Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ivanhoe

• Shows Plimer is on board of Ivanhoe, which mines copper, gold and uranium and has minings tenements of over 6000 square kilometer in size in Australia.

• The incredibly generous employment contract given to Plimer by Ivanhoe, which should not be online probably. ► RATEL ◄ 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do copper, gold and uranium mining have to do with climate change? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read news.com.au ► RATEL ◄ 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did. It does not answer my question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Beats me too. Appears irrelevant to the book. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to spell it out. Here's a Gold mining CEO squealing about how carbon trading, known as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in Australia, will hurt his business. ► RATEL ◄ 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's too much to read, here's the shorter version from another Gold mining CEO: “In its first five years, the ETS will cost the Australian coal and gold mining sectors $5 billion and $850 million respectively,” he said. [1] Are we all on the same page now? Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse things by mixing coal into the rest. (Note also that his company produces uranium, which could benefit enormously from proposals for displacement of fossil fuel generated electricity by nuclear plants. Even copper could benefit from alternative energy.) If conflict of interest is a significant part of the debate over the book we can report it. But we can't make such arguments on our own -- viz., Plimer has connections to the mining industry; some sectors of the mining industry stand to lose from emissions regulations; therefore Plimer has a conflict. That's textbook WP:SYN. It also detracts from the main concern about the book, which is that it's totally out of whack with everything we know about the science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a thoughtful response, Boris, so I'll answer carefully but try to be concise:

1. SYN — We have at least one RS linking Plimer, COI and the book [2]. I can probably find more, since the source states that Plimer is frequently assailed over his COI, to his annoyance.
2. Uranium and copper — Plimer's mining interests are mainly in Gold, which will definitely face a massive financial penalty under any sort of emissions trading scheme. All mining operations will face some level of penalty. I have seen no evidence that uranium and copper will be beneficiaries from an ETS, but even if they did, it may be outweighed by the penalties imposed. (And did you know there will be fewer nuclear power plants operating in 10 years than are operating now? [3] )
3. COI — The simple and inescapable facts are that (a) Plimer has a large financial stake in the mining industry and that (b) this industry in general, and Plimer's gold mines in particular, stands to lose money under any sort of carbon trading scheme, and that (c) he has written a book that attempts to influence this debate by pooh-poohing the reasons for such a scheme, and that (d) he has personally attacked the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia. This is an open-and-shut case of COI. ► RATEL ◄ 05:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting, but I'm afraid it would be improper synthesis to include that in this article unless a reliable source publishes a commentary specifically linking Plimer's mining interests with his book - not in the sense of the article you quote, which simply mentions the mining interests as background, but specifically describing it as a factor influencing his views. It's the analogue (but from the other direction, so to speak) of Tillman's attempt to promote a conspiracy theory by linking a particular scientist's research grants with his views on Plimer's book. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this source do that? ► RATEL ◄ 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CBH Resources

Plimer shown on Board of CBH Resources ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kefi Minerals

Plimer shown on Board of Kefi Minerals ► RATEL ◄ 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mining Journal article paints a clear picture

From http://www.mining-journal.com/fifth-column/warming-up (I have created a convenience link here for you to read the article) :

Meanwhile, Prof Plimer is making his voice heard in the debate about the Australian government’s proposal to combat global warming by implementing the most sweeping carbon-trading scheme outside the European Union. Of course, his conviction that human activity is not responsible for global warming makes the government’s proposals for him even more galling. "There is a danger that the carbon-trading scheme will decimate Australia’s mining industry, the main driving force of its economy, but which needs a great deal of energy for its operations", he points out... The Australian government has backed itself into a corner, he suggests. The carbon trading scheme could make Australia poor by destroying mining and processing operations...

This highly reliable source proves beyond doubt that Plimer is interested in influencing a debate that affects him materially, and thus has a clear COI. ► RATEL ◄ 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, is the red font really necessary?? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I've caught yr attention ► RATEL ◄ 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This quote isn't in the excerpt you link to (original article is behind a pay wall). Can you check, and try to copy the whole article there? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you use the convenience link I've provided above? Alternatively, join the site for a free trial period like I did. ► RATEL ◄ 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I used your "convenience link", and only got an excerpt -- as I already said. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's all of it. It starts with the sentence "Not..". I suppose in the print version there's an intro paragraph in another font or something that never made it into the digital version. ► RATEL ◄ 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• (start over). Found it, thanks. I'm travelling (wonky wifi connections) and guess the first try cut off the doc.

Here's the full quote of those 2 key paras:

"There is a danger that the carbon-trading scheme will decimate Australia’s mining industry, the main driving force of its economy, but which needs a great deal of energy for its operations, he points out. It could also force many “clean and green” Australian smelters to close and have their operations transferred to “dirty” plants overseas.

The Australian government has backed itself into a corner, he suggests. The carbon trading scheme could make Australia poor by destroying mining and processing operations – which would lead to the government being kicked out by the electorate."

Note that (if my copy is accurate) these aren't direct quotes, but paraphrases by the reporter (except for "clean & green"). Note that the context softens your case. Plimer has been active in the mining industry for his entire career -- it's unsurprising that he would argue their case. Your COI interpretation still appears to be OR/SYN -- see ChrisO's comment, above -- no direct tie to the book. But it's an interesting article -- thanks for posting it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll refrain from inserting it into the book article, in deference to what ChrisO has said, although I think it is adequately sourced in the AdelaideNow article to warrant a mention. If further mention is made in the press of this issue, it has to go in. I'm also refraining from further editing of the article in the interests of ending the edit warring over the content. If we can all agree to leave it alone now and walk away (at least until more relevant sources are published), so much the better.► RATEL ◄ 23:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed this (COI SYN) per your remark, above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

But I said it is worth mentioning and I'd refrain if you stopped nibbling at the article. But you're back at it, so in it goes. There is no SYN there at all. Not only is the book a blatant example of COI, but Plimer was tackled on the subject of COI in a RS. Sourcing is fine, no synthesis required. It's going back in, and could even be expanded. We'll need to RfC this if you oppose again. State your opposition here and I'll RfC it straight away. ► RATEL ◄ 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor unresolved article issues

1. Media reactions, Miranda Devine quote from Sydney Morning Herald:

Miranda Devine, an editorial advisor for the conservative magazine Quadrant, wrote that "Plimer's book, accessible as it is to the layperson, will help redress the power imbalance between those who claim to own the knowledge and the rest of us."[cite to SMH]

This is misleading as presently written: the casual reader will think this quote is from "Quadrant". Additionally, the Quadrant remark is uncited, and appears irrelevant. If you want to label Devine as conservative, please provide RS cite that says so. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Media reactions, "conservative broadsheet The Australian": needs a cite for conservative (which I think someone found, but it never got into the article). Tagged. Done, thanks --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Media reactions: "The Australian's conservative-leaning columnists attracted criticism from Robert Manne...", cited to this article. There doesn't seem to be any reference to "conservative-leaning columnists" in Manne's article. Thus this appears to be OR/SYN, unless a separate cite can be provided. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simple statement of fact. We've already established and cited the political leanings of his colleagues on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the lede from Manne's opinion piece:

LAST week, The Weekend Australian published three pieces enthusiastically welcoming the publication of Ian Plimer's new anti-climate science book, Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science: an overwhelmingly favourable editorial, a lengthy interview with the author and a column by Christopher Pearson of gushing praise. In these three pieces not one word of criticism of Plimer was to be found.

Note Manne mentions only one columnist. I've revised the sentence in question to reflect what's actually in the source. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Reactions from scientists: "The scientists' criticisms were rejected by Plimer, who embarked on a lecture tour following the book's publication in a bid to lobby the Australian government to change its climate policies to reflect what he called "valid science". (emphasis added) -- sourced to the Kalgoorlie Miner. I'm not sure this is the right place to mention his book tour, and I question whether this is a reliable source: (a) it's a small-town newspaper, and (b) article isn't online, so impossible to verify at a distance. We need a verifiable RS cite for this statement. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is it about that statement that cries out for addition verification? Has Plimer given a series of lectures after publication? Yes. Has he been lobbying politicians? Yes. [4] [5] [6] So what exactly is the problem here? ► RATEL ◄ 03:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Synopsis, paras 2 & 3:

The book is critical of political efforts to address climate change and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. Meteorologists have a huge amount to gain from climate change research, the book claims, and they have narrowed the climate change debate to the atmosphere, whereas the truth is more complex. Money would be better directed to dealing with problems as they occur rather than making expensive and futile attempts to prevent climate change.

The book differs markedly from the scientific consensus in contending that the Great Barrier Reef will benefit from rising seas, that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, and that 96% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour.

Neither of these two paragraphs cite any references. Tagged for cites. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Y If necessary, please tag any uncited facts inline, only if controversial. ► RATEL ◄ 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia policy changed? I don't think so. We don't want uncited controversial facts to remain in articles. Uncited relatively uncontroversial facts may be challenged by tagging. But it really isn't on to allow controversial stuff that might be complete rubbish to remain in any article, ever. Tagging isn't used for that purpose, or shouldn't be. The relevant guideline is Be bold. --TS 02:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to cite facts generally, but especially if they are contentious. The relevant policy states: Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. 03:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Every unverifiable statement is likely to be challenged. That's what verifiability means--that the content is verifiable. The contentious ones should of course be removed under the same guideline of Be bold. --TS 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance in the lead.

Splette has reverted, [7], an attempt to balance a section of the lead which is currently giving WP:UNDUE weight to one side of the discussion. My summary merely pieced together the highlights of the positive elements already present within the article. Either restore the balanced version or remove the unbalanced one, please. --GoRight (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with S. Your edit simply isn't serious William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Then make a counter proposal. The current lead is clearly not WP:NPOV based on the contents of the article. Besides, what exactly is "not serious" about it? I have not introduced anything that is not present in the article. Please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Just because you dislike the current lead doesn't allow you to make joke edits. And as it happens, the current lead seems fair enough William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not a "joke edit" and I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL and to WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, could you describe in what way you perceive the lede to be unbalanced? --TS 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It enumerates the views of the critics but none of the views of the supporters. --GoRight (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be based on the fact that praise is sparser than the critique (=> more weight to critics) - and that none of the praise is from experts on the subject, but instead from various Op-Ed's, reviews etc (=> more weight to the critics). As far as i can see its reasonably balanced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Expert" is meaningless in this context and that doesn't affect WP:WEIGHT anyway. Expert in what? This book? This is not a science article. You are completely eliminating the supportive views which is WP:UNDUE. "As far as i can see its reasonably balanced." - Then you should have your eyesight checked. --GoRight (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, expert is certainly not meaningless when talking about a book that purports to talk about (and be correct on) a specific scientific subject. So weight very much is a factor here as well. This is not fiction according to the author - thus it has to be treated as non-fiction.

I've seen (and read) the references, and i do not believe that "i should have my eyesight checked" (whatever that's supposed to mean)... when we look at the balance of critique and praise - there is a significant overweight towards critique (even in non-expert reviews). Remember please that balanced doesn't mean "equal time". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Remember please that balanced doesn't mean "equal time"." - Please don't put words in my mouth. As the lead stands now it is out of balance with the actual contents of the article. There is positive commentary in the article and none in the lead. Balance it out or remove the unbalanced material, please. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is mention of the positive commentary - the section even starts with it: "The book received positive reviews from the conservative press", that the critique summary is longer, is based on the fact that the critique is significantly more abundant and based upon sources that are more reliable (ie. expert reviews, regular journalistic pieces...), if anything the article text contains too much praise in comparison with the amount of sources found. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not enumerate any of the positive views. The first sentence merely establishes that support is from the conservative press whereas critique is from scientists. The rest of the paragraph enumerates what those critiques actually were (or at least paraphrases them) but no such treatment is given to enumerating or paraphrasing what the positive views actually are. That is unbalanced. --GoRight (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This [8] appears to be an unsourced paraphrase. It would be much better as a quote, if it is one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was neither unsourced, nor paraphrased, as a simple search of the article would reveal. Regardless I have added the quotes you requested. Please don't later come along and complain, as has been done in the past (don't remember by whom), that "there are too many quotes in the article". --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)'

I'm more interested in why an Opinion column by a journalist, who specializes in social and political commentary, is worth quoting about the scientific merit of the book.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not, they are entitled to their opinion. Are you able to WP:V that this is their opinion? --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is the media section. But GR's second addition pushes this too far; I think he is trying to get the word "scientist" in there as often as possible William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Even lay people can have views on science. You are free to discount that views all you wish, obviously. I am basically done for now as long as we can agree in some compromise on the lead as I have proposed below. --GoRight (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

Would you be willing to accept the reader's digest condensed version of my previous attempt which would be an attempt to take your weight argument into account:

"The book received glowing reviews from the conservative press, but criticism from scientists. Supporters believe that the book contains all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want. Critics have argued that it is unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent. Critics have also regularly questioned Plimer about his commercial interests in the mining industry, but he rejects criticism that the book and his opposition to an emissions trading scheme are the result of these commercial interests."

Note that I have also removed "much" from in front of "criticism" as this is POV and subjective. I have also changed "positive" to "glowing" per the quote included in the article. Is this acceptable as a compromise? --GoRight (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously since this is a book about science the views of scientists are more important than those of other readers. We should, if anything, give more space to the extremely negative reception the book has received from the majority of scientists who have read it. --TS 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Tony. And as far as "balance" goes, I've already shown in the archive of this talk page that Plimer's opinions (and those of his claque) are fringe opinions in the scientific world, and as such must not be given equal time in the article according to WP policies. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good but I am not demanding equal time, nor does the scientific opinion matter in the media section. But the simple fact remains that the lead does not enumerate any of the favorable views which is unbalanced per the very policy you are citing. Since you are obviously familiar with the policy in question and you are obviously a supporter thereof, I can only assume that you will accept the change proposed above. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, instead of "which highlighted that the book contained all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want to help redress the power imbalance between those who claim to own the knowledge and the rest of us in a form which is accessible to the layperson. Supporters argued that the book takes apart the work of the fanatics, and predicts that it will do for the cause of climate change realism what Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth did for climate change alarmism", I suggest you formulate a much shorter sentence for us to discuss, and draw it from the text of the page. Post it here for inspection. ► RATEL ◄ 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you not read? Please review the second paragraph after "(Outdent)" above. Note that it contains the following: "Supporters believe that the book contains all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want." That is the proposal I have already made as a compromise to the language you just quoted. Note that EVERYTHING even in the language you quoted was drawn from this page. --GoRight (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, what's with the "supporters" tag? This isn't a football match. Talk about "positive reviews state". ► RATEL ◄ 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I use "supporters" in the same fashion that the following sentence uses "critics". Simply to illustrate my point: What's with your "critics" tag? Talk about "negative reviews state". See the parallel that has been setup here? If your negative reviewers can be called "critics", something that I don't object to, then the positive reviewers should be called "supporters". If you wish to switch both to the "positive/negative reviews state" language that would be fine with me as well, but they should be treated in a comparable manner. --GoRight (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The opposite of "supporters" is "opponents", not "critics". ► RATEL ◄ 15:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And in this case "critics" is being used as a synonym for "opponents". I'm not even hung up on "supporters", suggest a single noun that describes people who wrote positive things about the book. --GoRight (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "Supporters" and "Detractors"? "Positive reviewers" and "Negative reviewers"? --GoRight (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent changes to the lead, let me make an adjusted proposal here:

The book received glowing reviews from the conservative press who called it "all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want," but much criticism from scientists. Critics have argued that it is unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent.

Proposed changes are in italics. I can't make it any shorter but at least this avoids the debate over my calling them "supporters". Are there any objections to this version? --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

After rereading it, that version doesn't flow all that well, perhaps this would be better?

The book received glowing reviews from the conservative press who called it "all the scientific ammunition climate change skeptics could want." Scientists, however, have criticized the book and argued that it is unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent.

Again, proposed changes are in italics. --GoRight (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not too bad, but change scientists to Other reviewers, including scientists. ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I left off "however" because with your change it didn't seem to flow well. If you feel strongly feel about it feel free to add it back in. --GoRight (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sales in first month.

The article states that there were 30,000 sales in the first month. Aside from this fact coming from a questionable source (What expertise does a Catholic Bishop have in book publishing?), the figure itself is highly debated. See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/sales_of_heaven_and_earth.php. I don't have a good suggestion for balancing this. Perhaps just remove it until a more reliable source is found? --naught101 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a publisher's claim, and must be described as such. ► RATEL ◄ 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I substituted a "bestseller" item from Publishers Weekly, citing [9].

It's a very minor point, but editor Ratel subbed in a ref to the publisher's site. Wouldn't a third-party cite be preferable? I'm happy with either, but the sales numbers (which don't seem to be publicly available) have apparently become controversial. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read the second comment on that blog you cite. [10] Lousy source. ► RATEL ◄ 00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, this looks like sloppy reporting on PW's part. Your wording & cite are appropriate. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

more balance in lead

The following sentence appears to be given WP:UNDUE with its elevation to the lead section; I don't think it belongs there: "Critics have also regularly questioned Plimer about his commercial interests in the mining industry,[2] but he rejects criticism that the book and his opposition to an emissions trading scheme are the result of these commercial interests." Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. To me the more important issue is the woeful state of Plimer's "science". But then I've never been interested in the political stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer a subsection on Allegations of conflict of interest? ► RATEL ◄ 14:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is out of place in the lead. --GoRight (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't belong in this article at all, per earlier consensus: see the earlier discussion above, here. Note that Ratel states "I'll refrain from inserting it into the book article, in deference to what ChrisO has said, although I think it is adequately sourced in the AdelaideNow article to warrant a mention. If further mention is made in the press of this issue, it has to go in." There's been no further press mention since then. Note that this material is (properly) mentioned at Plimer's Wikibio.

Ratel is of course welcome to reopen this discussion, but, as the earlier consensus was 3:1 against him, this material shouldn't be put in the article unless a new consensus to do so is developed. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be in the article but not in the lead William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. There really can be no justifiable consensus against inclusion because what we have here is a totally RS article on the book, discussing this issue at length (several paragraphs), and Plimer himself expressing annoyance that the issue is often raised. There is simply no rational reason to exclude it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet when it was first discussed there was a 3 to 1 consensus against you? I fear you are overstating your case just a tad. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus changes. Not everyone follows this in obsessive detail. But having looked at PT's link to 3-to-1 consensus I don't see it. Only PT opposed R's insertion William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Enting's list of errors.

I have some questions regarding:

"Enting compiled a list of over 100 errors in the book."

I note a previous discussion at [11].

Has this source been peer-reviewed? It appears to be dealing with statements of scientific fact so I thought peer-reviewed status was required for such material. Has the standard shifted from that expectation? --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally we follow a "parity of sources" approach. Plimer's book was not peer reviewed, so critiques of it need not be peer reviewed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Enting's list has itself been criticized, for repetition and nit-picking, in a couple of blogs I've seen. For what that's worth. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Climate change denial"

Note, I have raised the issue of inclusion of the link "see also: climate change denial" at the BLP/N. My previous efforts to remove it were promptly reverted. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have provided a link so other editors here can comment. ► RATEL ◄ 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, the idea of taking the dispute to the noticeboard is to bring in the opinions of others who are not involved in the dispute. Right? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a common courtesy to let other involved people know, with a link, that you have gone to a noticeboard with an issue that concerns their edits. ► RATEL ◄ 04:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made this comment on BLP/N although it's perhaps better discussed here. Would anyone object to removing the see also and instead linking to climate change denial via this sentence "Leigh Dayton, science writer for The Australian, expressed dismay at Plimer for having "boarded the denialist ark" and described his arguments"? Alternatively if some other place where it would be appropriate to link to it is shown. It seems to me this would be appropriate per Wikipedia:Linking to help readers understand what Plimer/the book is being accused of doing by Leigh Dayton et al (and this is explained by the linked article) and the reason why we're linking to it via see also is I presume because we expect people may not understand climate change denial (which I agree with) but it is relevant to the topic, as expressed by commentators on the book. Nil Einne (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to that, reluctantly. ► RATEL ◄ 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nil, thanks firstly for declaring yourself a climate change editor before weighing in; much appreciated. I think your proposal here is a fair compromise and thank you for suggesting it. Then we can focus our attention on the very existence of this "climate change denial" page, which seems to have resisted AfD proceedings three times already. I have however continued the discussion at BLP/N because I believe that any linking to this "climate change denial" sets a most dangerous precedent (i.e. it means that at the arbitrary discretion of any POV editor any climate change skeptic could be in principle linked to this "denialist" page). Alex Harvey (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So this is merely part of a campaign to delete the page Climate change denial. I see. Therefore I withdraw my agreement to Nil Einne's proposal and support maintaining the link to the page (where Plimer is mentioned, BTW). ► RATEL ◄ 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, what "campaign" is this...? A good faith editor either agrees with the proposal or disagrees. What does it mean for you to agree one moment and then disagree the next, other than to prove you're not in generally here to edit in good faith? If I believe sincerely that the "climate change denial" page is damaging to Wikipedia's credibility (I do), that is my business, and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Please assume good faith, be civil, and stop attacking people. In other words, please behave according to these same principles you continually preach through warnings & threats on the talk pages of editors with whom you disagree. Again, you have my permission to withdraw your remarks and my response to the same. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

where Plimer is mentioned, BTW -- This is true, by the way. Ratel also added a "see also" at that the denial page back to this one in order to give maximum reach in Wikipedia to his opinion that Plimer is The Denialist par excellence. See the diffs here and here. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

See my response on the BLP noticeboard. And it's not my opinion that Plimer is a denier. It's in the Press, and common sense. ► RATEL ◄ 07:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support Nil Einne's proposal, above, as a reasonable compromise. This would allow us to remove the contentious (and imo unneeded) "See also" section. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we know what you support, but the discussion at the Noticeboard is not going your way, and will hold sway here. ► RATEL ◄ 22:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be added to the quote as the MoS states that quotes shouldn't be wikilinked. If the link can be integrated properly into the text, fine, but this isn't it. Until a better proposal is made it should stay in the See also section. Verbal chat 09:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a ref to that portion of the MOS? I'm pretty sure I've seen other quotes with internal wikilinks -- and, offhand, can't think why that would be poor practice. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Climate change denial article as currently written says denialists usually act in bad faith as part of an industry funded misinformation campaign. Absent a reliable source that says the author was acting in bad faith as part of an industry funded misinformation campaign, the link does not belong here. Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." If it's restored without a reliable source, I will put the page under protection. --agr (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

here is the BLP policy

It seems that editors have trouble understanding the BLP policy (e.g. here here and here. Once again:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects ... or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

Please note that the uninvolved administrator Arnold Rheinhold has already ruled this material is violating WP:BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But Arnold Rheinhold was reverted by another admin. It's not cut and dried. I've replaced the see also because of today's addition to the page, which is a case (another case) of Plimer being called a denialist, this time by an ex-Leader of an Australian political party. The see also link must be there for readers to explore the concepts raised. This is how a good encyclopedia works. This is not a BLP issue. This is a page on a book that is chock-full of climate change denial, in fact, that's all the book is about, fer Jeebus's sake. ► RATEL ◄ 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Connolley may be an administrator, but he's a party to this dispute, as you know well, and partisan on the issue of climate change. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Connolley is also a scientist who knows a lot about this area, unlike the other admin who didn't know what AGW means. I tend to listen more to experts. Don't you? ► RATEL ◄ 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, (1) the policy states that if the text is challenged in good faith it should be removed until the matter is resolved by an uninvolved administrator. William may have reverted Arnold's edits in his capacity as an editor but certainly not in his capacity as an admin: an admin loses his right to function as an administrator in a page where he is was himself previously party to a content dispute. (2) Wikipedia's policies make it quite clear that any formal expertise you may have to a subject is quite irrelevant as original research is never allowed. William's expertise, to the extent that he is genuinely expert in the pages he edits (which certainly doesn't include biographies of living people, an area where historians would be expert), is only relevant if he is contributing original research -- in which case he would be breaking the policies. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the nth time you've insinuated that this article on a book is a BLP. It's getting tiring and annoying. The BOOK is all about climate change denial, as any child could tell you. ► RATEL ◄ 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The insinuation is not that the book is a denialist but that the book's author is a denialist, as you know full well. Here is the relevant section of the BLP policy for you: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." Alex Harvey (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This flimsy argument rests on the over-restrictive definition of CCD as it stands on the current CCD page. Watch this space. ► RATEL ◄

That is correct. Any article regardless of it's primary subject is governed by the BLP policy. Viridae^Talk 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Clearly, any article falls under BLP. Clearly, quoting BLP here just isn't going to help. Clearly, asserting AR as the ultimate authority on this is doomed. Clearly, edit summaries asserting that one side or the other must wait until the argument is settled are merely an attempt to win the edit war by rhetoric and are doomed. We need to come to agreement, or the usual messy compromise.

I think the BLP claim here isdeeply spurious. The issue is the link to Climate change denial. Does this fall under "unsourced material"? Very doubtful. CCD is sourced (if it isn't, delete it).

I note that V has protected the page on the WP:WRONG version, so that is all correct. A talk page note to that effect wouldn't have gone amiss.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no room to compromise where WP:BLP is concerned. Plimer has not been tied to any special interests and does not fit the criteria established at Climate change denial so he should not be included there, and therefore these contentious links should be removed per WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. No, quoting policy won't work. The question is whether this is a BLP question, so you don't get to invoke BLP until that is resolved. Plimer certainly has been tied to special interests William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Plimer certainly has been tied to special interests" - Show me the WP:RS news article that claims Plimer is intentionally misinforming the public to advance the interests of some special interest group or lobby with a stake in AGW. --GoRight (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving the goal-posts. One thing at a time please.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't move the goalposts. This is exactly what I have been asking for all along. --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. As long as there is a question of BLP involvement, and as long as the discussion is ongoing, the questionable text stays out. ATren (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't work. You can recurse this as often as you like and it goes nowhere: the question is, is there a question of BLP? No, you don't get to blindly assert irrelevant policies to remove text that displeases you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actively ignoring this needlessly aggressive response. My point is made above. ATren (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"My point is made above." - Agreed. And it is the correct one per the clear language of the policy. --GoRight (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, its a have-the-last-word contest is it? Well, you clearly aren't ignoring my response, because you responded to it. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the part of his comment that I quoted. That's the part I am agreeing with and responding to. --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats all right. You've had the last word now. You can stop, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• The term "global warming denialism" is deliberate reminiscent of "holocaust denial" [12] and the article Climate change denial clearly makes a distinction between good faith skepticism and bad faith denialism. As such, you have an duty as responsible editors not to insert "see also Climate change denial" in an article about a book or person unless you have reliable sources proving or at least alleging that the book or person is a bad faith denialist rather than a good faith skeptic. And even then, you should link in the body of the article with a citation, rather than with a context-free "See also" link. I don't know whether it is a BLP problem as such are normally understood, but it is a shabby way to editorialize about something. And make no mistake, it is quite possible to write an "NPOV" article body and then editorialize with see also links, external links and categories. This happens all the time with other ethnic and geopolitical disputes and it usually ends up with discretionary sanctions and topic bans. It's like taking a politician who opposes the extension of West Bank settlements and using category or see also links to Antisemitism--it labels the person in an editorial way that can not be done in the article itself.

I'm sick of this behavior in ethnic and geopolitical disputes and I am sad to see the same behavior exported to climate change or any other topic where it shows up. Either prove the person or book is "denialist" and link in the main body of the article, supported by context and citations, or don't link at all. Stop the shabby practice of using see also, external links or categories to editorialize about the topic. Thatcher 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case there is no such problem. The author openly denies global warming. --TS 15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, please read Climate change denial and what I wrote. There is a clear bias that "climate change denial" refers to bad faith actions motivated by financial interests. The term "climate skeptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy. Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly those with ties to the energy lobby. The article on climate change denial talks about this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change and talks about a "denialism industry". The article on Denialism says Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. This is quite different from the simple English language meaning of the word "denial". Presumably, a person can remain unconvinced about anthropogenic global warming in good faith. A person can be skeptical of proxy reconstructions, alarmist claims about drowning polar bears, scientific misconduct or at least sloppiness in the conduct of climate research, potential warm bias in the surface temperature record, and so on, without being in the employ of corporate interests or part of the "denialism industry." It's not my fault that [[Climate change denial] has been defined in such a negative way so that it excludes good faith objections (it's not wikipedia editors' faults either, it appears to have been defined that way by the pro-AGW side as part of their propaganda). However, with the definition being what it is, and so overwhelmingly describing intentional bad faith actions rather than good faith skepticism, editors have a responsibility not to tag articles unless there are reliable sources showing that the article relates to bad faith actions rather than good faith skepticism (and rather that tag with a see also, put it in the body with citations and context).

Or do you simply not believe in good faith skepticism? Thatcher 16:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. I am indeed aware of people who think there is no such thing as good faith skepticism on the issue of AGW. Thatcher 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of people who think that wearing strange hats protect you from government surveillance.... That such people exist, neither shows that they are wrong - nor that they are right.

The Climate change denial article does not state that there is no such thing as good faith scepticism, it in fact makes it very clear in the beginning (lede) that such exists, and that CCD isn't that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's my point, I think. Since the article says that CCD is not good faith skepticism, links to CCD in other articles should be used carefully. As I said, such links (see also, external links, and categories) should not be used to say that person X or organization Y or book Z is denialist because it is a shabby form of editorializing. "Lyn Allison, leader of the Australian Democrats from 2004 to 2008, called Plimer the "pet [[climate change denial|denialist]]" of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and accused Plimer of "happily cashing in on his speaking tours and his book".[57]" places the claim in context and with a citation. Adding it as a category or see also implies unambiguous categorization, as noted by ATren. Thatcher 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but denial can be both good faith or bad faith. So your premise is wrong. The denial part comes from ignoring (deliberately or by "overlooking") scientific data that contradicts your argument. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you find any examples of good faith denial in the climate change denial article? Thatcher 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make such a value judgement. If someone is argues something that is indefensible scientifically, and evidence shows that the person has been confronted with the scientific evidence, then its denial, good faith or bad faith (but as said i'm not willing to judge which). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, seriously, do you not understand that Plimer has been accused of bad faith? --TS 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Then link in the article at the appropriate point with proper context and citations. I'm pretty sure the MOS deprecates using see also links that are already linked in the body of the text. For example, there is a quote about being Murchdoch's "pet denialist". Assuming that passes editorial muster, why not link there? Thatcher 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) Tony, do you seriously not understand there is a difference between (1) documenting the accusation in the article as a sourced claim made by others, versus (2) adding a "see also" link which implies unambiguous categorization of the individual? I support the former, not the latter. ATren (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Better said with fewer words. Thatcher 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, 2 points:

1. It's not true that CC Denial = Holocaust Denial (or that this is insinuated), no matter what one oped says. You also have AIDS Denial etc [Denialism: what it is and how should scientists respond Denial is denial.
2. The definition on wikipedia's page between good faith skepticism and bad faith denial seems to be entirely an artifice of some editor's imagination. I can't actually find that distinction made elsewhere. So I suggest a broadening of the definition of CCD on the CCD page, which will solve this impasse. ► RATEL ◄ 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I suspect, but can not prove, that the first use of the term "denial" in such a negative way involved the holocaust, and that subsequent uses (climate, AIDS, whatever) are likely to be a deliberate attempt to link "XX denial" to holocaust denial. This is, of course, pro-AGW propaganda. If you can get people thinking that climate change deniers are the same as holocaust deniers, then you have gone a long way toward undermining the arguments of rational skeptics. If you can label me a "denier", with the implication that I am either irrational in my disbelief or deliberately acting in bad faith, then you don't have to address my arguments about proxy reconstructions or whatever. And just google "global warming holocaust denial"; it is clear that many people who use the term explicitly make that link and use the term precisely because it helps them undermine the case for rational skepticism. Certainly, fixing the "climate change denial" article would be one way of removing or at least softening the impact of tagging people and topics as "denialist"; whether you can really do that depends on what the sources show about how the term is used. Thatcher 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"I suspect, but can not prove, that the first use of the term "denial" in such a negative way involved the holocaust" this is a strange argument (and one that has been raised several times, and been rejected by consensus on CCD) - basically this is assuming bad faith, and strangely somehow invalidating any use of the english word and concept of denial, because it may invoke a bad picture in some people. Sorry english is english - denial is not limited to holocaust denial. Its a straw-man argument. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Holocaust denial aside, the CCD article itself implies bad faith. The intro talks about denial as opposed to "good faith" skepticism, then elaborates with allusions to "disinformation" and financial motives. It is difficult to surmise how CCD can be interpreted as anything but bad faith, and you yourself deem to agree that its signifies bad faith (above). So, given that CCD implies bad faith, I (and others) believe that an unambiguous, unsourced "see also" link creates the impression of categorization, i.e. somewhere a reliable source (not a claim in an opinion piece) has proven that Plimer acted in bad faith. I believe the bar for such unqualified association is much higher than a few claims by opponents, e.g. an investigative report in a respected newspaper that specifically documented evidence of bad faith. The example I've presented elsewhere is that many pundits may claim Obama is a communist, but it would not be appropriate to have "see also: Communism" in the Obama article.

I'm sorry, but we aren't talking about pundits only making these distinctions (between sceptic and denier), your reading of the CCD article ignores several things - for instance the word "usual" in front of "disinformation" and "financial motivations". And why is it difficult to differentiate between denier ((concious or subconciously (*)) ignoring scientific data, and arguing points that are contradicted by scientific data), and sceptic (argues a scientific point, which may be outside of the mainstream - but still scientifically defendable)? (*) note: i'm not willing to argue either way, one is good faith the other is bad faith. Without serious RS's i'm going to assume good faith

As for the Communism thing, its simply a strawman.. The cases are not similar - since its not pundits (alone) who are making the distinction between denial and scepticism. The better analogy is doing a "See Also" on Obama that refers to Socialism - which is entirely defensible (it may not be a good judgement - but it is defensible).

When we are talking about the book, we have several expert sources who tell us that this simply isn't science, state that its an example of denial - even calling it outright fraud. So a link to CCD is entirely defensible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The link has to be in context within the article, such as, "So-and-so has called the book an example of [link] global warming denial." It can't just be a link listed in the See also section. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interlude

I think this whole argument is kinda dumb. But both sides have dug in their heels, so it's going to go on for a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please edit the protected page

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following statement to the description of Monbiot's criticism: "In particular, Monbiot singled out Plimer's misrepresentation of a review paper by Keller, in which Plimer cited the paper to support an opposite conclusion to that of the paper's author." The reference for that is here.}} --TS 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've no idea how to make this silly template work, but my request should, I hope, be clear. --TS 16:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For a negative claim about a living person, I'd prefer to see some consensus for addition here before changing a fully-protected article.  Skomorokh  16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any lack of consensus about this. Has anybody objected? --TS 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular wording has not been discussed, so there would not be objection yet. But I see no reason it has to be added through protection. We can use the next few days to reach a consensus on the wording, and when the block comes up we can add it. ATren (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait. We can wait. --TS 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Better wording would be something along the lines of "Monbiot accused Plimer of misrepresenting a review by Keller, saying Plimer cited the paper to support a conclusion opposite to that of the paper's author." The way the suggested text is worded it reaches conclusions that need better sourcing than a blog on one side of a debate. I would mention multiple of the accusations instead of just one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we have a bit more than a blog. There is a book by Plimer, a source he cited, the content of the source, and the conclusion arrived at by a prominent commentator on global warming. Wikipedia is in a position to make a definitive factual statement. --TS 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've cancelled out the {{editprotected}} above, for now, as I see that discussions are ongoing, and it would appear that TS is happy to wait a few days for the protection to expire (17 September). I'm not involved in this issue at all - I did this so that a request that cannot yet be processed is not listed as outstanding, that's all. If an {{editprotected}} is still required, please reinstate the request. (TS, the format of your request was fine - just that template followed by a clear request with refs is appropriate). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict @TS) "the conclusion arrived at by a prominent commentator on global warming" - Excuse me, but Monbiot has stated that he is unqualified to answer questions related to the book and/or climate change, [13].

"I told him that I was unqualified to answer his questions." -- George Monbiot

If this is the case we cannot consider his opinions on such matters as being reliable.

"Wikipedia is in a position to make a definitive factual statement." - Yes, but to do so you need a WP:RS that is suitable for statements of fact like a legitimate news article, not an opinion piece. --GoRight (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read Plimer's questions? I did. Monbiot has not stated what you claim he has stated. Misrepresentation is rife here without us editors adding to it.

Plimer's misrepresentation of Keller is a matter of fact, not expertise or interpretation. We have the material here to make the determination. We have the book, which is a reliable source for itself. We have the paper, which is a reliable source for itself. We have Monbiot's work, which is a reliable source for Monbiot's highlighting of Plimer's misrepresentation. --TS 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"We have the material here to make the determination." - It's not our job to make the determination, that would be called WP:OR. You need a WP:RS news article to make the claim. I'm going to stop repeating this now. I disagree with any attempts to add this material without a WP:RS that directly asserts or substantiates this statement of fact. --GoRight (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think Monbiot's latest broadside needs to go onto the page since it seems to sum up his entire interaction with Plimer. I bet Plimer deeply regrets trying to take Monbiot down, because he has lost this fight badly. ► RATEL ◄ 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unused sources list

Reliable sources not used in article here. List may be useful to future editors:

• Bob Ward, science journalist with a geology degree, reviews the book ► RATEL ◄ 09:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Plimer's Homework Assignment from RealClimate.org ► RATEL ◄ 15:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lovely quote from an article published today in The Telegraph blogs section:

The decision to take the climate science for granted in this report might attract some criticism from followers of Ian Plimer, author of the milion-selling but ludicrous Heaven and Earth, bible of the denial camp. Fortunately for the authors of the report Mr Plimer is entirely mistaken in his views, from his belief in an entirely fictional period of cooling after the second world war to the idea that the sun is mostly made of iron rather than hydrogen and helium and that this, through the device of solar flares, has some cyclical effect on temperatures on earth, so they need not distract us any further.

Gives me shivers! ► RATEL ◄ 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• "...the daft conspiracy theories of denialist poster-boy Ian Plimer", so sayeth Phillip Adams in The Australian [14]. ► RATEL ◄ 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• David Hone, Climate Change Advisor for Royal Dutch Shell, deconstructs H+E

• Plimer accused of plagiarism in this book. [15] Keep an eye out for follow-ups on RSes. ► RATEL ◄ 23:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Monbiot shreds the book, and Plimer, again. [16] ► RATEL ◄ 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of two edits by User:Chaucer Bolays

In this edit, Chaucer Bolays removes some material about George Monbiot, calling him a "minor fringe figure".

In this edit. Chaucer Bolays removed the word "widely" from the phrase "has been criticized by scientists and academics".

George Monbiot is a prominent journalist and advocate in the field, so cannot reasonably be describes as "minor" in this context, tightly defined.

The absolutely overwhelming degree to which Plimer's work has been criticised merits at the very least the description "widely". There is no element of pushing a point of view in describing this.

I will invite Mr. Bolays to come to the talk page to discuss his edits. --TS 03:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of GM as a prominent journalist is OR and not supported by an RS. I could not find "widely" in an RS either. Sorry. Chaucer Bolays (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time.

By GM you mean, I assume, George Monbiot. By RS you mean, I again assume, a reliable source.

Monbiot writes a weekly column for a major British national newspaper, so of course he's a prominent journalist (though you might quibble that he is, rather, a columnist, and I would no disagree). I imagine we can take the pages of The Guardian as a reliable source for his job as a columnist there, and the considerable international prestige of The Guardian as an indication of his prominence. --TS 03:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

CB is yet another sock William M. Connolley (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

RS ,Weight, BLP concerns: "denialist" quote in "Other reactions"

We presently close the article with a quote from Lyn Allison, an Australian politician, sourced to the obscure Australian Rationalist Journal, and reprinted online at another site. I'm questioning whether this is a WP:reliable source, and whether we are giving WP:undue weight to this opinion piece, considering its source. Note that the author calls Plimer "Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist", a WP:BLP issue, so the article's sourcing needs to be especially carefully considered. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The person quoted is a major identity in Australia, having led one of the 3 major political parties for years. If you think the source has a history of unreliability, take it up at the RS noticeboard, not here. AFAIK, it is entirely reliable in its quoting of this politician. I also note here that you have started about 20 sections on this talk page and its archives with a similar format and theme to this one, IOW "concerns" or "problems" with sections that in any way show IP or his book in a negative light, usually without any foundation to your argument. It is bordering on tendentious editing, Tillman. ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, it's not tendentious, don't be baited into responding to such attacks. I'm on the fence regarding that particular quote; I suggest you take it to BLP/N if you have concerns. ATren (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Ratel, WP: assume good faith, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that there are other sources that have commented on the extensive quoting and praise of Plimer by News Corporation's organs, so Allison's views are not isolated. In addition, the "Other reactions" section is grossly overweight with positive opinions of the book (indeed, except for Allison's views, all the rest are glowing comments). ► RATEL ◄ 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[removed comment by another scibaby sock] ► RATEL ◄ 03:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors may want to read (or skim) Allison's "Plimerphiles: the dangerous delusions of Murdoch hacks’ pet denialist". It's quite a remarkable piece of invective: Regarding Plimer's views, she writes:

"A step has arguably been taken back in the direction of the Dark Ages when anyone putting science above the mutterings of the supernatural did so at risk of being burned alive. It is no coincidence that Plimer is devout (the notorious Catholic George Pell is a fan)." Etc., etc. It's no surprise she had to go to something like the "Australian Rationalist Journal" to get the thing published.

And, of course, her article must be read in context: a defeated politician hoping to find an issue for a comeback. Which brings up the obvious question of WP:undue weight.

Anyway, the attraction of this piece for Ratel is that she calls Plimer a "denialist". Nothing else there that's not already in our article, from actual WP:reliable sources. Including the "denialist" charge.

Please note that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." -- WP:BLP I don't think this piece, or source, meets BLP standards, and I challenge the editor who added it to demonstrate that it does. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this quote from a questionable source per BLP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1) In the Australian context, Allison is definitely notable. 2) The source has never had charges of unreliability brought against it. 3) The section has undue weight of positive opinions of this fringe view book. Quote stays. ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Synopsis" section wrong

I quote from page 470 of the book:

Global warming hysteria is big business. Just follow the money. Various green movements claim that those who do not accept the hypothesis that humans are causing climate change have this view because they are supported by the petroleum and coal industries. A US Senate report shows that the greens are the best-funded quarter of the advocacy industry. Between 1998 and 2005, the 50 biggest green movements in the USA attracted revenue of $22.5 billion. This is the GDP of a few impoverished African countries. Such funds could provide massive improvements in the health of millions of people and would have a far greater environmental impact on the planet than advocacy.

After reading the book, I can tell you that our Synopsis section is nowhere near right. The book is full of vitriol and accusations of conspiracy, like someone shouting from a box in the village square, not the reasoned debate our section implies. The passage I quote above is the norm. Not sure how to address this deficiency... ► RATEL ◄ 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And you will have to find reliable sources for such. Otherwise it is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we did have Plimer quoted extensively from one of his press articles (already a source on the page) originally, saying exactly what he says in his book, but someone, Tillman or Alex Harvey, I think, removed a lot of it diff diff then, when it was replaced, IIRC started a sebsection on this page saying that this was a "problem" and gradually reduced the Synopsis section to unrepresentative pap. Because we never had the book, they were allowed to get away with it. Specifically, Plimer uses the phrases, "urban elites" "environmental atheist imposing a new religion" "pompous scientists out of touch with the community" and so on, extensively in the book. This is what's missing from the synopsis. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Echo what KDP said. --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Add word Skpetic

Could I please suggest the word 'Skeptic' be added to the first sentence after 'geologist' so the first line reads :

"Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science is a popular science book published in 2009 and written by Australian geologist, Skeptic and mining company director Ian Plimer."

Perhaps even make that 'Skeptic and Global Warming skeptic'?

Eg. "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science is a popular science book published in 2009 and written by Australian geologist, Skeptic, Global Warming skeptic' and mining company director Ian Plimer."

With Global Warming linked with square brackets maybe?

BTW. Allison is wrong to say Plimer is "devout" - he was the '1995 Australian Humanist of the Year' & has strongly opposed religious extremists such as the Creationists. (Source: "About the Author" (biography) Page 4, Heaven & Earth' Plimer, Connor Court, 2009.) Also I've met him a few times if that personal experience counts for anything. He did not pray before meals or anything like that. (Nor did or would I - not that it matters.)

PS. Hope I'm doing this right.124.182.226.16 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC) StevoR

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why?

HiP reverted [17] Ideas in it have been described as "so wrong as to be laughable" as "trivia". I find this hard to understand. Is the book universally agreed to be so bad that criticism as damming as this is mere "trivia"? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Glowing

Mackan reverted "glowing" on the grounds that it was silly [18]. But it is a direct quote from the source William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit that I think is fairly reasonable. It's perfectly acceptable to quote the source directly, but in cases when we do such, I think it's best we put quotes around the statements, and say who is saying what, because sometimes -- such as in this case -- I think the choice of words might be less than encyclopedic. I mean, we wouldn't want to just flatly assert that the source is "fucking stupid" if The Age happened to use those words in its article, would we? I know I wouldn't. Macai (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think [19] is fine, except perhaps people won't know what The Age is William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can something from a source not still be silly? To say the conservative press gave glowing reviews is mostly a clever way of saying it's a thoroughly partisan book. That's fine for a newspaper, but I'd say it's a little silly for our purposes. Attributing it in the text is better, but as far as the lead goes, I'd prefer my wording. Mackan79 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes it *could* be silly. But given that is the source we are using there must be a presumption that the source isn't silly, or else we wouldn't be using it. I can't see it as silly at all; I can see that one might dislike it. But given that it is a direct quote from the source we are using, and is moreover a quote about exactly the bit we're talking about, it seems quite reasonable to use it. If the source isn't good enough, we should find another. I can't tell one Australian newspaper from another; maybe The Age is rubbish; I wouldn't use the Daily Mail as a source for anything other than its own opinions, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for depersonalizing. I don't like or dislike it, and from what I can see it's correct. The question is simply how to use it here. "Glowing praise" is tongue in cheek, like saying they salivated over it, etc. Thus, we'd have to attribute it. But considering this is the second paragraph of the lead, I'm just saying it strikes me as more sensible to paraphrase it into something less stylistically charged. Mackan79 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian

I noticed that The Australian, which is used as an example of a conservative source giving it a "glowing" review, also had someone else say that the content of the book was "so wrong as to be laughable". This to me implies that The Australian is giving mixed messages. While my most recent edit to the article is just a wording alteration, I think it might be a good idea to find another example of a "glowing" review from a conservative source. You know, one that doesn't turn around and insult the book next month. It might read a bit more coherently, you know? Macai (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

More sources would be good. But you should consider the possibility that the book really is bad, and is being praised for ideaological reasons, in which case it isn't too surprising that a later part of the paper - which is presumably not a monolith - should return to reality William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with whether the book is bad or not. I'm just saying that if The Australian might not be the best example of a conservative source giving it a glowing review, since it also gives it a rather bad review later on. I just think it's an editorial discretion that makes a lot of sense. If I wanted to give an example of someone who absolutely loves World of Warcraft, I wouldn't cite a blog post from said person saying that World of Warcraft was absolutely fantastic, and then in the same paragraph cite another blog post saying that it made him want to gouge his eyes out. Likewise, if I wanted to give an example of a source that gave a book a particularly favorable review, I wouldn't cite a favorable review from a particular news outlet, and then in the same paragraph cite another review from that same news outlet describing how god awful it is. Now, this isn't something I feel very strongly about. I'm not going to try to push this idea through if it doesn't sit well with other editors. It's just something I thought merited being brought up. Macai (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian is a conservative newspaper, of that there is no doubt or debate. The newspaper is famous in Australia for its AGW scepticism, so much so that's it's been dubbed "The Australian's War on Science" [20] [21]. The paper has carried numerous positive mentions of the Plimer book from its many conservative commentators, and one (I think) negative review from an occasional (guest) correspondent. Hope this helps. ► RATEL ◄ 23:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservative press

To pretend that this received +ve reviews from all the press is obviously untenable. Although "skeptic" might be better, in the GW context William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To say conservative press is not wp:npov your POV is not wp:rs as such i am going to revert you unless you actually have a ref which says that only the conservative press (and what is that btw?) gave positive reviews mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the paucity of our sourcing is at fault here. Only one source is cited: a piece by Andrew Pearson, who says in the piece that he was to be the Master of Ceremonies at the launch of the book! However you might want to represent that piece, it clearly isn't a book review. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you tony, Pearson had obviously read the book based on what he wrote. So it is a review. And there are plenty of other reviews as well. But as i have yet to see a source which says it was well recieved by the Conservative press and as phrasing it like that is not even wp:npov then the conservative part really has to go mark nutley (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

unless you actually have a ref which says that only the conservative press - this is silly game-playing. You appear to be quite happy with "was well-received by the press" a statement for which you have no RS either. As TS, sources are few. So how about we cahnge it to "was well-received by The Australian? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press..." [22] Just one of many such quotes available. ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source, I've added it. I'm sure that "glowing" will be seen as a positive addition William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

MN is now reverting , on the grounds that "conservative" is intrinsically NPOV. This seems very dubious. We have a good source for "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press" but no source at all for MN's preferred "The book received positive reviews from the press" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are reverting against policy. It is not for us to say if sources are conservative. to do so is wp:or It is fact that you did a blind revert here, as i had in fact removed that statement as it is already in the articles Reception and criticism section. But of course you could not be arsed to read the edit summary just did a blind revert. I am going to revert you per wp:npov if you have an issue with my edits perhaps you would be so kind as to talk first and not do your usual blind revert mark nutley (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not reading. The source itself says "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press". There is no OR involved; you are merely knee-jerking against the "conservative" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark's removal of sourced characterizations of well known conservative organs is puzzling to me. Why would we want to produce misleading copy, as some of these edits do? I await discussion with a view to establishing consensus on whether such removals can possibly be said to improve the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, how exactly are they sourced? To say that any newspaper is "conservative" is not wp:npov we just use what they write as sources, it is not for us to decide what a sources politics are. In fact to add labels to sources is wp:or and it is this which is misleeading. @ WMc your ref is from May 2, 2009 which is about two weeks after the book was published. How exactly does this manage to cover the entire worlds press? Your ref is as useless as your wp:or that certain sources should be called conservative in breach of wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

how exactly are they sourced? - err, well you see the [1] after "from the conservative press"? That is what we call a "link". If you click on it with your mouse - use the left button - you follow the "hyperlink" to a "web page" where you find the text "His book has received glowing endorsements in the conservative press and been embraced by some federal MPs.". Now, if you are really so ignorant of how a source works, should you really be contributing here? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you really as bovine as you act? Not all uses of conservative has a ref, it also breaks wp:npov i see you do your usual and ignore my question and instead attack me. So i put it to you again, WILL you answer how exactly does a ref from two weeks after the book was published manage to cover the entire worlds press? One ref is not good enough to break wp:npov If you do not have an actual reason apart from pushing your POV into this article then i will of course remove them again per wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, for NPOV reasons you will have to show that there is reasons to doubt the conservative comment, since the other is verifiable. That should be easy, where as the reverse, would be proving a negative. NPOV does not mean "equal time". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Am I imagining it, or is this "Mark Nutley" both insulting other editors here ("Are you really as bovine as you act?") and edit warring the article with a 3RR transgression, all without any sanction? Won't someone please report this? ► RATEL ◄ 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have insulted no-one, billy boys constant blundering about in his haste to insult me is as bull in a china shop as you can get, hence "Bovine" Care to show my three reverts as well btw? @ Kim one ref two weeks after the books release does not give leave to paste the word Conservative all over the article. As i said, it is not for us to decide what is left or right, we just report what the wp:rs say. To call any source "conservative" is introducing wp:or and is not wp:npov mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What RS's we have for this, says conservative. You still haven't found any references to question whether that RS is correct or not, in which case we could discuss it. Finally, we are not doing OR, since we have an RS that makes the connection. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bull, one ref does not mean you can plaster your pov of sources all over an article.

• 1 the conservative broadsheet[39] The Australian
• 2 conservative commentator[40] Miranda Devine
• 3 Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator[42]
• 4 right-wing columnist [43] Andrew Alexander
• 5 The Spectator, a conservative British magazine

How exactly does one ref from the age manage to cover all of the above? mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you have referred to me as "rat" in an edit summary. Rather than report you, I'll join into the humorous spirit of your edits and refer to you as "nut", m'kay? Other editors may wish to do likewise, since you've set the precedent. Now, nut, please note that all uses of conservative are cited, if you look at the sources. The use of the conservative descriptor was thoroughly discussed in the archives of this page, and if you refuse to read the archives and continue to edit war the article, you will be reported, because this article is under probation and you are being disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked in the archive, and there was no clear consensus to use labels on sources, and even if there was it matters not. Consensus changes. The use of "conservative and right wing" break wp:npov and they will have to go. You nor your friends get to add labels to sources based on your POV of them, it is against policy. Now if you actually have a policy based reason to label sources as they have been in this article lets hear it please mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MN has a point, the allegiances of each source needs to be referenced (1,2 & 3 are easy, since they are used in the WP articles - 3 not, and 4 does not seem to have an article) and why. Although much of CC skepticism has a right wing origin, not all right wingers are skeptic. Rather than referencing the general political leanings of the sources, it seems to me that the CC skeptic outlook of each needs to be noted and referenced to comply with NPOV. (Please move this to the article talkpage if more appropriate). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the complete lack of response to my above question i am assuming no-one actually has a policy based reason for labeling sources according to a certain POV, as such i will again remove the labels "conservative" per wp:npov and "right wing" per wp:blp and wp:npov

LessHeard has just said that the labelling is ok with suitable refs. Do not remove them. This is an issue where the partisanship of commentators is a key issue. ► RATEL ◄ 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And you have a ref for all uses of labels do you? Including the right wing one? Lets see them please mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which ones bother you, nut? Name them here. ► RATEL ◄ 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I already have, but i will point them out again

• 1 the conservative broadsheet[39] The Australian
• 2 conservative commentator[40] Miranda Devine
• 3 Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator[42]
• 4 right-wing columnist [43] Andrew Alexander
• 5 The Spectator, a conservative British magazine mark nutley (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lessheard had already eliminated 1, 2 and 3. Can't you read? So you're complaining about labels on Alexander and The Spectator. I'll see what I can do. ► RATEL ◄ 01:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course i can read, i await your reply, BTW please don`t edit section titles in the talk page, i believe it is against policy to do so, thanks mark nutley (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added further refs to Alexander, and no refs are necessary for The Spectator, which is described as conservative on its own wikipage. ► RATEL ◄ 01:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref 44 does not mention Alexander at all, it leads to the front page of the speccie [23] Ref 45 does not call him "right wing" [24] it is also an op-ed by Jean-Francois Revel and as such breaks wp:blp ref 46 also does not call him right wing but says he is on the right, it is also an op-ed and as such breaks wp:blp mark nutley (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref fixed. This is not a biography page, so citing someone's political leanings from the impressions of others does not break any rule. ► RATEL ◄ 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)