Talk:Judith Curry: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:09, 26 April 2010 editPolargeo (talk \| contribs)9,903 edits →Curry's notability....: already notable← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 September 2024 edit undoPeter Gulutzan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,200 edits "...certain features of denialism..."
(512 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=B\|listas=Curry, Judith\|1=
	{{WPBiography
			{{WikiProject Biography\|s&a-work-group=yes}}
	\|living=yes
			{{WikiProject Chicago \|importance=Low}}
	\|class=Start
			{{WikiProject Georgia Tech\|importance=Low}}
	\|priority=
			{{WikiProject Women scientists\|importance=Low}}
	\|auto=yes
			{{WikiProject Climate change\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
			{{Archives}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|algo = old(60d)
			\|archive = Talk:Judith Curry/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 2
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|cc}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|blp\|brief}}

			== Not a "denialist" ==
	{{Community article probation\|main page=Climate change\|] for full information and to review the decision}}
			From the lede: "''Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.''"

	== POV ==

	The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now ] (]) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

	: On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods ] (]) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

			First of all, "contrarian" is an unnecessarily perjorative word, and smacks of POV. Scientists routinely take various, frequently opposing positions on scientific matters -- that is not "contrarian", it's how science works.
	::Made an attempt. Didn't see the need for a separate section for "views on climate change". ] (]) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

			Secondly, Curry does not deny climate, clamate change, or a human contrubution to climate change, so the implication that she is a "deinalist" is just flat out wrong.
	:::Reinserted reliably sourced material which was removed. There was no blp violation here at all. Unless you think she did not say what she has said? ] (]) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			Third, WTF is a "blogosphere"? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)</small>
	:::: On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative ] (]) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
			:We follow the sources. If they call her that, that is how we report it. And you can google that word yourself. --] (]) 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
			::actually .252 is right, it is negative POV to link her to the denial blogosphere. Skepticism should be the word used and only on specific issues she is skeptical about ] (]) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::We still follow the sources and not your opinion. See ]. --] (]) 07:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
			{{Collapse top}}
			::Yes, true. You are definitely following the bias sources which are fed by corporate interest and the mainstream media narrative. You negatively label someone because of the popular public opinion by hack journalists vs giving an objective point of view. The article puts zero credibility to clear achievements and thought leadership Curry has demonstrated in her career commitment to science. Only when she has a view that questions the status quo narrative is when she is slapped with a label and her professional point of view is questioned as if she had a track record of being a denier. It’s a shame the world is so close minded and holds on to fabricated ideologies before honoring evidence and different perspectives. You all can do better. Lets avoid Misplaced Pages from falling into the same media narrative and spinning opinion views vs highlighting facts. ] (]) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
			:Right. And you are so well-known as an unbiased editor on this topic! </sarcasm> --Pete Tillman (]) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
			::Said someone who has a climate change topic ban. --] (]) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
			:Nice to read something from somebody who knows some thing about climate. I was a meteorology major in college for two years, and I agree with her, Judith Curry, that a of the hysteria about the climate is ginned up to serve political agendas, not science. As for so-called “scientific consensus,” check out Copernicus. ] (]) 00:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
			::{{tq\|check out Copernicus}} See ]. That logic is used by pretty much every pseudoscience in the world. With the same reasoning, you can also promote a flat Earth or the existence of Santa.
			::Bring reliable sources that change the consensus, then you have something. --] (]) 05:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
			{{Collapse bottom}}

			== The meaning of "uncertainty" ==
	::::I don't know whether it could really be classified as a BLP violation, but it's irrelevant. MN - think about what point you're trying to clarify for the reader. I assume it's that she has taken some climate scientists to task over their approach. That point's made by the sentence; <i>While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has written that Climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside".</i> Labouring that point is just piling on (is there a wiki essay about piling on? There ought to be). ] (]) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::There is no blp violation here, wmc self revert as you are in breach of your 1r parole. Thepm, it is highly notable that she has tried to talk to sceptics, and that she has posted on sceptic blogs. I will of course put this back if wmc refuses to self revert and continues to break his paroles ] (]) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::MN - bearing in mind that the point that she has been critical of climatologists has already been made, the deleted material can be summarised as follows;
	:::::::1. She's critical of some of her colleagues
	:::::::2. She's critical of the IPCC
	:::::::3. She's critical of Climatologists
	:::::::4. She posted on WUWT (ie directly engaged skeptics)
	:::::::5. She's critical of scientists
	::::::I recommend against you putting it all back because right now, you don't have consensus to do that. On the other hand, I do think it's notable that she's directly engaged skeptics and a single sentence to illustrate that would probably be worthwhile. ] (]) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::WMC had no consensus to remove it, berate him not me. Can you explain why you think it is not a notable event that she posts and discusses issues on sceptic blogs? It is notable. The removal of reliably sourced material without reason is against policy, and it is going back in, it is a notable event and should be properly recorded ] (]) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::: Consensus is irrelevant for BLP ] (]) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	There was no blp violation, self revert ] (]) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I've added a sentence that makes the point that she supports engagement of skeptics. I think it's a separate point the the one in the previous sentence. ] (]) 10:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:And I've just realised that I didn't put an edit summary. Can I fix that? ] (]) 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I don`t think you can change edit summaries, your best bet i to self revert and then revert again so you can put one in, what you have added is good, however i believe readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on, is there any reason this can`t also be added? ] (]) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: ''readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on'' - really? Would they also like to know what she has for tea? ] (]) 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Apparently she's a meat and potatoes kind of person, but really WMC, I don't think that's relevant for the article. MN - No, I don't think we need to be specific about the blogs. She's already published on two and I suspect there will be more. We don;t need them itemised. ] (]) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::Given she has posted on the three main sceptic sites i really do not see an issue with saying she posted her open letter on ] and on ], it is were she has posted that is the crux of the issue. I notice no objection to real climate being used in the article, why is that? ] (]) 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Real climate isn't used in the article, is it? ] (]) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::Hmm, not as a ref sorry should have been clearer, it is an external link in General-interest articles on climate science and climate-change policy by Judith Curry ] (]) 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	Well I can't see it there either, although I can see Climate Audit. In any case, my view remains that there is no need to itemise the various blogs.

			This sentence:
	By the way, are you ok to take the tag off now? ] (]) 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
			''She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.''
	:Sure take the pov tag off, i`ll do an rfc about the blog thing, thanks ] (]) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Get someone to check it for neutrality before you post it ] (]) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			Seems to be saying she is saying there is additional uncertainty to data or the argument that she has not provided.
	==Article additions==
	As may be obvious, I had an article almost ready to post also. Some seams still show, but it's certainly time Curry had an article. ] (]) 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			The plural of "uncertainties", I suspect is referring to statistical uncertainty. Standard deviations of data points and such.
	== POV? ==
			She is complaining that conclusions drawn from data are shared with excessive confidence. That the data underlying the conclusions and predictions about outcomes are not borne out with teh data collected.

			From interviews she seems to have a special grievance with data collected form teh 1970's. Perhaps that data is a source of the imprecision that she feels are presented as more accurate than they are? Not implausible given technological limitations from 50 years ago.
	MN has tagged this but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) ] (]) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			I would like this sentence struck from the article as it misinterprets her quote and by consequence mischaracterizes her criticism and says, inaccurately, that she claims to know of confounding variables or mistakes made that she is not claiming. The uncertainties (plural) refer to the data collected already, nothing new that she is refusing to share or does not exist.
	== Curry's notability.... ==

			I have no information as to which data is inaccurate, by how much, or whether the additional uncertainty of the values obtained form that data are sufficiently imprecise to cause predictions that are markedly different from those presented by the "manufactured consensus" as she calls it. Her claims of exaggeration may, themselves, be exaggerated and the consequences society is being warned about may be very close to what may occur.
	Curry's notability with the general public has arisen from her appearance in two MSM articles:
			I only object to what I see as a mistake in usage of the word "uncertainties" and the author of teh comment has raised a strawman argument in the absence of more information. ] (]) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
	the Revkin piece in the NYT in 11-09, and an interview in Discover magazine in 3-10. She has also made some more recent, provocative remarks at various climate-related sites online. While I understand the need for balance, it's a disservice to our readers to omit the main reason the general public would know who she is.
			:Reliable source says "uncertainties". Reliable source beats reasoning of random person on internet. --] (]) 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

			== "...certain features of denialism..." ==
	My own contribution to this, which vanished overnight, was:

			This phrase smacks of bias. Rather than trying to tar her position with a label that apparently doesn't fit well, just describe the position and remove the editorializing. ] (]) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
			:Her position is described in that very sentence, and that very sentence explains how far it fits and how it does not. --] (]) 04:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
			::actually .114 is right, it is biased because describing her position as denial suggests Misplaced Pages editors know what is objectively true and can assess if subjects deny the truth. Skepticism should be the word used in the case of this subject, although only with citable evidence of when she has been skeptical about a specific aspect of climate (not in general, because she is not skeptical of everything) ] (]) 06:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::No, it suggests that reliable sources are more reliable than the Misplaced Pages editor Newacademic90291. --] (]) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::The cited source explains: "Here we apply a Marxist conception of ideology to broaden our understanding of climate denialism (Marx & Engels, 1977)." ] (]) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

	Since the ] controversy developed in 2009, Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in ], in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data. <ref>, profile by ] at the ], November 27, 2009. </ref> <ref name=Discover> at ], published online March 10, 2010. </ref> She has been especially critical of the United Nations’ ] <ref name=Discover/>:
	"The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue," <ref> by Judith Curry, April 16, 2010. </ref>

			== "Broke formating" ==
	{{reflist}}
			"Broke formating" is one good reason to revert that edit, but the more important reason is that the edit introduced a fake sentence into the quote. {{tq\|Hers is an important voice against the rise of climate alarmism}} is not in the source, but it was written as if it were. The source is talking about her "it is still possible that there won't be any catastrophes, let's gamble the lives of people on that" attitude, but does not mention the denialist term "alarmism".

			Faking quotes is one of the tools in the denialist toolkit. We should be very aware of that. --] (]) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
			:I suspected the quote edit was fake, but didn't have time to check, so reverted on simple technical grounds. Thanks for looking into the details. ] (]) 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

	To answer one possible objection, "Climategate" is what Curry herself calls the controversy: she defines it more broadly than our ] article, to include the IPCC controversy, which she calls "corruption".
	--] (]) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			You use the left-of-Karl*Marx, media matters for america, as source!?LOLOLOL WUT?! Oh jeeze yeah they won't have a bias at all <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Um, because Misplaced Pages isn't about the news of the day. If she's notable, it's for her scientific work, not for this stuff. ] (]) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Atmoz and I had a discussion nearly a year ago ] and came to the conclusion that Judith Curry past the ] test. Atmoz said he would start an article up again properly some time but hadn't got around to it. I agree this recent tittle tattle is not something that has suddenly made her notable and should only form a very minor part of this article. ] (]) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:03, 23 September 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Georgia Tech (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia Tech, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Georgia TechWikipedia:WikiProject Georgia TechTemplate:WikiProject Georgia TechGeorgia Tech

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Not a "denialist"

From the lede: "Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere."

First of all, "contrarian" is an unnecessarily perjorative word, and smacks of POV. Scientists routinely take various, frequently opposing positions on scientific matters -- that is not "contrarian", it's how science works.

Secondly, Curry does not deny climate, clamate change, or a human contrubution to climate change, so the implication that she is a "deinalist" is just flat out wrong.

Third, WTF is a "blogosphere"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We follow the sources. If they call her that, that is how we report it. And you can google that word yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

actually .252 is right, it is negative POV to link her to the denial blogosphere. Skepticism should be the word used and only on specific issues she is skeptical about Newacademic90291 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We still follow the sources and not your opinion. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content
Yes, true. You are definitely following the bias sources which are fed by corporate interest and the mainstream media narrative. You negatively label someone because of the popular public opinion by hack journalists vs giving an objective point of view. The article puts zero credibility to clear achievements and thought leadership Curry has demonstrated in her career commitment to science. Only when she has a view that questions the status quo narrative is when she is slapped with a label and her professional point of view is questioned as if she had a track record of being a denier. It’s a shame the world is so close minded and holds on to fabricated ideologies before honoring evidence and different perspectives. You all can do better. Lets avoid Misplaced Pages from falling into the same media narrative and spinning opinion views vs highlighting facts. 67.197.228.6 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Right. And you are so well-known as an unbiased editor on this topic! </sarcasm> --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Said someone who has a climate change topic ban. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Nice to read something from somebody who knows some thing about climate. I was a meteorology major in college for two years, and I agree with her, Judith Curry, that a of the hysteria about the climate is ginned up to serve political agendas, not science. As for so-called “scientific consensus,” check out Copernicus. 63.155.33.144 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC) check out Copernicus See Galileo gambit. That logic is used by pretty much every pseudoscience in the world. With the same reasoning, you can also promote a flat Earth or the existence of Santa. Bring reliable sources that change the consensus, then you have something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Yes, true. You are definitely following the bias sources which are fed by corporate interest and the mainstream media narrative. You negatively label someone because of the popular public opinion by hack journalists vs giving an objective point of view. The article puts zero credibility to clear achievements and thought leadership Curry has demonstrated in her career commitment to science. Only when she has a view that questions the status quo narrative is when she is slapped with a label and her professional point of view is questioned as if she had a track record of being a denier. It’s a shame the world is so close minded and holds on to fabricated ideologies before honoring evidence and different perspectives. You all can do better. Lets avoid Misplaced Pages from falling into the same media narrative and spinning opinion views vs highlighting facts. 67.197.228.6 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. And you are so well-known as an unbiased editor on this topic! </sarcasm> --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Said someone who has a climate change topic ban. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice to read something from somebody who knows some thing about climate. I was a meteorology major in college for two years, and I agree with her, Judith Curry, that a of the hysteria about the climate is ginned up to serve political agendas, not science. As for so-called “scientific consensus,” check out Copernicus. 63.155.33.144 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

check out Copernicus See Galileo gambit. That logic is used by pretty much every pseudoscience in the world. With the same reasoning, you can also promote a flat Earth or the existence of Santa.

Bring reliable sources that change the consensus, then you have something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of "uncertainty"

This sentence: She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.

Seems to be saying she is saying there is additional uncertainty to data or the argument that she has not provided.

The plural of "uncertainties", I suspect is referring to statistical uncertainty. Standard deviations of data points and such. She is complaining that conclusions drawn from data are shared with excessive confidence. That the data underlying the conclusions and predictions about outcomes are not borne out with teh data collected.

From interviews she seems to have a special grievance with data collected form teh 1970's. Perhaps that data is a source of the imprecision that she feels are presented as more accurate than they are? Not implausible given technological limitations from 50 years ago.

I would like this sentence struck from the article as it misinterprets her quote and by consequence mischaracterizes her criticism and says, inaccurately, that she claims to know of confounding variables or mistakes made that she is not claiming. The uncertainties (plural) refer to the data collected already, nothing new that she is refusing to share or does not exist.

I have no information as to which data is inaccurate, by how much, or whether the additional uncertainty of the values obtained form that data are sufficiently imprecise to cause predictions that are markedly different from those presented by the "manufactured consensus" as she calls it. Her claims of exaggeration may, themselves, be exaggerated and the consequences society is being warned about may be very close to what may occur. I only object to what I see as a mistake in usage of the word "uncertainties" and the author of teh comment has raised a strawman argument in the absence of more information. 2607:F220:41D:101:B4FE:FED5:3C8C:8560 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source says "uncertainties". Reliable source beats reasoning of random person on internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"...certain features of denialism..."

This phrase smacks of bias. Rather than trying to tar her position with a label that apparently doesn't fit well, just describe the position and remove the editorializing. 66.177.216.114 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Her position is described in that very sentence, and that very sentence explains how far it fits and how it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

actually .114 is right, it is biased because describing her position as denial suggests Misplaced Pages editors know what is objectively true and can assess if subjects deny the truth. Skepticism should be the word used in the case of this subject, although only with citable evidence of when she has been skeptical about a specific aspect of climate (not in general, because she is not skeptical of everything) Newacademic90291 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it suggests that reliable sources are more reliable than the Misplaced Pages editor Newacademic90291. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited source explains: "Here we apply a Marxist conception of ideology to broaden our understanding of climate denialism (Marx & Engels, 1977)." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"Broke formating"

"Broke formating" is one good reason to revert that edit, but the more important reason is that the edit introduced a fake sentence into the quote. Hers is an important voice against the rise of climate alarmism is not in the source, but it was written as if it were. The source is talking about her "it is still possible that there won't be any catastrophes, let's gamble the lives of people on that" attitude, but does not mention the denialist term "alarmism".

Faking quotes is one of the tools in the denialist toolkit. We should be very aware of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspected the quote edit was fake, but didn't have time to check, so reverted on simple technical grounds. Thanks for looking into the details. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You use the left-of-Karl*Marx, media matters for america, as source!?LOLOLOL WUT?! Oh jeeze yeah they won't have a bias at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.75.58.90 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: