Talk:David Legates

Consensus?

I removed the word consensus in front of "scientific opinion on global warming". If David Legates disagrees with man made global warming theory then is it really a consensus? -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. He and a few other oil-industry funded shills does not undo the scientific consensus. Raul654 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Legates does have a PhD in climatology, is a certified climate forecaster and apparently has worked extensively on the energy balance of atmospheric water phase changes before "turning south" so to speak. Also, he has published peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals debating the anthropogenic warning. There is no independently verifiable source that would prove that his position is the consequence of conservative funding rather than the product of scientific inquiry. In reality this consensus is a prevailing opinion because there are opposing views. Which is what science should always be. When scientific dissent goes away we are facing religion. I am very inclined to change "consensus" back into "prevailing" unless there is a majority opposing this--70.137.23.225 (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The word consensus has two definitions. In common parlance it's assumed to be "unanimous consensus", but its second definition is "majority consensus". In this respect the word is accurate. He is a professor of Geography, not Climatology, according to his Bio on the University of Delaware website. He declared himself to be a "professor and climatologist" in his testimony to the Pennsylvania CO2 and Climate House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee, 28 October 2019. Perhaps a missing out of the "and" on other websites is responsible for the mis-titling? He has 110 published *articles*, not peer-reviewed papers to his name, according to ResearchGate, the website listing of Researchers. I could find only one pre-print paper (i.e. not peer reviewed), 1 book and 1 conference paper in this list. There may be others not listed here, but a quite extensive search revealed only two papers, with no peer reviews associated with them. The papers were cited in a number of other publications, (263 in one case) but the first few citations I read were not favourable. This is not to say that evidence of peer reviews does *not* exist, but it seems strange that it is so hard to find. MaryEFreeman (talk)

Self-Declared Reputation?

The page says "Professor Legates is known for using systematic examination of the scientific method used in climatological studies, in order to determine the validity of the data and the conclusions set forth in such studies. [3]" -- citing a statement from Legates! If someone is "known for" something, it means that the association is widely accepted amongst the general public and/or relevant experts in the field, and that the association is made on solid grounds -- otherwise, one should say "thought to use" rather than "known for using." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.53.231 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Me again. The statement should be backed up by a source that can independently and credibly say what Legates is "known for," or it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.53.231 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reactions section

Dear Raul, could you please explain why you disagree with the Reactions section? The warning Legates got from the governor comes as a reaction to his position. Respectfully, --70.137.23.225 (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A "reactions" section belong in an article about a film or a TV show; it doesn't belong in an article about a person. "Use of his title in public statements" is better. Raul654 (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone

Another message for Raul: the section title 'Ties with the oil industry' brings a negative connotation while being marginally accurate, remember, he is directly connected to the conservative organizations as opposed to getting funding directly from Exxon while at UDel. Those outfits are gathering funds from various other denier-friendly sources judging by the public info. Also, I recall having seen a WP guideline about the tone used in living people's biographies. These were the reasons for changing the heading title to 'Other Affiliations'. --70.137.23.225 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not "marginally" accurate - it's the utter, unvarnished truth. We have the quote from the Union of Concerned Scientists linking him directly to the oil industry, and the Exxonsecrets factsheet linked from this article lists a further 7 oil-industry-linked organizations of which he's a member. "Other affiliations" would be appropriate if there were some non-oil industry affiliations mentioned here, but there aren't. Raul654 (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't debate the accuracy of your sources. The above mentioned organizations are not business units of Exxon or any other oil industry, thus, unless you can prove otherwise, he is not personally connected to exxon. Most of the universities in the Houston area receive oil money but I don't see any of their prof's wiki pages list oil industry ties. You are perfectly right in theory but that extra link you are drawing needs to be supported in my opinion.--70.137.23.225 (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications

70.137.23.225 added a list of Legates' publications, and I've removed them. They don't belong in the article (I do not recall seeing any other bio on Wikipedia with such a list. Even the Paul Erdős article doesn't, and he's not able almost entirely because of his lengthy list of publications). Moreover, it most certainly doesn't belong as the first section in the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert my hard work without discussing. Take a look at this page: William Connolley, another climatologist.--70.137.23.225 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) (edited 70.137.23.225 (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Look at Stephen Schneider, listing books but not all pubs. I suggest a concise list of selected pubs or most recent pubs. I'll edit it for most recent pubs, but if someone wants to pick his most important stuff that would be fine.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I take that back, the collapsed version seems okay to me.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a more complete list of papers plus a summary of his research. Is there a recommended template or format for to make that list collapsible so it won't take a lot of page space?--70.137.23.225 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added a summary of his scientific work which is based on abstracts. I can also add references to the specific papers that would substantiate the summary sentence-by-sentence. Only that would take some extra editing effort as I'm not very skillful with ref's. --70.137.23.225 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged ties

In assessing the article in its current and recent form implies it seems to imply strongly that the subject is some sort of spokesperson for conservative think tanks, and then it goes on to say "no independently verifiable source exists proving that his position on anthropogenic climate change is the consequence of conservative or oil industry funding". I think the section needs to be toned down in some way for proper compliance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It's giving strong emphasis to a point of view that there is little or no evidence to support. --Mysidia (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to do just that but was waiting for comments from User:Raul654 who had reverted my attempt at toning down. PLease see the Tone section above. The title I had proposed was "Other Affiliations". Would you agree that I change it back to that form? --70.137.23.225 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not substantiate Legates' affiliation with CEI; none of the following resources produced any result: CEI Adjunct Scholars CEI Experts CEI Contributors CEI Staff. Also, Internet Archive indicates that Legates was never on CEI's climate change expert list[1]. Based on this I have deleted the CEI links. At the same time, the Marshall institute has Legates listed only as rountable speaker[2]. None of the following links would produce a Legates connection, so I took the liberty to correct the Marshall affiliation title and provide the correct link: Marshall Institute Staff Marshall Institute Fellows Marshall Institute Board of Directors--70.234.162.152 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for? https://cei.org/experts/dr-david-legates/ MaryEFreeman (talk)

BLP concerns

There is an entire section with no references. Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, it is especially important that all material in biographical articles be supported by quality references. Errors can have real-life consequences for the people involved. This is not just an arbitrary Wikipedia policy, it's the right thing to do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(from User_talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#David_Legates_Unreferenced_Section --70.234.164.230 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)) User:Raul654 has just deleted the entire publication list in support to the Research section of the article. I was just writing a (rather lengthy) entry on the talk page asking him to explain. I can't just revert him since he does have the power to block. Please take a look at the edit history and talk page. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. Please don't duplicate your messages in several places as this makes it hard for other people to follow the discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts by User:Raul654

User:Raul654, regardless of whether I contribute from dynamic IP addresses or not, I don't see a justification for your reverts. I would appreciate a point-by-point explanation of your latest block revert. It seems to me that you have settled for a specific version of the article which fails to agree with many of the guidelines related to biographies of living people, verifiability, no original research, neutrality, and assuming good faith. I have made all possible attempts to provide reference and to double check the ones that were sloppily introduced to the article. You can't just revert saying that this or that "is better".

• Title of section "Consequences" or "Use of title in public statements"
  • Legates got a warning from the Del. governor as a consequence of his position on climate change. Unless you can prove that no other state climatologist is allowed to use their title regardless of their beliefs in global warming or any other mainstream opinion, the issue does not revolve around the title usage itself but rather around associating it with a controversial position.
    • Except that it's an inappropriately vague section title. Do you have other consequences to list in that section? If not, then the proper name for it is "Use of his title" or something along those lines. Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Descriptive vs. logical... hard one to decide on... I usually go with logical. Will look up other consequences, but am accepting for now your descriptive title. Thanks for the enlightenment.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• List of publications
  • Both myself and User:Brian A Schmidt are in agreement that a collapsible publication list in appropriate. Even if I have spent almost two hours gathering and formatting the list, I am still willing to accept a decent argument for not having one such list if that change proves to be constructive. You do realize that a simple revert citing a non-applicable WP Not a directory policy will easily make any contributor quite unhappy. You have to take the time to explain such reverts. Besides, the article on William Connolley, another climatologist, also includes a (non-collapsible) publication list. A rather bold attempt on my part at removing it citing your rationale attracted a prompt revert from User:Stephan Schulz (which by the way he failed to spend any time commenting on).
    • I've started a village pump discussion here. Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, looking forward for the results.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• • An alternative I am willing to start working on is to provide some references within the writeup on Legates' research. My question is-- should I start working on that or will it also get reverted. Seeing how easy is to cancel someone elses work here kind of makes me lose motivation. Should it really be that hard to add content to an article?.
    • If you want to provide a summary of his work, referenced to specific papers he's written, that's OK by me. A list of references used in this article is perfectly acceptable; a list of publications he's written, akin to something you'd get from google scholar, is not (it's a directory service, which is exactly what google scholar is for). Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, see my reply to Boris' comment at the bottom.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• 'Consensus' vs. 'commonly seen as consensus'
  • There are four other prominent anthropogenic global warming skeptics' articles which avoid stating "consensus": Henrik Svensmark, Sallie Baliunas, Timothy F. Ball and Willie Soon. Don't get my satire wrong, but are those articles you simply didn't get a chance at reverting just yet? (just kidding, no disrespect meant!)
    • Read Scientific opinion on climate change. It's a consensus, and a pretty strong one at that. Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • <rant>Hmmm, a self reference to wikipedia... page history shows recent reverts... Take this as red flag no. 1. Here is red flag no. 2: the scientific method as I know and use it on a daily basis is completely ignorant of authority, be it a National Society, or President of the US. If hypothesis A passes the falsifiability test, and conflicting hypothesis B also passes falsifiability, then I have to acknowledge both and spend more time in the lab. No f***in' authority will ever change my mind, even if funding or job security are at stake. Consensus is a petty clear cut concept implying unanimity, or lack of dissent. As long as there are scientific papers in support of non-anthropogenic climate change, I cannot label the prevailing, or majority, opinion consensus, because evidence speaks to the contrary. Heres my $0.02</rant> Ranting aside, I would say we can't have 4 articles say "prevailing opinion" and a fifth read "consensus" simply because the balance of editing power goes this or that way. Now what?--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • (A) As long as there are scientific papers in support of non-anthropogenic climate change, I cannot label the prevailing, or majority, opinion consensus, because evidence speaks to the contrary. - Except there aren't any articles that run contrary to the consensus, nor are there any scientific societies that dissent from it. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Scientific societies serve no science role. They do not conduct research, do not conduct peer review, and their position is the result of a more or less open vote and internal politics. They cannot annul scientific dissent with a simple communique. There are articles in support of non-anthropogenic climate change: look at Legates' work and Svensmark's papers for starters. You are also referencing an essay written by a PhD historian. She wrote: "Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." <rant>Realy?? What the **** would arguing mean to this historian? Going to the mall and preaching out loud? Legates himself has expressed doubt that the primary observations and the correlation-based data feeding into GCM's are accurate enough to draw any conclusion from GCM-based extrapolations (see second half of 1st paragraph in David Legates#Scientific Work). It is a no brainer that this conclusion is in opposition of no-contest anthropogenic global warming. You do have to have science or engineering training to understand that though. Then you have Svensmark's work which is proposing, and experimentally proving, an alternative GW hypothesis. Why isn't Oreskes detecting that work as dissenting? And after all, is she really competent at interpreting all or any of those 900-odd abstracts? Very difficult to answer. BUT, I do realize I am crossing the Original Research line and arguing against a "Reliable Source", a flawed one but still a WP RS. For this reason I have to concede, although "scientific consensus" is clearly contrary to reality. Other people with common sense but ignorant of your historian's essay will likely stumble upon this article and change your "consensus" back to something else, and they would be right doing so. Because this is where the OR and RS policies are breaking down.</rant> Again, thanks for the enlightenment, I now understand your position.--70.234.164.230 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
            • There's no "correlation-based data feeding into GCM's." Criticizing GCMs is fine -- I do it all the time. But for such criticism to be meaningful, it must take into account how GCMs actually work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Replace "correlation-based data" with "correlation-based statistic tests", thanks for pointing out the error. If I'm not mistaken, in a couple of papers he is saying that simple R2-type goodness of fit tests are too sensitive to outliers, which is arguably correct, and is proposing some sort of weighted goodness of fit function..--70.234.164.230 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[Discussion moved to the bottom for clarity --70.234.188.86 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)]

• Association with CEI
  • As explained a couple of sections above, i could not find anything to that effect on their web page, nor at archive.org.
    • He was listed on the CEi website previously, but is not any longer (probably because his association with them was destroying his credibility). Here's an article from the News Journal, Delaware's major paper: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies. Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "probably because his association with them was destroying his credibility..." But is 'this' the place for us to speculate? I have a secondary source (the Del newspaper) conflicting with a primary source (the CEI website, both current and archives going back several years). I can't just claim ignorance of the latter and rely solely on the former?--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • The article is not the place for us to speculate. The talk page is fine for it. As to the rest of your comment, see below. Raul654 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Title at Marshall Institute
  • As shown in the section Alleged Ties above, they list him as roundtable speaker rather than fellow.

Please, please, if you have other refs or sources, or guidelines, do disclose them, otherwise please do not just revert. Thanks. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • Again, as with the above, this has changed since, probably for the same reason. Here's an article he wrote which lists his credentials as Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System, University of Delaware; Senior Scientist, Marshall Institute; Fellow, Independent Institute; Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Note that this article should also include his links with the National Center for Policy Analysis, another front for big oil. Raul654 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See my comment above re: CEI, i believe this is again a matter of primary vs. secondary sources. I have seen alt med crackpots claiming in press they were "doctor of this", "professor of that", or "fellow of X society" and went back and could never verify those claims. I'm not saying Legates is a crackpot, but isn't the actual organization the primary source?--70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • No, it's not a matter of primary versus secondary sources. It's a matter of pretending that the CEI website is static and doesn't change (which is patently untrue) versus numerous sources that say it has changed, all of which agree on what it used to say -- that he was an adjunct scholar for the CEI, including an article he himself wrote. Raul654 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have no way of verifying that the website has changed other than the Wayback Machine which unfortunately didn't catch any change regarding Legates. Is the Delaware paper a more RS than WM? How about capturing this discrepancy in the article itself so that your next clueless anon won't start over the entire thing again? --70.234.164.230 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the collapsible pubs list - I don't see a problem with it, but I also don't know whether there's a wiki convention about such things. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily include complete publication lists for scientists. Prominent publications should be discussed within the body of the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that describing all of his activities isn't the goal of an encyclopedia article. Instead, discuss the main thrust of his work and anything especially important that he has accomplished. For example, the global climatological analyses that he did with Cort Wilmott has been very widely used (though now mostly superseded by the updated Wilmott and Matsuura analyses) and probably has been cited hundreds of times in the professional literature. The article doesn't even mention this, which is in my view his most important professional product. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Requesting help by 70.234.164.230 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

(also replying to this suggestion re: prominent work) I appreciate your suggestion. Although I don't have access to the citation report for all his papers, I will try and limit the research write-up to the work showing most citations on my list, and inline cite those papers. If anyone else is more familiar with the subject and has access to the specific journals-- please feel free to contribute. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boris, since you seem to be a lot more knowledgeable of the field than I am, and if I'm not asking too much, could you please provide a very brief summary on this with minimal pointers to those most prominent pieces of work? (If you give just the authors and year, or year and journal, I can then go in and edit the complete references into the text). Just 2-3 sentences? The more controversial work could then easily be described separately and qualified as such. I have to admit that right now that section is mainly a hodge-podge of ideas. --70.234.164.230 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris#Requesting help by 70.234.164.230 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

[Originally in response to my rant spurt above --70.234.188.86 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)]

• "Scientific societies serve no science role. They do not conduct research, do not conduct peer review, and their position is the result of a more or less open vote and internal politics." - Just to give a handful of examples - in my field (computer science/engineering), literally every major conference and journal worth publishing in is sponsored by the IEEE, the ACM, or both. Society members organize the conferences, solicit experts to volunteer as committee chairs (including the ones who do the peer review, and find others to do so), set industry standards, etc. A subscription to their archives is a sine qua non for anyone who wants to do research. For the chemists, the American Chemical Society serves a similiar purpose (see the list of journals and magazines they run). The ACS goes even further, and standardizes the terminology used by chemists. For astrophysitics, there's the IAU, which recently made news with their redefinition of a planet which excluded pluto. To claim that these bodies do not play a role in science is extremely inaccurate and outright bizzare.
• "They cannot annul scientific dissent with a simple communique." - there is no scientific dissent when it comes to anthropogenic climate change. There's a lot of energy-industry sponsored propaganda masquerading as science, but there's no legitimate dissent.
• "There are articles in support of non-anthropogenic climate change: look at Legates' work and Svensmark's papers for starters. " - then by all means, cite one here that contradicts the consensus that the earth is getting warmer and it is doing so because of human activities. You cannot, because there are no such papers.
• "Realy?? What the **** would arguing mean to this historian? Going to the mall and preaching out loud? " - For starters, publishing papers that argue against anthropogenic global warming. And Oreskes found none that do so.
• "Legates himself has expressed doubt that the primary observations and the correlation-based data feeding into GCM's are accurate enough to draw any conclusion from GCM-based extrapolations" - that would not contradict the consensus. *If* what he says is true, and frankly I doubt that it is, the most that could be said is that the models we use to forecast future warming cannot be relied upon.
• "It is a no brainer that this conclusion is in opposition of no-contest anthropogenic global warming." - The best that can be said from his work, assuming it is true, is that the models are unreliable. Seeing as how we have direct measurements of warming that has already occured over the last century, using his work to conclude that anthropogenic warming is wrong would be a non-sequitor (a grossly sloppy one at that).
• "Then you have Svensmark's work which is proposing, and experimentally proving, an alternative GW hypothesis. Why isn't Oreskes detecting that work as dissenting?" - I don't know much about Svensmark, except that every time I've seen his name it's come up in the context of him making ludicrious claims about cosmic rays which are trivially debunked. Did he publish his claims in reputable journals? Do they actually contradict the consensus?
• "And after all, is she really competent at interpreting all or any of those 900-odd abstracts? Very difficult to answer. " - Historians of science are usually quite well educated in science. (Oreskes has a bachelors and phd in geology) I doubt she would have been published in Nature magazine if she didn't know what she was talking about.
• "Other people with common sense but ignorant of your historian's essay will likely stumble upon this article and change your "consensus" back to something else, and they would be right doing so. Because this is where the OR and RS policies are breaking down." - (A) They would be wrong to do so, and (B) this is *exactly* why he have the OR and RS policies -- because well-meaning idiots, confused by the oil industry's propaganda, think there is dissent where there actually is not. This is why we have them. Raul654 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, your "well meaning idiots" are the very life blood of Wikipedia. Those who incrementally turn half baked essays or defamatory junk into somewhat more informative reading. "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it... When disagreement occurs, explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same... Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them... [D]emonstrat[e] your own good faith [...] by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise"(WP:Assume Good Faith) You have definitely not done any of the above when reverting what you didn't like and calling those who disagree idiots. Most importantly, you are not in the position to judge other editors' intellectual abilities, but only to check the validity of their sources and politely try and reach a compromise.

• Svensmark and dissent: Here are a few of Svensmarks papers (last has 386 citations); several more available using your preferred science search engine. They are RS's. Try and judge for yourself if a tested alternative hypothesis contradicts the concept of an AGW consensus. See scientific method with an emphasis on experimental validation. Or perhaps not, Oreskes did all the thinking so no more is required.
• You are wrong regarding warming and models, and implicitly dissent. When editing the Legates article so vehemently, might as well start reading through his abstracts. Skeptics say warming is natural and CO2 increase the result of warming on gas solubility. It is models alone that substantiate the anthropogenic GW, postulating CO2 as cause instead of effect. According to Legates' journal papers GCMs depend on energy balances built on erroneous accounting of water (see latent and specific heat of water). An erroneous model means you can't use it to substantiate any theory, thus an argument to the contrary. Just click through those citations you had deleted to see what I'm talking about. They are too RS. Ask any modeler in your department. Don't ask Orekses though.
• Oreskes has a PhD in "geology and history" with an emphasis on climate change.
• Sponsored propaganda and reliable sources: your reliable source simply tells the story of the Union of Concerned Scientists making accusations of sponsorship which Exxon reproved (see 3rd paragraph before last). You have erased all and any mention of a rebuttal with no argument whatsoever. You don't have to believe it--and few do--but do follow the spirit of this: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes... Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone... verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it... [A] way that is not neutral[...] might be[...] cite[ing] selectively... Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles." (WP:NPOV).
• Consensus, Generally viewed as consensus, legitimate dissent: "An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." (WP:NPOV)
• Scientific, societies, Scientific Opinion: Yeah, scientific societies have everything to do with scientific, the adjective. Still no role in scientific as in scientific method, or scientific opinion. Scientific opinion is based on evidence. Evidence is not produced by decree, but in the lab/field. Scientific societies do not produce scientific opinion. Consensus scientific opinion means all evidence points to one and only conclusion. Well, there is some evidence pointing somewhere else, and some more showing that the prevailing opinion is based on flawed premises. Thus no consensus. Read more at scientific method and scientific opinion.

You have my OK to revert all the way to before time and forget anything about David Legates, the article. Nobody needs to know of his contributions to climate science. Just concentrate on Legates, the oil sponsored propaganda pawn. Because only idiots could ever disagree.--70.234.188.86 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

References

EPA comment

I added a letter Legates sent to the EPA. There are currently over 11,500 comments on the EPA site related to EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. (Clean Air Act (United States)) I read through these occasionally just to get the feel of what people are writing. There is really enough information for a separate wikipedia page on just the comments to this docket. Both side have good points, and both sides have very bad science (such as global warming causing AIDS and asthma). I am not convinced that Legates letter is notable by itself, but there are 34 co-signers, most of who are notable, and the docket is notable. Even though this letter is not pear reviewed, it might also satisfy the reference requirement for the preceding paragraph. Q Science (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an outstandingly stupid letter, but he signed it. I'm fine with the inclusion. But I don't see how it can be used as a reference for his lectures. Given that there are 35 signers, it's even problematic to use it for nuances of his opinion - presumably, there has been some compromising going on to find a text all are happy with. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Other affiliations" section

Considering the amount of coverage that Legates has received in the media (news, books, PR science studies), the link, has been published several times in peer-reviewed journals, in at least one book, in a court-case, not only by the UCS (who btw. seem to be a reliable source on this issue). So the removal reason of "removed more non-notable and poorly sourced allegations of ties to Exxon, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, possibly WP:SYN" seem to be rather far out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Kim, UCS is not an independent source, they are a partisan organization. This is a BLP. The rest of the sourcing does not mention Legates in conjunction with Exxon - rather, Legates is linked with organizations, and then those organizations are linked to Exxon in the opinion of one columnist. That's synthesis at best. The violations here are plentiful: WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYN. Pick a policy, any policy.

This is a borderline BLP, but I'll give it a day because it's been there a while and I don't want to violate probation. Unless better sourcing is provided (which is reliable, significant, and addresses the Exxon-Legates link directly) I will remove it tomorrow. If you keep reverting, it will become part of the inevitable RFC that we appear to be heading toward. ATren (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the UCS partisan about? The references i chose in the above does link Legates to Exxon funded campaigns. The "addresses the Exxon-Legates link directly" is a strawman, since that isn't even a claim in the current version. And please think again - that particular section, is the best referenced of the whole article - could it be that you should try to focus on other parts of the article instead? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing is poor, Kim. Please provide better sources if you think it should stay. And do you really believe UCS is not partisan in this debate? Right now, their front page has the following paragraph: "With much of the United States in a midwinter chill, some commentators have suggested the harsh weather proves global warming doesn't exist. Don't let those naysayers snow you." If you're going to make the claim that this org has not taken sides in the GW debate, what's the point of further discussion? I am reverting this back tomorrow if better sources are not provided that not only link Legates to Exxon funding, but also show relevance of that link. To simply draw a line from A to B to C is not sufficient, because there is no indication that the B-C link has anything to do with A-B - that's why we have WP:SYN, so such indirect linkages are removed unless someone reliable and independent makes the connection AND that claim is of sufficient weight for inclusion. ATren (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but are you of the impression that the assertions that "harsh winter" == "no global warming" is correct? Is it partisan to point this out? And i'm sorry to inform you that your argument that "this org has ... taken sides in the GW debate" is a non-sense one, since siding with mainstream science doesn't make you "partisan". You must have better arguments for your claim that the UCS is partisan than that it is explaining mainstream science ... (your synthesis argument is rather far out, since SYN doesn't apply to secondary sources - but only to Wikipedia (and its editors)). I've given you several reliable sources that make the connection. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue endlessly with you anymore. I've stated my case and my reasoning, you've done nothing to refute my arguments, you don't accept obvious consensus, you use weight to justify wildly different positions on different pages. This response here is filled with straw men and doesn't address any of my points. It's pointless to debate you anymore. ATren (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't made an argument, all you've done is list policies, and make a claim which you haven't backed up. And now you are also claiming a consensus which seems non-existing. NOTNEWS has nothing to do here, since we are talking sources over large spans of time, this is not breaking news. There is no OR/SYN since we directly source all claims. BLP you haven't made an argument for. And finally WEIGHT, where i've shown you that it is not the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the mention of Legates in the Adam editorials. Either of them. ATren (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Supporting references - the connection is already made. If you are missing more reference, pick from those i've provided above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't even mention Legates. You are misrepresenting the sources. The only source which mentions it is the local Delaware newspaper from 2 years ago. Utterly insignificant except for those editors who are compelled to link everyone they disagree with to Exxon. ATren (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've already dismissed your other "sources". Two didn't even provide text so I couldn't examine (please provide excerpts), the third was a single mention of Legates in a much larger piece, the fourth is a legal filing which is unusable. You have nothing, yet you keep arguing about it endlessly. Once again, Kim, you have vehemently rejected recent significant coverage on Pachauri on grounds of weight and notnews, and your completely contrary position is unsupportable and tendentious. ATren (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dismiss away - here are a few more to dismiss:

• Demeritt, David (2006). "Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique" (PDF). Economy and Society. 35 (3): 453–479. In July 2003 the Inhofe-chaired Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subpoenaed public testimony from Mann as well as several of his critics, noted for their prominence more among right-wing think tanks than in the climate research community. Dismissing the hockey stick as a 'Biased Record Presented by the IPCC and National Assessment', David Legates, a University of Delaware geographer and co-author ....
• Quiggin, John (2006). Holbo, John (ed.). Looking For a Fight: Is there a Republican War on Science? (PDF). Parlor Press. ISBN 1932559914. Mooney documents the rise of the think-tank network, and the roles of commentators like Rush Limbaugh, industry-funded scientists like Willie Soon and David Legates, and politicians like James Inhofe and Tom DeLay.... {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapter-title= ignored (help)
• Pilkington, Ed (Oct 1, 2008). "Revealed: oil-funded research in Palin's campaign against protection for polar bear". The Guardian. A third co-author of the polar bear study, David Legates, a professor at Delaware University, is also associated with the Marshall Institute.
• Shnayerson, Michael (May 2007). "A Convenient Untruth". Vanity Fair. The stars, as in any constellation, are an eclectic bunch. They include fringe scientists such as David Legates and Patrick Michaels, of the George C. Marshall Institute ($115,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005), a Washington-based public-policy think tank
• Mooney, Chris (May/June 2005). "Some Like It Hot". Mother Jones (magazine). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Pasternak, Judy (Aug 12, 2007). ""A mixed message on CO2"". Los Angeles Times. Two years previously, Legates had been one of five co-authors of a paper that the White House used to emphasize uncertainties about the causes of global warming. All five had ties to think tanks funded in part by Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time now, but I browsed the first 3, and I still find little. The ties are tenuous at best. But I'll provide a more thorough analysis later.

Actually, the last one appears to mention Legates in conjunction with Exxon, but it's from 2.5 years ago, as was the Delaware paper. You have anything recent? This appears to have been a flurry of news back in 2007, a flurry which has dissipated, and therefore not appropriate via NOTNEWS. Do you have any more recent news source which establishes the longevity of the story, as is being demanded on Pachauri's page? And again, sources like Mother Jones are partisan sources, therefore as inappropriate as Cato or Heartland would be for a proponent BLP. More sources like the LA Times, and more recent to indicate longevity, are required ATren (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I went for temporally broad coverage, since i knew you would try to invoke NOTNEWS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

References

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Legates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820102903/http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm to http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Legates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830214610/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ to http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)