Talk:Roy Spencer (meteorologist)

Move to Roy Spencer (meteorologist)?

User:Hob Gadling moved Roy Spencer (scientist) to Roy Spencer (meteorologist). I do not agree that this is necessary, and effectively reverted. However, if others feel the same way as Hob Gadling, I think this is a good place to discuss why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Scientist" does seem awfully broad. At John Smith we have "anatomist and chemist", "botanist", etc. So narrowing it down as "meteorologist" is appropriate. Oh, and in reply to your edit summary "meteorologist" isn't all that narrow. It's essentially a synonym for anyone who studies the atmosphere and thus is helpfully specific while being inclusive of various aspects of the field. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have done the same with other articles where somebody is called "(scientist)" and never got any complaints. See Talk:Peter Edwards (chemist) and Brian Martin (social scientist). Boris is exactly right: that is the reason why the specifier "scientist" is inappropriate. I think it is mostly used by people who want to hide the actual expertise of the person in question and pretend they have expertise in another field. It's the same as using "professor" for Phillip E. Johnson when trying to pass him off as someone who knows what he is talking about when biology is concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you think meteorologist is a synonym for anyone who studies the atmosphere, why not "Roy Spencer (atmospheric scientist)"? Mr Spencer is listed as "affiliate faculty" in the University of Alabama in Huntsville Department of atmospheric sciences. And the article's first paragraph mentions "Senior Scientist for Climate Studies". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

One reason the move is significant is that a major argument against AGW skepticism is that there aren't any "real scientists" in that camp. Also, I daresay most readers would assume that a meteorologist is merely someone who predicts the weather a few days in advance. Spencer studies long term climate trends. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Research meteorologist" maybe? --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"meteorologist" contains the implication "not climatologist". Since what he is best known for is a climate time series, meteorologist would be a bit odd, perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I must disagree. In academic and research terms there's no meaningful difference at all between "meteorology" and "atmospheric science." My M.S. adviser got his doctorate in an Atmospheric Science department and went on to chair a Meteorology department. My Ph.D. advisor got his doctorate in a Meteorology department and became a professor in an Atmospheric Science department.

At my current institution the Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in Meteorology -- but not in Atmospheric Science.

Our articles on the 20th century's four pre-eminent scientists in this field (Carl Gustav Rossby, Lewis F. Richardson, Jule Charney and Edward Lorenz) describes each of them as "meteorologist." If the title is good enough for them, it should do for the present subject. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, excellent, we disagree, that hasn't happened for ages. But, do we? I agree that In academic and research terms there's no meaningful difference at all between "meteorology" and "atmospheric science." But that wasn't what I said, so its a strawman (ya boo!). In popular perception, and in the context of the GW wars (which is where RS sits. Or are we not talking about that now?) there's a strong difference between met and clim (notice: met and clim; not met and atmos sci. Met ~ atmos sci ~ clim; but met !~ clim; the relationship "similar" or "like" or "resembles" isn't transitive). I could point you at any number of GW stories that say "yeah, of course he'd say that, but he's only a meteorologist" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"a major argument against AGW skepticism is that there aren't any "real scientists" in that camp" - Are you suggesting meteorology is not a science? "Scientist" is just too vague. It does not tell the reader much.

Also, there are scientists in that camp. A handful of them, if you only count the atmosphere experts who actually publish in the field, which are the only relevant ones. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Since you think meteorologist is a synonym for anyone who studies the atmosphere"

Your attempt at reading my thoughts failed. I do not think that. Let me quote the first sentences of the article to you.

"Roy Warren Spencer (born December 20, 1955[1]) is a meteorologist,[2] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.[3][4] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[3][4]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[4]"

"Meteorologist", see? That's the reason I moved the article to (meteorologist). "Atmospheric scientist" also seems better than "scientist". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You can't use our wiki page as a reference. He self-describes as a climatologist: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't use it as a reference, I used it as a reason for choosing another name for the article. And my main point remains that the qualifier "scientist" is too general. If climatologists see him as a climatologist, Roy Spencer (climatologist) is OK too. So is Roy W. Spencer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the fact that the indent level clearly indicates that this was not directed at me. Striking the falsehood. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I think some of us (they should object if I'm wrong) would be okay with Roy Spencer (atmospheric scientist) or Roy Spencer (climatologist) if it is necessary and most participants like it. But WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:DESCRIPDIS contain, I believe, arguments for leaving it as it is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The only reason for moving the page would be to help readers who reach a disambiguation page - or who are typing in his name one character at a time in the search box. As soon as they see "(scientist)" they know it's the guy who writes about global warming and climate change. [If they see "(meteorologist)" the reader - not the graduate-degree-holding contributors who frequent talk pages like this, but the average reader - might think it's just the TV weatherman who presents the forecast.]

• I have, in fact, changed the redirect for meteorologist so that instead of hitting the top of the Meteorology page it brings the reader to the section headed "Meteorology#Meteorologists". The second paragraph there talks about public perception:

  Meteorologists are best known by the public for weather forecasting. Some radio and television weather forecasters are professional meteorologists, while others are reporters (weather specialist, weatherman, etc.) with no formal meteorological training.

Let's think about public perception and keep our focus on helping the reader. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems consistent with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412141520/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ to http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312130400/http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/07/21/why-is-obama-lying-on-climate-change-n1645569/page/full?goback=.gde_747267_member_259670223 to http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/07/21/why-is-obama-lying-on-climate-change-n1645569/page/full?goback=.gde_747267_member_259670223

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Spencer (scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216184346/http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php to http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428050713/http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/cornwall-alliance-advisory-board/ to http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/cornwall-alliance-advisory-board/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303063230/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/01125102.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/01125102.guest.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003143823/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I to http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Intelligent design

[1] I don't see how this is an improvement. Now we are just echoing his pseudoscientific beliefs without any hint from mainstream sources that what he says is bullshit, making the section WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The same is true for the climate change section, which just parrots his minority opinions, except in one case where someone contradicts his overblown rhetorics. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That change was done today by JoJo Anthrax. It's nice that some of the contentious wording is gone but I'm dubious that the words "believes in" are an improvement over "embraced", since it's using present tense based on a 2005 article and may not be capturing the nuances of what Mr Spencer said. An alternative is to revert Hob Gadling's edit which removed a quote of Mr Spencer and added "pseudoscience". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FRIND: Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that applies quite the way you think in this situation. It's immediately followed up by Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. We're not discussing the mainstream discourse, we're discussing their views on something that has broadly discussed in independent sources.

[2][3][4][5][6] all discuss his belief in intelligent design, and that's just a couple minutes of looking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reluctant to have a discussion with you because you will probably unrepentantly misrepresent what I said, again, but here goes.

The "Independent sources are also necessary" sentence changes nothing, and the "We're not discussing" sentence changes nothing. If Spencer's opinions are discussed in secondary sources, then we should use those secondary sources, not Spencer himself. That is what I have been saying all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section in Spencer's BLP is about his views, not about the fringe theory itself. User SFR-ish is correct. And Jo-Jo A's edit was an improvement over two rudimentary sentences. YoPienso (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

A context-free single-sentence paragraph like In TCS Daily, Spencer embraced the pseudoscience of intelligent design doesn't belong anywhere in a Wikipedia biography. Not unless we are adopting George Orwell's 'Principles of Newspeak' as an instruction manual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. YoPienso (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I read that as prohibiting the use of primary sourced fringe material in an article about a topic, rather than using WP:ABOUTSELF sources to provide context, especially when secondary sources mention it, but provide little elaboration.

Secondary sources would be better, but there is no problem using a BLP's writings to provide context on their beliefs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, exactly. WP:ABOUTSELF, not WP:FRIND, applies here. YoPienso (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a 2011 commentary/secondary source by Phil Plait about Spencer's views. "No, new data does not "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism" YoPienso (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This section in Spencer's BLP is about his views What Spencer is saying can be found on the talk.origins Index of Creationist Claims:

• Intelligent design (ID) is scientific, not religious. [7]
• Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings. [8]
• No case of macroevolution has ever been documented. [9]
• Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new. [10]
• Complexity indicates intelligent design. [11]

Every time a creationist regurgitates those or other false rumors, they are his views. By your reasoning, Wikipedia should be a medium for spreading standard creationist misinformation like that, and adding such misinformation to articles about creationists without refutation "improves" articles.

That is what I expect in Conservapedia, but not here. ([12] is a stub, maybe someone wants to add the quotes there?) Why is everybody suddenly handwaving away WP:FRINGE as if it were of no consequence? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In a biography of a notable individual it is generally a good idea to provide context to their beliefs, especially when those beliefs are commonly brought up in secondary sources when describing them. This is an article about this notable person so what they believe about something mentioned in many secondary sources is the type of information we should be providing.

Perhaps people are "handwaving away WP:FRINGE" because they interpret the WP:PAGS differently than you do, and think that providing context on a BLP's beliefs is generally a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hob Gabling, in the context of this BLP, Wikipedia is NOT "spreading standard creationist misinformation," but giving details of the subject of the BLP. See how that's done in Marjorie Taylor Greene's BLP, which devotes an entire section to her conspiracy theories.

We aren't supposed to suppress information about people's fringe ideas, but express and contextualize them. What this BLP is missing is the contextualization. Proposal: Under "Views," (which I suggest changing to "Contrarian views") and before the subsections "Climate change" and "Intelligent design," insert an introductory disclaimer per WP:BLPFRINGE. Possible wording:

Spencer is known for his contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community. YoPienso (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "Contrarian views" is a great heading, because the language is a little loaded, and only contrarian in some ways. This shows that there is (somehow) more public support for intelligent design than evolution. I think "Views" works well enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see what Wikipedia means by "contrarian." What the public supports doesn't matter; we go by the consensus of the scientific community. YoPienso (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That would end up with anyone's religious views labeled as contrarian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

One can be "giving details of the subject of the BLP" and at the same time "spreading standard creationist misinformation", or one can do one without doing the other. If we just repeat what Spencer thinks, we do both, which is what I am complaining about. We can comply with one guideline without completely ignoring another. The Greene article manages to give details about Greene's ideas and refutations of them, just as it should be and just as this article should.

insert an introductory disclaimer per WP:BLPFRINGE So you do see what the actual problem is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Did you notice my introductory disclaimer? YoPienso (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a watchlist and do not need pinging on a Talk page I have been editing for several recent days, but ping does not work anyway if you add it subsequently.

Your addition is not relevant for your claim Jo-Jo A's edit was an improvement over two rudimentary sentences. I have seen nothing here to justify that opinion - writing nothing is still better than replicating contextless fringe ideas. See Talk:Thomas Sowell#Reversion of Sowell's climate change denial, Talk:Thomas Sowell/Archive 4#Climate Change Section and Talk:Alexander Gorodnitsky#His views on climate change. Your addition is an improvement over Jo-Jo A's edit, although it is unsourced and therefore vulnerable to WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about pinging; I didn't know that.

Regarding your other remarks, it seems you may just be arguing for the sake of arguing.

My support of JoJo's edit is not directly relevant to my addition, except that both aim to improve the article.

My addition is in response to your concern that the article shouldn't be "spreading standard creationist misinformation," and is not "replicating contextless fringe ideas."

Your links lead to quotes by yourself on your same anti-fringe rhetoric.

My introductory addition doesn't need sourcing since the sourcing is in the following paragraphs. But if you want to source them anyway, that would be fine.

But why am I even responding to your comments? I've left the article better than I found it. Nobody else is complaining, and in fact, I was sent a "Thank you" by a long-time admin who carefully watches this kind of stuff. YoPienso (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that is you're saying he's known for his contrarian views, and the section is a) sources published by him, b) primary sources, c) unreliable sources which shouldn't be used anyway, and d) the good source that the ADL didn't like his "climate nazis" writing. This isn't showing that he's "known for his contrarian views." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If you think more sourcing is needed, add one or more of these:

• Inside Climate News: "Christy, Spencer and a few other stalwart contrarians remain apart from the rest of the scientific community, where a consensus on the danger of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has grown. . ."
• "A revealing interview with top contrarian climate scientists"
• "Journal Editor Resigns Over Contrarian Climate Paper"
• Climate Change Flyers, "written by well-known climate-change contrarians. . ." This is from Jan., 2021, and Spencer is named down in the middle of the article as one of the collaboraters/contributers. YoPienso (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Those are decent, but I think the wording would be better along the lines of "He holds views regarding climate science and intelligent design that are contrary to established scientific consensus," rather than saying he's "known for" them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

it seems you may just be arguing for the sake of arguing. No, I am arguing for the sake of Wikipedia pages not promoting climate change denial. A similar discussion is ongoing on Talk:Benny Peiser, and here are some more quotes from policies and guidelines that justify removing profringe quotes by profringe people from articles about those profringe people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

the discussion on the talk page doesn't show a consensus to remove this You need consensus to include things, not to remove them. There was no reason given why we should include Spencer's anti-science opinions without mainstream refutations. Since a link to the Peiser Talk page does not seem to be enough, I copy the reasoning from the Peiser Talk page here, replacing the key names and terms:

• WP:FRINGE says The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not include all majority and significant-minority positions.
• WP:FRINGE also says, Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, that means we do not locate them within a context.
• WP:BLP says, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. ID proponents are a non-negligible group outside of science but a tiny one within the relevant groups, the biologists. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we give disproportionate space to them.
• WP:NPOV says, While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. If we quote Spencer's ignorant opinions but no mainstream refutations of them, we obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

Did I jump through the bureaucratic hoop well enough? Do I have to repeat that every time I want to remove bullshit antiscience propaganda from an article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

They didn't persuade people above in this section, so repeating them again isn't likely to demonstrate consensus now. We're discussing a BLP subject's views on the article about the BLP subject, not discussing intelligent design in an article about evolution. It's discussed in multiple RS about him, e.g. The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Slate, and more. Not covering his views in his biography isn't what the FRINGE guidelines are about. It's so we don't list his views as mainstream when discussing the topics of intelligent design and climate change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You are saying that we should not include all majority and significant-minority positions, violating WP:FRINGE.

You are saying that we should not locate claims derived from fringe theories within a context, violating WP:FRINGE.

You are saying that we should give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, violating WP:BLP.

You are saying that we should obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community, violating WP:NPOV.

And your justification is that

• what the policies say did not convince someone. That is not a valid justification for including fringe material, or for ignoring policies.
• this article is "discussing views". Please point me to the place where policies say they do not apply to articles which "discuss views".

Every time I explain this to someone, it takes quite a while, but eventually people get it. Sometimes it is even the same people who need to get the same thing explained to them again and again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You can keep saying that, but it's clear that the consensus here doesn't view the PAGs that way. Some of those points above are also so obviously incorrect I can't believe you used them. You are saying that we should not include all majority and significant-minority positions, violating WP:FRINGE. The positions we're discussing are the article subject's views. I'm not sure why providing his views in an article about him in a section outlining his views would need more positions? You are saying that we should not locate claims derived from fringe theories within a context, violating WP:FRINGE... You are saying that we should give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, violating WP:BLP. The claim is that the article subject believes something, not that the thing is true. This is covered in both primary and secondary sources, with the context provided by those sources. You are saying that we should obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community, violating WP:NPOV. Not even sure where that comes from? The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific views, as provided by secondary sources discussing the subject, are included. For watchers: When I wrote the above, they were not. Please do not let yourself be misled. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The long-standing stable version included Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design. These views are rejected by the scientific community.[13] at the top of the views section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And then it was deleted, generating a WP:FRINGE problem in the ID section. I removed the problem, and you reinstated it. That is what the discussion is about. You repaired it afterwards, but you keep behaving as if you had been correct from the beginning. You were not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You removed half of that here. It still said Spencer holds contrarian views on climate change and intelligent design, which still gets the point across and didn't necessitate removing a clearly notable section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The climate change part was already balanced by addition of a mainstream position. The ID part was not, and that is why I deleted the whole of it. Saying that something is "contrarian" is not enough to provide context.

I don't see why Spencer's faulty reasoning needs to be quoted in detail: As I said, we are not his propaganda mouthpiece. But since the mainstream position is there now too, it is just a bit bad, not completely bad, as it was when there was only the word "contrarian" outside of the section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done a little work to add actual sourced rebuttal to the intelligent design section, and removed the unsourced floating "he's wrong" from above his views. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The new sentence does not have a citation, but I found the article by searching for keywords. It does not mention Spencer and is therefore WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot the cite, which states I was also surprised to find Spencer is a big supporter of Intelligent Design. I was initially reticent to mention that, since it seems like an ad hominem. But I think it’s relevant: Intelligent Design has been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and is really just warmed-over creationism. It's added now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Arriving late to the party, I see basically two sources which pass my WP:FRIND detector: the Christian Science Monitor and Phil Plait. The primary stuff to Spencer himself shouldn't be included unless there are third-party independent citations to it that are relevant and, in that case, those sources need to be included for context. As I see it, the relevance is the claimed connection between global warming denialism and creationism as explored in the Monitor piece. Plait's criticism seems legitimate as Plait is fairly clearly an expert in discerning pseudoscience, creationism, etc. jps (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." The declaration also has a section on "What We Deny," and Spencer recently wrote in The Christian Post from The Guardian and also In Huntsville, Christy began working with a NASA scientist, Roy Spencer. Spencer shared Christy’s religious orientation—he has written about rejecting the science of evolution in favor of the creationist theory known as intelligent design, and described himself as a “Bible-believing scientist“—and Christy’s skepticism over an issue that by the late 1980s was creating an upheaval in atmospheric science: climate change. from Inside Climate News. It may make more sense to combine the climate change and intelligent design views under one heading since they're normally discussed together, and it seems that his views on intelligent design color his views on climate change. That seems to be the common context used in sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I did not know whether there had been some sort of impeachment of those sources, so I just went by what was in the article. Adding those two seems like a good plan. Maybe a little WP:SUMMARY of these will help improve the prose as well. jps (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

The estimable (and pseudonymous) Hob Gadling recently remarked, re Dr. Spencer: "His views are described below, and they are clearly in contradiction to the scientific consensus." So what? Dr. Spencer is an actual, practicing Climate Scientist, whose views aren't approved by Hob Gadling. Consensus (in this case) is largely political, and has been very successful in discouraging scientific skepticism, a sad state of affairs in my view. Bah. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you believe the scientific consensus is largely political, it doesn't change the fact that Spencer is in contradiction to it. I'm not sure what adding a citation to that sentence accomplishes. However, I could do without the second sentence: "These views are rejected by the scientific community." We already call them contrarian, and the reader can follow the links to read about climate change skepticism and intelligent design; we don't need to beat them over the head that they are out of the scientific mainstream. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not notice that your climate change topic ban had been lifted. If it has, it was a bad idea since you are continuing to promote denialism as before the ban.

Scientific skepticism rejects denialism. If someone is discouraging scientific skepticism here, it is the pro-Spencer faction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)