don't you think it's quite possible he could be a swing voter? I am generally a Labor voter, but I am sure as hell voting for the Liberals in the next NSW state election. If Plimer is a Liberal voter, or a member of the Liberal Party, that would be relevant to an article on Plimer. What you have included is only relevant to the article on the IPA. Okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed my mind about the quote-mining part in Philip Adams... I read the whole column carefully and concluded actually that the whole column does sound hysterical and silly and stops being funny and turns depressingly serious after a while... Oh well, I enjoying his columns on other matters. The point still stands that reliable sources are needed.. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Phillip Adams

See, I don't see this as (to use your words) a "negative statement". Most people see the term denialist as akin to "denier", and meaning "someone who denies", which is exactly what IP is. Agreed? Now on wp there is a drive to redefine that as someone in the pay of polluting industry to sow doubt about AGW. This is not a generally accepted meaning yet (unless you can point me to a source that shows it is generally accepted). That's why I agreed to the removal of the wikilink. ► RATEL ◄ 01:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not agreed; the word "denialist" simply does not mean merely "someone who denies." It is widely regarded as a deeply offensive term, which likens the climate change skeptic to the Holocaust denier. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, that's your view, and if you can present evidence that it is "widely regarded as a deeply offensive term" (which should be easy, right?), we can talk about changing it. ► RATEL ◄ 08:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:BURDEN. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As I thought, zero evidence. BURDEN refers to All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The inline citation exists. Your case here is weak. ► RATEL ◄
Okay, you keep asking me to prove things; now you're asking me to prove what "denialist" means, a word that hasn't made it to dictionaries yet. This is extraordinary, given your involvement at the "climate change denial" article here at Wikipedia, and your efforts at defining the said term as someone who is in the pay of industry, or self deceived. It appears that it has become convenient for you here, just for a sec, to pretend it's a purely inoffensive term meaning, "he who denies" something. Can we be serious please? We both know it is an offensive term, and everyone knows that. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural Resources Stewardship Project

If IP's link to the NRSP is not pejorative, why remove it? The source is not bulletproof, but it does provide some evidence. Remember that all the provisions for impeccable sourcing in BLPs relates to contentious or negative material, not uncontroversial statements. If you feel the source is inadequate, why not use an inline tag like [better source needed] rather than deletion? ► RATEL ◄ 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is not bullet proof, and it's not reliable. It's a web archive for heaven's sake. Meanwhile, all the provisions for impeccable sourcing in BLPs relates to contentious or negative material, not uncontroversial statements. is just false. Please read WP:BLP (I mean, really read it.) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You have not shown that it is controversial except in your mind. Where do we have proof that this link is controversial? And since when was an archive repository considered unreliable? Got a link to RS/N? ► RATEL ◄ 08:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote again. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
BLP says Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. www.archive.org has never been impugned, AFAIK. Check RS/N. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As you already know, a web archive is not a reliable source. That is why it was removed from Garth Paltridge, after consensus from the BLP/N. Please stop this. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

George Monbiot

Are you referring to Monbiot's column at The Guardian when you say his "blog"? ► RATEL ◄ 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to his blog at the Guardian, yes. That's what it is; a blog. Here it it is again. It says "George Monbiot's Blog." I am not certain it's the same value as a normal internet blog, but I don't think it would appear in print, and at any rate, it's at best the same as an op-ed. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No, Monbiot was involved in a personal and well-publicised altercation with Plimer, so this is not 3rd party commentary but part of Plimer's life history and part therefore of his biography, just like Gish. And Monbiot's blog is published under the aegis of a RS, which makes it acceptable (see the rules). ► RATEL ◄ 08:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want me to read the rules, then tell me which rule says that please. Because it doesn't. In any case, at best, as I said, the source has the same value as an op-ed. So let's just call it an op-ed, rather than wasting more time arguing about nonexistent rules. Yes, there was some altercation between Monbiot & Plimer. But you are not using it in that context. You are simply using Monbiot here, gratuitously, to call Plimer a "denialist." It is, therefore, very explicitly ruled out. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right about the incorrect placement of Monbiot's comment. I moved it to where it belongs. ► RATEL ◄ 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't belong there either because it has nothing to do with the discussion. What you can't seem to see is that you have seized on a little incident of name-calling, and you are then reducing Monbiot's argument to name-calling. So you are making Monbiot sound like a little child. You, the editor, are in fact the one who wants to focus on name calling, not Monbiot. (And of course the sentence doesn't make any sense as you've got the grammar all wrong, making Plimer call himself a denialist...). Alex Harvey (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments increasingly seem to boil down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. ► RATEL ◄ 07:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right that I don't like name calling. Monbiot has made an actual argument, and all you want to cover here is, "Monbiot called Plimer a Climate Change Denialist!" But forget about what I like, and forget about what is and what is not good encyclopaedic style. You haven't found a reliable source; you are basing the episode on a blog. It is, therefore, a BLP violation. Now please remove it. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a violation. Statements in BLPs must come from RSes and The Guardian and its op-eds/columns are RS. The wp:RS restrictions about columns like Monbiot's reads : "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." And moreover, this was a direct altercation between Monbiot and Plimer in which both participated, so this would be valid material in any event. ► RATEL ◄ 10:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, you have missed the point. You are using this not only as a source for the Monbiot insult, but also for the whole episode. Where are the reliable sources covering that this debate was proposed in the first place? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't need more sources, but they are there anyway, eg [7] and [8] and [9] and [10] .... and btw this is an interesting page about the debate, but not RS. ► RATEL ◄ 15:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this has gone far enough... I have no choice but to raise another noticeboard incident. None of these are reliable sources, as far as I can see. We have opinion piece, opinion piece, blog, environmentalist website, and blog. I have found you one reliable source, here: [11]. You can use that. I believe the following paragraph contains all the information we need for this article: His most acerbic critic, George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, accuses Plimer of fudging and manipulating data for his own purposes. In response, Plimer accuses scientists and commentators who disagree with him of doing something very similar. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't notice but that article seems to be pro-Plimer. I chose it because it is the only article that comes up in a news search. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Instead of getting your panties in a knot every 5 minutes, why don't you calm down and see what other editors have to say here? Wikipedia is a co-operative effort. If you'd just stop posting fraught messages every few minutes, maybe someone else will make a comment. ► RATEL ◄ 16:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Random person from the internet would still like the Pilmer page proper to indicate Monbiot's allegations that his simple questions about the validity of Pilmer's data went unanswered and instead Pilmer just sent back deliberately derailing questions. I know it is essentially one man's word against another, but I still hope that there would be some (lenient) way to express this under the strict rules concerning living humans in Wikipedia. My main concern is that to my eyes, this page is not balanced and flaunts Pilmer's possibly flawed claims without mentioning the controversy properly. Here's some pages to get started off with, maybe you can find a more objective source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/01/heaven-earth-answers-plimer http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Plimer_questions_Monbiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.254.133 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, not citing sources and essentially inventing data are more-or-less the gravest crimes in the sphere of science, so it would be of tremendous importance to get this issue solved either way and either up on the Wikipedia page, or then completely taken off (with perhaps remarking the debunking of the debunking to emphasise end of debate).

Dear Random Person From the Internet, you prove a point here that Ratel and others would do well to heed: when you use Wikipedia to promote your favourite controversy, it doesn't matter what side of the argument you happen to be on; you end up inadvertantly promoting the other side equally. You're quite right; this article presently promotes skepticism, contra Ratel's wish to promote Plimer's flaws. "There Is No Such Thing As Bad Press," and Plimer knows this, and indeed has made comments about how this negative attention has helped sell so many copies. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's views of El Nino

Can you specify exactly how I have misquoted him? ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have got the wrong sentence here. It was the next sentence that seemed to be presented in this text as something Plimer held as factual compared with what was in the source. You've got Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in sea level not because of global warming but due to "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip making.[18] whereas the source has "The change in relative sea level is quite commonly' due to other factors. It's due to vibration consolidating the coral island sand, it's due to the extraction of water, and it's due to the extraction of coral island sand for road making and air strip making," he said. "It is these processes that don't get considered in what is a relative sea level change." He presented it as a possibility; the article has him presenting it as a fact. So on El Nino, it's probably okay now, as what sounded like sarcasm has now been removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

checkY ► RATEL ◄ 08:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Lippard

How has he been misrepresented? I'm glad you agree that his views belong on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he's been misrepresented; I said there's no balance. It's just an idea out of context by Jim Lippard. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let's get Plimer's words to balance it then. You do it this time, ok? I've added a lot to the page. ► RATEL ◄ 09:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No, if you don't have time to do it properly, then we leave it out until someone does have time. My preference is to leave the whole thing out because I think creationism is silly, arguing with creationists is silly, and writing about people who argue about creationists is silly. It's your idea to put this material in, and if you want to put the material in, you need to commit to doing it properly, or not at all. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Going back to your objection to Lippard: it's in context (commenting about Plimer's fight with creationists) and balanced (Plimer wrote a book attacking creationists and spent all his money fighting them in court). Lippard's comment seem trivial in comparison. You may think this is all "silly", and I agree that trying to convince people of things can be silly (as I personally discovered in the last day), but Plimer did not think so and lost his shirt in the endeavour. That's what he believes, that's who he is, and our beliefs on the issue matter not at all. ► RATEL ◄ 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's in the context of a court case... Alex Harvey (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Duane Gish

I'm saying that Plimer makes an extravagant attack on this chap in his book, and so Gish's response, which you characterise as melodramatic in some way, may be justified. We may need to include more of Plimer's attack to put it in context properly, rather than simply deleting a well-sourced comment from a well known person. ► RATEL ◄ 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would need very strong weight and very reliable sourcing before you'd include this over the top response from Gish. Gish says "the most disgusting thing he's seen in his life." C'mon, did Plimer expose himself? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, we cannot control what people say and cannot censor their comments if they overreact! That's what happened and that's what Gish said. It's history. I'd also like to rewrite a lot of stuff to make it read better, but that's not our job here. Things happen in life, and if you go through life attacking people and trying to belittle them in public with stunts like Plimer did to Gish, you provoke real anger. It's not a wp editor's job to sanitize events to make someone look good by suppressing or censoring comments from people who hated him. I hope you can understand this. ► RATEL ◄ 09:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Gish has obviously said a lot of things that you haven't chosen to include. There is no good reason to include in a BLP a creationist's view that Plimer is "disgusting." Alex Harvey (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Institute of Public Affairs

If you want to remove the phrase that explicitly links the IPA to the Liberals, I don't object although it makes the page less transparent to readers. Not knowing what the IPA is, most will be left nonplussed. Is that the aim? ► RATEL ◄ 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want some brief explanation of what IPA is, that's one thing. But what we currently have is a vague connection with the Liberal party that raises more questions than it answers. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how would you rephrase? ► RATEL ◄ 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
IPA, a free market think tank, ... Alex Harvey (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. ► RATEL ◄ 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

checkY

I have raised the remaining items at WP:BLP/N#Ian Plimer. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

overkill to name Monbiot's book?

I hd thought it reasonable to identify Monbiot by one of his books as opposed to just as being a writer for the Guardian. This was reverted as "overkill" although it is well-sourced, indeed. Is it overkill to identify who the protagonists are in a section? Collect (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Monbiot wikilinked for that sort of data? If not, I'll fix. ► RATEL ◄ 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian Skeptics

The article mentions Ian Plimer is a member of "Australia Skeptics". The Australian Skeptics don't have members as such. They run events and provide outlets for people to investigate paranormal and pseudo-science. You can subscribe to their magazine but you don't actually join anything.

In fact the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Ian Plimer as their Web site shows him as a nominee for their 2009 Bent Spoon award for pseudo-science.Aussiejohn (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the comment questioning Plimer's membership of Australian Skeptics should be rewritten or removed. It is not correct to say that this group does not have members as such. I checked the Australian Skeptics website and while the requirement for joining is low (subscription to their magazine as correctly noted above)this is listed under the title "How to Join" [12] so this is an advertised mechanism for membership. --Catherine111 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I also followed up on the assertion that the Australian Skeptics appear to disown Pilmer and I think this is not supported via the link provided. Reading through the list of nominations for the 2009 Bent Spoon I found three discrete nominations for Plimer, one of which was from a nominator who also nominated the Australian Skeptics "for their tacit defence of Ian Plimer’s rather irrational anti-global warming book." Nominations are just via an email from anyone in the community, as such Tim Flannery and Nicole Kidman also received 2009 Bent Spoon nominations. So I think that the statement that he received a nomination is misleading without this context. It should either be removed or put in the context that the nomination does not necessarily support the majority of the group's members. --Catherine111 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to second Catherine's comments. Many of the 'skeptic' organisations are peopled by anthropogenic climate change deniers, surprisingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.32.163 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the skeptics are skeptical of all religious "beliefs", including those of climate change alarmists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.18.1 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this information in the section on "Political affiliations"? I can see a reason for the Global Warming Policy Foundation as they appear to "challenge policy measures envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming", but the Australin Skeptics are a non-profit organisation which "investigates paranormal and pseudoscientific claims using scientific methodologies". Is it really there to allow his nomination for a "you're a tin-foil hat wearer" award to be included. If his membership of such a society is worth mentioning, it should be elsewhere. The info about being nominated for an award and not getting is crucial to the article how exactly? It should go.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is worthless tin hat nomination by an opponent which was not awarded to him. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ratel has replaced the award story, it appears he has not seen the discussion here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the discussion, and I disagree with it. Being named for this award by one of Australia's most well known and published scientists is a very notable occurrence in Plimer's life. It should not be suppressed. ► RATEL ◄ 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What rubbish, a bad faith nomination by a partisan opposer of him and he did not get the award the content is of no value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is not a forum for your opinions. Where is your source that this is a "bad faith" nomination? There is ample proof that Plimer's book fudges the science, so the nomination is logical. ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Plimer is under something of a cloud among the Australian Skeptics, but his association with rational skepticism is longstanding and well known. Is the question merely whether he was a member of a particular group? --TS 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

From this press release announcing Plimer's book:

About Professor Ian Plimer:
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and academic. He is a prominent critic of creationism and of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. He has authored approximately 60 academic papers over 36 years, and six books.
Plimer is currently Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He was previously a Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is also a prominent member of the Australian Skeptics. He was awarded the Clarke Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2004.
Source:
Professor Ian Plimer

I'll keep searching and see if I can find something directly attributable to Plimer. --TS 04:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, actually that above piece is obviously a direct quotation from an earlier version of this article. Oh well. --TS 05:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah this is better. It's the blog of Plimer's publisher, Connor Court, and reprints an article by Penelope Debelle in the The Advertiser (Adelaide), an Adelaide newspaper. Here he's talking about his court case against a church minister:
The outcome of the Federal Court case was not clear-cut but Plimer says he won. "The battle that we won hands down, and wanted to win, was the public one," he says. "I wanted people to associate the word 'creationism' with the thought that, hang on, this might be a bit dodgy." The Australian Sceptics were so impressed they made Plimer a life member.
This does strongly suggest to me that Plimer has been a hero of the rational skeptics although, since he has espoused the contrarianism of climate change skepticism, he has lost support among that group. --TS 05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. If the group is more noteworthy than I had first thought then his being 'made a life member' seems noteworthy enough. The changes that have since happened to the article seem fine. I'm still 'meh' over the placement, a passing thought is to rename the section from "political" to "social" (in line with how we have politics as a sub-cat of sociology) so that it doesn't seem out of place, but am not unduly bothered by it as it's linked and people can read the AS article themselves if they wish. Thanks.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ian Plimer's Bloopers — a selection". Creation Ministeries International. Retrieved 2009-07-13.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Plimer/Archive_3&oldid=337939211"