Talk:Judith Curry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neo-skepticism

The source for the claim of neo-skepticism frames that term thus: "We next identify six different forms of climate change denial: literal denial, neo-skepticism, techno-optimism (including three variants), individualism, market fundamentalism, and green growthism."

Just to be clear here, the paper explicitly identifies "neo-skepticism" as a form of denialism. It is in fact stage 2 from the tobacco industry playbook: once the facts become undeniable, minimise the potential consequences and maximise the perceived uncertainty. Guy (help!) 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

In context, the article currently states:

• Her position has been described as neo-skepticism; a form of denialism which, while not denying anthropogenic global warming, proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, raises issues of uncertainty, and has questioned whether climate change mitigation is affordable, a position which has been described as "denying the severity of possible consequences to society".

I believe that this fairly represents the source and is appropriate. I understand that the label of "denier"/"denialist" is controversial to say the least, and it's not as if Wikipedia is some kind of a Solomonic judge to which we abstractly determine who is or not truly X or Y. We just report what reliable sources say in this context. It appears that we have enough reporting to justify things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarkets, As worded above, yes, this is fine. The problem is that denialists are moving into the phase of the tobacco playbook where, outright denial no longer being remotely plausible, the focus switches to denying the strength of the consensus and the need for action. It's the "I'm not anti-vaccine but" school of argument. Guy (help!) 12:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

​Is it proper WP:DUE to quote mine from only two sources to include in the lead 4 occurences of forms of the word "denial," and over-ride the numerous other sources discussed in the Skeptic-Denial discussion section above? This article is about a climate scientist. The two sources are written by Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright, Professors of Sociology; and Brian Petersen, Planning and Recreation, Diana Stuart, Sustainable Communities Program, and Ryan Gunderson, Department of Sociology and Gerontology. Sociologists, Not climate scientists. IMO, the terminology used by the American Meteorological Society[1] (page 24) is more authoritative here, and the current wording over-emphasizes coverage in only two (sociology) sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

They're topic area experts, climate change denial is a subject for sociology and Curry has increasingly turned away from climatological research to contrarianism. As these sources explicitly discuss. We know you like other wording, the book you're trying to link isn't "terminology used by the American Meteorological Society", it's Robert Henson's usage in a layperson's guide originally published by Penguin as "The Rough Guide to Climate Change", updated and published by the AMS. There's no preview available to me, so you'll need to quote where it refers specifically to Judith Curry, so that we don't have synthesis. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave, you say "Curry has increasingly turned away from climatological research to contrarianism," which you reference to a work by two sociologists, who you identify as "topic area experts, climate change denial is a subject for sociology." That may be, but I just reviewed the PDF supplied at ref. #3: it doesn't mention Curry at all, which would seem to fatally weaken the case for using it. WP:SYNTHESIS? Comment, please?

It's noteworthy that Robert Brulle, the junior author/editor of the compendium cited at #3, is identified here at WP as advocating "aggressive political action to address global warming." Riley Dunlap, the senior author, describes himself as an "Environmental Sociologist" and teaches at Oklahoma State University (in my old hometown). As you say, the second Neo-skep source, the "Human Ecology Review" pub, isn't online, so it's hard to judge its credibility. But its subtitle, "Ideological Denialism Misdiagnoses Climate Change and Limits Effective Action" certainly sounds like activist political language to me. So we must consider WP:UNDUE WEIGHT for these apparently political claims, to use in a biography of a living person. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the pdf names Judith Curry on page 317, as cited, and opinions in WP and your own political opinions are not reliable sources. More later, . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It "sounds like activist political language" to you? To me, it sounds like an analysis of a pseudoscientific group, namely denialists, and their attempts to keep people from addressing a serious problem. Climate change is not a political question, it is a scientific one. Politicians do not get to define it. It's their job to address it, and many of them don't because they are on the side of the pseudoscientists. But there is nothing inherently political about countering pseudoscience. The denialists are trying to turn it into a political question in order to level the field: "science vs. pseudoscience" (obviously science is right) -> Republicans join the pseudoscience side -> suddenly it is "left vs. right" (and thus a matter of taste). --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Better to address the specific question I asked above: should we label Judith Curry a "denialist" based on a citation that does not mention her by name? --Pete Tillman (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We shoudn't, but we don't, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Neo-skepticism is defined as 'a form of denialism', so the article is currently surely saying that she believes in 'a form of denialism'. Merlinme (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Her position has been described as" is what the article says, and her position has indeed been described as such. Careful nuanced statements of this kind with explicit sourcing are in principle OK. That doesn't mean you can't question them (for example, you might argue that they are WP:UNDUE, as is done above), but you need to be clear and careful about the grounds on which you are objecting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, I guess the question becomes whether it is reasonable to describe her position (in the lead) as 'a form of denialism' based on these sources. I know the lead says 'has been described as', but that seems a bit weaselly to me. If Wikipedia puts it in the lead of a living person's article then just saying 'has been described as' doesn't make it ok. For example, it's probably possible to find other sources describing her position as something else. Why are we emphasising these particular sources? An argument needs to be made that these are the best sources and they describe her position accurately. Merlinme (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The lead is still far from neutral and balanced. It gives more weight to the criticisms of a few sociologists than it gives to describing the subject herself - and it seems that the opinions of the sociologists quoted here are in the lead but not even in the body of the article. Surely the lead of the article should first describe Curry, and her actual position/views? This should then be followed by a factual and balanced clarification that her position/views differ from the current scientific consensus in specific respects. Maybe then we could include a sentence that reads something like "a few sociologists have accordingly described her position as …" etc etc, although by then the reader will have enough balanced facts to make their own deductions. That would at least be both accurate and neutral. For instance there is a more balanced and factual article here [2] - which describes her actual position, and includes the criticism of at least one of her rivals. Wdford (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Would you like to suggest alternative language? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"boilerplate climate change denial drivel", ouch! No love lost with Michael Mann then. How about: "Curry thinks that 21st century climate change will probably not be as bad as IPCC predictions, but that if it is, current proposed emission reductions are inadequate. She prefers to concentrate on reducing countries' vulnerabilities to climate change, rather than attempting to use government policy to reduce climate change." and reference the eenews interview. Some balance /counterpoint may be reasonable at that point, but it would be good to accurately describe her position, which has a lot more caveats and nuances than I think is sometimes acknowledged. Merlinme (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Merlinme, thanks for your constructive suggestion. As it happens, I'm acquainted with Dr. Curry (which is how the current lede caught my eye), and your language seems to capture what she is actually trying to do. This tortured "NeoSkepticism" business perhaps could find an (inconspicuous?) place in the body of the article. To my mind, clearly WP:UNDUE to put it in the lede with such weak support. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And muchas gracias to Wdford for the ref to the E&E News interview and article. A first-rate piece of work by reporter Scott Waldman. Would that there were more balanced, carefully-reported stories like this. Bravo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would support that wording , replacing the current part that reads "Her position has been described as neo-skepticism; a form of denialism which, while not denying anthropogenic global warming, proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, raises issues of uncertainty, and has questioned whether climate change mitigation is affordable, a position which has been described as "denying the severity of possible consequences to society".[4] Since 2009, she has concentrated on uncertainty as casting doubt on the need for action on climate change" JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that recent changes to the lead are undue. I suggest (though I won't do it myself) reverting to the wording before the contentious changes began, say as of March 31. Then the people who want to re-insert "denial blogosphere" "neo-skepticism" etc. can seek consensus, which I think they lack at present. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, I've gone back to the pre-contentious edits version, for now, in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:ONUS. I am supportive of the version suggested by Merlinme, above. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On the principle that there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't already in the article, I've added the eenews interview as a source of her views in the Climate Change section, which seems the most appropriate place. If people are happy with that addition then we can talk about what we should say in the lead about her views. I think it probably is worth pointing out that on her website she says: "My views on climate change are best summarized by my recent Congressional Testimony". [3] Her Congressional Testimony is long though, so the eenews article might be a better source for attempting to summarise her views. Merlinme (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Merlinme. I think the body of the article needs to properly explain her actual position on climate change, followed by a factual and balanced clarification of how her position/views differ from the current scientific consensus in specific respects. This can be derived by from the Nature interview, and the interview in E&E. I haven't read the congressional report yet. I was planning on doing all this today, unless somebody else is already on it? Wdford (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, lead should follow body. Further, I suggest not adding too much material from congressional testimony, and instead describing her views as through their descriptions in secondary sources. There is plenty in already-used sources that hasn't yet been integrated into the article. Her self-described views are one viewpoint, but her views as described by reliable sources should be the basis for the article (since her testimony will be a primary source). If an aspect is highlighted in the secondary sources however, it may be worth adding more detail from her self-descriptions. Sound fair? Jlevi (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds right. A primary source by an individual is probably a fair place to get info on what that individual actually believes - who knows her own opinions better than she? However I will start on the two credible secondary sources we already have, and we can build on from there as needed. Wdford (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Speaking as a veteran (victim?) of the great Wiki Climate Wars of 2015 or so (which still echo down to today, sadly), it's a pleasure to see fellow-editors working collegially to fix a problematic BLP article. Best, Pete Tillman (talk)

OK, I'm done for now. Please could other editors help with improving and copy-editing, and then we can decide on what to summarise into the lead. Wdford (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources which accurately describe a person's position are great, if they can be found. That becomes increasingly difficult as the matter becomes more controversial and the person's views become more complex. I think, especially in the absence of better sources, and provided they are placed in context, a direct quote or near paraphrase from someone's words are a reasonable source to describe their own views.

Speaking of which, we seem to have lost any mention of reducing climate vulnerabilities in the summary of the eenews interview. That seems like a shame to me, as it's a large part of what she chose to emphasise at the end of the interview. I don't think this is an accident, either. If she considers her Congressional testimony the best description of her views, compare with this from her testimony to the Hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response”: [4] . Quote: "In any event, anthropogenic climate change on timescales of decades is arguably less important in driving vulnerability in most regions than increasing population, land use practices, and ecosystem degradation. Regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges associated with an increasing population will be better prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change." That's from 2010; her later testimony is if anything even more skeptical about anthropogenic climate change vs. natural variability, but adaptation to mitigate the risks is a consistent theme. Compare, for example, this from 2019: [5] Quote: "A regional focus on adapting to the risks of climate change allows for a range of bottom-up strategies to be integrated with other societal challenges, including growing population, environmental degradation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources. Even if the threat from global warming turns out to be small, near-term benefits to the region can be realized in terms of reduced vulnerability to a broad range of threats, improved resource management, and improved environmental quality."

I will have a think about an edit which might clarify some of this (unless anyone else wants to leap in and have a go). Merlinme (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Added more, as suggested. Please help to fine-tune? Wdford (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

These edits removed valid published sources showing due context as required by WP:WEIGHT, that info needs to be restored and due mainstream context shown wherever Curry's fringe views are set out. Will come back to this in due course. . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

'These edits'? Which edits? Removing the 'denialism' section from the lead? The edits which Wdford made to the climate change section (many of which were, in effect, reverted by jps)? I've no objection to discussing improvements to the article but it would be helpful to be specific. In fact given the rate of change on the article it might be simpler to suggest what you would like to see rather than focusing on past edits. Merlinme (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As you say, rather a rapid rate of change lately. The point that she's a contrarian with a blog which forms part of the cc denial blogosphere needs to be in the article, and relevant points should be summarised in the lead. See my comments below for a start on improvements. . . dave souza, talk 13:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

Every article must comply with the WP:WEIGHT policy. It has been suggested that this article does not do enough to make clear that Curry holds views which differ from the current scientific consensus in certain respects. What specific extra sentences need to be added to correct this, without contravening WP:BLP - please suggest the proposed wording here? Wdford (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that Curry is essentially isolated in her views. If we don't do that, we are doing a disservice. I do not understand how the local consensus removed all mention of climate change denial, which is the community of which she is a part. That right wing denialist journalist was included as well as articles from a decade ago when her views were different, basically the entire article became a farcical snowjob. Embarrassing, really. jps (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

a)Have her views really changed that much in 10 years? Evidence? b) The section on climate change concluded by describing her as following a form of denialism. c) In general I think there's a lot more leeway in the biography of a person to discuss that person's views in detail. Yes, be careful of weight, make it clear where they are outside the mainstream, etc., but it is hard to make sense of where someone fits into the debate if you don't know exactly what their views are. Merlinme (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Application of relevant policies to this article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Curry again. . . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For discussion of application of policies, this talk page is where to start, the relevant forum for WP:WEIGHT is WP:NPOVN and the relevant forum for WP:BLP is WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For (a), at least, we can use the 2019 Wired story: "Judith Curry, a scientist who left academia after embracing climate skepticism." The "after embracing climate skepticism" part certainly connotes a change. The description further reflects the fact that this change occurred prior to leaving academia. Whether it happened in the last 10 years remains unclear. The WP:RSP entry on the source describes it as generally reliable for science topics. As far as I can tell, all of the previous sentences in this comment are true, though what we do with them depends on how we want to treat a one-line reference and how we want to evaluate labels. Jlevi (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wired article is interesting, and 'embracing climate skepticism' is an interesting way of putting it. If you compare her 2010 testimony with her 2019 testimony the differences are quite subtle, but the big change seems to be that she now asserts that recent climate change could be caused by natural variability, whereas before she was more non-committal. She also seems to have gone from 'the climate models are not accurate enough' to something closer to 'the climate models are rubbish and should not be believed'. I still think though any assertion that she was a 'true climate scientist' 10 years ago and is now a 'climate change denier' needs to be extremely carefully handled. I've not seen any sources which would clearly support that assertion. Merlinme (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, Curry is well known solely because she is a darling of the climate change denial industry. Guy (help!) 22:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate action was taken to restore text as of before a few editors made contentious edits. Will any of them answer Wdford's question? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

For every instance where we include Curry's reasoning or opinion about a specific item, if that opinion is a minority opinion, it either must be balanced by mainstream responses to Curry, or deleted. Pretty straightforward application of WP:FRINGE, actually. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So if you can't find a reliable source responding to (and presumably contradicting) her opinion on something , you simply delete it? On what basis? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the essence of WP:FRIND. When fringe arguments are made, we don't pay attention to them in Wikipedia until they are noticed by independent sources. jps (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Can I just remind all editors that whatever conclusion about weight is eventually reached, this does not grant any license to indulge in WP:SYN. As stated there

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

Whatever we end up saying must be explicitly sourced without improperly combining multiple sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That's why I said "mainstream responses to Curry" and not "mainstream quotes that talk about the same subject, but with a different conclusion". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No argument here Hob. However are there any additional specific "mainstream responses" that need to be added, over and above the rebuttals that are already in the article? Wdford (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, we need to restore the sources for the point that she's a contrarian running a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere. Further points also need to be shown, see my reply to Merlinme for a start. . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merlinme –On the point about whether Curry's views have changed, Dana Nuccitelli in The Guardian notes that in 2013 Curry said "I can't say myself that [doing nothing] isn't the best solution", but in 2007 she wrote "I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing." He cites the NPR article that's in the article as source 3 at present, and Curry, Judith (10 October 2007). "Cooler Heads and Climate Change". Washington Post. The outcome is that she's now a "contrarian [scientist] who is frequently invited by Republicans to testify before US Congress",[6] "as she will reliably state that the uncertainties in climate science are much larger than her fellow scientists will acknowledge, although she doesn't identify any sources of uncertainty that aren't already factored in."[7] (John Timmer).. . . dave souza, talk 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza Interesting reference from The Guardian. I think the cartoon actually demonstrates a logical fallacy; doing nothing may be a better policy than taking out insurance if there are costs to the insurance, it depends on a cost benefit analysis of the risks of 'doing nothing' versus the costs of 'doing something'. But the source does demonstrate a shift in emphasis of her publicly stated beliefs, which is the point, thanks. Merlinme (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merlinme – the NPR source shows that her changed beliefs are based on anticipated economic costs. Before "Climategate" she was supporting mainstream science, but by 2013: "Curry's dissent from this position is as much about the economics as about the science. .... By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy. But like all of us, she does have a personal point of view. And hers, at root, is not about science; it's about individualism." Unfortunately, economics has a much worse track record for projection / prediction than climate science. There are always costs to insurance, but it tends to be for remote possibilities, whereas climate change is happening. Can look for more sources, but have to have a break for a bit! . . dave souza, talk 14:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, As another cartoon noted, but what if the scientists are wrong and we produce a cleaner environment with lower energy consumption FOR NOTHING? Guy (help!) 15:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis (yet again)

The text "engaging actively with the climate change denial community" is a clear example of WP:SYN, which is against policy in any article, and especially serious when used in a discussion of WP:BLP subjects. This text is sourced to an article which actually says "Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community". The argument for including this is that "sceptics" are in fact "deniers", but WP:SYN is crystal clear

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

This text breaches a core WP:POLICY and should be removed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not liking the fact that climate change skeptic is a synonym for, and redirect to, climate change denial, does not make it any less a fact, and certainly does not make it a novel synthesis. Guy (help!) 18:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We've had this discusion before. Either "sceptic" and "denier" are synonyms, in which case there is no possible objection to following the source closely, or they are not synonyms, in which case it is imperative to follow the source in order to avoid WP:SYN. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Since the preferred term on Wikipedia is climate change denial, we follow the WP:MOS. It's pretty straightforward as a stylistic matter. jps (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Which part of WP:MOS are you relying on? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH, WP:EUPHEMISM. Take your pick. jps (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, see WP:EUPHEMISM. Guy (help!) 22:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

They're synonyms so we can call it the skeptic community, right? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH. Our article is titled climate change denial. To call it "skepticism" is a euphemism and infelicitous as it is misleading. jps (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Skeptic and denial are, of course, different. She does not appear to deny climate change or the scientific consensus but challenges some of the possible outcomes. The fact that we redirect skeptic to denial has no bearing here, Wikipedia is not a RS. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all scientists are skeptics, but "climate skeptics" promote denial. Clearer to stick closely to the source, which points out her engagement with fringe blogs like Climate Audit. . . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well if we are going to stick with the source it would be "outsider blogs".[8] PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, it's remarkable to me that as the fossil fuel industry moves into the final stages of the tobacco playbook (the problem having become undeniable, and the consensus unambiguous, instead promote the idea that the tiny residual uncertainty is vastly bigger and more widespread than it is), Wikipedia appears to be relenting on long-held principles of not going along with the absurd conceit that climate change "skeptics", many of whom are after all paid by the lavishly funded think tanks that invented the thing in the first place, are legitimate sceptics rather than what they are.

The literature is absolutely clear. There are virtually no scientists with relevant qualifications and not one single relevant national or international scientific body that dissents from the view that the climate is changing, at an unprecedented rate, that it's due to warming and that this warming is overwhelmingly the result of human activity.

That clarity is why the climate change denial industry switched to "teach the controversy" and now to the Curry agenda of claiming that the effects will be below the consensus values - albeit without giving a single credible argument as to why, since the purported proofs all show errors.

This is Wikipedia, the reality-based encyclopaedia. I do not know why we are giving such undue weight to transparently bad faith arguments. I am disappointed that people bring them here, and doubly disappointed that they get traction. Guy (help!) 22:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a straw man argument. No one is making the argument that climate change is not happening or that it is not man made, no one. The the question is to what extend on just about everything. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• PackMecEng, they are not different in this context. The article makes clear that the issues with her reputation are caused by her working with climate change "skeptics" (i.e. deniers), not mainstream scientists. Guy (help!) 22:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If they are not different, what is the objection to following the source closely? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, we do not use euphemisms. Climate change "skeptic" is a marketing term devised by the fossil fuel lobby to whitewash its dishonest tactics. There are many parallels in history (e.g. the tobacco industry's perversion of the terms "sound science" and "junk science"). This is not an accident: some of the same people developed the oil and tobacco industry strategies. Fred Singer, Steve Milloy and others. Milloy worked on PR for Philip Morris, set up his "junkscience.com" site while running the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a Philip Morris-funded astroturf group, and is now at the forefront of promoting climate change denial. Climate change skeptic is as appropriate here as "molecules of freedom". Guy (help!) 22:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Not what is happening here, you need to calm down. PackMecEng (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is a euphemism. That is an assertion there requires some proof, of a non-circular kind. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a euphemism. What is happening here is this: a source identifies Curry as receiving opprobrium for working with "climate change skeptics". That term is a synonym for, and, on Wikipedia, a redirect to, climate change denier. And the article text only makes sense if it was meant that way. Working too closely with legitimate scientists whose work lies within the range of the consensus, is not something for which one would attract significant blowback. In the context of the article it is clearly meant in the sense of climate change denier, the non-marketing term we use for climate change skeptic. To claim that it's "synthesis" to say this when the two terms are synonymous is disingenuous. The clear aim is to reflect the words "climate change skeptic" as a legitimate description in Wikipedia voice. We should not do that. It's as inappropriate as saying that evolutionary biology cannot explain irreducible complexity.

Curry is receiving criticism because she is a respected figure who is prepared to advance the industry line of "it's not that bad". Now, she may be entirely intellectually honest, but the mnore obscure perople whose work she's promoting, generally are not. We know how this works. It's been done before. We should play no part in it. Guy (help!) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

By long-standing convention, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as proof for anything in other Wikipedia articles. The relevant policy is WP:CIRCULAR. So what Wikipedia does or does not say in its article on climate change denial is essentially irrelevant.

I find it slightly disingenuous to claim 'climate skeptic' and 'climate denier' are synonyms. If they were genuinely synonyms no-one would care which one we used. To be honest I find it hard to imagine Lemonick didn't choose his words carefully, and the word he chose was 'skeptic'. He doesn't use denier, or denial, anywhere in that article. For what it's worth, the article on Climate Audit doesn't describe it as a denier's blog, either. Both Lemonick and a New York Times article describe it as a skeptics' blog. Even if you could find a source saying Climate Audit is a deniers' blog, to use source A to say that Curry hangs out at Climate Audit, source B to say that Climate Audit is a deniers' blog, and therefore say in the Wikipedia article that Curry is hanging out with the climate deniers would be a stone cold case of WP:SYNTHESIS, as Jonathan A Jones says. You are making a statement that combines two different sources to say something which neither source actually said. Source A didn't say Curry hangs out with climate change deniers, and source B doesn't mention Curry at all. You could, I suppose, say something like "Curry hangs out at the blog Climate Audit<ref Source A> which has been described as a denial blog<ref source B>. But you cannot synthesise the two sources to say something neither of them actually said. You cannot say 'Curry hangs out with climate change deniers'.

In the absence of strong reasons to the contrary I would expect to see the Wikipedia article use the same language that the source uses.Merlinme (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Language changes over time, the source dates to 2010. At that time Nerlich, Brigitte (2010). "'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis". Environmental Values. 19 (4): 419–442. doi:10.3197/096327110x531543 wrote

p. 419 Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon
p. 437 note 1. I shall use "climate sceptics" here in the sense of "climate deniers", although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial (see Shermer, 2010; Kemp, et al., 2010). However, "climate sceptic" and "climate scepticism" were commonly used during the "climategate" debate as meaning "climate denier".

The ambiguity is gradually clearing, but the "skeptic" misusage doesn't meet weight and PSCI policy. Either accept they were used as synonyms at the time of writing, or avoid the problem by making it clearer what she was embracing. There's information in Leminick about how Curry was confronted by those opposing mainstream climate science, and chose to try reading their blogs and communicating with them. Since it's a biography about Curry, this is an important aspect to cover properly rather than put in misleading PR speak about "willingness to engage skeptics". . . dave souza, talk 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, yes, exactly. The blowback was int he context of engaging, explicitly, with climate change deniers. And makes no sense if read any other way. " "Scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them," wrote Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist and climate researcher at Georgia Tech, on the blog Climate Audit."[9] Climate Audit is a denialist blog and the nature of science is that the consensus inherently contains all legitimate scholarship. Curry has stated her agenda: a "lukewaermist" position to justify no action on climate change, which is exactly what the fossil fuel industry is paying its mouthpieces to say now. And she spins her inability to get this transparently intellectually dishonest position published, as extremism on the part of climate scientists. Which is a bit like saying that a herd of cats is conspiring against you: in science, challenging established thought is not heretical, it's how you make your name. Think Marshall and Warren. Guy (help!) 10:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

it seems to me that the quotes support the opposite of what you are pushing for "I shall use "climate sceptics" here in the sense of "climate deniers", although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial " . If there are obvious differences, they are obviously not synonyms. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand how language works, or pretend not to (I cannot know which). A word does not have one fixed meaning. A word is used in different meanings by different people at different times. There are obvious differences between two different meanings of the same word, and one of the meanings is a synonym of another word. Thus, your reasoning is invalid.

The 2010 article used the word "skeptic", which was used as a synonym for "denier" by media back then. It was a bad synonym, a euphemism, since it suggests that the people denoted with it were in any way similar to Scientific skepticism. (Scientific skeptics actively fight deniers and have distanced themselves from the misuse of the word "skeptic".)

Since then, they have learned a bit. Now, many media avoid using the euphemism, like Wikipedia. That is why we cannot write in Wikipedia's voice that Curry "engages skeptics". It would be an anachronism today. But we cannot write "engages deniers" either, since that is not what they wrote back then. So we have to find a solution in between which is acceptable for all the reasonable users here. If any hypothetical users insist on using "skeptic" in Wikipedia's voice, they will not be needed for such a consensus and can be safely ignored.

Merlinme suggested writing something like "Curry hangs out at the blog Climate Audit<ref Source A> which has been described as a denial blog<ref source B>". How about that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Still synth, putting two sources together to make a statement neither made. Chips appears to be right here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find anything by Chips that has a connection to Merlinme's suggestion. So, non sequitur (fallacy). If A is wrong, that does not make the unrelated B right. And we will not use the euphemism in Wikipedia's voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Several peculiar arguments are being made above. It would be a WP:EUPHEMISM to take a source which uses the word "denier" and replace it by the word "sceptic", but it cannot be a euphemism on an editor's part to use the language used by the source. It is possible to argue that the source itself is using a euphemism, but that's an argument for not using the source, or not using that part of the source: it is not an argument for changing what the source says. Though you will find it difficult to argue that Michael Lemonick didn't know what he was doing in choosing the words he did. Note also WP:LABEL, which says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution", and which includes "denialist" (although not "denier") in the list of exemplar contentious labels. If you want to call individuals "deniers" then you cannot do this without clear sourcing, and that sourcing cannot be based on WP:SYN. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jonathan A Jones, We are not WP:LABELing Curry (another source describes her as a denier so we do not need this source to do so). We are describing the reason she attracted adverse comment, and in so doing we should avoid the marketing label "skeptic" coined by the climate change denial lobby and instead use the term "denier" which is the plain meaning of that term and to which the term redirects here on Wikipedia, partyl to avoid euphemisms and partly because that is the plain meaning intended in the source.

It is important because the message the climate change denial industry is trying to put across - and succeeds if we use their marketing term in this way - is that climate scientists are extremists who refuse to engage with those who follow the default in the scientific method, which is skepticism. That is, of course, a lie: the scientific consensus includes all legitimate viewpoints and all legitimate interpretations of the data. That's why we have error bars. What science does not do is to factor in extra weight for wilful contrarianism funded by special interest groups.

It's important because we are moving into a different phase of the tobacco playbook here. The existence of climate change driven by global warming has been undeniable for some time. The link to human activity is also now undeniable: nobody can credibly assert otherwise. So now they have to push the fiction that the results won't be as bad as forecast (i.e. demanding that we "split the difference" between industry funded denialist studies and the consensus formed from all legitimate scholarship, to predicts a value below the latter's error bars. In the end the argument changes, but the outcome remains constant: do not do anything that might hurt the profits of the fossil fuel industry.

In this context it is not "synthesis" to use the plain meaning for which the marketing term is a synonym. Not liking the fact that climate change skepticism is in reality denialism does not make it any less true. Guy (help!) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth following the chain through from how you can get from 'skeptic' (which Lemonick uses multiple times) to 'denier' (which Lemonick never uses). You have to argue something like: "Lemonick used the term 'skeptic' in 2010 but today we would say 'denier'." At which point I would say "citation needed".

And you can't just say "it's obvious", and you can't use the Wikipedia article climate change denial as a source, you have to show me a verifiable, reliable source which actually says that, or something very close to that. You can't just assert that Lemonick meant denier, when he very clearly never used that word. And you can't just assert that the way he uses the word 'skeptic' in 2010 is essentially identical to the way we would use 'denier' today, or that if he were writing the article today he would use 'denier'. It needs justification (and a source). If you can find a reliable source which discusses Lemonick's article and says that, then great. Otherwise, as far as I can see, you're putting words into his mouth, or drawing conclusions unjustified by the source.

The fact is, we now have two references to denial in the lead, which are properly sourced. We also have three properly sourced references to denialism in the climate change section. We don't however currently assert that Lemonick was referring to denialism in his article on Curry, because he never actually said that.

WP:LABEL seems pretty clear on the subject to me. You can't provide an in-text citation for the value-laden label 'denier', as the MOS suggests, because the word doesn't appear anywhere in the source you're using. Merlinme (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion is trending into WP:NOTAFORUM territory now. We have largely fixed this article, using hard work and common sense, by simply recording what Curry actually believes, and recording what the current scientific consensus actually states, and leaving the readers to see for themselves how much Curry agrees with the consensus and where she diverges. Job done. A factual little article, well sourced and informative, which avoids any problems with WP:BLP and WP:LABEL and WP:BURNTHEWITCH etc. Perhaps we could add further value by creating an article on Tobacco playbook and maybe on Skeptic vs denier as well? Wdford (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need the word "denial" in the first paragraph, which is about Lemonick's 2010 profile. It gives much more useful detail about Curry's transition, as seen at that time. I've tried to cover that, incorporating two other short paragraphs based on Lemonick's profile which didn't show the context. If the paragraph is to be split, it needs to be clear it's all part of Lemonick's 2010 profile, as Curry's position subsequently changed. . . dave souza, talk 11:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the current version [10] has resolved my concerns about SYN, and I for one am happy to put this matter to bed for now. I merely hope that we don't see a return to less happy versions. Particular thanks to Dave souza, who came up with several ingenious rephrasings. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The wording now avoids Scylla as well as Charybdis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, this is an improvement but still gives far too much weight to Curry's own words (per WP:PROFRINGE) and also fails to note that the independent assessment after the CRU email thefts was that, in fact, they did nothing wrong and their results were robust, so the fact that Curry and her friends still behave as if it were a valid critique of climate science is clear evidence that ideology, not fact, drives their work. Guy (help!) 15:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We do have an article Tobacco industry playbook now. Skeptic vs denier is not needed since we have Denialism. And if you think something called WP:BURNTHEWITCH is relevant here, you should read Death by burning and Criticism, then see if you find a notable difference between the two, then, if yes, rethink some of your discussion methods. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, no, we haven't "fixed" it. It is still a largely uncritical showcasing of Curry's views rather than a description of them form a reality-based perspective.

You seem very determined to avoid the fact that the people she is being criticised for engaging, are arguing in transparently bad faith, and their work is largely funded by dark money from the fossil fuel industry. That is a very big deal. Some of us have children and are kind of hoping there will continue to be a planet for them to live on. Guy (help!) 15:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Hob Gadling – the article Tobacco industry playbook is exactly was what I was looking for. I vaguely remembered having seen something like it before, but now that I wanted it I couldn't seem to find it, which I thought was weird. The Denialism article is fine, but I was thinking of something dealing specifically with the apparent issue of "synonyms" – which so exercised some editors on this talk page. It seemed like a notable issue, but I'm not married to the idea personally. What I was thinking about with WP:BURNTHEWITCH is completely different to either of these articles you suggested – more like something of an extension to WP:LABEL perhaps. I will give it more thought. Thanks as always for the help. Wdford (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Guy – I am as concerned as anybody about global warming. I and my family live in Africa, and some of our cities are already running out of water, due to shifting rainfall patterns. My concern in this article was to avoid demonising the subject personally, and to be factual and neutral. I personally feel that we should at least give an honest account of what the subject actually believes, before we let the critics all pile in with spit and vitriol, so that readers at least get an accurate picture. I don't think the article is "a largely uncritical showcasing" of Curry's views – on the contrary, it is actually heavily loaded with the views of her critics – some of which are indeed positively "tribal". If some of the people she is "being criticised for engaging" are indeed funded by the fossil fuel industry, then I'm sure we can add a cited sentence to that effect, without breaking WP:BLP. However it is not correct to turn the entire article into a one-sided soapbox for the critics either. I think the email controversy is not needed in this article at all. However if we do go there, then we should properly mention that at around the same time as Curry made this statement a government scientific audit panel did indeed criticize the way the IPCC handled uncertainty - we cannot clear the IPCC of wrong-doing in a vacuum, without mentioning why the audit took please to begin with, and what the auditors actually concluded. I have been an auditor and a fraud investigator my entire adult life, and the auditors would not have made such a statement without strong justification. Personally, I would leave the entire episode out of this particular article, and try to focus more on Curry. The Climategate controversy has its own article already, as does the IPCC. Wdford (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford, we are not the ones demonising Curry. We should be reporting the fact that she is demonised, and why, not defending her. Guy (help!) 00:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, agree the context has to be shown for fringe claims, and WP:STRUCTURE policy means we don't tuck criticism away at the back, but rather relate it to the fringe claims. Wdford, Curry has presented the CRU affair as a reason for going over to minority views, and the sources about her statements commonly note that the scientists were exonerated of the alleged wrongdoing. So think that needs concise coverage. That's not about clearing the IPCC of alleged wrong-doing. ObviouslY SYN about IPCC uncertainties must be avoided. m. . dave souza, talk 11:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. However this is a bit confusing. In the Lemonick source of 2010, it states: "While the IAC panel came out of its investigation with respect for the IPCC overall, it had issues with how the organization deals with uncertainty. "We looked very carefully at the question of how they communicate the level of uncertainty to policy makers," says Harold Shapiro, a former president of Princeton University and head of the IAC panel. "We found it was a mix. Sometimes they do it well, sometimes not so well. There were statements made where they expressed high confidence in a conclusion where there was very little evidence, and sometimes there were statements made that could not be falsified." The same article also states that: "[Curry] does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy." I am not familiar with all the minutia of the saga, but this particular source seems to be quite unambiguous? Wdford (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, have now found it's a slightly different saga! It comes under Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which looks like it needs improvements, and rather than being an "audit", it's the 2010 Review of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Panel. Its Summary pp. xiv–xv recommends that "Each Working Group should use the qualitative level-of-understanding scale in its Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary" rather than the quantitative scale, and "The Working Group II Summary for Policymakers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assess- ment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself." That's the Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability report rather than Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis which was the focus of the CRU controversy and Curry's arguments. Good point that Curry accepted the scientists were cleared of the main accusations, so a brief mention of the CRU controversy could cover that after noting how it had influenced her. . . dave souza, talk 14:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, right. In science, "I changed my mind because of X" is only compelling until X is shown to be false (as it was with the CRU and IPCC). To maintain the position you say was arrived at because of $CONTROVERSY after $CONTROVERSY is shown to be industry-funded and ideologically motivates bullshit, is rather more of a problem. Kind of like insisting that there are no transitional fossils between fish and tiktaalik Guy (help!) 23:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

POV tag

Hi @ජපස:! You added the POV tag to this page about a month ago, and it has changed a fair bit since then. Do you think the tag is still applicable? Do any others feel that the tag is still applicable? If so, what points of view are left out or presented in an unbalanced light right now? Jlevi (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I will remove. The tag was placed in response to the lack (and continued removal) of any/all analysis as to her relationship with climate change denial. I think that is now in the article. jps (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede: "Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere"

This statement doesn't appear to be supported by the ref given, which I just searched (PDF). No hits for either Curry or her blog, Climate Etc. Tagged accordingly, but the statement needs to be revised or removed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As already in a reply to you above; "Just a note that the pdf names Judith Curry on page 317, as cited, and opinions in WP and your own political opinions are not reliable sources. More later, . . dave souza, talk 21:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)" Special clue: it's not a searchable pdf. . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a topic ban a topic ban, or is it something else? See User_talk:Tillman#Courtesy_notice_-_discretionary_sanctions_related_to_climate_change and User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Fred_Singer_"Denier"_stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the statement is easily verified and appears directly at the bottom of the linked page: "These online blogs, on which self-described climate skeptics and contrarian scientists question the reality and significance of climate change and dispute climate change per se, increasingly supplement--and to some degree supplant--the more traditional media outlets above. While a few denial blogs are hosted by contrarian scientists (e.g., Judith Curry)..." Jlevi (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary tag?

Hi all. The primary tag was placed on the article a while ago, and the article has subsequently experienced significant re-organization and revision. I don't think the tag remains as relevant. As of now, all potentially tendentious claims are cited to reliable secondary sources. Are there any places where there are still primary problems? If not, I suggest removing the tag.Jlevi (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Image

Hi Jonathan A Jones. I added an image of Curry on the Corbett Report, a very minor fringe media outlet, and it was reverted with the edit summary "seems like a bit of a COATRACK." It seems to me that this image improves the article, since it gives a specific example of Curry appearing on a fringe platform, which connects nicely to the 'controversy' section.

Could you describe why you feel that it is a COATRACK issue? It seems directly connected to the section of the article. I think the caption is a little clunky, but I can't at the moment think how any alternative would be better: in any other case, I would be providing an image of Curry on some show, and because of the fringe nature of the show I would need to describe how exactly the show is fringe. Because those are strong claims, I would also have to provide citations for those claims. Jlevi (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you've summed up rather well why this caption is problematic (and you're right, it's the caption that's problematic, not the picture). The caption is entirely devoted to explaining what the Corbett report is: in essence the caption is about the Corbett Report rather than about Curry, which is why I used the description COATRACK. I also haven't found any reporting of this appearance in reliable sources: discussion seems to be confined to the Corbett Report itself and a handful of blogs. By contrast the other two pictures you added are illustrating existing discussions in the article text, and thus useful and appropriate additions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

So it sounds like general inclusion of the image is accepted. Let's talk about the caption, in that case.

This seems like a WP:CAPCONTEXT question. Context for an image is very useful, and would be necessary for any fringe outlet. Explanation of why the outlet is fringe is useful to the reader: for the Corbett Report, as well as for almost any other fringe outlet, the reader will likely be unfamiliar and so will ask, "Why is this an example of Curry 'participating in outsider blogs such as Climate Audit'? How is this video blog unusual?" And so the caption informs them why it is fringe: 9/11 and global warming conspiracies.

Finally, WP:COATRACK seems like a weak approach to opposing inclusion of the caption. The essay has to do with overall article content, rather than specific sentences. Jlevi (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, I agree with Jonathan on this. Guy (help!) 13:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Alright. JzG and Jonathan A Jones, could you clarify whether it is the caption alone, or the caption AND the image that aren't appropriate? If the image is appropriate, do you have any suggestions about how to best contextualize it? Jlevi (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My view is that you can't contextualize this adequately without falling into a COATRACK problem, and so the image is for now best left out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I can somewhat understand this argument, but it seems to limit the opportunities to add images to the article in general. It would be nice to be able to give a visual on Curry's direct interactions with the fringe community, given that this behavior has been highlighted in a large number of our sources. However, any individual fringe outlet is individually not very significant.

This seems like a weird in-between circumstance. The interaction with fringe sources in general is deemed important by a variety of reliable sources, but any specific instance of it doesn't seem to pass the bar for inclusion. Jlevi (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The current caption works ok. After disappointment that this wasn't The Frost Report or Harry H. Corbett, had a hunt for a wikipedia article this could link to. Nearest was Basil Smallpeice#BOAC which advises that "The Corbett report was never made public". Unless someone justifies an article, "James Corbett's Corbett Report" does look very fringe. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, what's that, Sooty? Guy (help!) 16:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, was thinking Steptoe – isn't Harry Corbett some kinda sockpuppetmaster? . . . dave souza, talk 16:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza I was looking into this recently, seeing whether I could collect enough sources to make an article on the Corbett Report. I couldn't after a pretty thorough check, though, weirdly, I found one writer for RealClearPolitics who used the Corbett Report as a reference a few times. Jlevi (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, /me goes to block Harry Corbett for suckpuppetry. Guy (help!) 19:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, I think before we include an image of someone appearing on a fringe channel we probably need to satisfy the following conditions:

1. The appearance was covered by reliable independent sources;
2. We discuss the appearance within the article at non-trivial length (i.e. more than just a namecheck);
3. We do not editorialise the caption.

Does that seem reasonable? Guy (help!) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think my intuitions differ somewhat, but my intuitions don't matter much in terms of what should wind up in a BLP. For a general topic, I would certainly think that those requirements are too stringent. For instance, in 27th_G8_summit#Citizens'_responses_and_authorities'_counter-responses, we see an image of protesters burning a vehicle at a protest. Even though that specific burning is not mentioned in the article, it provides a specific instance of the general topic discussed in the section: the relationship between protesters and vehicles at the protest. Thus, even if a specific instance is not mentioned, for a general article it is reasonable to add a picture illustrated the general topic with a specific case. No, this specific cracked street was not mentioned in the context of the earthquake, but it certainly shows one example of the effects. No, this case in which Bill Clinton shook hands with a random stranger wasn't mentioned, but it shows how he interacted with voters prior to his 1992 election. Et cetera, et cetera.

I hope the extended examples are taken generously--might be excessive, but I want to be clear about where preferences on this matter differ. Of course, this is not a general case--this is a BLP, and it is a rather negative view of the BLP subject. I need to think a little about how that changes things. For now I took the image out, and I'll gather my thoughts about whether it is appropriate or not. Jlevi (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Rather a shame as it's open license, between this and the GWPF Curry's getting fringe publicity which does make it harder to source. There might be a little leeway in WP:PARITY for using what could be thought of as WP:BLPSPS by Curry, but to describe it as fringe we'd really want a reliable secondary source making that point about Curry's interview. Just my thoughts. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, Bill Clinton shaking hands with a voter is not contentious. Judith Curry talking to conspiracy theorists, is. Guy (help!) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like I erred in thinking this appropriate for the article. Any suggestions regarding policy or guidelines that I could look at to improve my judgment in the future on matters like this? Thanks you all your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Images are touchy things because they are meant to be supportive rather than instructive. In controversial articles they really have to be so anodyne as to basically not raise any eyebrows. In this instance, the image was illustrating an event that was so obscure that it does not get mentioned in the text. Such an image would be more editorially appropriate if we had, for example, some well-sourced text which documented how Curry associated herself Corbett and analyzed the way that those two might have taken adversarial positions with respect to the mainstream, or somesuch. Without such direct discussion, including an image appears like it's just shoehorned in. jps (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert: Categories unsorted on top of removal of category

Thank you for your thoughtlessness. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tigers125.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove bias tense.

Biased language that focuses on Dr. Curry not agreeing with others, but doesn't clearly explain why she has different views. The aspect of being "skeptical" of some climate conclusions voiced by others is made to sound like an issue, but scientists have needed to be skeptical since just one failure can dispute an hypothesis, but absolute proof is never attained. 2600:1700:2E10:A80:FD24:6251:9C9A:733E (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I exchanged your grotesquely long header with your short contribution. It's easier on the eye. Hope that's OK.

If you have reliable sources that talk about her reasons, within a mainstream framework, and commment on them, add them.

Platitudes like "absolute proof is never attained" are never helpful. They just show that you think the people you disagree with are idiots who have not even a grasp of the basics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"accepts that the planet is slightly warming"

[11] Actually, that phrase is not "clearer". It implies that "slightly warming" is part of the climatological consensus, which is not true for the "slightly" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

So I'll just take out the "slightly". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)