Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:44, 31 October 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 10) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Biography: Science and Academia C‑class

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

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Scalhotrod, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 11 April 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

What bothers Watts most

Before recent edits by DHeyward, the text read

He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (bold added)

Although the bolded phrase was not formatted as a quote, it does use the language used by the interviewer, and this is critical because it defines the pronoun "they" in Watts' quote. DHeyward altered the meaning away from the RS by changing the bold text so that it instead reads climate change activists. Watts was not asked about "climate change activists", he was asked about "people who say there is a lot of global warming". Many many many people say that, and while they might want the things Watts describes they are totally inactive trying to make it happen.

To cure this problem, I then imported a direct quote for the journalist's question. What's more WP:VERIFIABLE and objective than that? The result read

" Asked "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" he replied "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (Bold added)

OOPS! While "climate change activists" was somehow dandy, apparently the verbatim question-and-answer is somehow toxic waste, which D removed entirely, with the edit summary

rm. don't agree with interprtation of soundbite quotepull that spans multiple questions/answers. It's clear he means activists drawn to a cause and not everyone that believes in global warming (underline added)

Say what? "spans multiple questions/answers"?? No it doesn't. There is this question, followed by this answer. Read the transcript in the ref. Plain as my nose.

Side-bar, Watts' answer to the verbatim question "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" became the focus of commentary. There are 1500 Google hits on the verbatim question combined with "Watts". For example, Skeptical Science's Dana 1981 wrote,

Watts on His Motives and Double Standards

At Skeptical Science it is against our site policy to speculate about a person's motives, but in this case, Watts volunteered the information.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

"It is interesting that Watts responds to a question about a science-based opinion with a criticism about policy. For example, Watts is not most bothered that people are ignoring or unaware of the biases that he incorrectly believes exist in the temperature record. No, Watts is most bothered that we might implement an economically-beneficial carbon tax.

CONCLUSION The text should be restored to show both the question and the answer because

• What bothers him most about those people is highly relevant to a biography about the man
• The question is followed by the answer without interruption, contrary to D's edit summary
• Using both the question and the answer is objective and NPOV, whereas DHeyward's edit puts words in Watts' mouth, based on DHeyward's interpretation of the word "they". He says his interpretation is "clear". Well, it certainly isn't clear to me, because I prefer to read the RS text without committing WP:Original research.

@DHeyward: please self-revert.

refs for what bothers Watts most

References

1. ^ Michels, Spencer. "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message". PBS NewsHour.
2. Dana1981. "PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?"". Skeptical Science.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"

The consensus is not determined merely from !votes. However, note that the !votes were roughly as follows: 7 "yes", 3 "no", 2 "merge", 1 should be "handled by WP:Summary style", 1 "support" for "moderate trimming and moving of WUWT material", 2 "yes" but use summary style or merge, and 1 no but merge. Some concern was expressed that the RFC question is confusing or malformed or proposes a WP:POVFORK.

I take notice of the fact that Section 2.1 of this BLP is titled "Climate change blogging", that Section 2.1 contains two paragraphs, that Section 2.1 already has a hatnote to the main article Watts Up With That?, that Section 2.1 has been substantially edited during the course of this RFC, and that such editing included removal of a paragraph about awards..

Merging the entire article into the article about the blog would require further discussion, because it was not suggested by the RFC question. The RFC question addressed only the blog, and not climate stuff more generally.

There is solid support here for reducing the size of section 2.1 about the blog. For example, it could be reduced to a couple sentences about his role as founder and supervisor, and then another couple sentences about his blog posts. Such would conform with WP:Summary Style. As for awards for blogging, that could be briefly mentioned in the aforementioned four sentences. All material removed from this article should go to the article about the blog, if it's not already there, per WP:Summary style. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.... The entire RfC discussion follows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog, i.e., Watts Up With That?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes, as proposer Extensive debate and characterization of Watts' blog on this page about the individual person named "Anthony Watts" overlooks fact that many other people write posts at this guy's blog. True, Watts has control over which guest columns appear and which don't. Nonetheless, I feel we would be best served by stripping extensive discussion and characterization of the blog from this article about the man, and moving all of that to the article about the blog.

NUTSHELL - I do NOT suggest deleting anything, just consolidating the blog issues at the blog article. I will finish formatting this with appropriate templates w/in 24 hrs but not right now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• YES, per proposer. I've already suggested this, somewhere upthread in the Wall of Text. Summarize WUWT briefly here, move the rest to the blog. But don't think you can avoid WP:BLP over there.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you feel compelled to add a vague threat ("don't think you can avoid WP:BLP over there")? After all, no one should expect to violate any of our policies anywhere, so going out of your way to make such a remark seems somehwat battle-ish. You've my permission to delete this comment if you choose to redact the relevant part of your own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see

• Yes move the blog and climate views to the other articles. Then we only have to remove "denier" from the blog page as we can avoid it here. --DHeyward (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "denier" appears in neither lead, both quite properly refer to the climate change denial which Watts supports in his blog and also in other publications. We can improve the coverage of this issue, whether the coverage in this article is WP:SUMMARY style or alternatively the articles are merged as proposed below. . . dave souza, talk 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• No The blog and the climate denialism promoted thereon are the basis of Watts'notability; accordingly, the section belongs in the BLP.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question NAEG, could you clarify how much content you would expect to be left on this page if this were to be agreed upon? --JBL (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be the next thing we argue about, assuming we have consensus there is an unfortunate redundancy between the two. There are several places we could draw the line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the intent of my question: I tend to agree with Ubikwit that Anthony Watts is mostly notable because WUWT is notable. This cuts against removing too much WUWT-related material from the biography. On the other hand, there's some obvious trimming that would probably improve this article (e.g., the paragraph about blog awards). So I suppose my point is that my support for this proposal depends rather much on where the line is drawn. Perhaps we can put me down as supporting a moderate trimming and moving of WUWT material. --JBL (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• No Any mention of Watts in reliable sources is almost always paired with mention of his blog. The rare exceptions are now defunct websites briefly touching on his old meteorology career. Without his blog, Watts isn't notable, and we of course should expect that most of his article will discuss his primary claim to notability. Since Watts Up With That has been fully protected while this article was undergoing extensive revisions, our coverage of the blog may be better here than at its own article. That can be rectified once the protection expires by copying and expanding this coverage (no deletions from here necessary). I may be in favor of merging the articles, but if they aren't merged, our standard practice is to summarize the more extensive coverage of Watts Up With That in a section here, and it seems that's what we're doing now. Also note, all content on WUWT (in this article) is related to Watts due to his direct involvement, and each of our sources references him, so it's all relevant even aside from it being his blog.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mann Jess, what about the paragraph on blog awards, for example? --JBL (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The awards might not belong in this article, but that's a content decision that doesn't require an RfC (or perhaps even a discussion). Keep in mind what we're removing: they, along with the criticism, discuss the broad reception of his blog (a project started by and closely tied to Watts). I think we could do a better job of summarizing that reception than detailing every criticism and every internet-voting award from 8 years ago. Yes, we should be summarizing the parent article, not going into excruciating detail, but we should still detail more here than we typically would due to the close relationship between Watts and his blog. So, I might support trimming some things individually, but the overarching theme of removing WUWT content from this bio is not one I support in general.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Watts is mentioned often outside the website, and he is certainly more notable that 95% of all climate scientists. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Observation: your rationale does not appear to be related to your vote. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If he was not notable then surely you and your friends would not be here worrying about him on a continual basis. The actions of the AGW crowd on WP is pretty good empirical evidence of his notability. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Shorter: What does this have to do with the question under discussion in the RfC?

Longer: I have been pleasantly surprised to see the RfC discussion splitting opinions up in ways that do not correlate perfectly with views about Watts. It is certainly more enlightening than most of the rest of the discussions happening on this page. It would be nice if you, too, could engage in the RfC. So far, I can see no connection whatsoever between what you've written here and the question under discussion. (In particular, there is exactly no one disputing whether Watts is notable.)

--JBL (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The website is certainly notable today by itself. Watts is notable by himself as well. There may have been a time when the two were not necessarily independently notable, but that is no longer the case today. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This RFC is not about the notability of Watts nor WUWT. All of your comments appear to be pure non sequiturs. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In another thread, some of us were kicking around maybe doing a full merge. I don't know what Arzel had in mind, but in any case, what he said is an argument against full merge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make the connection. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be worth considering merging the articles about Watts and WUWT -- which, ims, is what we used to have. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"ims"? --JBL (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: "if memory serves"? --JBL (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd support merging the articles if we can keep all the significant content. My concern is that some content may no longer fit. If we merge WUWT to here, we'd have to cut out significant coverage of WUWT's activities not involving Watts (i.e. posts from Monckton). If we merge into WUWT, we'd need to demonstrate a connection between the Surface Stations Project and WUWT (only 1 source I know of connects the two, others mention both as independent projects), or else create Surface Stations Project and be left with two articles again. Rather than figure all that out now, I think our best bet is to flesh out both articles, then see where there's overlap and combine if necessary. Just my opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also see this discussion with Boris, upthread. Hmmm, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I think two parallel discussions is a waste of effort. News and Events' proposal has merit. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• No; see merge proposal(s) below. JonRichfield (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: the RfC is confusing, because it doesn't indicate how much of the material should be moved to the other article. It's hard to imagine that our article here should contain nothing at all on the blog -- as others have noted, this is a significant part of Watts's own notability. So if that's what is intended, then of course the answer to the question as posed has to be no. But I think this will be a hard RfC to close -- because there are likely different assumptions by different editors about exactly what is being proposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, this gets to the same thing I was saying in my first comment above. But I thought NaEG's response was helpful: first we can agree that some amount of trim/move should happen, then we can discuss exactly where to draw the line. Only one person has supported the (self-evidently ridiculous) idea that Watts' blog should be totally expunged from this page, and most people who have expressed a view supporting a more moderate trimming. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The question is malformed. Obviously the discussion about XX should go into the article about XX, whatever the XX, including the aforementioned blog. So, yes, discussion about the blog should be on the blog's article (assuming there is one). Watts' article should have a brief, wp:Summary style reference to it. Alternatively, I have not looked much into it, yet it looks like this is close to a one-event BLP, and the articles are not that big, so merging would also be a possible move. - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. I was summoned here by the RFC bot, and this is the right answer. --Slashme (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Merge to a single article. What should that article be? Watts has some minor notability beyond WUWT, but WUWT clearly is Watts's blog, so the remaining article should be the one on Watts with WUWT as a section therein. I know that wasn't the question but that's the answer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Merge Storm in teacup. Change the blog article to a redir; its text is quite small enough to fit into the personal article as part of the perspective and the personal part is quite small enough to prevent frustration to readers seeking information on the blog. JonRichfield (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, this RfC looks like a proposal for a WP:POVFORK. That guideline says, among other things, that "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." If this RfC is interpreted as "How much should we trim?" then it doesn't have any practical value because it's unclear what the outcome would entail. Manul ~ talk 09:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So, is this a vote for Merger? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This RfC seemed to be proposing that WUWT should be gutted or severely trimmed from the article, making the WUWT article an effective WP:POVFORK. The article should substantially cover WUWT regardless of whether or not there is a separate WUWT article. A merger proposal would be a different RfC, stating the arguments for and against so that everyone can see them upfront. We can't retroactively change what an RfC is addressing; that's unfair to the early commentators. Manul ~ talk 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Merger? -- I'm in favor (as said upthread somewhere). NAEG, if your proposal has run its course, are you wiling to recast it as a MERGE.RFC? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes per NewsAndEventsGuy. The Watts blog article is quite well-developed as is this one; I would suggest summarizing the blog here rather than repeating content or merging the two articles. petrarchan47คุก 05:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes If there were something notable about Watts himself beyond what's in his blog I would vote differently. Too many people are aggressively tendentious for that to be a criterion for notability. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• 'Neither Yes nor No. Cases like this are handled according to WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Existence of a global warming controversy

When page protection expired earlier today, I made an edit and only then realized it was moments after PP expired. Pure coincidence. I probably would not have touched anything for a few days if I had paid attention.

Anyway....

Some article text caught my eye and I struck some out as follows...

Watts established Watts Up With That? (WUWT) in 2006. The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, and presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming.

I struck that text for two reasons. First, assuming there is a global warming controversy the text redundant with the phrase I left in, "presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change" etc etc Second, if you actually go to global warming controversy you learn that it is a phenomena that exists in popular media and psyche.... there's really no genuine controversy that its warming, or that it's us causing it. Thus, the struck out phrase POVishly presumes and declares in wikivoice that there is controversy about global warming It's POV.

In addition, it's flat out wrong. Watts' blog does NOT report on the phenomena of this public media/audience perception of controversy contextualized against the scientific backdrop. Rather the RSs say the blog is promoting that perception.

Capitalismo restored the struck text with the edit summary saying in relevant part {tq|"this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better."

QUESTION Do you agree with Capitalismo's reasoning, when contrasted with the RS that supports this sentence? Capitalismo - "this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better" The actual RS - "Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."

Seems to me Watts is fomenting the global warming controversy over points considered settled by the American Academy of Science We should not assert Watts presents meaningful info about the phenomena of this perceived controversy in wikivoice because that's POV and SOAP and PROMO inconsistent with the RS. And besides, its redundant and therefore extraneous and repetitive and says the same thing over and ..... ha? ha?? Nevermind.

Capitalismo, please self revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You convinced me as to redundancy. I will self revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BRD lives! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! Someone else has edited in the meantime. I could not self revert. Check the changes to see if it works for you. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Vague non supported attribution doesn't cure redundancy, so I took care of it per your comments above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This outcome is preferable in my view :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reflist for this thread

References

1. SchneiderNocke 2014, p. 171 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchneiderNocke2014 (help): "Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."
2. America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. (p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Labeling the mainstream view as "critics"

Lately, there has been an effort to describe mainstream sources, such as our most academic sources, as simply "critics" of Watts. For example, this edit. While it is of course true that these sources are critical of Watts and his blog, they are only critical insofar as the mainstream academic view is critical, and we should not reduce the mainstream view to just some personal dispute. "Watts believes X, but critics of Watts say Y" is a poor summary; we should say "Watts believes X. Y" or "...the scientific consensus is Y". I saw this approach used on Mann earlier ("Mann just has a vendetta"), and then Dunlap ("Dunlap is just another of Watts' critics"), and now Farmer/Cook too. If we need to attribute, then attribute, but if a view represents the mainstream, then it's not "just a critic".   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good points and that's an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

• Watts is primarily known for his blog WUWT. Notice "(blogger)" is in the title of the article. The opening sentence is supposed to cover what the subject is known for. He isn't quite as known for being a meteorologist, or for Surface Stations. Placing emphasis on those two in the first sentence is unbalanced.
• We could include Watts' self-identification as "skeptic", however this would need to be placed into context since scholarly sources have commented that Watts is not practicing scientific skepticism. Diving into those details does not seem appropriate for the lead, so it seems cleaner and easier to leave it out.
• Since the lead should summarize the article, I added a sentence about the Heartland Institute.

Manul ~ talk 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't yet gotten to the lead, but that looks like an improvement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts is known as skeptic and the blog is known as skeptic according to the majority of reliable sources. You put in -- without attribution -- a smear that Watts runs a climate change denial blog. You also added a "ties to the Heartland Institute" sentence, but there's no evidence that Heartland forms a significant part of Watts's life or his blog's funding, so putting that in the lead is just more smear. So I removed your change per WP:BLP, and (unsurprisingly) Mann jess reverted me after 11 minutes. Mann jess has succeeded in getting A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned from this article for opposing a similar addition, so I won't be surprised if there's reluctance to oppose this, but one must try. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WUWT is known as a "climate change skeptic" or "climate change denial" blog. There is significant overlap between the two, and in many cases they are used interchangeably by our sources. The lead documents how WUWT is identified, just like it already did before Manul's change. The lead is intended to be a summary of the body, so (as a general rule) I would expect that each major section would get some coverage. Adding a brief mention of Heartland seems ok, considering that. In the future, we may want to include the BEST project and some of Watts' views as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Watts's self-ID as a skeptic, we need to cite RS's which also ID him as a skeptic. We formerly had refs citing this, which were inexplicably removed in the changes of the last few weeks. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a case for introducing some sources used earlier, such as:
Michels, Spencer (September 17, 2012). "Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message". PBS. ... one of the nation's most read climate skeptics ... as I learned more and more about the issue, I discovered that maybe it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Some of it is hype, but there's also some data that has not been explored and there's been some investigations that need to be done that haven't been done. And so now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.
SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?
ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.
SPENCER MICHELS: What are you saying? That they're biased essentially or motivated by something else? What?
ANTHONY WATTS: Tthere's a term that was used to describe this. It's called noble cause corruption.
Lott, Maxim (January 10, 2013). "Hottest year ever? Skeptics question revisions to climate data". Fox News. Climate change skeptics such as blogger and meteorologist Anthony Watts are unconvinced.
"Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported ... changes with the moment," Watts told FoxNews.com.
"In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data." . . . dave souza, talk 12:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. I wanted to include more material on Watts' positions, so that's a step in the right direction.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Aparent BLP violation for "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change."

I recently edited this to read:

Watts is critical of the scientific consensus on climate change. -- which is (imo) a more accurate and dispassionate summary of his views.

Another editor promptly reverted. However, none of the cited refs use this language, which appears to be the preference (and creation) of an activist editor.

You can't just make stuff up for a WP:BLP. Please find support for this language, or (better) cool the rhteoric. We must get the article right. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the refs cited for that sentence say that Watts is part of a climate denialist machine, or that the blog publishes climate disinformation on a daily basis. Would that wording be preferable to the current version? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Our sources could be improved; Mooney is the most direct of the three. However, none of the three say he is "critical", which would obviously imply Watts is dispassionately criticizing the science, instead of the intent in contrasting his views with the mainstream. The current wording is unquestionably reflective of the sum total of sources we have on Watts, so I don't see a problem; at most, we should replace Mann and Farmer with a cite that is more precise. Tillman, do you know of one?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As shown by sources discussed in #Cleaning up the lead, Watts said people who say there's lots of global warming "want to change policy. They want to apply taxes" and show "noble cause corruption", and of NOAA temperature adjustments which had been shown through at least three papers to be an improvement; "Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here ... In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data." Not what you'd call dispassionately critical. . . dave souza, talk 12:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Talking about what the article's sources say, when sources that say otherwise have been removed without general agreement, isn't talking about the problem. We are eventually going to have to fix the article so it reflects the prevalent wording in reliable sources about Watts's opinions, and that's another way of saying that the recent wave of bad edits will have to be reversed entirely. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What sources were removed from the article that back up Tillman's change?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about the statement that Watts is known as a skeptic, and can add that Watts may think the scientific consensus is nonexistent or irrelevant. He can hardly be rejecting a consensus if those are the circumstances, and I don't know of a place where he clearly says he "rejects the scientific consensus on climate change". That doesn't mean I think he's likely to have said "I hereby criticize the scientific consensus", and I will push for restoration of the earlier phrasing "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.", but meanwhile "is critical" is at least less contentious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In academic literature, "climate change skeptic" means one who rejects the scientific consensus, in whole or in part. Watts' view that "the scientific consensus is nonexistent" is also contrary to the scientific consensus, funny enough (see here), and his belief that the scientific consensus is "irrelevant" would indicate he rejects it, would it not? So, sources saying those kinds of things do not contradict our coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• The NPOV policy directs us to seek "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available". Inserting a list of popular news sites (foxnews.com, etc.) that were found by googling "skeptic" is pretty much the opposite of that. This source counting strategy is against policy and consensus, and has been long since dismissed. Also see the Verifiability policy, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

Re "rejects", I think "opposes" conveys the same thing and sounds more encyclopedic. Manul ~ talk 18:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Watts promotes denial of scientific consensus, and tries to undermine the public understanding of it. The word "opposes" is misleadingly understated. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Re: academic literature, research in general for this article:

The basic problem is, in lit research, you find what you're looking for. If you are looking for material to prove Watts (or whoever) is a "Denier" (or whatever), that's what you find. I'm not the first to point out this problem: see Confirmation bias, which is rife in climate science (in my professional opinion).

As Gulutzan says, there's a lot of biassed research to be tossed (or really, melded with the stuff that the activists have tossed), to make this article reasonably NPOV again. But people like me & P.G. get tired, have to go to the grocery, have lives to live. So we let it ride, and hope for things to cool down, and come back later. OK? Pete Tillman (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tillman, please stop using the talk page as a forum. I've pointed to WP:NOTFORUM several times now. It's important. @Dave/Manul, I think rejects and opposes are really about the same. Dave is of course correct about them being understated (but I think that applies to both); our later coverage should make his real position clear. That first sentence only serves to contextualize our subsequent material as views which are fringe. Either does that job. "Opposes" is more active, but I like "rejects" better.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is forum-ing. All seem like reasonable observations and suggestions, that could (in my dreams?) improve matters a bit here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. You could justify arguing that the earth is flat on the ground that you find it reasonable. You're pushing a point of view on the ground that you find it reasonable. Anyone can do that. It doesn't make it right. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. Template:BLP noticeboard Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors