Misplaced Pages

I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.

These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja - and since they are directly connecting Plimers claim and USGS - there is certainly no synthesis. We can discuss the reliability of the reference for this kind of information - but a synthesis it is not. (the "central" part seems to be synthesis though) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with Eyja"?

The central part is from the Garman piece in The Independent. ► RATEL ◄ 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption

The entire article is premised on Eyja. And on an assumption that oits peak output of CO@ is 300K tons/day -- based on the twin which presumably emited 3 million tons/day when it last erupted (roughly a factor of 10 according to a number of sources). So, yes, the entry is SYN and, at best, is the opinion of the author and not "fact" per se. Moreover, this is a BLP and subject to rather more stringent requirements than other articles, as you have stated before <g>. Icelandic volcanoes are noted for SO2 emissions more than CO2 emissions, and one case a bit over two centuries ago is the "gold standard" for volcanoes. Collect (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss out a comma in the sentence of mine that you quote - and the subsequent sentence which changes the meaning of that first sentence? The subject of Eyja is used as a pretext to addressing Plimer's (and other sceptics) claim about Volcanoes and CO2 - it is not an article about Eyja. The question of synthesis - and the question of whether the reference is reliable for this kind of information - are two different aspects. I'm addressing the one on synthesis (which it isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed no commas at all. I quoted your post exactly. The article, moreover, is quite specifically about Eyja - as the heading indicates fairly clearly. Unless, of course, one thinks that the headings of news articles have nothing to do with the articles as a rule <g>. And when you mention "commas" be sure that you used them. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't quote me exactly - you cherry-picked some words from my comment - here is the whole sentence, with the important (and missing in your quote) part bolded: "These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja". (and then i quote two paragraphs - which do not have anything to do with Eyja...)

No, the article is not "quite specifically about Eyja" - and the subheading from it tells you so, rather well: "Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption" - Or in other words: The Eyja eruption makes this a good occasion to address sceptic nonsense. And that is what the article is about.

And of course titles cannot be used (as a rule) as reliable sources - one shouldn't at all use them in text in any article. Headlines are typically written after editorial review - and purely for sensationalist purposes, and are thus often misleading as to the content of an article.

Finally i used commas to make you look rather more specifically than just a glance (hmmm - where is that ....) ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Plimerite

Has this received any coverage in any RS? Google news archives show zero hits. I've taken it out of the lede. ► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Mineralogical Magazine; February 2009; v. 73; no. 1; p. 131-148; DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2009.073.1.131 and Mindat - Plimerite

Agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unreliable source?" tags not appropriate

Cadae has tagged 2 sources as "unreliable". If you read the paragraph, you'll see that the source preceding the 2 that are tagged is the transcript of the actual debate, and from reading that it is clear that the rest of the paragraph is accurate — based on that transcript. The Guardian sources were included as confirmation of what happened, in case one or another source goes dead. But to call the sources "unreliable" when they are completely reliable for the text in the article is absurd. If we'd inserted "...and Plimer was made to look like an utter fool" and cited the Guardian columns, then you may have a point, but not as it stands. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They are unreliable, you are using monbiot`s blog to assert something monbiot said in an argument between both parties. The second is also unreliable as it is just a copy and paste of monbiots earlier column. Not very reliable at all, in fact as monbiot is essentially a blog should he even be used in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The transcript is certainly a reliable source, and so is the debate itself. And that is enough to verify the text in the sentence. Whether Monbiot is a reliable source, here, is a grey zone.... The column/blog wouldn't be reliable for personal information - but they may be for the information cited here (which isn't BLP material), since it is relating to claims in the book and the subsequent debate. Since Monbiot was a participant in that debate, he is certainly a reliable source to some information on that debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further reading here seems to show that the Monbiot references are used as extra sources to the information, and for that the references are certainly reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot was not merely a participant in that debate, he was Ian Plimer's opponent in the debate. To cite the blog of that opponent stretches credulity - wikipedia should be seen to be using reliable sources - the blog from an opponent is clearly biased. A reader would have no idea whether or not Monbiot has cherry-picked parts of the debate or not. A cite from an unbiased source would be fine. Cadae (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cadae -- this seems clearcut. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be the case if the actual transcript were not available, but it is, so there is no "cherry-picking", as even we, as editors, can see. As Plimer's interlocutor in the debate, Monbiot's views are very pertinent and using his column at the Guardian as a source is perfectly acceptable, especially since we are not using the source to justify the inclusion of anything controversial or contentious. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I reverted . It looks OK to me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, what makes you think that such an opinionated editorial from a greenpeace activist is a balanced citation to add opinion from? Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm particularly surprised, as there is already an open discussion on this issue above, and William has personally removed many edits citing the "blogs as sources" objection. Fell Gleaming 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, Off2riorob, even BLP does not require - or even allow - us to turn articles into hagiographies. There's absolutely nothing in policy that says we can only cite neutral sources. In fact, that's a clear contradiction of policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot cite blog entries of random advocates as fact. You're welcome to use Garman's opinion, but you must attribute it to him. You cannot express his claims as gospel fact, especially when he is admittedly hostile to the article's subject. Fell Gleaming 17:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog entry? Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's Garman reporting Schmidt's opinion. It's not Garman reporting his own opinion. It would be incorrect to report Schmidt's opinion as Garman's. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I do not have a problem with the reliability but something supported only by this source is screaming lack of notability to me. There is already a better supported refutation given. Anyone prepared to swear we haven't included it to dis the subject and because we like it rather than on a balanced basis? --BozMo talk 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the material because the rationale for removal was itself fallacious. From the perspective of balance, Plimer's hypothesis seems very fringe, and added material adds balance. Because Plimer's not a terribly notable character himself, it's probably a challenge to find a way to stating this that doesn't create UNDUE problems. But the whole section is badly presented (probably because it has been sliced and diced in a variety of fights). Rewritten with enough context for the average reader to understand, and the problem probably disappears. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The EPA statement that Plimer's claim had no factual basis is, after all, an argument from authority, just like Schmidt's. What this section needs to do is to briefly explain, and link to, the real role of volcanism. Then arguments from authority are irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a direct refutation of the Plimer claims, try or . Also this is what the US Geological Survey says: “Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes”. All this documented at realclimate and desmogblog and Media Matters (a RS, BTW) ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The entire reason newspapers separate op-ed pieces from straight reporting is that such pieces are allowed to contain opinions. Things which are not well-established fact. Reputable print sources are scrupulous in maintaining this separation, for that very reason. Further, the problem of using Source A for a claim about Plimer, and Source B for a claim about volcanoes, then combining them into Claim C about Plimer and volcanoes, is classic WP:Synthesis.

Er ... we have numerous sources saying Plimer is wrong on this issue, no SYN or OR reqd. Schmidt, for example, is an area expert and his "opinions" (actually, his re-statement of scientific FACTS) are completely usable. ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And here is another direct refutation from a true area expert's own website (this man, Prof Barry Brook, works in the same building at the same university as Plimer). Scan page for "volcano". ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

'"no SYN or OR reqd...here is another source"' -- Wonderful. You see, when we challenge and throw out unreliable sources for facts that are correct, we ultimately wind up with much better ones, which improves the article as a whole. There's no need to rely on shaky opinion pieces for things like this. Fell Gleaming 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes & CO2 section

I've copyedited this a bit to conform to the sources provided. However, the section doesn't really make sense to this (occasional) vulcanologist. It would be far better to cite the relevant USGS (or whatever) study. I'll have a look as time (and health) permits. The problem is, volcanic emissions come in BIG bursts, and there haven't been any really large eruptions since Keeling started tracking CO2. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re: Guardian columnist(s): it's not that simple. First, there's disagreement re the "average" volcano CO2 emit rate: for instance, Volcano World notes that volcanoes contribute 3% (vs the Guardian's quoted 0.75%) annually. Further, the anthropogenic contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 content is under 20%, per the same article, both items referenced to Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates. Preindustrial: 2.2X10^15 kg CO2. 1990 or so: 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Arguably, most of the pre-industrial CO2 was of volcanic origin.

I don't see the USGS reference you mentioned in our article. It's quite possible all the figures quoted in the article were muddled by the reporters. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 objects to USGS on grounds of WP:SYN. Tillman prefers USGS as the ultimate source for the science. Can the two of you work it out? The text as it presently stands is extremely awkward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that the entire section seems to be being given far too much weight. We have one journalist who claims this is one of Plimer's "central tenets", yet it seems to occupy a small part of his book, and is only ever brought up by people who want to embarrass him. Fell Gleaming 19:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a large part of his book and his thinking (I've read the book). It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews. ► RATEL ◄ 00:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why do the article sources not show that? All I see is someone bringing it up to badger Plimer with; I don't see him advancing it himself. Hipocrite's edit here actually looks quite good. The who debate is growing far out of bounds for the size of the article. Fell Gleaming 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You want sources? Take your pick ► RATEL ◄ 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the USGS ref. The page is http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php, the quote is "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes." Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

This section on the page is being whittled away on specious grounds by tendentious editing. The section is not UNDUE, the thesis is central to Plimer's thinking (whether you think it is or not is immaterial, since others have said it is in RSes), it's been mentioned in many, many RS articles on Plimer, and it's been strongly refuted by the EPA and by climate scientists. That is not going to be expunged from the article. ► RATEL ◄ 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have one op-ed piece claiming its "central" to Plimer's thinking-- and that one by a journalist hostile to him. I don't see any others at present. As of now, it appears to be an issue dredged up and given undue weight simply to diss Plimer. Fell Gleaming 01:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I can provide many sources that discuss the issue, proving that it is not given undue weight. I suggest you go through the sources I provide at the Google News link above. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A source that "discusses the issue" is not a source that demonstrates its "central" to Plimer's thinking. Fell Gleaming 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the volcano stuff is "central" to Plimer's thinking, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I checked the sources, and they appear to be legit to me. They specificially address Plimer, so no SYN is occurring as far as I can tell. I changed the wording a little so that it wouldn't look like the article is taking a side. If someone wants to, they could try to add a little more on Plimer's reasoning behind his volcano hypothesis in that section. I have Plimer's book, so if I ever find the time I might do so. Or, Ratel could do it since he also has the book. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I pared this down a little before I saw your comment here. I trimmed out the last sentence because people have complained about WP:WEIGHT; since the preceding text gives a good overview of the matter, the last sentence didn't seem necessary. But anyone who feels strongly about it can put it back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I think it's important to spell out "U.S. Geological Survey" instead of using the acronym "USGS" as an aid to nonspecialist readers, so if anyone reverts I ask that you keep that.

I don't think losing the Schmidt and Brook sentence was a good idea. Now Cla68 has made it look like this whole silly volcano dispute is a plot by The Guardian's lefty journalists to unhorse their denialist poster boy. Here's the sentence I think should stay:

Climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Barry Brook both stated that Plimer's statements in this respect are fallacious.

Unless there are cogent reasons expressed as to why this shouldn't go back in, I'll reinsert it. To Tillman, we cannot put all the arguments about global warming on the book page, because this issue is bigger than the book and spans many years and many interviews and many articles written by Plimer. ► RATEL ◄ 05:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Weight question and comment re USGS ref

I haven't been following this article closely -- I was surprised to see the volcano bit given its own subsection. Ratel, you claim that the volcano argument is "a large part of his book and his thinking... It has also featured prominently in the articles he has written for newspapers, and in his interviews." If this is so,

A) why isn't this in the book section (and article)? Volcano CO2 isn't even mentioned in our article on Plimer's book.

B) why not quote and cite the book & these RS's -- over there?

The USGS article (now cited, thanks) itself has dodgy arithmetic. Working the arithmetic on the numbers they provide, I came up with volcanic contribs between 0.54% - 0.85%/yr. The USGS article says the volcanic contribution is less than 1/130, or 0.77%. Odd. Anyway, here in the real world, big volcanic eruptions cool the climate (temporarily) -- even if (as did Pinatubo, ims) they temporarily exceed the anthro CO2 emit rate. This volcano bit should be added (briefly) to the book article, as yet another Plimer "blooper", I think. With maybe a line in the book summary here in Plimer's wikibio -- certainly not overweighted as its own subsection. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit does violate SYN because the USGS source is not specifically in response to Plimer's position. I'm going to revert that edit and give Hipocrite a warning on his user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Ratel before to back up his claim that this is a "central" part of Plimer's thinking. So far he's failed to do so. Plenty of Plimer's critics have written about it...but that's a different kettle of fish entirely. Fell Gleaming 06:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of refs. Apart from the central placement of the claim in the book, and the statement in The Independent that this is a central theme, we have from Media Matters (a RS according to the RS noticeboard): :But in the article, one of Plimer's central claims about CO2 emissions is false. Telegraph: Plimer says "e cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes." The November 11 Telegraph article says that Plimer "argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles" and that "carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting." " That's pretty clear evidence. ► RATEL ◄ 07:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I respect Tillman's opinion that this should be mentioned in the book article instead of here, but the fact that this has spilled over into public arenas outside the book, as in the televised debate with Monbiot, means that it could be considered for inclusion here. Also, after removing the blog references, which I just did, the rest of the sources for that section are good sources. We give BLPs a lot of leeway, but several reliable sources have taken Plimer to task on this issue. In this situation, Plimer is expected to be able to defend himself against criticism of any of his controversial positions on climate science. We phrase the controversy in neutral terms, source it reliably, and let the reader decide for themselves what to believe. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see this is back, and has grown to be the largest single section of Plimer's wiki-biography. Please refer to WP:Coatrack and WP:Weight. Are editors seriously arguing that this is the most weighty event in Plimer's life and career? Pete Tillman (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit that returned this coatrack section. The edits that removed the coatrack, by me, were raised as evidence that I was being disruptive at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Hipocrite. I've since ceased removing coatracks from biograpies of all stripes, except in cases where those coatracks were blatently unreliably sourced, though I support a return of this article to the version that does not use this individual as a coatrack to discuss global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:COAT is an essay by some fussbudget editors, not a policy. It gets referred to a lot, in a wikilawyering way, by editors hoping to sanitise BLPs of info they'd rather not have broadcast, such as the fact that a major sceptic has, as his central tenet, a theory that is clearly completely wrong. I don't know if you'll succeed in doing this here, Tillman, perhaps with the misguided help of Hipocrite, but I'll do the best I can to oppose a whitewash. ► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Volcano section as is. The reason I agree with it is that it is phrased neutrally, not taking a side, gives Plimer's side and those that disagree with him, and doesn't go into too much detail. The Volcano and CO2 thing is one of Plimer's most controversial ideas and has receive media attention in several, significant sources. so it's not coatracky or undue to have a section on it. The EPA even commented on it in one of their papers. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another RS from today. I'm inserting it here for future reference if reqd. And another ► RATEL ◄ 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• That opinion column confirms that Plimer believes that volcanoes produce large amounts of CO2. I believe the section and references in the article already cover it adequately. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IPCC lead author David Karoly

Marknutley removed the fact that David Karoly said Plimer was wrong. Karoly's words:

Now let me address some of the major scientific flaws in Plimer's arguments. He claims 'it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity' and 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined'. Both are wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope C12and reduced C13 and essentially no C14, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen, exactly as observed and as Plimer states on pages 414 and 415. Scientists have estimated emissions from volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with total global emissions from human sources.

Nutley gave as reason that a "metorologist" knows "what about vulcanisim (sic) exactly?" ► RATEL ◄ 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and your point would be? He is a meteorologist commenting on something outside his area of expertise, thats not good enough for a blp mark nutley (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He's a Professor of Earth Sciences, a lead IPCC author bio and an expert on climate change (not my words, source available) who is commenting on the composition of the earth's atmosphere and the sources of the gases therein. He is eminently qualified to comment, more than almost anyone else on this planet. ► RATEL ◄ 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another quote from Karoly that shows his comment on Plimer needs to be included :

Plimer even argues that the recent sources must be underwater volcanoes. This is not the case, because the net movement of carbon dioxide is from the atmosphere to the ocean, based on measurements that the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean is less than in the atmosphere. In addition, measurements show that the concentrations of two other long-lived greenhouse gases with human-related sources, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased markedly over the last 200 years, at the same time as the increases in carbon dioxide. This is not possible due to sources from underwater volcanoes.

This shows that Plimer really is all 'at sea' on this issue, and doesn't know what he's talking about. ► RATEL ◄ 08:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Karoly's bio indicates that this is indeed within his area of expertise, Marknutley's reason for removing Karoly's views is clearly not applicable. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, his phd is in meteorology, thus he is not reliable for this at all, per your own words mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're heading for another enforcement request if you carry on like this. Please desist from frivolous wikilawyering. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Try to AGF, you yourself said According to his CV his Ph.D. is in air pollution, not climatology. Anyone can write papers on climate and head organisations doing (denialist) advocacy on climate issues; that doesn't make them climatologists Now Karoly`s phd is in meteorology, not vulcanisim, so he is speaking outside his area of expertise. Now please reply to what i have said and save your threats for the playground mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on, this is just silly. He is an IPCC lead author. What part of that do you not understand? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, the topic at hand is atmospheric composition and not volcanology as Mark incorrectly states. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the article only stated that Karoly disputed Plimer's position and the source is solid. I think it's fine to include it. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article is no longer neutral. It violates WP:FRINGE, specifically Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#In-text_attribution, "Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported." Pilmer's volcano claims are wrong, and right now it appears that there's a he-said-she-said because his wrongness is being attached as a debate. Pilmer says x, while the USGS says y. Not George Monbiot says the USGS says y, the USGS says y. It's not about a debate, it's about how much CO2 volcanoes let off, which is a factual question that reliable sources agree on. Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with attributing sources. This is especially true in BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misleading the reader into believing there is some dispute about how much carbon volcanoes let off. Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, Hipocrite, is that this article is about Plimer. Therefore, it's not a place to prove or disprove his ideas. It's a place to present his stances on whatever issues he has taken a notable stance on and mention notable, specific opinions about it. Do you feel that it is appropriate to try discredit BLP subject's ideas in their BLP articles in Misplaced Pages? This is an important question. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, why do you feel that attributing the sources in the "Volcano" section is POV? Are you going to add a POV tag to all the articles that attribute sources? I noticed you just deleted about half of the content from this article. Several people have spent a lot of hours, including Ratel, building that content, and I think most of it, if not all, was in accordance with the BLP and RS policy. Why do you feel that it was coatracky, since it fairly clearly expounded on Plimer's specific opinions on things? Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hipocrite's first edit on the volcano-CO2 section was the best version. Present Plimer's view succinctly, then point out the USGS official statement. If its worded properly (i.e. we don't "draw conclusions" from it) it is not synthesis. The reader can draw their own conclusions. This format also presents the view, without undue weight or coattracking on either side. Fell Gleaming 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FellGleaming that that version was the best version. Without objection, I'll return to that version shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't. That would be very disruptive.► RATEL ◄ 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you shure you're looking at the same edit I am? Please describe what in making that edit would be "very disruptive," and please describe why it's a bad idea using wikipedia guidelines, policies and precident, not just assertions of disruption. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, please self-revert. You have no consensus for removing half the article. And take off the tag as well. ► RATEL ◄ 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I second that, please self revert. Removal of such a large amount of this article without consensus is a bit over the top mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• If Hipocrite doesn't revert it back in a few hours, I'll do so. There have been a few edits in the meantime, so we'll have to make sure those don't get messed up during the revert. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Be certain to revert it to the position that has bi-partisan support - namely, . You wouldn't want to revert to the version of the article that you alone prefer, would you? Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'll be taking it back to the version just before you blanked it all. The other editors here, such as Ratel and Mark, can then resume cooperating, collaborating, and compromising on any text they still have concerns about. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've taken the article back to where it was before most of it was blanked. We can get back to work on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to the POV anti skeptic BLP, fabulous. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The volcano section is too long and the prose is painfully tortuous. I'd fix it, but don't want to risk being reported to the enforcement noticeboard. Anyone want to try cleaning it up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then I think that refutes the statements by some editors that they don't think the enforcement board is working. Anyway, please just propose what you think the section should say and we can discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've simplified it. There is no question that Plimer is simply wrong on this issue, and wiki should say so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, the words "Plimer is wrong" has 4 references. Two of them are blogs and one of them is an opinion piece. I think the article reads better without those three words. You end up with;

"However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that Plimer's statement "has no factual basis" since "Volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone."

which says the same thing with fewer words (always a Good Thing imo). If you elect not to delete those three words, then please put a full-stop after 'wrong'. Thepm (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the refs; I agree, we don't need 4. All I did was remove the text that the refs were for. So feel free to delete some of them. I think a simple statement that "Plimer is wrong" is a useful and accurate summary; people (above) were complaining that the language was confusing. So it is nice to be simple, where the situation is very clear William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you OK if I take out all 4? The final reference states that it has "no factual basis" so I don't think the others add much. Thepm (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How does it look now? A few hve gone William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone."

The point that he's wrong and a reason to support that has already been made. Thepm (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Plimer is wrong" is too strong to be supported by a bunch of opinion pieces. I removed it, but WMC reverted. It should be changed to something like "Others have also criticized this claim" with those opinion sources after the EPA statement, which is what I tried to do after my removal but WMC had already reverted.

I still think this entire section is a coatrack, BTW, and I think it should probably be removed, but at a minimum we should change the "Plimer is wrong" statement. ATren (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realised that the two you left in were the two blogs! I'm going to make some additional changes on the basis that I'm sure you won't be shy in letting me know if you disapprove. Thepm (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Took out the two blog references on the basis that the EPA response is more authoritative and the blog references therefore added nothing. Deleted ", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone." because it repeats a point made immediately before it. Thepm (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out 'Plimer is wrong' on the basis that it reads better without it and that it's unnecessary as we already say that the "(EPA) has stated that Plimer's statement "has no factual basis" ". I'm going to bed now, so I can't self revert, but if you really feel that the extra words are necessary, you have my permission to revert on my behalf. Thepm (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is regrettable that you can't bring yourself to say "Plimer is wrong" even when it is so absolutely clear that he is, and it is nice and simple and easily understood. This really doens't bode well for the "skeptic" side of science articles. Unless we're veering off the the social-sciences type of "everyone gets their own reality" you should be able to accept that some things are right, some are wrong, and some are arguable. "GW will cause terrible damage is arguable". "volcanoes are responsible for a significant fraction of CO2 increase" is simply wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thepm, "has no factual basis" from the EPA is more than sufficient here. ATren (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No. An honest description would be "a gross error that no-one competent in the field could possibly make by mistake". Simply "is wrong" is being very kind to Plimer. Plimer is perfectly well aware that he is wrong; no-one even vaguely familiar with the field (and he is) could possibly make this claim by accident. He is being deliberately deceptive.

Now, over at the probabtion page, Thepm is condemning battlefield behaviour. But here he is showing it. So, lets try a question for Thepm: do yuo accept that Plimer is, in fact, wrong? ATren wimped out and pretended he just didn't know. How about you? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in danger of missing an important point here. The statement sourced to the EPA is fine. However, it would be misleading to represent this as merely "the EPA's viewpoint". In fact, it's the generally held scientific position. (Has any other scientist come out in support of Plimer's claim? I've not seen any such statements of support, and I would have thought he would have trumpeted them if there'd been any.) I agree that it's problematic to say "Plimer is wrong", as this is overly editorialising; however, it's entirely accurate to say that his viewpoint contradicts the generally held scientific position, which is summarised in the EPA's statement. I've therefore reworded the lines in question as follows: "However, Plimer's view contradicts the generally held scientific view on volcanic emissions of CO2, which holds that "volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial."" That avoids the he said / they said issue which has got some editors concerned. Hopefully this will be acceptable to everyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1. "RealClimate: Plimer's homework assignment". www.realclimate.org. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
2. "Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth « BraveNewClimate". bravenewclimate.com. Retrieved 2010-04-24.
3. "Joss Garman: Climate change deniers cost the earth - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent". www.independent.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-12-06.