This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MonoApe (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 15 June 2009 (→Meteorologist? Evidence?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:39, 15 June 2009 by MonoApe (talk | contribs) (→Meteorologist? Evidence?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Vandalized?
This is my first time giving input to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure what to do. I came across this Anthony Watts article and it appears that the secton on WeatherStations.org has been vandalized. It mentions Joseph Stalin, Deal or No Deal, Nuclear Weapons, and "my grandmother"!206.255.124.252 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct, it had been vandalized this morning (UTC time). I've returned the article to a sane state. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a start
Watts and his work on SurfaceStations.org are being discussed on several articles related to global warming. I thought I would start this stub to help people get a better idea of who Anthony Watts is. He has deserved his own page for a while now. Please make it better. RonCram 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Plasticup, very nicely done. Thank you.RonCram 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looks pretty good. I think there should be a link to his blog at 'www.norcalblogs.com/watts/'; I also don't think a page for 'SurfaceStations.org' is really necessary. 72.47.71.160 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User
- Okay, I added an External Link to his blog and SurfaceStations.org and unwikified SurfaceStations.org. RonCram 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- It looks pretty good. I think there should be a link to his blog at 'www.norcalblogs.com/watts/'; I also don't think a page for 'SurfaceStations.org' is really necessary. 72.47.71.160 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User
Regarding the tags
The article currently reads:
- Watts leads an all volunteer effort to document the quality of weather stations. The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA. The data is collected and displayed on the website for others to study. The collection of this metadata is considered very important by many scientists.
- Tag #1 -The website has the initial instructions and links to forms, etc here. Roger A. Pielke has described what is required to adequately document and photograph a weather station and Pielke has strongly endorsed the work of SurfaceStations.org. In fact, Pielke even allowed Watts to post a guest blog on ClimateScience. If the instructions given by Watts were inadequate, Pielke would not be a supporter.
- Tag #2 -Scientists who have gone on the record supporting Watts effort include Roger A. Pielke, Stephen McIntyre, Lubos Motl and Warwick Hughes. But really, what scientist is going to say they do not want better data? Such an attitude would be completely unscientific. As the tags are unwarranted, I am removing them. RonCram 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ron - The only scientist within climatology mentioned above is Pielke Sr. - Motl is the only other scientist, and he is string-theorist (about as far from climatology as you can get). McIntyre is an amateur (not that this necessarily is bad). Hughes is a "freelance earth scientist" whatever that means - whats his background? One relevant scientist doesn't make "Many" - even by a far cry.. (even 4 wouldn't be "many"). As far as i can see there is no collection except for pictures of metadata at Surfacestations.org - thats not all the metadata that is required by NOAA, and it's a far way from determining whether a surface station meets requirements or not. --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kim, not true. McIntyre has published in climate journals and so has Warwick Hughes. Do a search on google scholar before you make baseless claims. There are a number of other scientists who support Watts who post on ClimateAudit. I did not see a need to present a comprehensive list of all of the scientists who support Watts. Regarding your other point, you need to spend more time on SurfaceStations.org and on Pielke's blog. In addition to the photos, volunteers must complete a form that asks a variety of questions to determine if the station meets the requirements of the NOAA. I provided the links above. Please read them. RonCram 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Publishing a paper (or a comment - as most of Hughes' are) in a scientific journal - doesn't make you a scientist. And yes - you will have to present a reliable source to your claim about "many" - otherwise its WP:OR. And you will have to document that it fullfills NOAA's requirements (which i very much doubt - having seen a random selection of filled out forms. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- the URL cited http://surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm doesn't have any quote from an expert in the field that this work meets the NOAA's requirements. And the URL doesn't have any of the forms that Ron mentioned. It would be useful if you could reference 1) exactly what the NOAA's requirements for monitoring stations are and 2) what the instructions on surfacestations.org are (without having to register for an account and wade through the site) and 3) some expert saying the instructions there fulfil the NOAA's requirements and 4) some expert saying whether or not the volunteers are doing what needs to be done to the standard required by the NOAA.
- Regarding the use of the word "many", please read Misplaced Pages:Avoid_weasel_words, in particular:
- Similarly, sentences like Many people think...—aside from leading to questions such as just how many is many—often implicitly endorse bandwagon fallacies, as their purpose is not to inform the reader about the fact that some people hold this opinion or other, but lend credibility to the statement that follows.
- 172.213.24.239 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Kim, not true. McIntyre has published in climate journals and so has Warwick Hughes. Do a search on google scholar before you make baseless claims. There are a number of other scientists who support Watts who post on ClimateAudit. I did not see a need to present a comprehensive list of all of the scientists who support Watts. Regarding your other point, you need to spend more time on SurfaceStations.org and on Pielke's blog. In addition to the photos, volunteers must complete a form that asks a variety of questions to determine if the station meets the requirements of the NOAA. I provided the links above. Please read them. RonCram 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ron - The only scientist within climatology mentioned above is Pielke Sr. - Motl is the only other scientist, and he is string-theorist (about as far from climatology as you can get). McIntyre is an amateur (not that this necessarily is bad). Hughes is a "freelance earth scientist" whatever that means - whats his background? One relevant scientist doesn't make "Many" - even by a far cry.. (even 4 wouldn't be "many"). As far as i can see there is no collection except for pictures of metadata at Surfacestations.org - thats not all the metadata that is required by NOAA, and it's a far way from determining whether a surface station meets requirements or not. --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is the definition of "scientist" that we use at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. You cannot change the definition willy-nilly. If four is not enough, how many scientists do I have to document to use the word "many"? Do you really want to see a list of names with a link to each? Do you really think that will make the article better? Also, the sentence says "The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA." It does not say that all of the data will necessarily be complete for each station, only that all of the instructions are there. RonCram 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Doing an experiment makes you a scientist, no formal training or publications needed. --Theblog 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- You are wrong. Being a scientist requires you follow the Scientific method. Being called a scientist on Misplaced Pages would require that other experts acknowledge that you are one. Usually publication in peer-reviewed authoritative journals, or possession of formal training such as a doctorate, would be sufficient acknowledgement. 129.215.37.156 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Gavin Schmidts thoughts
Tell me why Gavin Schmidt's self published views on Anthony Watts' project are in any way relevant? I'm sure there are some other unrelated bloggers that have said good things about Watts, why not get one of them? Or make an effort to respond to find Watts' response to Schmindts post at the very least. I suggest if you really think they are notable then on Gavin's page you make a new section "His thoughts on Anthony Watts' project" --Theblog (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just read it, Gavin voiced his thoughts in a comment, talk about unnotable, and as presented before I removed it, it was improperly described.
- Here is the quote:
- Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards
- Here is part of the line I removed
- "Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt,"
- Where is the reference to global warming in the comment he is responding to? Gavin does not criticise linking the surface stations.org project to global warming, because the guy never linked them. Gavin is not even responding to Watts directly, he's responding to some unknown blog commentator, again not noteworthy. Find some direct criticism from a non self published source and I say go to town. --Theblog (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, working at GISS, writing in a WP:SPS that is regarded as a WP:RS on climate science issues. He is directly involved in temperature reconstructions - and has been called as an expert on such subjects several times. His critique is both relevant and notable. And even more so, because all of the participants here are blog posters and the entire thing is blog-related. Pielke's comments are in a blog, McIntyre same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- WP:BLP should be followed to the letter. Schmidt is not even responding to what you are saying he is responding to. He is responding to a commenter making a entirely different point not regarding global warming. Do you think the Schmidt line is framed accurately? If you insist on violating WP:BLP then at least frame his self published quote to a random blog commentator correctly. --Theblog (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Kim, I do not believe your statement here that GS is 'directly involved in temperature reconstructions' is true -- do you have a reference? Unless you are talking about paleoclimate reconstructions, in which case that is an entirely separate issue. His area of expertise is modelling. That's what he's employed by NASA to do. The fact that he 'has been called as an expert on such subjects' is hardly relevant either. Who called him an expert? Do you mean in the media? What is relevant is the truth. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a further reference. And its apparently notable enough that both Anthony Watt's comments on it at his own blog, and on Climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your further reference has absolutely nothing to do with the original GS quote, its better left out. --Theblog (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Again, your reply from Watts does not address the comment quoted by GS, it addresses the other post, which is not mentioned directly in the article at all. --Theblog (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your further reference has absolutely nothing to do with the original GS quote, its better left out. --Theblog (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a further reference. And its apparently notable enough that both Anthony Watt's comments on it at his own blog, and on Climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That GS is talking about the relation to GW is obvious. The entire point of this project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you should let Anthony Watts speak for himself, I do not feel an unknown web commenter (or Mr. Connolley) speaks for Anthony Watts or his motives, and furthermore I don't feel GS's somewhat offtopic response to the unknown commentor's comment is notable. Additionally, GS's views have absolutely no bearing on Anthony Watts' views on global warming. If anything, report the "consensus" view in regards to Watts' views, maybe a line from AR4 on the topic of "localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment"- you can always cherry pick some guy who disagrees with anyone, this cherrypick of GS isn't even a particularly good one for reasons I listed above.--Theblog (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- William, Misplaced Pages is (or should be) about facts. The facts here are that Watts is taking photographs of weather stations around the world. If he is also making comments that follow from his skepticism on the AGW hypothesis, that's another matter entirely. It would belong down in the 'Views on global warming' section. In no way can this quote from GS be seriously, honestly considered serious, or relevant. If there is something in the peer-reviewed literature that formally responds to Watts' work then perhaps that would be relevant. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed
- Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt, who commented in August 2007 "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset".
- Watts writes: "The data will speak louder than any opinion I could ever utter. In the end, whether I’m right or wrong, the data will show the path and nature will be the final arbiter."
Gavin Schmidt is a single climate scientist. He is a GISS modeller, not an expert on the surface record. The views of a single scientist with no particular relationship to Watts or the subject matter just makes the article, frankly, sound amateurish & silly. The reader wants to know immediately, "So why is Gavin Schmidt important in the context of Watts or the surface record?" This leads the reader to confusion. If Gavin Schmidt was the President, this might be relevant. If this was an official position, e.g. of the IPCC, then it might be relevant. If it was even the official position statement of the RealClimate website, it would be moving in the direction of being relevant. Right now, it seems to be nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The same logic applies to the comments by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke. They are not experts on the surface record, and their views are just those of individual scientists. Stephen McIntyre is not the President, and Roger A. Pielke does not represent the official view of the IPCC. This leads the reader to confusion. The statement The project has been praised by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke Sr., the latter having described the effort as "very important" is nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't Watts run his own company?
I'd have thought that his commercial stuff would be included in his page. TMLutas (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
ToughStations
I'd love to see this rebuttal of Watts's work in the article: http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/toughstations.html 88.193.187.244 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article is supposed to be Watts's biography, not a discussion of the surface record. That would belong elsewhere. Probably in the 'global warming controversy' article.Alex Harvey (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Meteorologist? Evidence?
I couldn't find any reference to Watts being a qualified meteorologist - it simply states it on the blog for the radio station that he works for. If there is none, he is simply a TV / radio weatherman and the article should be updated accordingly. MonoApe (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- A TV weatherman can call himself a meteorologist as much as he wants, there is no protection of the title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the title infers professional qualification with a degree in a relevant discipline, similar to physicist or chemist or biologist. I can't call myself a chemist just because I dropped some Mentos in to a bottle of coke - and I can't call myself a meteorologist just because I read out the weather forecast on TV / radio. MonoApe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- He has the AMS Broadcast Seal, though oddly he's footnoted as "retired." It would be useful to list his academic degrees. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I've updated the article with that reference. MonoApe (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, so he's a 'broadcast meteorologist'. That's the correct description for what he does/did and anything else would be inaccurate. There is no implication that a BM must have a degree in meteorology.Alex Harvey (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that he is a 'broadcast meteorologist'? Who gave him this title? Himself? It seems to be the equivalent of calling the garbage man a refuse disposal technician. The current intro describes him as 'chief meteorologist', which he is not - other than as a label provided by the radio stations he reads the weather for. His only qualification appears to be a retired AMS Broadcast Seal holder, but no mention of that is made. His blog has been described as a "popular science blog" - popular in comparison to what? And it is very debatable whether someone with no scientific qualifications can be described as having a 'science' blog. It would be more accurate to state a 'climate-related blog'. I made these changes and they were immediately backed out by Atmoz and I see no justification in this talk page for that. The changes made to the intro appear to be an attempt to inflate and massage Watts' credentials. MonoApe (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The change in the lead was discussed in the section immediately following this one. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that he is a 'broadcast meteorologist'? Who gave him this title? Himself? It seems to be the equivalent of calling the garbage man a refuse disposal technician. The current intro describes him as 'chief meteorologist', which he is not - other than as a label provided by the radio stations he reads the weather for. His only qualification appears to be a retired AMS Broadcast Seal holder, but no mention of that is made. His blog has been described as a "popular science blog" - popular in comparison to what? And it is very debatable whether someone with no scientific qualifications can be described as having a 'science' blog. It would be more accurate to state a 'climate-related blog'. I made these changes and they were immediately backed out by Atmoz and I see no justification in this talk page for that. The changes made to the intro appear to be an attempt to inflate and massage Watts' credentials. MonoApe (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- And the intro does not reflect that discussion - as detailed in my comment above. Nor does it reflect referenced reality. It's also hyperbole - "popular science blog". Etc. Each of these are detailed in my comment above. MonoApe (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- A 'broadcast meteorologist' is the correct word for someone who gets up on the TV set each night and tells us what the weather's going to be. If you don't already know this, that is not my fault. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Meteorology is "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting" - note the word scientific. Watts has no scientific qualifications - he just pretends to be a scientist on his blog. Calling Watts a 'meteorologist' is the same as me calling myself a chemist because I dropped a Mentos in a Coke bottle. The fact that one country on the planet has supposedly polluted and diminished the meaning of meteorologist to mean 'someone who reads the weather', is not reason enough to give the false impression here that Watts is anything other than what he is - a weather presenter. MonoApe (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Entire article is just crass character assassination
I want to fix this beginning with the first line, which is completely inappropriate for a biography in an encyclopaedia: If we're not sure whether he's really a trained meteorologist, we say nothing. If we know that he's a Retired Seal Holder, we say he's a Retired Seal Holder. If there's controversy, and no one can be bothered doing the actual research to resolve the matter, then it doesn't belong in the first line. Presenting this in the first line, apart from being bad style (i.e. controversy doesn't belong in the first line), suggests that Mr. Watts himself is somehow trying to deceive, to misrepresent himself as a PhD holding meteorologist, for which there is no evidence. Thus I wish to edit the first line:
Anthony Watts is the founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations. He is also a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio.
Any objections?Alex Harvey (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The first sentence should explain why he is notable. If his claim to notability is being the founder of a website, this discussion should be continued at AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, you may continue to the discussion at AfD in the meanwhile if you please. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Watts is 'notable' enough to deserve a Misplaced Pages article. Obviously, the SurfaceStations.org project is a project, not merely a 'website'. Websites don't go out & take photographs of weather stations all around the world. Obviously, the thounsands of posters at Watts's 'Watts Up With That' site testify to the fact that Watts is very famous, and that in my mind is sufficient to establish 'notability'. (Are members of the Royal Family 'notable'? If so why? Should their pages be deleted too?) It would also be reasonable enough to assume that anyone new to the 'climate change' debate is going to want to know, sooner or later, who Anthony Watts is. Ergo, there ought to be an article in Misplaced Pages so that they can learn. That is, I believe, why Misplaced Pages exists.Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he also has a company (something like graphics or web design), which should be mentioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- (EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. I would suggest something like the following:
- Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, a former television weather presenter, owner of a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, a website devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations.
- -Atmoz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, 'owner of a weather company' is obviously going to raise the question 'well, what is the company?' and Kim D. Petersen has made it fairly clear above that he objects to the unproven 'meteorologist' designation. In the meantime, I may send Mr. Watts an email to see if we can resolve these issues.Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now that the company (ItWorks) already is mentioned later in the article. I think a mention should go in the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed the first line again, roughly in line with Atmoz's suggestion above. I have used 'broadcast meteorologist' to describe his profession, which is the accurate term. There is no implication that he is a research meteorologist.Alex Harvey (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now that the company (ItWorks) already is mentioned later in the article. I think a mention should go in the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, 'owner of a weather company' is obviously going to raise the question 'well, what is the company?' and Kim D. Petersen has made it fairly clear above that he objects to the unproven 'meteorologist' designation. In the meantime, I may send Mr. Watts an email to see if we can resolve these issues.Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- (EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. I would suggest something like the following:
- I think he also has a company (something like graphics or web design), which should be mentioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, you may continue to the discussion at AfD in the meanwhile if you please. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Watts is 'notable' enough to deserve a Misplaced Pages article. Obviously, the SurfaceStations.org project is a project, not merely a 'website'. Websites don't go out & take photographs of weather stations all around the world. Obviously, the thounsands of posters at Watts's 'Watts Up With That' site testify to the fact that Watts is very famous, and that in my mind is sufficient to establish 'notability'. (Are members of the Royal Family 'notable'? If so why? Should their pages be deleted too?) It would also be reasonable enough to assume that anyone new to the 'climate change' debate is going to want to know, sooner or later, who Anthony Watts is. Ergo, there ought to be an article in Misplaced Pages so that they can learn. That is, I believe, why Misplaced Pages exists.Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Some fairly minor changes to SurfaceStations section made
I have just removed the text "...where he posts pictures of particularly poorly sited stations" that followed the bit about him being a regular contributor at Steve McIntyre's blog. This text seems to trivialise both his contributions to SM's blog, and the SurfaceStations project. His contributions to SM's blog go much further than just posting pictures, and his SurfaceStations project is (again) is not just about photos. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed a quote that was out of context
The phrase 'and has said "you have to wonder if the whole house of cards isn't about to start falling down"' and the reference to The Nation Slams Global Warming was out of context, implying that this was his view of where his SurfaceStations.org project would lead. I checked the reference and found this wasn't the case at all. Instead this was just some blog post he made somewhere else, and concerned some incident with James Hansen. On its own, this quote doesn't add anything (this Wiki article already states that he's a GW skeptic). Thus it seemed most appropriate just to remove the quote and the reference. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good point about the context. I rearranged things so it's clear that the quote was a more general comment on the science of global warming. Also regarding context, I moved the bit on expected results from surfacestations.org to the preceding section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for help from an autoconfirmed user
Could I request help from an autoconfirmed user to revert this article to revision 22:21, 2 April 2009 of Atmoz. Unfortunately I have a full-time job and can't devote every minute of life to protecting Misplaced Pages from vandalism. The article is now heavily biased again. It should also be changed back to 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)' or whatever it was before... Thanks guys. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's okay, I figured out how to do it myself. If editor MonoApe has issues with the article it should be discussed here. The only issue I can see documented in the revision history is that he has objected to is "broadcast meteorologist", which as was agreed above, is the correct term for someone who might be otherwise colloquially described as a "TV weather presenter" or a "TV weatherman" or the "news weather guy" or the "weather guy" or indeed anything else. On 'chief meteorologist' that is Watts's job title, fact, end of story. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see above there was also question about whether or not it is accurate to describe Watts's blog as 'popular'... I would have the fact that Watt's blog is 'popular' is self-evident and obvious, i.e. there are thousands of posters, too many comments for me to read, it was a winner of the noted award last year for its said popularity, gets more posts than any other blog, et cetera, et cetera. I am struggling to understand why anyone, regardless of their bias, would want to argue otherwise. If you're of the view that Watts is the Devil Himself, you may read 'popular' as 'the popular press', as euphemism for 'the gutter press', and still sleep soundly at night. For the rest of us, we can just read it as 'popular' because it obviously is. Okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title
- I have now renamed the page 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)'. 'Weather presenter' is pejorative and doesn't really accurate describe what Anthony Watts is any longer in any case (i.e. he's famous now internationally for his blog). I can't think of anything other than 'meteorologist' that really works... hope that won't offend anyone. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble with meteorologist is that people suppose that this is an education, and a degree. Watts doesn't have such. So it is misleading. Weather presenter on the other hand is accurate (and i find the pejorative argument strange - its what he is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- If people suppose what is not implied, that would be a problem for those people. Bill Gates is pretty good at IT, but he dropped out of Harvard. I have a degree, but I'm not rich. How does this all work? The obvious problem with "weather presenter" is that unlike "meteorologist", it is clearly wrong. I can say, living in Australia, I would never have heard of Mr. Watts if he is really notable as a weather presenter, since I have never seen/heard him present the weather, nor am I ever likely to. I suggest that you yourself, living in Denmark? would be in the same situation here. Evidently, he is notable not for presenting the weather, even if indeed he still does do this, but rather for the blog he has created, and perhaps more significantly, for SurfaceStations. I suppose we could have this discussion again once he has published in a journal of meteorology as to whether or not he is a meteorologist or a weather presenter or something else. For the moment, unfortunately, I don't have time to argue this point any futher. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Erm? Why is weather presenter clearly wrong? Meteorologist has a specific meaning to people, and it normally presumes a degree in meteorology (ie. academic). Watts is not a meteorologist by education or by any other means, except that in the US the title isn't protected and is therefore sometimes used to describe weather presenters.
- That he runs a blog doesn't make him a meteorologist at all. Running a blog on physics or chemistry doesn't make you a physicist or chemist. The only claim to the title he has is was/is weather presenter (ie. broadcast meteorologist). Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- If people suppose what is not implied, that would be a problem for those people. Bill Gates is pretty good at IT, but he dropped out of Harvard. I have a degree, but I'm not rich. How does this all work? The obvious problem with "weather presenter" is that unlike "meteorologist", it is clearly wrong. I can say, living in Australia, I would never have heard of Mr. Watts if he is really notable as a weather presenter, since I have never seen/heard him present the weather, nor am I ever likely to. I suggest that you yourself, living in Denmark? would be in the same situation here. Evidently, he is notable not for presenting the weather, even if indeed he still does do this, but rather for the blog he has created, and perhaps more significantly, for SurfaceStations. I suppose we could have this discussion again once he has published in a journal of meteorology as to whether or not he is a meteorologist or a weather presenter or something else. For the moment, unfortunately, I don't have time to argue this point any futher. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble with meteorologist is that people suppose that this is an education, and a degree. Watts doesn't have such. So it is misleading. Weather presenter on the other hand is accurate (and i find the pejorative argument strange - its what he is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
For the article title, I prefer meteorologist. As far as I'm aware, the term weather presenter isn't used in the United States, and that's where Watts has worked. Even if he only presents the weather, he's still called a meteorologist, even if he has no formal training. Finally, I think he has had some formal training. Or at least he's picked up enough to get the seal from the AMS. And that's good enough for me. -Atmoz (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like you are right, weather presenter seems to be a british english thing. I'd go for broadcast meteorologist then. Meteorologist to me is an academic description. And from what i can see here its not just me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Climate (or weather) blogger makes more sense. Weather presenter is undoubtedly an attempt to slip a little "word knife" into him. Meteoroligist is a bit more than he deserves. Although in the US, that title often goes to news readers. Heck, look at all the airhead CBS vidiots that you liberals like (Curick and Dan Rather and the like). Do they really deserve to be called journalists? Unless you've gotten it done for a daily paper, you ain't shit in my book. But I segue. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- As discussed above the term weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term, for someone who's primary job it is to present the weather on TV or radio which appears to be the case for Anthony Watts (see also for example). Apparently this term is not used in the US, which means it's not suitable in the article per WP:ENGVAR but this doesn't make the term offensive. In any case, it appears Anthony Watts has moved beyond being a weather presenter into being a broadcast metrologist as evident by the AMS seal, albeit retired. Anyway back to the main issue, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses isn't that clear but it hints that it should be something someone are likely to search for and this agrees with other areas of wikipedia policy. Given that, and I would agree with Alex Harvey that his primary area if notability is his blogging, not his role as a weather present/broadcast metrologist, I would say Anthony Watts (blogger) is best. There's no need ot specify what type of blogger. Also I would emphasise that the primary purpose for the bracketed qualifier is to enable disambiguation and to a lesser extent to help with searching, it's not intended to convey a POV and should not be taken as such. It's not even seen that often. In other words, while there's nothing wrong with discussing the best disambigator, don't take it too seriously Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can roll with that. It's why he's here really if we're honest. No one put him on here because of the gig with the tertiary market TV station. It's all a part of the little slap wars that the girls at CA and RC have with each other. Meteorologist is the denialists trying to make him look like a scientist and weather presenter is the alarmists trying to use a little spin to put him down. Blogger is fairer and apter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Did you miss the part where I explained weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term in many countries outside the US? In any case perhaps you also want to consider David Brown (meteorologist) "Brown is one of few television weather presenters who is also a meteorologist" and Martin King (weather presenter) and Bob Johnson (weather forecaster) who is an experienced forecaster but is primarily known for "Weather presenting" or Tamati Coffey or Category:Weather presenters or or or or or even this US case . It's quite clear in none of these cases, calling them weather presenters is intended or conveys any offense, nor to put them down or whatever. It's simply a neutral and acccurate description of their jobs and not slang or anything of that sort. Some weather presenters have additional qualifications or experience as evidenced in the articles I've shown and in those case mentioning it in the article would be fine, the trouble is, if Anthony Watts does have any, there is no information published in reliable secondary sources about it and apparently not even in self published source (i.e. Anthony Watts blog) about it. The only thing we do have is he apparently has a certified broadcast metrologist badge from the AMS but again that's apparently not published in any RSS or his blog so can't be mentioned in the article although under the conditions it's fine IMHO to still call him a broadcast metrologist as I mentioned above but it doesn't mean people should get overtly worked up about a term which if used to describe Anthony Watts were he not a noted global warming sceptic blogger wouldn't result in even a bat of an eyelash unless they're complaints about WP:Engvar as evidenced by the ample use of 'weather presenter' here and elsewhere with non controversial people. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can roll with that. It's why he's here really if we're honest. No one put him on here because of the gig with the tertiary market TV station. It's all a part of the little slap wars that the girls at CA and RC have with each other. Meteorologist is the denialists trying to make him look like a scientist and weather presenter is the alarmists trying to use a little spin to put him down. Blogger is fairer and apter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I read it. Didn't change my suspicion on the action. Anyhow, (blogger) is fairer and apter, so kudos for your innovation. Make it so, please. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, you have now intentionally broken every link on the internet that points to this page. (Some people call that vandalism.) On top of that, you are wrong. A quick look at common definitions shows that the term Meteorologist does not imply any degree at all.
- Meteorologist - One who reports and forecasts weather conditions. (weather.weatherbug.com)
- meteorologist - 1)a person who studies meteorology 2)a weather forecaster (en.wiktionary.org)
- Contrary to what is written above, the term blogger is used on the Misplaced Pages Global Warming pages as a common ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit anyone the radicals disagree with. I know some of you just make up rules on the Global Warming pages, but what you have done here is totally unacceptable on a BLP page. And you only allowed 12 hours for discussion.
- On top of that, Anthony Watts is not notable as a blogger, but for the significant problems he has documented in how the "instrumental surface temperature record" is obtained. I suggest finding one of his lectures on the internet and listening to it. He makes a lot of good points. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his data is compelling. Q Science (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Why would all links be broken? Anthony Watts (weather presenter) Anthony Watts (meteorologist) still work. They just redirect. As for meteorologist perhaps you should look at this.
- As for blogger... First of all i'm not aware that it is an ad-hominem - but then i wasn't aware that weather presenter was viewed as such either, so i'm probably just a "radical" "vandal" and someone intent on "discredit"-ing Watts..... (*sigh* WP:AGF apparently lives a life in vain). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) feel free to remove this line if you've redacted/changed your comment
- On top of that, Anthony Watts is not notable as a blogger, but for the significant problems he has documented in how the "instrumental surface temperature record" is obtained. I suggest finding one of his lectures on the internet and listening to it. He makes a lot of good points. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his data is compelling. Q Science (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
'Weather presenter' is not a pejorative as some have assumed. It's common usage (in Britain, at least) for someone who presents weather on the TV / radio - and it describes exactly what Watts does. 'Meteorologist' suggests scientific qualification - Watts has none. Why has factual reference to him being a retired TV Seal Holder been removed? There seems to be an agenda from some to massage Watts' credentials in order to give him authority where none exists - e.g. calling him 'chief meteorologist' when, in fact, that's just the job title bestowed on him by the small radio station he works for. Referring to him as a 'meteorologist' will lead many to believe he has scientific qualification when, in fact, he has none. Meteorology has a clear definition - "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting". The key word is scientific and Watts is not a scientist of any kind - he just plays one on the radio and on his blog. I see no justification for the changes that have been made from my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anthony_Watts_(blogger)&oldid=290526000 MonoApe (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Atmoz, I acquiesce to your renaming of my thread (wrt basic point on rebuttals to BLP views)
It got threadjacked so hard that, that's what made sense. I did have an (I think) relevant point to this article and to others about not needing to juvinely argue against the BLP within his bio. And before anyone gets too upset, I think Watts is a buffoon. He makes the real skeptics look bad (of course a lot of my fellow skeptics make us look bad...sigh.) But my basic point was let's not feel the little kid need to disagree with the biography subject within his article. I mean I think Hitler was wrong too. But if the bio says, Hitler thought the Jews were evil, that's the content. That's what the dude thought. I don't need to add my own cobbled together argument on how the Jews aren't evil. Just in CASE someone comes along and agrees with Hitler. Or because it just chaps my a...lueta jonte allueta...to see that in print. At least quote someone else making the rebuttal. Although even that is persnickety. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- BLP does matter, and you really shouldn't be calling people buffoons. I'm not really sure what thread you are referring to since the thread you've participated in is the one above. Are you Alex Harvey or something? In any case, if you are referring to I agree it's removal was appropriate because the rebuttal was not reliable sourced. Nneither of the references appear to be a rebuttal of Anthony Watts' claims which is generally necessary in a BLP and heck from what I understand (from a quick read thorough of the sources) neither even say "even if anomalies were found in temperature stations in the USA, it would not alter the increasing temperatures recorded in the Arctic and globally." instead they simply appear to be discussions about the temperature increases observed globally and in the Artic, in other words it's a clear cut case of WP:OR (specifically WP:Syn. Having said that, I'm not convinced that Anthony Watts' claim/hope is notable/significant enough to be mentionedin the article if the only source for it is an op-ed Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am Alex Harvey and, no, I haven't been posting anonymously above... I agreed with Atmoz's comments above. Also someone described the current naming of the article "Anthony Watts (weather presenter)" aptly as a "word knife". My opinion again, for what it's worth... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- RealClimate - Friday roundup
- How not to measure temperature, part 52: Another UFA sited in Arizona - Watts Up With That? February 17, 2008
- Hugo Ahlenius (June 2007). "Trends in Arctic temperature, 1880-2006". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Retrieved 2 April 2009.
- NASA (2009). "GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis". GISS NASA. Retrieved 2 April 2009.