Talk:The Deniers

Tony's recent edits.

I disagree with many/most of the edits that Tony has made. In order to avoid the inevitable edit war that is likely to erupt, I would propose that we go back to the latest stable version by Raul here at least until we can discuss the changes individually here first. I am reluctant to make such a reversion myself so I am requesting that someone else do so. --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't engage in edit warring, but I do not agree that we should restore the section that makes the article look like an advertisement by the publisher. Extensive quotations, particularly of a promotional nature, should not be used. --TS 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"I won't engage in edit warring." - But you just did. You were bold, I reverted, you edit warred rather than discussed. Simple. So, what is promotional about that section (see comment above)? Also, removal of properly source material is disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned because the quotes occupy so much visual space we could try to make things more in-line. But I still want to stick with Soloman's own words and explanation. --GoRight (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the Deniers? Section

In the interests of trying to resolve this as quickly as possible, let me propose that we simply restructure the "Why the Deniers?" section to be more in-line as follows:

Why the Deniers?

The term "The Deniers" is controversial even among some of those profiled in the book, which often raises the question of why Solomon would choose it as the title for both his book and its related newspaper series. In explaining his decision, Soloman writes:

"I have been asked many times why I titled my series and now this book The Deniers, in effect adopting their enemies’ terminology. Many of the scientists in this book hate the term and deny it applies to them.

I could give several reasons, but here is the most important. The scientists are not alone in having their credibility on trial in the global warming debate. They are not the only “authorities” in the argument, and not even the most important “authorities.” Most laymen, most citizens, owe most of what we think we know about global warming not to science directly, but to science as mediated by the media and by political bodies, especially the UN and our governments. We citizens, trying to discern what to do about global warming, must judge not only the credibility of the scientists but of those who claim to tell us what the scientists say. To that end, as you read through this book, judge for yourself the credibility of those who dismiss these scientists as cranks or crooks, and call them The Deniers.

As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."

Would that be more palatable? --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no objection to this proposal I shall be WP:BOLD and test the waters. --GoRight (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Book Reviews Section

I question the need for these edits. If the reader wants to know more about the authors of the reviews let them follow the references to the reviews. --GoRight (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I updated the text to match the author descriptions provided within the sources being used. Gilder had no such description so I removed the one that was added. If you want to provide one then please provide sources for it. --GoRight (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Too far

I think Cla's changes went a bit too far William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with most of your changes, but I think you swung the "Objections" section a little bit too far the other way, so I made what I hope is an acceptable compromise edit. Cla68 (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Weiss isn't mentioned in the book. Since this article is about the book, not about the columns, Weiss' objections are going to need to come out or else be drastically qualified. In order to keep the Solanki paragraph from being an orphan, I suggest moving it to the "Reception" section. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So, no one objects to the Weiss information coming out of the article? I'm going to go ahead and improve this article to as good as I can get it. At this time I don't plan on nominating it for Good Article, because I think too much of the information is sourced to Solomon himself. This is acceptable as far as verifiability is concerned, but I think there would be legitimate concerns by a GA reviewer that the article doesn't contain enough secondary, independent reporting on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the removal - its very pertinent background, considering that Weiss isn't the only one to object.. He was just the only one who actually threatened the NP and LS. (and thus got a correction in the NP, and didn't get included in the book). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputes

The three scientists who disputed Solomon's coverage of them voiced their objections before the book was published. One of them, Weiss, was not included in the book. I'm thinking of moving the other two's objections, Solanki and Shaviv, to the background section. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that Weiss wasn't included was that he actually threatened to sue the NP and LS. Solanki didn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize before that all three objected before the book was published. I agree with you now that all three should be mentioned in the background section. I already have an idea about how to phrase it. Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wedon't need to reproduce LS's biog here William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article - or least a pointer so one can buy the book. A whole batch of the world's top scientists agree with what astronomers could have told them centuries ago - the sun gets hotter and voila the world gets hotter. The sun gets cooler and the world gets cooler. Wow you need a PHD to grasp this. Maybe there should be a test to weed out those who can grasp this in the first grade and only educate them beyond elementary school - save a lot of $$$.159.105.80.103 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a bet with myself that you wouldn't be able to resist AGW denial, what with your interest in Holocaust denial and HIV/AIDS denial. Are you trying to collect the set? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)