Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:22, 16 November 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

An Inconvenient Truth was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: April 2, 2007.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

Recent mudslinging in the NSTA section.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I was relatively happy with the version of the NSTA section prior to the edits of Gmb92 a few days ago. I don't object to having the points that Gmb92 wants discussed, but keeping the presentation balanced is drawing in quite a bit of additional material which could be considered extraneous to the primary point of the section which was, IMHO, adequately and fairly covered prior to the recent few days editing.

I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts. Quite the contrary. So I felt obligated to keep the record more balanced.

The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists. As I have said before, I have no particular axe to grind with those individuals and I am not seeking to impugn their motives but their opinions as expressed in the piece being referenced are clearly one-sided (i.e. biased). In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece.

Since I feel that the RealClimate piece is presenting only a single side of the issue I feel it is relevant to highlight some of the background of the contributors and the organization actually paying to host the site so that the reader is better able to keep their criticism in context. Highlighting the link to Environmental Media Services differs from the discussion of Exxon Mobil above in that EMS is funding 100% (I assume) of the hosting costs for the RealClimate site whereas Exxon Mobil is funding less than 3.77% of NSTA. Perhaps the best solution would be to remove the reference to RealClimate and simply reference the AAAS piece (and remove the included quote therefrom) as a somewhat neutral assessment?

--GoRight 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"I don't consider a simple statement that "Laurie David said she never received an alternative offer" to be a fair representation of the facts."

You're right. My mistake. I think we've collaborated to correct that.

RealClimate is a valid reference. While we have views from the film producer and NSTA, views from a number of experts who actually study the climate are a valid contribution. A neutral description of RealClimate is available in an earlier section of the article. Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article. Your "background information" is akin to posting an opinion from Fred Singer and saying something like "Fred Singer, who has ties to oil and Tobacco...". Linking to his Misplaced Pages article is sufficient.

"The introduction of a reference to a site such as RealClimate, while relevant, has the effect of introducing a biased perspective into the discussion simply because all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists."

If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are "pro-AGW". There are a few on the fringe who are not. There's nothing biased about including views from those experts who support the scientific consensus.

"In response I provided a reference from AAAS that discussed the issue from both sides and highlighted a quote from the perspective on the other side of the issue from that expressed in the RealClimate piece."

I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view. Is the article available through other outlets? What doesn't belong are POV statements such as "a less biased assessment".Gmb92 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your opinion of RealClimate I removed from this article." That section is not my opinion, it is merely a statement of relevant facts. Which of part do you consider to be my opinion, the part where I state that all of the contributers at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists or the part where I state that the website is hosted by Environmental Media Services? Unless you can demonstrate where these statements are false they need to stay to provide context to the reader.

"If you haven't noticed, almost every scientist who studies the climate are 'pro-AGW'" Why, then, do you object to my pointing this out for context?

"I have no problem with the reference other than it requires a subscription to view." This is unfortunate and unavoidable, however it is available for free. The AAAS site requires that you create an account but some of their content, including this reference, is free of charge. I didn't realize that this was the case because I had already signed up for the free subscription for other purposes and was not even prompted when I viewed the article. I doubt that there is another venue since this will almost certainly be copyrighted material.

"What doesn't belong are POV statements such as 'a less biased assessment'." I accept that which is why I changed the wording to read "less one-sided assessment". As I said, I don't have a problem with referencing RealClimate as long as the presentation is kept balanced and in its proper perspective. The fact that all of the contributors at RealClimate are pro-AGW climate scientists is a relevant piece of context for assessing their criticism. The AAAS article clearly discusses the issue from both the NSTA and Laurie David's perspectives and is therefore balanced.

I find your insistence on smearing the NSTA as being in the pockets of big oil when at most 3.77% of their funding comes from energy producers and when it has been highlighted that the energy companies have made no demands in exchange for their funding to be quite petty. The fact is that Laurie David was trying to push her film onto science teachers and wanted to do so at NSTA's expense AND wanted to make it appear as though NSTA had endorsed the film. NSTA doesn't provide a free distribution service or product endorsements to anyone else so why should Laurie David and AIT get a free ride? If Laurie David wants her film advertised and distributed through NSTA let her pay the going rates like everyone else. And I suspect THAT is where the rub comes in. So again, I ask you, how much money have the AIT film producers contributed to NSTA with no strings attached as opposed to publicly complaining that they aren't being given a free ride?

--GoRight 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of more reverting, some remarks about GR's latest edit:

1. Misplaced Pages is not a WP:RS and not to be used as such in Misplaced Pages articles.
2. Whatever "activistcash.com" is, it certainly is not a WP:RS either. And, no, it is not remotely as reliable as RealClimate, which has received positive coverage from a large number of scientific venues, including Science (journal) and Nature (journal).
3. There is no source for the claim that all RealClimate contributors believe that the current global warming trend is anthropogenic in origin. It also is a misleading oversimplification on several counts - a) in claiming they believe in human causes only, b) in suggesting that their reasoned opinion is "a belief", and c) in suggesting that this is unusual enough to be worth mentioning when the Shannon information content is essentially zero.
4. The hosting issue is rather irrelevant and certainly sufficiently covered in RealClimate, and the reported to be "the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications is even more remotely connected (not to mention missing a RS).

--Stephan Schulz 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why do consider "www.activistcash.com" a non reliable source? Elhector 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Have you looked at the site? --Stephan Schulz 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. I have looked at it, used it from time to time. I stumbled upon it a while back and I've looked up a handful of orginizations on there and fact checked there info and didn't really find any major discrepencies. I haven't looked up every orginization or foundation they list but on the handful I did the info was accurate. Elhector 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses to SS:

1. I corrected this by simply referencing the RealClimate discussion of the issue. Is this a sufficiently reliable source (for you at least)?  :-)
2. ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate in the context of this discussion. The RealClimate reference that this section relies upon was no more peer reviewed or fact checked (required by WP:RS) than anything found on the ActivistCash site. (Perhaps this is a argument for removing the entire RealClimate portion from this section which would be fine with me?) The parent group supporting ActivistCash.com (The Center for Consumer Freedom) does not appear to have a stake in the whole global warming debate and is at least a neutral party, the RealClimate site cannot make any such claim.
3. On the point of all of them being AGW proponents, they have been criticized for censuring contrarian comments from their site and all of the positions on their site argue in favor of the AGW position. If you can point out any primary material from any of these contributors which expresses a contrarian position I will be open to changing my assertion. On the points you consider misleading I have sought to address those by a) inserting the word predominantly in front of the claim, b) noting here that their "reasoned opinion" IS "a belief" by definition since it is what they "believe" and my comment is appropriate because their "reasoned opinion" is no more or less valid than that of an equally credentialed contrarian, and c) noting here that the information content is significant because it allows the reader to understand the ideological and scientific opinions of those leveling the criticism.
4. The hosting issue is relevant because EMS certainly holds an ideological viewpoint which undoubtedly influences their decision to provide the funding to host this site and the ideological perspectives represented there.

Again I would be happy to remove the RealClimate reference altogether to avoid the controversy it is introducing and simply rely on the more ideologically neutral perspective found in the AAAS reference. Given that others felt that it was important to include the RealClimate reference I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to remove it. This leaves me in a position where I need to try and keep it presented in a balanced way.

--GoRight 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that "ActivistCash.com is at least a reliable a source as RealClimate" is so absurd that it barely merits a response. The contributors to realclimate.com are published scientists writing in their field of expertise, who give their names and capsule biographies. ActivistCash.com appears to be an astroturf organization and gives virtually no meaningful information on who is behind it. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A note on ActivistCash.com, which has suddenly made an appearance in at least one other article ] ]Gmb92 07:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

None of which affects the accuracy of the information provided there, nor changes the fact that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the AGW debate.

Yes they do. Read the links.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of Kenneth Green being a climate skeptic, since this term is being used as a pejorative in this context it is subject to WP:BLP. Unless you can provide a valid reference from a respected and neutral third party who satisfies WP:RS, let us stick with the characterization actually made in the RealCliimate reference which is simply his name.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Mr Connolley has changed the section to remove the reference to Mr Green. Thanks. Unfortunately the current text reads "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists, described the NSTA action as "bizarre", found their defence "unconvincing", wondered if their actions had been influenced by the NSTAs funding by Exxon and recommended that they improve their "paltry" supply of useful educational material relating to global warming."

While this new text summarizes the points made in the RealClimate piece it also contains a reference to a claim of impropriety on the part of NSTA with respect to being influenced by their Exxon funding. As we have discussed already the extent of Exxon's funding was less that 3.77% of the total NSTA budget, a sum hardly considered significant in the grand scheme. I would also like to point out that a charge of impropriety is subject to WP:BLP which requires an extra level of scrutiny from a referencing perspective.

While the contributors at RealClimate may be (indiviudally) authorities on climate change, I question their authority on the issue of the inner workings of the NSTA funding and/or decision making processes. On this topic they are clearly not a reliable source and their unfounded accusation amounts to pure conjecture. Misplaced Pages is not the place to be spreading pure conjecture as I understand it. Consistent with WP:BLP I would request that the accusation of impropriety on the part of living persons (i.e. the Exxon funding reference and influence accusation) be sourced using an authority that would be able to actually comment on such a circumstance or that this part of the statement be removed from the article.

--GoRight 19:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of a double standard with respect to referencing people's ideological leanings (especially those of living persons which makes them subject to WP:BLP) as we have seen yesterday there is an objection to my refering to the RealClimate contributors as adhering to the belief that the current global arming trend is anthropogenic in nature (a fact that I have confirmed directly with them here, and perhaps William M. Connolley would like to weigh in on this point as well?). I find it amusing to say the least that these climate scientists who argue in favor of there being a scientific consensus would object to be described as being associated with the fundamental point of that consensus. However, I assert that if it is relevant to point out the ideological leanings of Kenneth Green then it must be equally relevant to point out the ideological leanings of those leveling the criticism. Either the ideological leanings are relevant or they are not. So they are either all in, or they are all out. I don't care which.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nearly all climate scientists have the qualified opinion that the evidence generally supports AGW as is typically defined, then the "ideological leanings" would be the mainstream virtual consensus. It would be close to saying "these scientists, who are pro-gravity, object to..." and you would be stating this as a way to push a POV that they have a bias. Since you began edits here by removing a similar phrase about Exxon, I would think you would understand this point. The argument in the RealClimate piece, as I understand it, is in addition to very little global warming materials promoted on their website, the NSTA has appeared to have no problem promoting contrarian views in lieu of the mainstream. Thus, the POV of Green is relevant to mention. However, I'd prefer to let one of their representatives phrase this part as they'd like.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is no more POV pushing than when your side insists on labeling people "Skeptics" and "Deniers" or trying to imply impropriety by association with Exxon funding. When the level of the funding is less that 3.77% one has to question the objectivity and neutrality of those making the charge. I am in no way trying to mischaracterize the position of the people in question, only to describe that position in a neutral manner. Would "climate scientists who agree with the IPCC assessments" be less objectionable? I am merely trying to inform the reader of which side of the debate these particular climate scientists are on. I don't see why there should be an objection to accurately reflecting that position.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is related to WP:UNDUE in my view. You seem to be trying to push the notion that there are 2 roughly equal sides on AGW, which is the goal of adding a phrase like "pro-AGW" (simplistic as it is).

"Skeptics" is generally considered a positive phrase. What true scientist isn't a skeptic? "Deniers" is POV and not a phrase that I've put in any Misplaced Pages article, although I believe many do deny clear evidence on this topic. Few of them have published peer reviewed studies.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that scientists should be skeptics in the sense of being critical thinkers, however the use of the word "skeptic" in this context is essentially viewed as being the equivalent of "denier", at least in the the popular media, since the terms are used interchangeably. Given the confusion between the two we should seek to be more clear. --GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: On the issue of discussing the ideological leanings of the group hosting RealClimate. Presumably EMS, which is an environmental advocacy group would not choose to host a site which is expressing opinions contrary to their own. The fact that they exercise no control over the content is irrelevant on this point. The mere fact that they are paying for the sight gives them at least ideological level control over the content, if not the specifics. I am confident that if the contributors at RealClimate were expressing views inconsistent with EMS's goals that they would pull their support (which is NOT a mere 3.77% of the budget for the RealClimate site but the entire budget for the operation of the site).

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support. As such, this provides a valid insight into the ideological viewpoints being expressed on the site and if a relevant piece of context for the reader.

As such, I would propose that we modify the description of the RealClimate site to include "a group blog hosted by an environmental advocacy group and maintained by eleven climate scientists". Depending on the outcome of the ideological leanings discussion started above I would augment this further by appending "all of whom adhere to the belief that the current warming period are anthropogenic in origin". I don't like this clumsy wording but as we saw yesterday there is resistence to referring to them using a more succinct "pro-AGW" tag of some sort. As I said, I explicitly asked this point and receive a response directly on RealClimate here.

--GoRight 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the contributors on RealClimate are acting unethically, only that their expressed positions must be in agreement with the hosting organization or that organization would pull their support - this is certainly a tortured piece of logic. There is any number of possible reasons why the hosting organization continues to host the site - from the trivial ("commitments are only reviewed once per year" to the highly moral "we encorage a diversity of opinions on principle" to the egoistic "whatever they say, being associated with the blog is a PR coup"). Or put differently: "Clearly the Wikimedia foundation must agree with everything you say - why else would they host your opinion?". --Stephan Schulz 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing tortured about it. EMS is an Environmental Advocacy Group by their own description. If RealClimate was advocating positions which were antithetical to their stated objectives they would pull the funding without question. This is the nature of such groups. They are hardly altruistic as you seem to believe, they are focused and dogmatic in the pursuit of their goals and their support of RealClimate is undoubtedly consistent with that perspective.

--GoRight 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...you make unsubstantiated statements and back them up with more personal opinions, while ignoring what I wrote (I gave two scenarios that don't require an assumption of altruism at all). You also introduce more fallacies. There is a huge space between "being in agreement with" and "being antithetical to their stated objectives" (which are? and why would that be their real objectives?). Hosting a medium-traffic web site like RC is nearly free nowadays - I estimate it could run on my hosting contract, and I don't even know how little I pay - it's certainly not more than single digit Euros a month. Assuming EMS is a perfectly rational agent (big chance, that!), they would withdraw suport if that would be net gain for them. Even a minor PR problem ("EMS tries to silence scientists, closes website") is likely to be more costly for them than the minimal hosting fees. Your conclusion (RC publication furthers EMS goals) may well be right. But your argument for that is completely bogus. And of course RC may further EMS goals even if they do not agree, just like Nader helped Bush win against Gore... --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You can quibble all you want. The simple (and completely substantiated) facts of the matter are:

1. 100% of the funding for operating the RC site comes from EMS, a fact that RC felt obliged to address.
2. The magnitude of the investment is immaterial, their motives for making it are and those motives are to be an environmental advocacy group.

The FACT that RC is being hosted by an environmental advocacy group is relevant information for the reader. The FACT is not in dispute so why do you argue so strenuously against having it stated? Is there something to hide here?

--GoRight 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The service of providing web hosting is similar to that of purchasing pencils and paper. If somehow this service wanted to exert any control over RealClimate, these scientists could simply find another hosting service with ease. That's why your argument is absurd and the information thus irrelevant, however you view the service. I've noticed that you've been pushing this in other articles recently.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The point, however, is that these scientists are not buying their pencils and paper, they are receiving them gratis from a group with an agenda. I believe that the reader should be informed of that relationship, which is not contested. I don't want to mischaracterize the facts but I do want the facts to be known. If you don't like the phrase "environmental advocacy group" I would be just as happy with listing the group by name and providing a link to the wiki page for them. Either way the facts are known and there is no reason to suppress them. Let the reader make their own judgements.

If RC finds their relationship with EMS uncomfortable, perhaps they should sever that relationship as you point out they are free to do.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they are similar to pencils and paper and are irrelevant. If they conditionally paid their salaries or a significant portion of it, you might have an argument.Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: This section currently contains the following statement: "NSTA indicated that they retained editorial control over the content which David questioned based on the point of view portrayed in the global warming section of the video." This statement amounts to David calling Wheeler a liar on the issue of editorial control. Conjecture on the part of David is not proof of unethical conduct, and a charge of unethical conduct is subject to WP:BLP which states that unsourced or poorly sourced statements should be removed from the article as well as the discussion pages. Please provide a valid reference which complies with WP:RS to substantiate the claim that NSTA did not exercise control over the content in question when they have directly stated that they did. David is not a reliable source in this context because she did not have any direct knowledge or involvement in the production in question whereas Wheeler clearly did. Under these circumstances we should give the benefit of any doubt to the first hand participants (i.e. Wheeler).

--GoRight 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This amounts to an effort of censuring one equal half of the debate. This section deals with the issue of NSTA rejecting offers from the Gore team, of which David is a representative. Her view is largely supported by at least some of the experts in the field. Presenting both of their points of view from parties involved in the issue is relevant to this topic and not a violation of WP:RS. It is not for you to decide who gets the benefit of the doubt.Gmb92 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about POV. It is about presenting credible and verifiable facts. The NSTA is a well respected organization, they have issued a definitive statement on this point, and they are unquestionably in a position to know the facts. Laurie David? Not so much and it is quite evident from the facts that she is disgruntled because should couldn't get NSTA to pay her bills. RealClimate contributors? Respected in their field but not in a position to know the facts being discussed, so their statement amounts to nothing more than conjecture and innuendo (something that objective and neutral parties do not engage in). Misplaced Pages should not be about spreading conjecture and innuendo.

--GoRight 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's say Fred Singer had a qualm with an organization - notable enough to mention on his page or their page. Should we really ignore his opinion of the organization's decisions simply because we have an opinion that he's not credible? Most certainly, his views would be central to the topic. My personal view is that if he had distinguished scientists on his side who had published peer-reviewed studies in the field related to the dispute, it would strengthen his case. If not, his view would be central to the issue, right or wrong. Gmb92 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Topic: I will abandon the threads above in favor of a new approach. I don't object to RealClimate being mentioned as the place where a particular article has been published, however blogs do not write articles, people do. I would propose to update these references to RealClimate to indicate the authors of the article and mention that they were published on RealClimate.

--GoRight 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing. Realclimate is a group blog, which has specified authors - when a posting is without attribution we can reasonably assume that either its an oversight - or its on behalf of them all. There is no specific reason to state which of the authors who are writing a specific thing - you would do that in the reference instead.

Unless you have a specific reason to believe that the authors on Realclimate disagree internally on postings on their blog - its simply crud. --Kim D. Petersen 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stating "by an anonymous editor" is POV scewing." No, stating that it was anonymously posted is a statement of fact. Do you deny that the post in question is anonymous? To some level that is the point I was making by writing it that way. A statement that "Anonymous = All Contributors" is non-sense, IMHO, for the following reasons:

1. The list of contributors at the site might change over time, thus an interested reader cannot trust that a perusal of the current contributers there reflects exactly who actually endorsed the article when it was written, and it is only on the credentials of those actually involved that any claim of legitimacy can be made.
2. Unless I am mistaken, WP:RS doesn't allow the use of anonymous sources which this clearly is. There is no way to know (1) who wrote it, (2) which of the site's contributors actually endorse it, or even (3) whether it was actually written by someone other than one of the publicly acknowledged contributers listed on the site (admittedly less likely but still a legitimate concern).

I would be happy to update the text to include the name of the author, or list of authors, once they have been identified and I no longer object to the statement being included as long as it is clear that the statement was posted anonymously or (preferably) by a set of identified individuals whose credentials can actually be assessed and examined.

--GoRight 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No WP:RS isn't concerned about anon or not. You can find plenty of reliable "anonymous" news-articles. Its concerned about editorial oversight, reliability and fact-checking of the sources. RC has a good (not to say excellent) record on all three. We know who wrote it: One of the contributors to RC - which are limited to a select few. If and when the list of contributors change - this might become an issue - it currently isn't. Do we also need the names of the editors of the WSJ? It appeared on RC - its endorced as at least factually and reliable by the editors of the blog. --Kim D. Petersen 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Media section

I would ask editors take a look at this series of edits and determine whether it is appropriate for the article. Editor User:rogerfgay added

"A 1 November 2007 commentary in Men's News Daily opines that the film took advantage of growing interest in the use of the documentary style in fictional works such as The Blair Witch Project. Given the backlash against the film the article laments, "It may be generations before anyone can believe, even in real documentaries."

I question whether Men's News Daily is a reliable source (and/or worth quoting) and whether User:rogerfgay has a conflict of interest given that the article on MND was written by a Roger F. Gay who is not, incidentally, a professional film critic. These edits do not appear to me to meet the criteria for citing oneself. Since I have dealt with a similar issue with Mr. Gay on a very different page, it would be good if other editors made the decision here.--Slp1 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not notable I have removed. The PETA stuff which has recently appeared also appears to be undue weight. We don't need sections on every fringe group that has criticised AIT. Iceage77 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate

I see we're disagreeing about how to describe RC. "RealClimate, a group blog maintained by eleven climate scientists..." is not unreasonable but its cubmersome to repeat and would be tedious to change were someone to leave or join. I would suggest just "RealClimate" - the link is there to follow if you want to William M. Connolley 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also saves the minor inconvenience of changing all occurrences of the text whenever one of the contributors dies, or is bought by Exxon, or, heaven forbid, a new one joins. Or, in case the details at various times become important, consider "RealClimate, a blog maintained by the New York times reas estate editor, but kept by the UN peacekeeping mission for Alaska from 2009 to 2011 and by a group of enemies of the state before that"... I think it is preferable to keep the details in the article. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem referring to RealClimate as a venue where identified people publish their work, but in the end it is the people who provide the content. Readers have a right to know where the content is actually coming from if you seek to use their personal credentials as a claim of legitimacy (which I consider fine as long as we know whose credentials we are talking about on a case by case basis).

I believe that I have offered a good faith alternative which inherently addresses all of the concerns you both have listed above. By referring to the actual people the contributers at RC can come and go at will without affecting the accuracy of the cites here. Without such information the reader may at some point in the future be mislead as to who is endorsing what if the membership at RC changes. (Yes I know that this is unlikely to occur, in total, but it is a fair concern even with small changes in membership.)

I consider my change to be good faith because the Eric Steig modification clearly left a reference to his being a climate scientist and a reference to RC in a relatively clean way which I assume was the desired content and impression based on the previous description. The problem comes in with the anonymous articles for the reasons cited above. I only included the "anonymous author" bit to illustrate the problem. I assumed that the point would be raised here and discussed in full as it now is.

Is there some rationale for why articles at RC are being written anonymously? --GoRight 18:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Eric Steig reference in particular should be changed to quote him rather than RC because, in context, he makes it clear that he's presenting HIS opinion, not that of RC: "How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought. It is remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research." He goes on to differentiate his opinion from that of "his colleagues" (presumably other people at RC, though he doesn't say) in regards to scientific accuracy. I think attributing his opinion to all of RC is disingenuous. link Oren0 20:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

William Gray Quotes

William Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray is also a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming.

He is properly credentialled to be listed in the academic sub-section of the criticism portion of the article. I assert that he must be relevant to the GW debate because there is a lot of activity on his BLP page seeking to discredit him by cherry picking comments out of a number of news articles, self-published sources, and going so far as to rely on individual blog comments from pages in Google's cache.

Given his status as a widely recognized expert in hurricanes, a topic of some discussion in the IPCC assessments, and given that there are numerous press accounts for him within the context of GW his comments are suitable for inclusion.

Claims of undue weight in this case are inappropriate because there is currently only one dissenting voice listed within the academic section of the criticism. As we know there is more than one such voice, so in fact NOT listing additional voices is an example of undue weight, IMHO.

I believe that his comments should be left in tact.

--GoRight 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is in need of another dissenting voice to maintain proper balance. I think Gray's expertise qualifies him, and I think a claim such as him having "no GW-specific expertise" is absurd. Please explain why a PhD in Geophysical Sciences and a professor of Atmospheric Sciences is unqualified to make statements about climate. Oren0 19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Gray is listed on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which is fairly tightly controlled on who they allow to be put on the list if you read the discussion pages. --GoRight 20:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's arguably not that tightly controlled: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." What would help his WP page would be a list of his publications. Gmb92 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Refer to this thread in which the pro-AGW forces are arguing to keep Roger Pielke OFF the list. The people allowed on the list are heavily scrutinized. --GoRight 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't appear to be around Pielke's credentials but more centered around Pielke's unclear view on 1 or more of 3 basic positions declared in the article. Gmb92 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This one comment should make the point nicely:

"Whether P requested inclusion or not (he didn't) is irrelevant. You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in. So we're back to the quote. Ron has a habit of mischaracterising debate in his favour (and it would seem that CE has joined in the same mischaracterisation). The IPCC doesn't make forecasts, it does projections: P is well aware of this William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)"

WC is obviously trying to keep Pielke OFF the list and he himself terms the list "highly selective". So is it now your contention that WC is not credible since you are arguing a position opposite to his comment here?  :-)

--GoRight 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. How are my views in opposition? Are you attempting to build a strawman? Gmb92 01:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me put the relevant commentary in one place for you:

"It's arguably not that tightly controlled," Gmb92

"You don't get onto this highly selective list merely by asking to be in," William Connolley

I consider these points to be in opposition.

The very fact that Gray is on this list and that WC argues that the list is "highly selective" is sufficient evidence that Gray's commentary is credible in terms of criticizing the basis of this film. As WC points out, they don't let just anybody onto that list yet Gray qualified and part of the qualification is having been published appropriately.

Gray is undeniably qualified to comment here in the academic section of the criticism by virtue of being on this list if nothing else.

So, again, is this conversation going anywhere or is it your intent to stonewall things here and continue to revert my edit?

--GoRight 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. I haven't reverted any edits regarding Gray here or made comments on the Gray content in this article as of yet. You are also confusing 2 sets of criteria for being in that list. The first involves a person's credentials. Repeating this from the article: "Each individual has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate." So by this standard, it's arguably not that stringent but certainly more stringent than allowing anyone (you or me for instance) to be included based simply on being asked to be on there. The other criteria is having made statements that oppose one of the 3 positions outlined in the article which is what the topic of discussion is about. By this standard, it's more stringent. Gmb92 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that WIlliam forgot to add WP:SARCASM tag to his claim about selectivity.... --Stephan Schulz 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

There is no problem with Stephen Milloy for this quote. He is at least as credible as Laurie David who is being prominantly discussed in this section and has been quoted on her opinions. Regardless, he is undeniably a recognizable figure in the public debate over GW who is notable enough to have his own BLP AND his educational credentials appear to exceed those of Laurie David is already quoted in the article. Even more amazingly he is arguing that AIT SHOULD be shown in schools so why object? Isn't that what this section is all about in the first place, NSTA distributing AIT to science teachers? Bottom line, his quote is not about the science involved but the politics of pushing a POV into the schools. He is certainly qualified to do that and in the realm of the political debate over GW he is an expert. He argues against pushing a specific POV, where do you stand on that issue?

--GoRight 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LD has an obvious connection with the film. Milloy is an author of trash with no credibility William M. Connolley 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trash? No credibility? Let's not mudling here. He's obviously reliable enough to quote in regards to the politics of this film. Do you have a good reason why his political opinion wouldn't be critical or relevant? Oren0 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What does Let's not mudling mean? I don't regard Milloy as reliable to quote for anything William M. Connolley 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So suddenly having direct knowledge of something is important to you? That's a laugh given that RC and LD are both maligning NSTA on topics of which they have no direct knowledge (i.e. the funding arrangments for the ConocoPhilips funding for the Wheeler produced film as well as the Exxon funding somehow influencing ). I detect some pot calling the kettle black here. I am curious as to why you did not weigh in with a similar position when Gmb92 and I were discussing this very point above, would you care to weigh in now? --GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

David and the NSTA spokespersons are central to the topic, which describes a dispute between the two. Whether or not one agrees with them or find them reliable is irrelevant. If Milloy was an NSTA spokesperson, by all means, his arguments would need to be included. Do you understand this distinction? Gmb92 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If we lowered the standards to include Milloy's opinion, we could include about a million other opinions. He's not relevant to the section (unlike David or the NSTA spokespersons) nor is he remotely an authority to comment on it. Gmb92 00:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, RC is not any more relevant to this section Milloy so perhaps we should remove their commentary as well by the same logic? I would be fine with eliminating the RC sentence, the AAAS sentence, and the Milloy sentence. If I have to choose between the AAAS quote and the Milloy quoute because of complaints about undue weight I favor the Milloy quote because it is more directly about the issue at the heart of this discussion AND it has the advantage of not requiring a subscription to read (something that I believe you complained about above).

Even so, we are not lowering any standards by including Milloy because he is probably a more of an expert regarding the politics of the GW debate than anyone at RC is. Many of you will have argued that all he does is the political side of things, whereas the RC folks are on the science side, right? You don't get to have it both ways where you claim RC is credible but anyone you don't like is not. I looked it up in the dictionary and it didn't have anything in the definition of "credible" about having to agree with you. This IS a criticism section after all.

--GoRight 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

...on which he has established a pattern of calculated deception; e.g., a "survey" that some of us recently received. Raymond Arritt 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant "mudsling" I swear that 'S' was there before. Anyway, the quote isn't about the science, it's about the politics of showing it in schools. Again, he's qualified to state is opinion. As for "we could include a million other opinions," our goal is to represent a sample of what's being said in reliable sources. I don't believe the current article does that and I don't see how including one more negative opinion is undue weight. Oren0 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree that Milloy has any credibility at all on anything remotely related to global warming, including the politics. If you want a credible commentator on the politics of GW you should cite someone like Roger Pielke Jr. Raymond Arritt 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well let me just try the William Connolley approach and see if it works any better for me. junscience.com is accepted as credible is other similar articles.  :-) --GoRight 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What articles are those? We should fix them post-haste. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. --GoRight 00:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So your contention that Steven Milloy, who has no expertise whatsoever in any topic related to global warming, is just as credible as the scientists on RealClimate? That's an interesting perspective. Raymond Arritt 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that he is every bit as much an expert regarding the politics of the debate as the RC folks are regarding the science of the debate. This page is not only about the science, it is also about all aspects of the film including the political ones. You don't get to veto him simply because you don't like him. --GoRight 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Read my response six up. There are plenty of people who qualify as "an expert regarding the politics of the debate," but Milloy isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to hold, but luckily your opinion is not policy on this site. You have thus far failed to present anything which would disqualify Milloy's quote. As I said, the fact that you don't like him is not a disqualifying factor.

As far as I and apparently others are concerned Miloy is sufficiently qualified to comment on the political aspects of the NSTA decision and his quote should stand.

Is this discussion actually going anywhere or do you all intend to simply stonewall this issue in the commentary and keep reverting my edit?

--GoRight 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy claimed the film, a documentary on a scientific topic, was "biased" and recommended 2 other films (one "The Great Global Warming Swindle") which he praises. What would qualify him to make scientific assessments of the film? Qualified opinions from scientists who have published in the fields in question are of the highest reliability. Milloy doesn't qualify. When searching for an alternative source, keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Milloy could take note of that too. Gmb92 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As the high court case demonstrates and you all have argued, the decision in that case was that the film was politically biased, not scientifically so although others would disagree. Now you want to limit the discussion to scientific opinions only? I have not argued that Milloy's comment is relevant because of his scientific opinion but rather because of his political ones. Apparently the high court agreed with him that the film IS biased politically speaking and all Milloy is pointing out is that now there is a counter balancing film from a political perspective and that both films should be shown. You only object because you are trying to force your opinions and viewpoints on everyone else, or at least that is how it looks to me.

--GoRight 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy is just as qualified to comment on the politics as is Paris Hilton, or some guy down the pub. Again, there are people who have done meaningful work on the politics of GW, but Milloy isn't one of them. He's simply someone with a highly partisan view of the issue. You're not helping your case by calling on Milloy as one of your witnesses; why not choose someone credible and qualified? Raymond Arritt 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we cannot agree on how to handle third party material in this section I suggest that we simply keep the section trimmed down to direct commentary from the parties directly involved. The RealClimate reference didn't add anything new beyond what LD claims so it is redundant and as such is undue weight. This is at least a fair position which keeps the POV pushing out of it from either side, agreed? --GoRight 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The commentary is from experts on the film's topic. It certainly is different from the LD statements. Gmb92 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But the quotes they provide have nothing to do with the film's topic. So those credentials are irrelevant to the allegations that they are making. LD already makes the points that are even relevant to the dispute in question, namely the ExxonMobil link and the ConocoPhilips link. Adding a reference from RC is just WP:UNDUE and WP:RS since they have nothing that makes them credible to comment on the ExxonMobil's influence over NSTA. Their comment is 100% pure speculation. --GoRight 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The RC critique first expresses disapproval about the NSTA decision on the film distribution. This is based in part on a general approval of the film as presenting the science accurately. Second, they note that the NSTA has a paltry sum of good material on the topic. Both of these opinions are particularly qualified by their expertise, which makes them a good RS. Gmb92 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't quote Milloy. I agree he is highly partisan and not a climate scientist but then so is George Monbiot, and we quote him on numerous GW-related articles including TGGWS. Iceage77 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the above discussion he can't be included because some people on this talk page don't like him. That really isn't valid reasons not to include the quote but thats all I can glean from the above discussion. It was stated several times that his quote should be included as part of the political commentary on the film but the editors against including it only give the reason that he is not an expert on global warming. Since the stated reason was given that the quote speaks to the the political commentary on the film but the people opposed to adding the quote only give the reason I mentioned above (not sure how him not being a scientist makes him unreliable for political commentary purposes) I can only assume that they're not really reading the reasoning that is being given and are just against having the quote in the article because of dislike of the quoted person and any information that does not fit there preconceived notions. What else could possibly be assumed when the arguments given not to include the information have nothing to do with the reasons given for including it. Can anyone else honestly come to any other conclusion after reading the exchanges above? Smells like censorship to me (and censorship smells like the cargo hold of a cattle ship crossing the equator at noon.) Elhector 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't include Milloy, because he isn't particularly relevant. When including critique and praise, we get a choice between various different opinions, and have to choose according to weight. In this particular instance Milloy's view is irrelevant (according to weight). On other issues: the critique of AIT is well-represented in accordance with its relative weight, and people like Lindzen are more representative of that view. That aside - i'd rather choose Carter over Gray, since Carter has a bit of relevance (being expert witness on the Dimmock case) whereas Gray has (afaics) no relevance at all. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect:

1. Please read the commentary above rather than making us repeat every argument for you personally.
2. Why do you personally get to decide who and what is relevant. Your position is clear. This is a criticism section, so should not the skeptics decide what is relevant here?
3. Milloy is relevant because he is a recognized expert on the political aspects of the GW debate, and because he is a regular contributor on Fox News. You clearly know who he is, what he stands for, and where he says it. That makes him relevant.
4. You keep claim undue weight but you have never presented any rationale for why his quote would be undue weight.
5. I have proposed to remove one of my additions which (a) requires a subscription to access which was complained about previous by the AGW proponents here, (b) the quote included therefrom is basically just a reiteration of the LD view and is therefore redundant (which actually IS undue weight strictly speaking), and (c) by removing it I presumably address your undue weight complaint.
6. I have made this point numerous times in a variety of ways and you still have not addressed it in any meaningful way.
7. I disagree that the political aspects of the criticism are represented at all. The scientific contributors have managed to completely monopolize this page to the exclusion of the political aspects. Including Milloy would correct this shortcoming.
8. Lindzen is fine as a counterpoint from a scientific perspective, but the criticism of AIT comes from more than just the scientific community.
9. Gray represents a faction within the scientific community that is also not represented here at all, namely those who find the whole issue to be ridiculous. You simply find his commentary uncomfortable but this is not a valid reason for excluding his viewpoint, although there are those who wish to censor his commentary here while seeking to simultaneously heap criticism on him in his BLP using anonymously posted sources.
10. I see no reason that there should be a criteria for inclusion in this article that the commenter has some direct relationship to the film as you suggest. The film is clearly controversial. It affects us all and all of our voices should be included not simple some arbitrarily defined subset that is created to censor the uncomfortable commentary which is part of this debate.

--GoRight 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. With all due respect - i have.
2. No.
3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?
4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight.
5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go.
6. Apparently people do not agree.
7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?
8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight).
9. That Gray "represents a faction" is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this.
10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S.

--Kim D. Petersen 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"1. With all due respect - i have." With all due respect, forgive my confusion on this point because it was not apparent from your original post.

"2. No." Why not?

Because "so should not the skeptics decide what is relevant here?" is ruled out per wikipedia rules. This once more is a misunderstanding of what weight and npov is about. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"3. Recognized expert? By whom? Where?" Yes. Fox News. On their network.

He is a commentator on Fox. That doesn't make one an "expert" - when was the last time he was called before congress to testimony on this? (Carter, Lindzen, Pielke etc. all have been recently). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And is being called before congress what determines if one is an expert? Lots of people testify before congress. Lots of people don't. This is not relevant to whether or not one is an expert. And, for that matter, what is your definition of "expert" here? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"4. Again please read WP:WEIGHT. Milloy's opinion is given more weight here, than his position merits. Neutral point of view does not mean that all opinions are given equal weight." With all due respect, I have.

And again - it doesn't appear so. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On NPOV: Milloy's opinion in this case basically argues that all points of view should be expressed in a political and educational context. In essence, he is advocating WP:NPOV in the NSTA case. It is ironic that you are seeking to use that very same notion against him. Your comment amounts to saying the WP:NPOV is being given too much weight in this article. Is this what you really mean to say? I would add that the high court case demonstrates that AIT is politically biased, thus showing that Milloy's concerns were well founded.

What Milloy argues is Milloys opinion. Its the relevancy of his opinion that is under question (and his reliability). Second - the high court decision clearly has no intersection with Milloy's opinion - since Milloy is arguing the "fraud" side - whereas the court considered "'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate". So that one is a straw-man. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The high court decision found the film to be politically biased, I quote from the currently agreed text with the article: "that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme". The opinion that we are discussing here, of course, is directly related to the pushing of political agendas into school programs. How can that not be overlap? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On WEIGHT: Polls have shown that as much as 15% of the US population don't believe that GW is happening. That is not an insignificant segement of our society. Given that Milloy, in your assessment anyway, is an average person who doesn't believe that GW is real he will serve satisfactorily as a prominent representative of that group. I would argue that the views of this 15% of the US population have not been adequately represented on this page. Ergo, the existing page has the WP:WEIGHT problem, not this single quote.

You may want to learn how to read poll's - because 85-88% "say global warming is probably happening" - does not mean that the rest is in the other camp. Sorry. How many are undecided? And second: if 15% had been a realistic figure (again for the U.S - not internationally - which Misplaced Pages represents) - Then we can firmly conclude that the criticism section is currently leaning too much to the sceptical side. (try calculating up the column space please). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps you should brush up on reading the English language: "as much as 15% of the US population". I clearly acknowledge with this wording that 15% us an upper bound. Regardless the exact percentage is irrelevant. The point is that it is not the 1 or 2% that you imply with "fringe". And who says I don't get to claim the undecideds? Are not the undecideds the very definition of the people who are being skeptical? --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"5. This is not a market place. Every issue is and should be decided on merit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. If you feel that one of your additions has so little merit that it can be bartered - then it should probably go." I only offered to remove AAAS because you repeatedly claimed WP:WEIGHT with no discussion or commentary on this page as is customary, thus leading to a misconception on my part as to the nature of your complaint. I accept your point concerning this not being a market place and hereby rescind my good faith offer of compromise. I will be happy to keep the AAAS quote as I believe that it adds value. The issue still remains regarding the inclusion of Milloy's quote.

Read the above. And you may want to read Stephan's reversion comments - they pretty much sum it up. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"6. Apparently people do not agree." Who? Where? This is the first place you have given any explanation.

Sorry - but being silent doesn't mean that you agree or disagree. But we can conclude from the reversions that people apparently do not agree. Thats quite obvious. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ME: "I have made this point numerous times in a variety of ways and you still have not addressed it in any meaningful way.", YOU: "Apparently people do not agree." My conclusion: you are saying that people don't agree that you have not addressed the point in any meaningful way. My original point was that you were reverting and claiming WP:WEIGHT but never explaining your rationale for the charge here, as is customary. I apologize if I was unclear on this point. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"7. Are you of the opinion that Lindzen's comment is scientific rather than political?" Sure, he is saying that the science presented is biased, an assessment justified by his credentials.

Sorry. But we have an abundance of scientific experts with equal or better credentials than Lindzen, and every scientific organization, who disagree with him. And strangely enough... Every time Lindzen has been on an expert commitee to judge on this issue - its gone the other way.... (IPCC, NAS panel on IPCC etc.). I think i'll chalk Lindzen's comments down to politics (just as i do Hansen's on the other side). --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, you are entitled to your opinion. As am I. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"8. Lindzen is representative of the critique from the minority viewpoint on climate change. (we do not include all the positive critique either). We also have the NYT and the livestock issue (which is btw. represented completely outside of weight)." When you say "minority viewpoint" using Lindzen as an example we are obviously talking about the scientific minority with respect to the alleged scientific consensus on GW. What about the 15% of the general public? Where are they represented?

As said - your 15% is invented. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As responded, no it wasn't, your international argument not withstanding. Even so, I would argue that if we have valid commentary to include here on the "anti-" side by your WP:WEIGHT argument that should be plenty of counter balancing content that you could add to keep the weighting to your liking, should there not? I am not arguing to vastly expand this article but but using WP:WEIGHT to keep valid content out simply because the counterbalancing content is not in the article is silly. Using that logic the majority view in any debate could simply post a "we're right because" statement and keep any minority material out using WP:WEIGHT.

I'll keep my comments to this: No this is not a "contest" on who can bring the most material to this article, representing a specific view. Its a work towards a balanced and well-rounded article. This might be worth remembering. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is a fair point. I agree. --GoRight 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"9. That Gray 'represents a faction' is your own POV. and has to be substantiated if you want to go on with that line. I personally rather doubt this." Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"10. No the film is not "clearly controversial". The subject of the film is controversial in some circles the U.S." Well if you believe that you are here arguing about the subject of the film I would respectfully direct you to Global Warming as a place more suitable for your commentary. The topic of this article is the film and things people have said about it. As such the views of everyone have merit, not just the scientific community.

The general comments about this film have been overwhelmingly positive. If we take all the comments - and strike out the policy comments from both sides - we are still left with overwhelmingly positive comments. The international reception has also been overwhelmingly positive. I fail to see the "controversy" as much other than a loud minority. Otherwise you may want to present this controversy better - preferably on these pages, under a new section. So far i haven't been impressed. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I fail to see the "controversy" as much other than a loud minority." As would anyone on the side of the alleged scientific consensus. --GoRight 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "alleged" about the consensus. Unless you believe that all statements from the scientific academies are frauds. (at least to their members). But at least this particular statement, makes your viewpoint quite clear. --Kim D. Petersen 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's a scientific consensus, I wouldn't necessarily translate that into a political or societal one though. You've been using the "fringe" pointy stick so I was just mildly jabbing back. My actual position is more moderated than you may think given our interactions thus far. I agree with Elhector's comment below for the most part. I do think that these GW pages are skewed towards the GW side of things though, which is all I am trying to address. I understand that you feel the opposite is true. Sign the poll below, please. --GoRight 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For once you and I agree on something :-). There is a "scientific consensus" on AGW. A majority of scientists agree on AGW. I'll give you that one. I think a lot of disagreement is coming from how big the actual minority is. Also, I think some of us (me included) can remember when there has been a long standing scientific consensus on something and then we all find out the scientific consensus was flat out wrong the whole time. This has happened often I think it's very dangerous to forget this. There was a scientific consensus on global cooling way back when. Turned out that was flat out wrong. Now some of the scientists that were part of that consensus are telling us something completely different. You see where some of us have an issue? That's why I don't put much credence in a scientific consensus on anything anymore. I prefer to make my decisions on the actual information in the studies and the data. I may be skeptical of AGW, but that doesn't mean I don't admit it's a possibility. In my mind though at least, from reading countless amounts of studies and looking at the data there are still far to many unanswered questions and way to little data available to endorse the theory. That's the definition of skepticism. Elhector 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elhector - at least get things right. Afaik there has only been one great consensus that has been overturned in the last century - and that was on plate tectonics. (everything else is on a small scale). Global cooling was not a scientific consensus - you should at least read up on what you claim. Einstein didn't turn a consensus - he improved on the current theory and so on. --Kim D. Petersen 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

--GoRight 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that GoRight has done more than a sufficient job above pointing out that this is not the case and is not a valid argument and seems to be more of an opinion of some editors here. Also, I see that the Weight argument is thrown around here a lot as a reason to keep things out of this article. How exactly is "weight" decided? Elhector 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all - i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant. There has been a lot of discussion on whether or not its reliable, which is definitely not the same thing. NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit). Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict .. He is not a scientific expert on the conflict .. what exactly is he? (as others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.). --Kim D. Petersen 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect:

1. "i've yet to see anyone argue for why Milloy's opinion is relevant." See above. In short he is relevant simply by being a recognizable figure within the political side of the debate. How else is it that you even know who he is enough to argue against him so strenuously?
2. "NSTA is relevant (part of the controversy), LD relevant (again part), RC might be relevant (since they give us an outside opinion based upon the scientific merit)." RC is no more relevant by your criteria than is Milloy, as I have said so before. If you criteria is that com mentors be directly associated with the NSTA conflict the RC fails that test undeniably. If you open the criteria up to include RC as a third party observer from a scientific perspective then I claim the right to similarly open up the criteria to also include a third party observer from the political perspective and I choose Milloy for the reasons stated above.
3. "Milloy is relevant because? He is not a political party to the conflict ..." He is most certainly a political party to the conflict in the same sense that RC is a scientific party to the conflict. This article is not only about the underlying science. It is about all aspects of the film as well as all aspects of society who hold views on it.
4. "others have said - if you want a political opinion - cite someone with an expertise in the political side (such as Pielke Jr.)." As has been noted Roger Pielke Jr. has been strenuously argued to NOT even be a skeptic by a prominent member of the pro-AGW contingent here. You are asking me to forego one of the most visible figures on the skeptics side of the issue in favor of someone you consider to be on pro-AGW side of the debate. That clearly skews the perspective which is exactly why I believe he is being suggested. While Roger is a fine source for many things, a representative of the political side of the skeptics he is not. Once again, this article is not only about the scientists and what the scientists think. There is a political aspect to the entire debate which should be reflected here.

--GoRight 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I know Milloy because i've edited these pages (and others) - i doubt if he is much known outside of the U.S. (i certainly had no idea who he was before starting to look into the U.S debate).
2. Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable. In this case Milloy is a random character who's opinion you seem to want to hear - but i've yet to see any reasons for it being relevant. Milloy is not a relevant political commentator - Pielke Jr. might be.
3. No Milloy is not a political side to this. He is a commentator (and someone rather uninteresting from an international point of view). Afaics he represents the U.S fringe opinion. On the other hand RC represents a view from a relevant scientific perspective - they are very much able to assess the scientific parts in the controversy. What expertise does Milloy bring to this?
4. undue weight - we do not just include opinion, because it comes from an "anti-" side. It has to be a notable opinion.

--Kim D. Petersen 03:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note - you seem to be of the opinion that all views should be represented equally. But that particular view is against wikipedia policy. See: WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --Kim D. Petersen 03:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT has been addressed above. Let me address WP:FRINGE here. Steven Milloy is not a publishing climate scientist, nor does he have to be to have his quote regarding AIT included on this article. He is proposing no new GW theory so WP:FRINGE is wholly inapplicable to him in general, as well as this quote specifically as the quote itself has nothing to do with a fringe theory.

"Notability is not inherited. Milloy might be notable - but that doesn't mean that his opinion on various subjects is notable." This is true as a general statement but in this instance it is not applicable. Steven Milloy is a well recognized political commentator who specializes in the area of science, including climate science. It is his specialization in this respect that makes his opinion notable, exactly the same as you would argue RC should be considered notable among scientists because of their specialization in climate science. There is no difference between these two cases, only a difference between the scientific and the political aspects. "What expertise does Milloy bring to this?" a well documented history of involvement in the GW debate as a commentator.

Now let us consider the role of commentator, which I sense you mean to use as a pejorative. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance. Independent observers who provide summary information regarding a given issue have long been a respected part of society. What are news reporters if not commentators to some degree? Editors of news organizations to an even larger degree. Even in the case we are discussing what is the role of RC here? Commentators, nothing more. You wish to have them included because they are the commentators that you trust. You wish to reject Milloy simply because he is a commentator that you disagree with. NPOV would suggest let both sides be heard.

You question of notability caused me to consider how we might go about quantifying the notability of someone like Steven Milloy. The goal being to move from the subjective realm to a more objective one. Since you seem to be arguing from the mindset of the scientific sub-culture, let me try and approach things from that perspective. Correct me if I am wrong here, but a common way to rate the notability of a particular scientific paper, and in turn a particular author, is to track the number of times that the paper, or all of an author's papers, are referenced by others. It occurred to me that we might be able to construct a crude analogue to this technique to help put things in perspective. I conducted a quick experiment (which you can all play along and verify if you wish) by entering the following search terms into Google: "junkscience.com", "realclimate.org", "Steven Milloy", "Steven J Milloy", "Gavin Schmidt", "Michael E Mann", and just for fun "James E Hansen". Here are the results that I obtained:

"junkscience.com" - about 336,000 hits

"realclimate.org" - about 184,000 hits

"Steven Milloy" - about 76,000 hits

"Steven J Milloy" - about 16,000 hits

"Gavin Schmidt" - about 53,400 hits

"Michael E Mann" - about 12,300 hits

"James E Hansen" - about 75,500 hits

See WP:GOOGLE -please.

And if you really have to do such things - at least be more creative:

"Realclimate" - about 817,000 hits.

""James Hansen" +NASA" - about 219,000 hits

And why not use climate as a keyword as well?

"Milloy +climate" - about 97,300 hits (not really much is it?)

"Hansen +climate +NASA" about 555,000 hits. (whoa)

"Mann +climate" about 1,680,000 hits. (even more whoa)

Using Google as an argument (even when invalid) - requires that you actually try not to bias your searches. (the inclusion of the forced NASA for instance makes the Hansen part be realistic - and using Realclimate without .org is rather obvious methinks). --Kim D. Petersen 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand this point. I was not trying to skew the numbers unfairly and I wasn't looking to get into a war about Google searchs. I was simply keeping things simple. The point here is that the order of magnitude (i.e. thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc) is roughly comparable, not off by a factor of 100 or more as your fringe claim suggests it should be. I clearly couched my point with the appropriate and fairly stated caveats, did I not? I never claimed it was proof of anything, just a simple and admittedly crude measure. Just like WP:GOOGLE states, and I was already aware of it.

I quote from the introductory paragraph: "Search engines allow users to examine web pages on the Internet, which in turn allows checking of when and how certain expressions are used. This is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things (including articles)." I am also aware of the caveats listed in the notability section as well. I don't believe my characterization of things was out of line with that section, was it?

Here are a few more just for comparison sake:

JunkScience - about 533,000 hits

JunkScience.com OR JunkScience.org - about 334,000 hits

RealClimate.com OR RealClimate.org - about 188,000 hits

Jones +climate - about 2,150,000 hits (This Jones guy is showing everyone up!)

Smith +climate - about 5,810,000 hits (Well, except for her.)

(The point of the Smith and Jones queries being to point out this these particular searches are more likely to tell you about how common the last name is than about the person in question, but most of you already knew that I am sure. You would probably find a similar distribution in a phone book.)

That is correct - but then noone made such silly queries. The NASA keyword ensured that we really did get only the pages on Jim Hansen (as you can verify by spot-clicking on the result pages with Google (for instance every 10th)). Doing the same for Mann (which isn't a common last name) we get very little false positives - its not surprising that Mann is mentioned so often though. He has been the focus of quite a lot of debate. Putting .org on Realclimate is something most people do not (and realclimate doesn't coincide with any common usage) - unfortunately we can't do the same for Junkscience as that word is used without Milloy in context. --Kim D. Petersen 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your Hansen search. I agree that it should be reasonably accurate since NASA is, as you point out, a reasonable disambiguating feature for him. We should not that this does limit his hits (somewhat) unfairly since there may be pages which discuss him but don't mention NASA. Given the reliability of the association with NASA, however, I would agree that this is more fair to him than using his middle initial.

Mann has no comparable feature that I am aware of, however, which is why I resorted to including his middle initial which I agree is probably too restrictive but it was the easiest option in my first pass. Note that I treated Hansen, Mann, and Milloy equally in this respect by also including the search with Milloy and his middle initial as well. Again, I am not trying to be devious here, nor do I think that we should put a whole lot of weight on this data but still it is better than no data at all when viewed in context as we are doing here. --GoRight 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GoRight +climate - about 990 hits (for comparison to us common folk)

GoRight - about 21,700 hits (this one surprised me, mostly blog entries I assume)

Just FYI I think that your "+" signs are unnecessary since neither "NASA" nor "climate" seem to be common words stripped by Google by default. I included them in my searches only because I wanted to avoid any discussion of whether they really matter. --GoRight 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I am not claiming that these numbers are particularly accurate but I have no reason to believe that they have been particularly skewed relatively speaking either. The inclusion of the middle initial was required for Mann and Hansen because there are a lot of other Michael Manns and James Hansen's out there. So their numbers should be considered lower estimates comparatively speaking. Knock yourself out to see if the "Steven Milloy" query sans the initial contains a lot of false hits. It doesn't appear so to me but I have not done an exhaustive search.

This seems to suggest that Steven Milloy's "Google Notability Factor" is comparable to those of the other persons involved. I see no reason why his opinion should be considered any less significant than the ones already included in the article given the RC reference. --GoRight 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A few more:

"junkscience.com" "climate change" - 20,500

"National Enquirer " "climate change" - 32,800

"steven milloy" "climate change" - 18,400

"michael moore" "climate change" - 356,000

"paris hilton" "climate change" - 811,000

Notable? Hardly. Reliable? Certainly not. Of course, the Google method is a lousy way to approach this issue. Milloy has a fringe unqualified view that is constantly refuted in scientific circles (and outside for that matter). He's about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Gmb92 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that it is going to be necessary to put together a separate section to discuss how to interpret these results as it may not be obvious to most readers. In the case of the Michael Moore and Paris Hilton searches what you are seeing is a "celebrity" effect. For example, the Paris Hilton query returns what amounts to the intersection between the set of pages which contain the exact phrase "Paris Hilton' and the exact phrase 'climate change'. Both of these terms are likely to have a large number of hits due to (a) the celebrity status of Paris Hilton (something not relevant in the case of Steven Milloy or Gavin Schmidt, for example), and (b) advertising for all things related to "climate change" and the level of discussion on this issue in all segments of society. Thus introducing either of these terms into the search space artificially introduces an increased number of "false hits" in the sense of returning pages that we consider erroneous. This is why I did not introduce this type of term into my original queries as it serves no useful purpose in this case other than to obscure the results we are actually after. A few more queries to substantiate this point:

about 18,100,000 for "Paris Hilton"

about 98,500,000 for "climate change"

The intersection of "Paris Hilton" and "climate change" is large simply because both sets are large in comparison to the order of magnitude seen in the searches already discussed. Many of these hits will be due to sites discussing Paris Hilton that have ads for some "Climate Change" related products, services, or other sites. It will also contain a large number of blog or forum hits wherein one thread is discussing Paris Hilton and another happens to mention Climate Change. These are clearly recognizable and understood biases that we should properly take into account when we interpret these results.

If we compare the order of magnitude of the "Paris Hilton" count (roughly 20,000,000) to the order of magnitude of the "Gavin Schmidt" count (roughly 50,000) it suggests that Paris Hilton is roughly (20,000,000 / 50,000) = 400 times more talked about than Gavin Schmidt. We then have to ask, is that result surprising? I would argue no, it isn't. All this means is that Paris Hilton's celebrity status is likely a factor in the results we are observing and therefore we should consider those results suspect for our purposes. None of this casts doubt on the validity of the previously mentioned results, it only demonstrates the need to be cognizant of potential and likely sources of bias such as celebrity status. So the question in this context is, to what extent do our previous searches suffer from a similar bias? I would argue that they don't.

I will try to add a section later today or tomorrow. --GoRight 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL: I have an exchange with MastCell on my user page related to my behavior here and elsewhere. Feel free to weigh in if you are so inclined. --GoRight 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to drive this to a bottom line decision, if possible. The Steven Milloy quote has met all of the wikipedia criteria for being allowed in as far as I can tell. The discussion above covers the details thereof. The text itself should not be considered all that controversial as it actually endorses the showing of AIT in schools (albeit along with other counter balancing presentations) which is exactly what the film's producers wanted in the first place.

Who still objects to including it and why?

--GoRight 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I still object. I imagine others who have commented recently still do too. Several reasons have been described above. Milloy is not a reliable source. Gmb92 07:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, GR asserts that Milloy is a recognised expert on the politics. Again and again, people point out that this isn't true. And so we continue. Dull William M. Connolley 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The policies WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are being cited as the reason to not include this. It has been pointed out already quite thoroughly that these policies are being misapplied here. These policies are being used in Wikilawyering in order to keep the info out. Enforcing these policies in the way they are being used here is a detriment to the article and Misplaced Pages in general and should therefore be set aside in this situation per WP:IGNORE. Especially when the criteria being applied here to Milloy is not being applied equally to others in the article. No Misplaced Pages policy is to be used to block good and useful information from being included in an article, especially when said information is well and reliably sourced, comes from a person that is more then qualified to comment on the issue at hand, and is relevant to the topics discussed in the article. GoRight's arguments above have more then demonstrated this. Elhector 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven Milloy is a crank and a paid shill, despite the trouble you and GoRight seem to accepting this. He doesn't belong in the article. The fact that others have - correctly - kept him out out of this article per our prohibition on fringe theories and crackpottery is not wikilawyering. Raul654 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that terms like "crank and a paid shill" are not in line with having a civil dialog. --GoRight 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy is a mainstream commentator for Fox News. There is no evidence for the assertion that he is a fringe theorist. Iceage77 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And as such "commentator" he has as little relevance here, as Bill Geist or Ben Stein. And since there is very little backing (read: nothing) to propose that Milloy has more than a minority view on things - he would be presented outside of weight. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the published opinion of a political commentator be relevant in a political matter? Being in the "minority view" doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned, especially in the context of a criticism section. And please show me some "backing" to propose that Milloy represents a minority view at all (his view on showing AIT in schools, not his view on AGW in general). Is there some survey that says most people or most political commentators support showing AIT in schools without discussing opposing views? Oren0 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposal of showing a debunked deceptive propaganda piece like GGWS to children is more appalling than preferring not to show AIT, which, aside from a few details that deviate from the mainstream, is broadly an accurate representation of the science. Milloy represents a fringe view. Even minority views need to adhere to WP:UNDUE. Minority views also must be reliable. Gmb92 06:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Milloy also comments specifically on science issues. And of course we now have a whole section devoted to one fringe view (PETA). Iceage77 20:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The PETA section is presented totally out of weight. And i agree that that one is fringe. But discuss that in another section - please. I for one, will vote for deletion, or at least a drastical reduction to a simple mention. --Kim D. Petersen 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well the "crank and a paid shill" argument is getting old. That seems to be default argument against including anything in this article once all other arguments against something have been put to rest. What is your definition of "crank and paid shill"? One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" and thats why the argument doesn't hold water. That is a ad hominem attack and as such has no meaning or bearing on this debate. Also I would like to point out that there is a large difference between an minority view and a finge view and I believe you fail to see the difference between the two. In respect to AGW for example the belief against it is not a fringe belief, it's a minority belief. The Milloy comment does not deal with AGW specifically though, all it argues is that all points of views should be represented. The idea of representing all POVs in education is not a fringe belief at all. Elhector 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He's a crank because he's been wrong about basically everything he's ever said. He's a paid shill because he takes money from large corporations like ExxonMobile and R.J. Reynolds (with an interest in muddying the scientific debate) and then proceeds to advocate positions in the interests of those paying him.

One could make the argument that anyone is a "crank and paid shill" - no, one could not. Most experts (including all of the reputable ones) do not take many from large corporations like Exxon and then advocate their position. And reputable experts are not dead wrong every time they say something.

And if (as you say) excluding people who take money from Exxon and are wrong all the time excludes all of the contrarians, then I suppose that says something very fundmenetal about the contarian arguments being presented (and the people presenting them). Raul654 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because no one on the pro-AGW side has a financial interest in it, right? There's no such thing as needing research grants, an environmental lobby, etc. And you'll have to explain to us how an opinion about showing a movie in schools could be wrong. Oren0 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, you honestly believe that no private citizen or private company has ever given money to a group who performed a study that concluded in a pro-AGW opinion or stance? Elhector 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the old canard about the secret underground pro-global warming conspiracy among scientists, environmentalists, and the ever-powerful solar power industry to get money. Raul654 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes - lets drop activists and lobbyists from the pro-AGW side as well. Oh... wait ... there are none? (Nb: if you can substantiate that research grants only get payed to say specific things - then you "might" have had a pointe - but then they don't). We could of course drop LD and the NSTA issue completely - because i see your point LD is an activist - so she shouldn't be mentioned.... but that would make the whole issue dissappear ;-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we do that then the whole article has to disappear because Al Gore himself is an activist :-P (This was meant as a joke to lighten things up, not trying to start an argument.) Elhector 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's some massive conspiracy, but if you don't think there's serious money in the environmental industry you're kidding yourself. All I'm pointing out is that money cuts both ways and saying someone should be excluded because they supposedly are being paid by big oil isn't an argument that holds any water in regards to any WP policy I'm aware of. Every time anyone asks why Milloy's political opinion on a political matter is supposedly not relevant, the only response is name-calling. I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this, maybe it's time for WP:RFC? Oren0 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly - once there is hard pressure to include radical environmental activists, as a realistic (and non-fringe) side in this issue - you can count on me being on the stockade with you. But look at it realistically please. Milloy is a radical "anti-" side - the other radical side is not represented. (And shouldn't be). --Kim D. Petersen 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Radical? In what way? Milloy provides commentary on the very same peer reviewed articles that you rely on. His commentary is backed up using scientific papers considered legitimate research within the scientific community. So if that's radical, then the is not represented should be replaced with IPCC assessments.

Steven Milloy and being WP:FRINGE

The argument against including Milloy's quote, as I understand it, can be summarized as "Steven Milloy's opinions are WP:FRINGE and as such they are WP:UNDUE."

On the issue of being WP:FRINGE I have pointed out that (a) Milloy is not presenting his own alternative theory so WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case, (b) based on polling data his views can be considered consistent with as much as (i.e. an upper bound) 15% of the US population (assuming that you accept that anyone who is undecided is being "skeptical"), and (c) that his commentary is basically just responding to the same peer-reviewed papers that are relied upon by the IPCC and others who believe that AGW is real in order to question the conclusions being reached when those papers are taken in aggregate.

While I have seen lots of charges of his being WP:FRINGE I have seen very little counter evidence of this fact. Please present a case for how Steven Milloy's opinions and statements should be considered . Specifically, please identify the fringe scientific theory that he is supposedly advocating as well as substantiate that this theory (or theories) are NOT also being advanced by scientific papers being published in peer reviewed journals.

So, for example, one such alternative theory is that Solar Forcing is the source of the current warming trend. I would argue that (a) legitimate scientific papers have been published on this topic, and (b) there are recognized experts who are still advocating this position. Therefore I would argue that this is NOT an example of a WP:FRINGE theory. Other similar examples will apply.

--GoRight 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the U.S. population (including a plurality of Harvard graduates) believe that seasons are caused by Earth being closer to the sun during summertime. But that would be a decidedly WP:FRINGE view in the context of science, and it's Milloy's commentary on the science that we're discussing here. Raymond Arritt 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt your example is accurate. Can you substantiate it? Even so, it says nothing about nor provides any direct commentary on the actual assertions or theories being promoted by Steven Milloy. As you say, it is Steven Milloy's commentary on science that we're discussing, not that of the US population or Harvard graduates. Do you have some evidence that Steven Milloy believes that the seasons occur for the reason you have stated? That would be relevant here. --GoRight 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're dodging and weaving. Previously you gave an example of something accepted by "15% of the US population", and now you're saying that views of the US population aren't relevant as an example. Make up your mind. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The 15% demonstrates that a significant percentage are at least skeptical on AGW. Steven Milloy can be argued to be expressing the basis for their skepticism on AGW. This does not imply that he expresses every single skeptical argument out there, nor does it imply that he expresses any unrelated views such as the one that you raise. What the US population does or does not believe regarding the changing of the seasons is irrelevant to what Steven Milloy is saying about AGW, or the changing of the seasons for that matter.

Your direct charge is that Steven Milloy is expressing WP:FRINGE theories. OK, so what are those theories and where is he expressing them so that we can verify the accuracy of your claim? --GoRight 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This page has plenty for you to choose from. The specious crap about saturation of radiation bands is especially entertaining. Raymond Arritt 17:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one making the claim. You are. Choose as you wish. I suppose a clarification is in order here. For Milloy to be WP:FRINGE (overall) the vast majority of what he expresses has to be WP:FRINGE not just cherry picked bits and pieces. Even then, we can still look at his individual quotes on individual theories independently. So even if you can find something that is considered WP:FRINGE that does not disqualify any commentary that he makes relative to alternative theories such as the Solar Forcing example. I would agree that cherry picked examples where the underlying references could be argued to be WP:FRINGE should not be quoted. I assume that you are not suggesting that even the most renowned climate scientists have never ever made a mistake, such as Mann and his original stats for the hockey stick? --GoRight 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went through the page you provided and pulled out any references to third party materials. In this article he is providing commentary about and related to the following third party sources:

1. http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/817.html
2. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
3. http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/control_tseries.pdf
4. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
5. Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
6. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm
7. http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif
8. http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
9. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
10. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltdayac7998_5.2
11. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.00N.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
12. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html
13. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
14. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/Hansen_etal_1.html
15. http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=4697
16. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/updates1.shtml
17. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31073
18. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
19. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#means
20. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtem?dat=BLEND&mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1880&eye1=2005&graph=Lineplot&mon2=0&eye2=0&bye2=0&mon3=0&ye=0&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&param=Temperature&non=0&klu=1&proce=80&puzo=0&nzi=99&ts=6&sbeX=-180.0&sbeY=90.0&senX=180.0&senY=-90.0
21. http://eande.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/LAIsland/
22. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
23. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm

Which of these materials that he is discussing would be considered WP:FRINGE within the wider scientific community? --GoRight 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I can cite non-fringe sources for fringe opinions - this is, in fact, a favourite game among many pseudo-scientists. Sources rarely defend themselves against misuse. Thus, your argument is bogus. --Stephan Schulz 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So please highlight where he is misquoting these sources and how those misquotes constitute being WP:FRINGE. Should I assume from your statement that you concede that these sources are not WP:FRINGE? --GoRight 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only commented on the quality of your argument, not the quality of your assumptions so far. I'm going to dinner now ;-). --Stephan Schulz 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) really say that WV is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect - methinks not. But JS claims it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but speculation is not proof. The burden of proof rests with you. If you think that he is so stupid as to bald face lie about something like that then prove it. --GoRight 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Since i'm answering your speculation. I don't have anything to prove. But our resident climate scientist Arritt, has already told you of at least one bald "lie" on that particular page. There are several others. Whether or not these are referenced - or just Milloys invention - is rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen 23:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to go on... This particular page is a rather good example of why people here consider Milloy an unreliable source for information on climate change. (Hint: the 95% claim is 100% wrong. And shows one of two things, either Milloy is deliberately lying or he is incompetant to comment on the scientific merit of the 3 movies) --Kim D. Petersen 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but your response continues to be long on bluster and short on evidence to prove your charge. Your saying that something is so does not make it so. If the research he quotes is WP:FRINGE, make your case. If he is misquoting the research, show where and demonstrate how that makes his commentary WP:FRINGE. This should be a simple matter if he is as WP:FRINGE as you make him out to be, correct? --GoRight 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You could of course try to pick up a book on radiative transfer, check out Misplaced Pages's pages on Greenhouse gases, or perhaps read Ramanathan&Coakley or even try this Google search or you might even visit this or this - or you can of course check the IPCC report - or even check realclimate or another realclimate one.... But then i guess not. --Kim D. Petersen 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Given your attempts thus far I can understand why you might want me to make your case for you, but with all due respect that is your job. Please explain how any of these sources demonstrate either that Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) is itself a WP:FRINGE theory, or that Steven Milloy misquoted Friedenreich&Ramaswamy(1993) in such a way as to create a WP:FRINGE theory. That is the task before you if you wish to prove your claim that Milloy is WP:FRINGE (on this single point).

Lets assume for a moment that F&R are inaccurate and cite the 95% number (unfortunatly its not available online - i'd hoped Raymond might have had it in easy access) - something which is entirely out-of-accord with the rest of the literature. Then we are still left with Milloy citing something that he either knows is wrong - he is deliberately citing a fringe - or he is simply incompetent. In all cases - the reliability of Milloy on this subject receives a substantial hit.

And No - its not my "task" to demonstrate that F&R are fringe. You might prove me wrong - by citing a scientific paper that also goes with the 95% number. Otherwise i've shown enough data, to verify that 80-85% (with clouds) is the recognized total contribution. The ball is actually in your court. --Kim D. Petersen 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things operate in your part of the world, but in my part of the world, and more importantly here on wikipedia, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. You are the one that asserts Milloy is WP:FRINGE, not me. Ergo, it IS your task to substantiate your claim or, just like any posting on wikipedia, it is removed from consideration. If the 95% number was actually stated in F&R but has subsequently been shown to be in error that does not demonstrate that F&R was WP:FRINGE in the first place nor that Steven Milloy is WP:FRINGE simply because he referenced it. Michael Mann once published a famous paper based on faulty statistics, does that mean that I get to claim that Michael Mann is WP:FRINGE? Does this imply that Michael Mann has demonstrated that he is incompetent to comment on climate science? And more to the point, does that allow me to claim that Michael Mann was deliberately lying when he published the paper? --GoRight 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Try going backwards and reading what has been written. Where exactly is it claimed that F&R are fringe? Its very simple: the 95% claim is wrong. I've shown you enough evidence. Either Milloy knows (and is deceiving) or he is incompetent. --Kim D. Petersen 18:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The most that you can logically claim based on the evidence you have presented is that Milloy is guilty of referencing an out of date figure from a source that you don't claim is WP:FRINGE. You have NOT demonstrated deliberate intent to deceive on his part which would be required to support a charge of his being WP:FRINGE and not WP:RS. You have merely speculated on his intent based on nothing but your personal dislike of the man. You don't seem to be aware that merely repeating your speculations, ad infinitum, does not somehow transform them into actual evidence. Please present some actual evidence of his intent to use this 95% figure to intentionally mislead people, as opposed to being a simple mistake. You may wish to review Occam's razor in this regard. Also, please provide some actual evidence that his quoting the 95% figure consitutes making his position WP:FRINGE. Thus far I have seen none. Even if this is a valid example of his making a mistake with respect to one reference out of 23, that hardly constitutes WP:FRINGE or a violation of WP:RS.

In the case of Mann its very simple: his original statistics were wrong. You are aware that Edward Wegman demonstrated this I am sure. Wegman's Testimony. Either Mann knew (and was deceiving) or he was incompetent. Do you agree? --GoRight 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some background: Wegman, a statistician, is hired by two ideological skeptic Congressmen (at least one with very strong oil ties) to "validate" a temperature reconstruction. Gee, I wonder how that might turn out. The results of course were not published in any peer-reviewed journal. As this on the whole Milloy discussion demonstrates, on one minority side we have a lot of loud politics with little science. On the other side we have a little politics with a lot of science. Gmb92 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your collective tenacity at continuing to dig your hole deeper on this point is impressive. Let us consider the remaining background which you have left out. First, we have this regarding the Wegman panel:

"Our panel is composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University). This Ad Hoc Panel has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report."

The point being that it was composed of more than just Edward Wegman AND they conducted the work pro bono with no financial interest in the outcome (i.e. they were NOT "hired" by anyone). You wouldn't be trying to intentionally deceive anyone here, would you? Because if you are that would sort of make YOU not WP:RS, right?

If you are concerned about the criticism not being peer reviewed then let us also mention the following from his testimony:

"The critiques have been made by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published in Energy and Environment in 2003 and in Energy and Environment and in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. We refer to these as MM03, MM05a, and MM05b respectively."

Of these, I assume that at least the Geophysical Research Letters is a peer reviewed journal, or am I mistaken? In either event this is the same journal that published one of Mann's own papers so on this point the two sides appear to have been of a comparable level of review. I am confident that you must have been aware of the M&M references beforehand, but since they were directly mentioned in the testimony that I referenced I just can't imagine how you might have forgotten. --GoRight 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are talking around the issue (what the hell does Wegman/Mann have to do with this?).

The 95% claim is wrong. (as demonstrated) Even if the one paper (from 1993) "might" say so (i still doubt it). Any research on the subject would have found that it was wrong. This claim is central to M's description of WV vs. CO2. So we are left with two conclusions - both of which make Milloy unreliable as a source:

• He is unaware that its wrong (making him incompetent).
• He is aware that its wrong (making him a fraud).

--Kim D. Petersen 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Aparantly I am being too subtle here, so let me be more direct. I am using the Wegman/Mann example to apply your exact same logic to someone you no doubt agree with or admire. My purpose is two fold. I would hope this this would illustrate for you the fallacy in your argument, as well as demonstrate to you and everyone else the level of your personal bias against Steven Milloy. By constructing this parallel I put you in a position whereby you either have to (a) agree that Michael Mann was being intentionally deceptive with his original statistics (or was incompetent), (b) retract your argument relative to Steve Milloy, or (c) demonstrate to the world that you are a biased hypocrit (since you would apply the same argument differently to Steven Milloy whom you dislike than you would to Michael Mann whom you presumably like). The choice of which is up to you. (If I were in your position I would choose option "b" but you can decide for yourself.) Does that clear things up for you?

Oh, and I will be happy to oblige you in this every chance you give me the opportunity, so let's try again:

Mann's original statistics were wrong. (as demonstrated) Even if Mann's first papers on the "Hockey Stick Graph" were full of bogus statistics, any research on the subject would have shown that they were wrong. These statistics were central to M's description of the "Hockey Stick Graph". So we are left with two conclusions - both of which make Mann unreliable as a source:

• He was unaware that his statistics were wrong (making him incompetent).
• He was aware that his statistics were wrong (making him a fraud).

You obviously believe that your "logic" applies in the case of Steven Milloy. Do you also agree that it applies in the case of Michael Mann? --GoRight 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion on Wegman/Mann. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument.

Confront the issue - instead of diverting attention, please. --Kim D. Petersen 09:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I am using your argument against you in order to confront the issue. You, on the other hand, are running away from your own argument by refusing to comment on the Wegman/Mann parallel. As such it is clear that you have opted for option (c) above as I suspected you would. Everyone clearly sees this is the case by virtue of your evasion on Mann while still asserting the same logic for Milloy.

The problem is that you are trying to divert the issue, by introducing a completely different discussion - with its own pro/contra arguments. --Kim D. Petersen 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I have already directly confronted your issue above by demonstrating that your argument is essentially an example of a False dilemma fallacy. Another subtlety that appears to have escaped your understanding. In other words, your two choices are not the only two choices that exist. It may simply be that he made an honest mistake. And given that his mistake is, in effect, quoting a single out of date figure from a single reference out of 23 in the article in question when this article is only one among hundreds of others I hardly think that it justifies a charge of incompetence. But if it does then your same argument applies to Michael Mann as well. They are essentially the same in this regard (i.e. they each made a mistake, whoopy). You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "making a single mistake proves total incompetence" which, of course, is completely false on its face. --GoRight 09:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But unfortunately - you argumentation that Milloy is "excused" is not based upon the merits of the case - but by introduction of a completely different discussion. In effect a strawman argument.

The facts here are very simple: If Milloy has any knowledge of the subject at hand - then he knows that the 95% figure is completely (and demonstratably) wrong. So we are left with something very simple - and something which you haven't addressed at all. Did Milloy use the 95% figure out of ignorance? Again: If he is knowledgeable about the subject, then he would know its wrong. Or is it the case that he is trying to deliberately mislead? In both cases, we come to the conclusion that Milloy is unreliable on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if all of these sources prove undeniably that the 95% number is inaccurate that doesn't make your case that Milloy has been inaccurate in his cites or his repesentation thereof in such a way as to be WP:FRINGE. Also note that the Misplaced Pages article is, by definition, not WP:RS, and I question the RC links as well since they are both anonymous (just for the record). --GoRight 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No in that case we can substantiate that Milloy is either deliberately misleading - or has no clue about what he is doing. --Kim D. Petersen 03:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, this is the equivalent of my claiming that Micahel Mann publishing a paper based on faulty statistics substantiates that he was either being deliberately misleading - or has no clue about what he was doing. Personally I don't make such a claim, but presumably you would be fine with it?

Just to keep this entire discussion in perspective I would remind everyone that we are discussing a single reference out of 23 cited in this article alone which is only a single article out of hundreds. If your entire case for Steven Milloy being WP:FRINGE rests on the fact that in one article he quoted an out of date (not WP:FRINGE) figure of 95% instead of the now accepted 80-85% I would have to say that is a rather weak case to prove your point, especially given the fact that even if that scenario were true it still doesn't prove that Steven Milloy is WP:FRINGE. --GoRight 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that anyone reading the article by Milloy will notice that this in fact is a central claim. (i didn't choose that one randomly :-). Most other completely wrong information is not referenced at all, but this one is. --Kim D. Petersen 07:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably more than 15% believe 9/11 was an inside job. Does that mean we should give purveyors of this myth equal or even minority weight? Should we include Rosie O'Donnell's comments on the so-called "political aspects" of the issue, as in a hypothetical opinion that schools should show "counter-balancing" views on 9/11, especially when experts familiar with the details of the issue have broadly refuted the claims? Gmb92 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We are seeking to substantiate the accusation that Milloy is WP:FRINGE. This is not relevant to that discussion. --GoRight 17:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can argue that WP:FRINGE applies here. "In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." I don't think that any of us would deny that GW skepticism fits this definition. But again, we are not debating whether to include Milloy's scientific opinion here; rather, we are debating whether to include his opinion about showing a movie in schools. I would argue again that being opposed to that isn't WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:FRINGE even apply as we're not discussing a scientific theory. I'm yet to see any reason WP:UNDUE applies either. Do we have some data to indicate that opposing the showing of AIT in schools is even a minority view at all? Oren0 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --GoRight 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Milloy quote

I think we have reached the point where further internal discussion is futile. I would like to assess the sense of the community as to their positions on this issue, so I propose the interested parties (including any lurkers) weigh in on the subject below by simply signing the appropriate section:

Steven Milloy, publisher of the website junkscience.com, noted on Fox News that "The NSTA probably made the correct decision at the time simply because it would be egregiously biased to present just one particular viewpoint about a controversy as heated and important as global warming. Now that the counter-viewpoints are available, however, schools ought to show their students An Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle and the Intelligence Squared debate."

All in favor of including the above quote in this article please sign below:

--GoRight 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

--Elhector 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

--Oren0 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude it and do not understand any opposition to it. --Blue Tie 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

--Iceage77 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All opposed to including the above quote in this article please sign below:

All those who think votes like this are fundamentally bogus please sign below:

Raymond Arritt 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen 04:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Gmb92 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's let this set a couple of days to give people a chance to weigh in. Depending on the outcome we can decide whether to move into mediation or not.

UPDATE: Good idea to make this a separate section. Thanks, whomever. I want to clarify my intent here. Obviously any vote on wikipedia is non-binding. I only want to determine the relative numbers on each side. My reason is that if it was just me, for example, on the include it side I would just drop it as mediation would be silly under those circumstances. If the numbers are more even then I would argue that we may actually be at a legitimate impasse and perhaps mediation might help. --GoRight 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the creation of the third section that says "All those who think votes like this are fundamentally bogus please sign below:" really surprises me. Very un-wiki like. I know you guys keep a close watch on this article because I've had content disputes here before but this has gotten really sad now. It speaks much about you're attitudes towards Misplaced Pages, your belief that you guys own this article, and your inability to remain unbiased. GoRight is simply trying to improve this article and this was the next logical step in the debate. I think with attitudes like this mediation is the only way to get around this now... Elhector 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but this is not the next logical step. The next logical step would be to assess the above discussion, and try to see where opinions lie. And that isn't very difficult. I count a majority that thinks Milloy shouldn't be included - and a fairly active minority who wants to. What is this vote going to change? (and that is why its a rather bogus thing to do). --Kim D. Petersen 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is unwikilike to be opposed to votes. I also think it is very wikilike to actually have votes. wikipedia is not consistent. Votes are a way to assess positions, but they should not decide the issue. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elh needs to get out more and read WP:VOTE William M. Connolley 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:VOTE as well as all the other guidelines and I'm very familiar with them. I strongly believe in Misplaced Pages and it's mission and as such I will often tend to ignore or bend guidelines if I feel they are being used in a harmful way or at a detriment to the project and community. This vote was not to actually decide on the change but just to see where we stand and if mediation is necessary or even worth it. It was a good faith effort on GoRight's part to try and find away around this impasse and I feel the way this was handled as far as adding that 3rd section was very uncivil, in poor taste, and has done nothing to help the situation. Elhector 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But then noone is saying that the vote wasn't set up in good faith. We're just saying that votes like these are bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have stated my reasons in the UPDATE above. They seem straight forward enough. There is no mystery here. I didn't label this a vote, someone else did. I don't object to calling it a vote but if that bothers you somehow think of it merely as my asking people to declare which side they are on. It is not a true vote because it has no binding power. I just want to have a nice clear delineation of who's where without having to wade through the comments. --GoRight 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Connolley needs to cease personal insults. --Blue Tie 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Singer quote

Why is Fred Singer quoted here, out of all those that appeared in TGGWS? Raymond Arritt 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply trimmed the section to remove redundant details from the TGGWS page using the same logic being employed to revert my edits on the Singer page relative to Monbiot and his BLP.

If the information removed is reverted then I plan to copy the complete list of TGGWS contributors to this section to offset the POV pushing. This section is clearly contained within the criticism section of the page. The commentary I removed was not consistent with being in a criticism section. --GoRight 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT, threats like that serve no purpose and may result in a block. Vsmith 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What threat? I am simply indicating that if the critics of TGGWS are to be referenced here so should the supporters to KEEP things neutral. This comment is directly in agreement with WP:POINT as far as I can tell. Let me make the relevant points more clear:

1. I removed redundant information from the article using the same reasoning that was used to remove information on Singer's page.
2. I consider the current the redundant information to be POV pushing.
3. If people insist that the critics of TGGWS be listed here then I think we should also copy the full list of TGGWS supporters here as well to AVOID the POV pushing bias.

Does that make it more clear to you?

--GoRight 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your comments make the situation clearer, but probably not in the way that you intended. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the quotes from this film's critics have been systematically removed from the article while the text that was probably at one time counterbalancing those critics still remains. The result is a skewed perspective of TGGWS's legitimacy. I wish to restore the balance on that point. I am happy to include the critics of TGGWS here but then I think that we should also list the names of those that appear in the film for balance. --GoRight 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need to mention any more than the fact that it's a film with a contrary take on the subject? If we're going to go into details like the contention that temperature is forcing CO2 in present-day climate (which we know is absolutely, unquestionably wrong because of isotopic analysis, etc.) then we have to note that which details are correct and which are bunk. Otherwise we mislead the reader, which you surely wouldn't want to do -- would you? Raymond Arritt 03:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mislead the reader? Of course not. As I said that is what I am trying to avoid here.

The film makes several points all of which are fully discussed in the TGGWS article along with their critics responses. Of all of the points made in the film this one (the fact that the CO2 lags the temperature in the ice cores) is not actually in dispute, is it? I think your side accepts this as a valid scientific point, correct? I just think it makes sense to somehow summarize here the most sound or significant point made in the film. I know that you don't think that this is the current relationship in the current warming period though. I'll add a comment that the results presented in the film are widely disputed and the criticisms are discussed in detail in the TGGWS page. Would that satisfy your concerns?

It is moot for now as Raul654 just conducted a drive by revert. --GoRight 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I reverted Raul654's revert and made the change I proposed above. Raul654 then conducted another drive-by revert (i.e. a full revert without any mention or discussion here) so I will leave it for now. Does the proposed addition satisfy your concerns? --GoRight 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I don't know what you mean. This seems to be an argument about expertise. The pro-AGW people on this talk page and others seem to be operating under the assumption that only scientists are qualified to discuss any aspect of global warming related issues. Remember that this is a page about a movie, not about science. While the folks at RC are qualified to discuss the science of AGW (and thus the science of this movie), I don't see why they're any more qualified to judge the politics of this movie or its distribution in schools than lots of other people (Milloy for one) are. Oren0 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree. --GoRight 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Stream

Did Gore really say that reduced THC would "halt" the Gulf Stream? That's wrong -- though its intensity would be reduced, the Gulf Stream will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates and the North Atlantic is unfrozen. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I'd think I'd remember if he said something that bad. What were his exact words? Raymond Arritt 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was reference to a possible shutdown of thermohaline circulation, but don't remember the exact reference in the film being to shut the Gulf stream down. Vsmith 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you ask? --GoRight 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I want the article to be accurate. If he didn't say "halt", we shouldn't say he did. Conversely, if he really did say "halt," that's motivation to include material that criticizes him saying so (as well he should be). Raymond Arritt 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where it is referenced. Given the stated cause and effect I would agree that this has to be a typo of some sort. I think Vsmith is correct about what the proper reference should be. Although, if Gore really DID say Gulf Stream be sure to let me know! That could be a handy quote for elsewhere. --GoRight 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand he might actually have said it. I haven't followed the details but a quick Google search turned up a site that you won't like which had this related commentary: Gulf Stream Will Not Shut Down, Science Magazines Admit.

"Since 1998, global warming alarmists have claimed rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheet could shut down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt, dominated by the Gulf Stream, and thus shut off the supply of warm water and air that keeps northern Europe extremely mild for its high latitude.

The resulting advance of ice sheets across Europe, alarmists argued, would quickly spread throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and plunge the Earth into an already overdue ice age."

So maybe he was refering to something related to that? I'm not suggesting that you rely on this or anything, just trying to give you additional good faith info for your search.

Here's a source that will be more to your liking: Ocean changes 'will cool Europe'. It does discuss the Gulf Stream so if Gore did mention it he was probably referring to this.

--GoRight 06:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice but it's not relevant to my question -- which is, what did Gore actually say? It would be good if there were an actual transcript available. Raymond Arritt 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always buy a DVD off of him, after all that's why he made them ... oh, and that's also why you probably won't find a transcript. Maybe you should buy his book too.  :-) I can't help you because, needless to say, I don't own either of them. --GoRight 07:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"At the end of the last ice age as the Vlad glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed in North America. The Great Lakes are the remnants of that huge lake. An ice dam on the eastern border formed, and one day it broke. All that fresh water came rushing out, ripping open the St. Lawrence, there. It diluted the salty dense cold water, made it fresher and lighter so it stopped sinking. And that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped, and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. The change from conditions we have here today to an ice age took place in perhaps as little as 10 years time. That is a sudden jump. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because the glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah, (pointing at Greenland). We’ll come back to that one." Source. Iceage77 11:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a reasonably good Meteorology 101 summary of current views on the Younger Dryas (one can quibble over details; e.g., recent evidence is that drainage was mostly to the north rather than through the St. Lawrence). Back to the original point, he doesn't say the Gulf Stream was halted so we shouldn't misreport him. I'll reword the text accordingly. Raymond Arritt 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would eliminate that reference to Gulf Stream. It is not really spurious as you claim. If you follow the reference provided by Iceage77 here is the paragraph proceeding the one he quoted:

"One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the Earth’s rotation. Isn’t it interesting that the whole ocean current system is all linked together in this loop. They call it the ocean conveyor. The red are the warm surface current, the Gulf Stream is the best known of them. The blue represents the cold currents running in the opposite direction. We don’t see them at all because they run along the bottom of the ocean. Up in the North Atlantic, after that heat is pulled out, what’s left behind is colder water and saltier water, because salt doesn’t go anywhere. That makes it denser and heavier. That cold, dense heavy water sinks at a rate of 5 billion gallons per second. That pulls that current back south."

I guess I don't have a major problem with your change, but the original text WAS accurate, IMHO. If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream which he specifically mentions, right? I defer to your judgment on this point. --GoRight 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"If you shut down the ocean conveyor you presumably shut down the Gulf Stream..." Nope. The Gulf Stream is primarily wind-driven and will exist in some form as long as the Earth rotates, the North Atlantic ocean is liquid, and the continents stay roughly in their current positions. In the popular imagination the Gulf Stream is the whole current system from the Gulf of Mexico to Scandinavia, but that's wrong. The North Atlantic Drift is largely a thermohaline circulation and would be affected by freshening of the North Atlantic. Gore's mention of the Gulf Stream is a little confusing, but he doesn't specifically say the Gulf Stream itself would shut down. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --GoRight 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you might be interested to know that there's an unofficial transcript of AIT at http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm . -- ChrisO 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

This word should not be in the opening sentence to describe the film, and used very carefully elsewhere. It should not be necessary to tell people it's controversial, rather, if it is indeed controversial, then it should be shown that it is controversial in the article, and the lead. The same for the "counter" film - "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - I have recently removed the word from the opening sentences of both these articles. --Merbabu 07:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether the word is in or out, but it should certainly be applied consistently between the two films. Each side considers the other's to be "controversial". --GoRight 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither "side" should have the word (or any article in the manner presented in both), but articles should not be interdependent. Creating a bad edit in one article doesn't mean we should repeat in another. That's just stupid. Sorry. As I said above, earlier I removed it from both articles simply 'cos neither article should have it - not for some misguided notion of balance between articles.

See WP:PEACOCK. regards --Merbabu 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

These articles are not interconnected - and each must (and should) be determined by its own merit. I suggest that you look back through the archives for each of the two articles - and consider the merits of the arguments on each. In both cases this has been extensively discussed. (on TGGWS - the controversial for instance was voted upon to be used instead of polemic). Finally please discuss TGGWS on its own talk, and AIT here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you considered votes to be "fundamentally bogus", has your position changed or does it simply depend in the topic of the vote or who initiated it? --GoRight 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

All votes are not created equal. I consider votes of the kind that is proposed higher up as bogus - but i do not consider strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion as bogus. --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And exactly how is "strawpolls that are used explicitly to weight positions that are difficult to assess in discussion" different from what I indicated I was doing? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the topic at hand - this discussion has no place here. --Kim D. Petersen 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the following comment over on the TGGWS talk page:

"I googled controversial "the great global warming swindle" (i.e. searching for the full title). This got 51,600 hits. This includes the Spiked interview with Martin Durkin in which, in an interview about TGGWS, when discussing how he's been censured in the past for his techniques (i.e. misleading and selectively editing interviewees, although he doesn't say that), he complains about how "seriously controversial" work is censored by Ofcom. Although he never actually says he thinks of his work as controversial, surely the context is a a tacit admission that he recognises his work is controversial.

In any case, it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition. --Merlinme 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

A similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits. So by this logic should we not assume that AIT is WAY more controversial than TGGWS? --GoRight 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please keep the two articles seperate? Each has its own merits - and each have their own problems. Stick to the topic. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not conflating the two films, I am merely applying the same criteria to each to maintain a NPOV overall. The obvious point was that "a similar query for controversial "an inconvenient truth" turns up about 330,000 hits" so if we apply the same logic/criteria here it AIT "it's not like we're making the controversy up; and something which creates controversy is controversial, by definition" in the case of AIT (which is applicable to this page). Is English your first language? --GoRight 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether the film (or films) is controversial or not, rather how we represent that fact here. If any controversies are adequately described, we can then let the reader make their own assessment. Again, show don't tell. See this too.--Merbabu 09:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu - please take this discussion to TGGWS - where the case whether the film should be introduced as controversial or not - has been discussed almost to exhaustion. I do not think that there is a consensus for it here. (but of course i may be wrong). --Kim D. Petersen 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, I did not know that there was another discussion; I feel that another article is the wrong place for it - these shouldn't be interdependent, rather seperate - but if the consensus is to discuss there, well OK. (btw, i don't support the inclusion of "controversial" in either article - your post implies to me that you think I might). thanks. --Merbabu 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Merbabu, and would also argue that neither film should be labeled as controversial. But I also feel that it is important that the same standards be applied to both films to maintain an NPOV overall. So if the one film has criteria applied to it I believe that the same criteria should be equally applied to the other film to maintain a NPOV. --GoRight 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where your idea comes from, and understand it, but I can't agree. That is like suggesting because we've editorialised and POV'ed one article, we neutralise that by editorialising and POV'ing another article. Two wrongs don't make a right - particularly across seperate articles. --Merbabu 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. "Junk Science: Climate-Controlled Classroom?". Fox News. May 10 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class film articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists