Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:58, 9 December 2009

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Weather C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Biographies C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Page is 'protected' ???

Page says it was protected because of an 'edit-war'.

Here is the revision history:

1. (cur) (prev) 05:14, 27 August 2009 Raul654 (talk | contribs) m (24,976 bytes) (Protected Richard Lindzen: Edit warring; sockpuppetry ( (expires 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)) (expires 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC))))
2. (cur) (prev) 03:54, 27 August 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (24,976 bytes) (Undid revision 310295840 by A Prose Narrative (talk))
3. (cur) (prev) 03:18, 27 August 2009 A Prose Narrative (talk | contribs) (24,931 bytes) (Removed extraneous connection to Exxon. Many universities also accept funds from oil companies, and we don't directly associate all of the faculty with the donor company.)
4. (cur) (prev) 10:46, 25 August 2009 Splette (talk | contribs) (24,976 bytes) (Undid revision 309949007 by JG17 (talk) undo unexplained removal of sourced content)

insert I did actually explain that removal above, with a valid objection and a challenge which was ignored. The "sourced content" is merely 3rd hand repetition of hearsay. I asked that someone find a quote from one of Lindzen's peers saying that Lindzen is corrupt. That would be relevant. Hearsay smears aren't either relevant or morally defensible. By the way, Lindzen's Cato work is online here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

On reading that, people can more easily judge for themselves who benefits and from what.JG17 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is that an edit-war I am looking at? Or a page that got 2 edits in 2 days (discounting the one that protected the page)? Can the protection be removed again, please? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

TGGWS

I reject the notion that this is a BLP violation. Sir John Houghton is a recognized authority on global warming, and his opinion is notable. If editors what to discuss that this may give undue weight to this topic, that is another issue. I will again disagree. In my opinion, knowingly being in a disinformation film masquerading as a documentary is extremely notable. I strenuously object to using BLP as a sledgehammer to remove reliably sourced statements that cast the subject in a negative light. -Atmoz (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it's non-notable. It's not about Lindzen being a poor scientist, it's him appearing in a piece that other people have criticized/don't like. There's also synthesis going on by suggesting, without a citation, that appearing in such a film reflects upon him. Unless it's widely viewed as saying something larger about Lindzen himself, there is no reason for it to be there. (And by the way BLP is used quite frequently (and likely wrongly) by some folks as a reason to remove material about other people in the climate field.) HarmonicSeries (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said! WVBluefield (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I add here, this whole "media appearances" section is way too long. Anyone would think that Lindzen was a talkshow host! Yes, Lindzen is an activist for his cause. Yes, Lindzen passionately believes that humanity is headed, with climate change confusion, to disaster. Yes, therefore, he has appeared in the media a lot. Yes, a lot of scientists disagree with him. This is not, however, deserving of a section so long. I think this article needs seriously trimming. It is enough for us to state, accurately, that Lindzen holds a minority view. I don't see why we need to know the specifics of what each and every scientist rebutting him has said. It's just not interesting, and not encyclopaedic. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Health Risks of Smoking Section

I note that this page is protected, a lot of edit warring has occurred, and someone has restored the libelous, unsourced health risks of smoking nonsense, despite prior agreement, and much Wikidrama, that it should go. We finally had agreement from a number of admins, and Atmoz, in the past that it failed utterly weight, and shouldn't be here.

Can someone fill me in on what has happened here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that the source given for the smoking nonsense now, is, wait for it, an old Misplaced Pages diff! How creative! Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a Newsweek article based on an interview with Lindzen. It can be assumed that he read it, and didn't find it to be libellous. In any case, what is it with the sensitivity of GW sceptics about the fact that most of their leading sources are also passive smoking sceptics (and that the same is true on the other side - bodies like the UN, EPA and scientific academices have done a lot to promote the consensus view in both cases). The sceptics on passive smoking like FORCES have no problem acknowledging that the cases are linked. The arguments are pretty much identical in both cases. Lindzen is consistent here, but his own supporters apparently want to muzzle him.JQ (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JQ, and sorry for my lack of patience as evidenced above. Can I assume you're the editor who put it back in? (Sorry, I'm fairly busy in "real life" at the moment, and haven't the time to check these things). I don't want to start the same dispute again; I'll simply ask, have you checked the archives for the protracted arguments on this point? To cut a long story short, we have policies in Misplaced Pages referenced here: WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP; and this section on smoking was found to violate these. The Newsweek reference to L & smoking contains but a single, ambiguous sentence on L & smoking. Further, it doesn't mention "passive smoking" at all. The rest of the stuff on the internet about L & smoking is largely folklore (apparently originating in this Newsweek piece, perpetuated by its long history of being included in this Misplaced Pages bio, and probably as with all folklore, containing some kernel of truth). As such, it is found to be given undue weight by inclusion in this short bio. L has no real connection with tobacco, thus for this BLP, WP:UNDUE insists that it can't be included. I ask you, respectfully, to acknowledge the pre-existing consensus and remove it again, as soon as full protection of the article is removed. Is that okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been away and missed the discussion. I'm happy to go with the consensus.JQ (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it as written. In the article the claims are sourced to smoking is basically an aside, only taking two sentences of one paragraph, and most of that is descriptive. However, presuming that it is a view that is more important that the source suggests, there are a couple of problems. The source doesn't mention passive smoking at all, although the text we're using seems to attribute that claim to the source; he never says that the risks are overstated as such, but instead the article says that he will "expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking" - from this it may be inferred that he downplays the risks, but that's just an inference; and the second sentence being quoted, "He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" merely tells us that Lindzen smokes, and adds some colour to what is a well-written Newsweek article - it doesn't really relate to his views on smoking. From the source, the most we can say is that he is a smoker, and that he believes that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is weak. Are there better sources for his views on smoking? - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, Find the previous discussion in the archive and if it was a consensus I will remove it through the article protection. --BozMo talk 08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, proving a Misplaced Pages consensus could be harder than proving or disproving AGW itself... Anyhow, the discussion that resulted in the removal of this recently-restored section and led finally to resolution of a long-standing argument is here: Talk:Richard_Lindzen/Archive_5#ref_29.... Atmoz & admin Oren0 gave the same view that I have summarised above, and Bilby seems to have independently given a similar perspective. Previously an admin Rd232 had almost agreed that BLP policy was contradicted by its inclusion but finally suggested an RfC instead. Atmoz is the editor who actually removed it, and at that point Kim D. Petersen gave up. An era of Wiki-peacce has almost reigned since. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was actually consensus to remove it. I just think everyone got tired of yakin' and warin' about it. -Atmoz (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I have taken it back out. I waited until the end of protection although largely that was down to good weather and the orchard needing mulching. It looks pretty weak to me in terms of notability and relevance. --BozMo talk 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more vote for the consensus against. Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion, I've concluded there isn't a consensus, and that the secondary sources clearly make the point that this is part of a general pattern in which critics of the mainstram scientific consensus on climate change have a track record of similar criticism in other areas, and particularly of involvement in the tobacco debate, either as general contrarians (Lindzen) or as paid advocates (Singer, Seitz, Milloy, Bate, CEI, Cato, IPA etc). The eagerness of some editors with a similar POV to remove this only strengthens the case for inclusion in some form. It may well be that this article is the wrong place, but the general point is clearly notable, and correct, and should be referred to.JQ (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One more opinion that it should be left out per the previous discussion. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more that is should be included. As previously stated, there was no consensus for removal. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, the question is "where is the consensus to reinstate it?" --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the start, it seems clear that everyone who supports Lindzen's views on climate change also wants to suppress any mention of his views on tobacco smoking. This seems to indicate, pretty clearly, that his views on this point, if established by a WP:RS would have a significant effect on hsi credibility in general, and that WP:WEIGHT would therefore support thier inclusion. In my view, the existence of multiple reliable sources is clear, so the material should stay. But I'd be very interested if any "sceptic" would be willing to say what they see as the difference between the two cases - I can't see much of one, and clearly neither can most of the sceptical experts.JQ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another source on this, from the ABC (Australian national broadcaster) science reporter Robyn Williams, based on a personal interview and linking Lindzen's views on climate science to his general contrarianism, as indicated by his attitude to tobacco smoking .JQ (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section on contrarianism, with a string of sources linking Lindzen's contrarianism on climate change to his tobacco contrarianism. The relevance doesn't need to be inferred, it's spelt out by the sources. JQ (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted as a BLP violation. You have found an op-ed by a comedian, now, who reports on the anecdote. He probably read it on Misplaced Pages, a while ago. You refer to Lindzen as "notorious" for his "contrarianism". This is terribly biased writing; please leave this out, or at least make some go at building a consensus for a new section here. It is not the job of Misplaced Pages to be doing psychological assessments of the personalities of living scientists. To do that, you need extremely high quality, reliable sources. Robyn Williams is indeed a very smart, and funny man. His opinions on Richard Lindzen, however, don't belong here. Your new section is WP:OR practically from end to end. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Robyn Williams (science reporter) not Robin Williams (comedian). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@A: Please read the edit before reverting, which you clearly didn't do based on your post above. -Atmoz (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say I "clearly" didn't read it. Is it your highly attuned Wiki-telepathy? Or just a cheap assumption of bad faith? I not only read it; I downloaded the Williams piece and read that too. I'm surprised it's not Williams the comedian, because the essay is actually quite funny. "I like Bob Carter. Even in a kilt. He has that baritone warmth that men share when they assume they’re united against the Philistines." Now Atmoz, I have correctly reverted your revert, taking me to 2RR, although your side is only a 1RR each. What fun. This material is clearly original research from beginning to end, and it doesn't belong here. Please do the right thing, and enforce policies, not personalities. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read it because the edit stated that Williams was a science reporter, not the comedian. Yet on the talk page you only talk about the comedian as if it mattered.

For future use: -Atmoz (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"a science reporter, not the comedian" - Are these two mutually exclusive? --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I missed that; you're right. One point to you. On the other hand, I correctly found the text to be violating enough policies to suggest that the correct thing to do next was REVERT, and then DISCUSS.

So tell me, where are we going with this? Have you found evidence that Lindzen's views on smoking are connected with his notability sufficient for inclusion in a bio that doesn't mention that he solved the mystery of the quasi-biennial oscillation in his 20s? The Williams the Science Reporter piece is almost a replica of the Guterl piece. Two unreliable sources for a section don't add up to an RS. Yes, Lindzen is a smoker; yes he apparently has a view that maybe it's not going to kill him. Given he's survived till he's 69, maybe he's right, who knows? Where are we going with this? The same WP:UNDUE problem exists, and it'll still exist if you find another 10 pieces that are almost identical with Guterl. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've reverted me, anyhow, so I'll be back in a few days. If the WP:BLP violating material is still there, I'll be taking the appropriate actions, in the appropriate forums (plural, unfortunately, since a number of different policies are violated...). Alex Harvey (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had the impression you were an Australian, Alex. Do you really not know who Robyn Williams is, or what the Griffith Review is? As for your suggestion that this is derived from Misplaced Pages, Williams is giving a first-hand report, independently confirming Guterl. But at least you've outed yourself as a sceptic wrt the dangers of tobacco smoking. Given that you agree with Lindzen on this, why are you so keen to suppress his views? JQ (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The new section really isn't convincing, and I find I have to agree with Alex that it looks like undue weight - as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things. But the evidence is that he doesn't see that the link between smoking and lung cancer has been strongly established. That's not much of a case to build a section on. I'm not completely opposed to it, so long as it remains factual, but it really doesn't come across well, and probably makes those opposing him look worse than he does. It just feels like an awful argument on which to base a very strong claim, and the sources are themselves far from excellent, as they provide only three brief, throwaway mentions of this view. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things." Absolutely right. This suggestion has been made by numerous WP:RS sources and should be included in the article.JQ (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, strong claims need strong sources. it is getting better, but the smoking side of things doesn't help establish this as a worthwhile view. - 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read the articles cited in the second paragraph of the contrarian section, i.e.:

"This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette." Writing in the Griffith Review, Australian Broadcasting Corporation science reporter Robyn Williams stated "I interviewed Lindzen in Boston and was impressed by his assurance as well as his cheerful chain‐smoking and delight in being contrary. He is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer". "

While these quotes do, in fact, appear in the cited sources they are wholly unrepresentative of the much larger articles whose topics were completely unrelated to the quotes being set forth. This looks to me to be significantly WP:UNDUE based on the sources actually cited and as a result the entire topic appears to be WP:OR in order to purpetuate an ad hominem attack on Lindzen. I think that the second paragraph should be removed as WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR here. A string of reliable secondary sources make the link between Lindzen's contrarianism on smoking and GW, some favorably and some not. If you think it's an unfair characterization of his position, find a statement by Lindzen repudiating the views imputed to him by people who have interviewed him first-hand.JQ (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim he didn't say these things, or that he even holds these views. I am claiming that you are giving them WP:UNDUE weight since you are basically having to cherry pick references to make the connection. It is this sifting through sources to find quotes to cherry-pick that looks like WP:OR. Find an article where this connection is the primary focus of the article and you might have a case. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

so-called Lindzen Industry links in the wake of CRUgate emails

I invite editors to consider email 0962818260.txt of the CRUgate files.

Here, Mick Kelly to Mike Hulme talks about the funding they're trying to obtain from Big Oil, namely Shell, but also BP and -- shock horror -- Exxon. This whole mythology that "Climate Skeptics are funded by Big Bad Oil" is becoming, rather, laughable now. Within weeks, there will be doubt be reliable sources establishing that UEA is funded by Big Oil. I think this is, therefore, a good time for us all to reconsider -- do we want Lindzen's respected name connected with Big Oil in this article, on the basis that he received a measly $10,000 from "fossil fuel" types once, for doing some consulting work, 20 years ago? It is not fair, and it inexorably heading towards the ridiculous, and embarrassing. Please all serious editors read 0962818260.txt and consider my argument here. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be a myth (and i kinda agree in Lindzen's case), but the trouble is that the literature actually does focus on this particular link, so we cannot ignore it. Its not a choice for us to make, we have to follow due weight in respect to the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But we can ignore it. There is no policy that states "Thou shalt report on all reliable sources." We are not automata. There are not a lot of reliable sources discussing L & Industry, and as far as I can see, we have included every single one of them. WP:WEIGHT applies. Does Gelbspan, 15 years later, even stand by his original assessment of Lindzen in 1995? We can take the high road, and rise above this. All that is required is some cooperation amongst the senior editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a lot of references that talk about Lindzen and industry connections, see previous discussions, these include books, TV documentaries and regular journalistic articles (see earlier discussions). As for your assertion that it all comes down to Gelbspan, that is simply your original research. We are not at liberty as editors to "ignore" if its counters due weight in the literature, since that is a circumvention of a neutral point of view (as defined by one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages). Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a link to the CRU hacking thing (bit pathetic as an argument) but looking beyond that I do think the question on this is legitimate. And yes I think we do have some latitude in writing an encyclopaedia to ignore things which are beneath our diginity to discuss even if some news sources like them. I took the ridiculous paternity section out of the article on Prince Harry (which was a popular item for the press) on a similar kind of grounds a few years ago and am glad to say it stayed out. --BozMo talk 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But in this case its rather more than a few simple news articles. Something like the paternity case is being pushed beyond its prominence by a short newsburst, thats not what we are talking about here. My question (to myself) was: Would a balanced documentary, book or bio in a newspaper on Lindzen mention this? And the answer was yes it would, even if just to dismiss it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of Lindzen's scientific views ...

This sentence:

"Critics have used Lindzen's contrarian views on tobacco smoking to argue that his similarly contrarian position on climate change should not be accorded credibility. ."

Is unacceptable given its current sources. This is inherently making a statement about the credibility of Lindzen's scientific opinion. As we are all aware, to comment on the scientific opinion of an acknowledged expert requires someone of comparable scientific stature. Are either of the authors of these sources scientists with applicable publications in peer-reviewed literature? If not then they are not qualified to make statement regarding Lindzen's credibility on scientific issues.

Please either find a qualified source to argue that Lindzen's views on smoking and/or climatology are not credible and cite that, or remove this sentence per the prevailing rules regarding criticisms of scientific opinion. --GoRight (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No particular qualifications are required to make this criticism. The fact that smoking has been shown to cause lung cancer is known to everyone who has ever seen a cigarette packet or had any contact with the media. The inference that someone (not an expert in the field) who is willing to deny this is a person whose judgement is not to be trusted is clear. Anyone who understands the concept of a trustworthy authorit can draw this inference, and many people have done so. Some have stated it in WP:RS publications. I note the implication that you are unconvinced by the evidence on the health risks of smoking. Maybe you should read the Wiki article on this topic.JQ (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this hand waving doesn't change the fact that the statement is fundamentally questioning Lindzen's scientific opinion (regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels about it), and as is the norm on science related pages only people with appropriate credentials and/or peer-reviewed sources are considered WP:RS for that purpose. These sources fail that test and the sentence should be either properly sourced or removed. --GoRight (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, I've removed the statement "the implication that his statements on climate change reflect a preference for dissent from consensus viewpoints". To explain: my concern is that it is OR, as there isn't a source stating that this is the implication. That's not necessarily a problem, as if it is blatantly the case then it isn't OR, but when I looked at the sources they seemed to be implying a number of different things, not all in keeping with this description. For example, the Outside ref quotes Wallace as saying that he "revels in his contrary ways", but Wallace also states there that Lindzen's "main motive is conviction", and that his contrariness means that he won't back down, not that he took it up because of a wish to take a different stance. Some do seem to make the implication, but some don't, and some seem to make quite different implications. Leaving it out seems safer to me, unless we can source that statement better. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrarianism section

In order to include an entire section devoted to discrediting a living person -- this time on the basis of gossip and rumour about his personality -- you need to find extraordinarily good sources, and a lot of them. There are 137,000 hits for lindzen on google, so it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of gossip reported in reliable sources. That doesn't mean we include it in Misplaced Pages. Indeed, WP:BLP explicitly states that we don't. A number of editors have expressed the same view, so there is clearly no consensus for inclusion of this material. I have reverted it, again. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note, it is a BLP violation for anyone to restore this material again. There are some voices supporting its inclusion, but there are clearly more voices supporting its exclusion. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It's a lot more essential to Lindzen's career than the Exxon money. Obviously not a BLP violation. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To add a little more - Lindzen's either a contrarian genius who's swimming against the mainstream scientific tide and will ultimately be vindicated, or a scientist who let his contrarian tendencies overcome his judgment. Either way, he's a contrarian and the section should be included. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, every good scientist is a "contrarian"... If you were not "contrarian", and not passionate about finding alternative explanations, the scientific method would not work. How did you become qualified to diagnose someone with this psychological condition, "contrarianism". Are you a practising psychiatrist? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing contrarian with sceptic. Every scientist is a sceptic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Except climate scientists evidently. WVBluefield (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, climate scientists are sceptics - just as any other scientists. There is just a world of difference between rational scepticism and being in denial. Note though that Lindzen isn't such - to his credit he was bonking some of the "sceptic" arguments as nonsense in his recent speech. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is likewise a world of difference between rational skepticism and accepting things as a matter of blind faith. --GoRight (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, now can you give me an example of something that is accepted "as a matter of blind faith"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the CRU "temperature reconstruction" for starters. --GoRight (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whats "blind faith" about it? We have several independent temperature reconstructions that show basically the same thing (NOAA, NASA,...) as well as an enormous amount of collaborating evidence (sea level, tree-line, spring onset, glaciers,....) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not reproducible by independent sources, and so is basically moot from a scientific perspective. They have, at least until the recent scandal, refused to release any information related to their raw data and how they manipulated it so that it can be independently assessed, verified, and reproduced. I guess that same is actually also true of the GISS set as well. If people can't independently review and verify the underlying calculations then the results are being accepted on "blind faith". And don't even get me started on the climate models which are already known to omit numerous important feed backs in their calculations. --GoRight (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough the GISS set is completely open, i even have an open-source version on my harddisk. And i think you need to read climate-audit a bit more, since McI has (before november) received the data that is freely available. As for climate models - there are at least 3 models that are freely available for download, and all the basic data for the models as well as scenarios are available at the IPCC data site. GHCN database is freely downloadable ... etc etc etc. There is nothing "blind faith" about it. You can chose to disbelieve the CRU dataset as much as you want though, it just so happens that basically all datasets show the same thing (with small variations) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Kim, tell us all what a "contrarian" is then, and explain the relationship between a "skeptic" and a "contrarian". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See Contrarian. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, so "contrarian" is a sort of bad faith version of a "skeptic." So having defined a "contrarian", how exactly do we distinguish, without appeal to our own opinions or blinded prejudices, between a "contrarian" and a "skeptic"? Do they have a different colour? Do they smell different? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not distinguish anything, that is entirely outside of what we as editors may do (read: original research). You can ask the people who describe Lindzen that way though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

shocking

I am pretty busy at the moment, but this text is truly shocking; it is damaging to the credibility of Misplaced Pages (the biggest problem; yes, Lindzen is probably laughing, whereas Jimmy Wales is probably crying); and of a disappointing slur against Lindzen. It'll take me some time to figure out exactly how to fight this, given it is violating so many basic Misplaced Pages principles, but fight it I will. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Weather articles
• Low-importance Weather articles
• Unsorted weather articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
• C-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles