Jump to content

Talk:Garth Paltridge/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

article should be broken in two

I believe as is the case with all of these sorts of bios, we need one page for Paltridge and another page for his book. Any objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel states on my talk page that the article needs to be here as a result of not being mentioned enough in reliable sources. I suspect this is a temporary issue, as the book was only published a month ago. I'll collect some reviews of the book here:
I guess there aren't many sources available yet but I suspect this will change. I still think it is better to either remove the discussion of the book altogether from Paltridge's bio if it fails WP:NOTE or create in a separate page. This is skewing Paltridge's biography to a book review that hasn't had time to obtain WP:NOTE in its own right. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to make a separate article of the book but it was deleted ► RATEL ◄ 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you think the fact it got deleted might have had anything to do with the fact that you created the page before the book had actually been published? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome to try again. ► RATEL ◄ 07:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on group affiliations section

  1. I still assert [n 1] is unreliable. Fortunately, it's not needed to support the material.
  2. [n 7] is clearly unreliable, being a blog entry.
  3. Front group is a WP:BLP violation, even in a talk page context, even if n 7 were reliable.
  4. "Funded Sponsored by …" is almost certainly WP:SYN, even if it were sourced. (No source is given there.) I withdraw my withdrawl of the WP:UNDUE violation. If you're making an effort to include that, it's still relevant.
  5. [n 10 11] appears to be an extract from an extract from a publication with unclear reliablility.
  6. The link to Australian APEC Study Centre appears to be to an unmoderated Wiki. We can't do that.
  7. Attributing the original source, rather than the web site on which the source is found, would be an improvement.
There may be other clear violations of Wikipedia policy in regard a WP:BLP. However, with all the other associations, I would no longer consider it an WP:UNDUE violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Arthur, DeSmogBlog [n 7] is unfortunately named, because it's more than a blog and does more fact checking than a lot of the MSM. See [1]. ► RATEL ◄ 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog isn't even close to being a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Sez you. It's been mentioned favorably in many of the world's major newspapers, eg NYT. Do a GNEWS archives search. And show me an example of its proven unreliability as well. That'll give some meat to your judgement. Oh, then please also supply a link to the section on WP:RSN where it was adjudged non-RS. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No. "Sez" WP's policy. This is a self-published source not written by an expert who is published on the subject. Thus none of the exceptions to SPS apply. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Equally, Hoggan's book, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, which carries exactly the same info, but with more detail, could be cited instead of desmogblog. ► RATEL ◄ 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
For those BLP minded folks, a quick search yields a few articles to look at. -Atmoz (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so striking ref 1, and desmog (ref 7), and "front" from group, does AR's objections 1-3 without changing the text much. #4 - if they were the main sponsors it seems fair enough. If they were only minor, not. #5 - we don't need 3 refs to this anyway. #6 - fair enough, we can just make them a wiki article if they are notable or unlink if not. #7 ? So I think all those can be fixed with no harm to the text - would you then be happy, or at least quiescent? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

William, I do not understand what you're saying here. This new text has all of exactly the same problems it had before. I can't, regrettably, see that any effort has been made to address the problems. I'll break it down:
  1. section title "affiliations" implies... um... affiliation=membership of groups which is completely unsupported.
  2. Paltridge is associated with the Lavoisier Group and speaks at their conferences.[n 1] -- (a) [n 1] doesn't say he is "associated" so that is WP:OR; (b) I fully agree that this is not a reliable source and that the author is repeating hearsay, rumour or gossip; therefore [n 1] should not be used anyway.
  3. The Group organised the launch of Paltridge's book on August 11, 2009 in Melbourne, Australia. Lavoisier Group president[n 2] and businessman Hugh Morgan launched the book, and Paltridge responded.[n 3] -- (a) we have the same WP:SYN as before; (b) source [n 3] doesn't actually say this so we have WP:OR; (c) we have WP:UNDUE as with no reliable sources actually saying this there is a big "who cares" hanging over it.
  4. In a paper entitled Nine Facts about Climate Change, published by the Lavoisier Group, Paltridge stated that he was threatened with funding cuts in the 1990s by his employer, the CSIRO, if he publicly expressed his doubts about the extent of the effect of greenhouse emissions.[n 4][n 5] -- (a) once again... a complete distortion of the source; wording is suggesting that Paltridge had some hand in being cited by the Lavoisier Group. (b) Ratel's argument that this is important because it is the "first" paper to pick up Paltridge's story is faulty; it may be the first paper he knows about, I don't happen to know of earlier ones either, not that it's relevant, but this does not imply it is the first paper that actually picked up this story. We are not research historians here; being unable to find things on google doesn't imply they don't exist. (c) The Lavoisier source also appears to be repeating gossip and hearsay. It is unreliable.
I'm not going to look at the subsequent paragraphs because these are exactly the same as they were before with the same references and were already removed after tedious discussions and finally consensus.
The whole section still needs to go; the most important principle invoked, in my view, is still WP:UNDUE. It is our job to summarise the reliable sources, not to go digging for connections with groups that we regard as not "respectable". No weight for any of this material is currently established in reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Affiliation is not always = membership. It means affiliated in some (as yet) undefined way. If Lavoisier was legit, it would publish a membership list. But we can and should certainly say PG is affiliated, by way of an introduction to all the subsequently stated and sourced links he has.
  2. Link to NRSP: another source. This time a CSIRO scientist.
  3. Your claim of OR/SYN/UNDUE because we name Morgan as the Lavoisier president (sourced), at a Lavoisier function (sourced), is absurd. We need some sensible NPOV editors here to demonstrate consensus against this sort of weak argument. You even try a "who cares" argument. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel, trying to suppress the facts.
  4. Paltridge's claims of bullying first aired in a Lavoisier paper. That's true, demonstrably. They got the allegation from him. Find an earlier source to disprove, or shut it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Hoggan's book as not much better than his blog (Google books doesn't have a wikilink for the publisher, which probably means that's the only book from that publisher they have excerpts from), and the quoted sections require specific sourcing even if it were a reliable source.
  2. I concur that many of the paragraphs violate WP:SYN some violate WP:UNDUE. The sponsors of a conference are not relevant in the article of a speaker of that conference, unless the implication that the speaker represents the views of those sponsors is intended. Wikipedia doesn't allow that implication unless it is proven, and even then it must be attributed to the reliable source.
  3. Even if Paltridge's claims of bullying first aired in a Lavoisier paper, that wouldn't be relevant.
  4. However — I accept that Paltridge's affiliation with Lavoisier may be relevant, if it's more than just "Paltridge speaks at Lavoisier conferences" or even the unsourced "Paltridge is frequently a keynote speaker at Lavoisier conferences".
    I used to speak at AMS and MAA conferences; does that give any indication that I agreed with their position on Yugoslavia and UN sanctions? In fact, I dropped my AMS membership, in part, because of their extension of the UN sanctions to prevent their publications from being sent to affiliate members in the disputed areas.
If a reliable source commented on Paltridge's association with those organisations, it might be appropriate for the article. But they'd have to comment on why the association is important, such as a specific comment that his views align with that of the organisations. Selecting 3 independent sources for the association, for Paltride's views, and for the organisation's views, is unacceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Everything in the proposed edit it true. However, since Paltridge is of marginal notability, getting it all properly sourced is not going to be easy. Meanwhile, sites like sourcewatch.org carry the full story. ► RATEL ◄ 05:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Even given marginal notability, that doesn't make marginal sourcing acceptable. UA 05:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

William, I do not understand what you're saying here. - yes, that does seem to be your problem. I was talking to AR, who I don't think has answered my points William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the financial sponsors of a conference are relevant to the article on a speaker — even a "keynote speaker" — at a conference. Other than that, and pending the posibility that, in regard my point 7, some of the references may really come from an unreliable source, and the apparent source is a news aggregator or some other collector of information without vetting it, I don't see anything more that I see as inappropriate that's worth fighting over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me a classic case of an attempt at "guilt by association" (you know, "This group is full of quacks, he spoke at their conference, thus he is a quack" type of thing), and with opinion basically split here at talk, I wonder how it's appropriate to keep it in there? UA 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It is properly reverenced and is not WP:SYNTH. It should stay in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Five editors (myself, Arthur Rubin, Unitanode, ATren, Cyclopia) have all identified precisely the same synthesis problems in the text. As far as I can see, aside from blank opposing assertions that the synthesis is actually not there, there is consensus on that point. That would mean we ought to immediately drop from the text the connection of Paltridge & Lavoisier through the book launch of Climate Caper which is trying to advance the view that he is "affiliated." Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree, however, with Arthur Rubin, who wrote, I accept that Paltridge's affiliation with Lavoisier may be relevant, if it's more than just "Paltridge speaks at Lavoisier conferences" or even the unsourced "Paltridge is frequently a keynote speaker at Lavoisier conferences" Absolutely, if there is a real affiliation, a word which denotes some kind of formal relationship, if not membership (e.g. "hangin' out together" is not "affiliation"), then the article should say so. However this seems so far to be a big, unestablished "if", with the frequent speculative appeals here in the talk page suggesting that actually, there is just no proof of this. Again, this is a BLP, and this stuff should be removed from the text if the proof isn't there. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

anyway

So... it looks like the Lavoisier section needs to go. There are no reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) proving affiliation with the Lavoisier Group. A number of editors have seen it as too good to be true that Lavoisier organised the book launch, that the Lavoisier president gave the speech, and that Paltridge is known via Hamilton to speak at Lavoisier-organised conferences from time to time. He must be a member, but the cunning Lavoisier folk have kept their memberships a secret so there's no way of proving it. Damn it, say some of the editors, the biography still must say or at least suggest that Paltridge is affiliated, by presenting every clue, whereas Wikipedia WP:UNDUE doesn't allow this. Is that pretty much accurate? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It continues to look like you want it out. It continues to look like you're trying to pretend people agree with you. It still doesn't look like the section needs to go William M. Connolley (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
By reading the comments above, I see three editors (myself, Arthur Rubin & Unitanode) agree on the applicability here of WP:UNDUE and a guilt by association push behind including the section on the Lavoisier Group. There is nothing here for me to pretend. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not majority rules. Work with WMC to find a version acceptable to all. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The only acceptable version is not to make guilt-by-association type claims in the first place (see WP:BLP) and certainly not to make them without high quality reliable sources. There is no middle ground. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any claim of guilt in the article that is currently protected. Perhaps I'm missing something. Where is the guilt, exactly? Which of references 14, 15 and 16 are not reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"There is no middle ground. Compromise is impossible. Any BLP claim made by AH must automatically be obeyed without thinking". Can anyone see the problem with this line of argument? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were a "majority rules" method there are at least three editors who oppose removal of the section in question. Consensus does not exist to remove this section. Consensus does not exist that there is any WP:DUE violation.Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you're misreading the guidelines. A potential WP:BLP violation is to be removed unless there is consensus that it is not a violation and that it is appropriate in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really help unless you have consensus that it *is* A potential WP:BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, this entire section describing who said what to whom on the occasion of some book launch is irrelevant and of no interest. Ref 14 is certainly not reliable, and ref 15 is irrelevant to Paltridge. I am intrigued by this suggestion that we must all 'work with WMC'; perhaps there is some wikipedia rule WP:WMC that I am unfamiliar with. For the record, I agree with Alex H. Poujeaux (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just read BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That seems very clear. The material is contentious (some of you have been arguing about it for some time) and poorly sourced (one sneering book referring to usual suspects), so it should be removed immediately without discussion. Poujeaux (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not poorly sourced; it is one book written by a notable academic specialist in the field. That is well-referenced. Please stop trying to distort the discourse with misinterpretation of WP:BLP policy.Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It is poorly sourced. The book just says that L group conferences feature the usual sceptics including ... Paltridge. No evidence, references or details are given. "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". Poujeaux (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as we use it only as a source that Paltridge was featured at the Lavoisier Group conferences it is reliable! It's a reliable source! I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Ref 14 is a published book. Paying specific attention to the ACTUAL WORDS in WP:RS, please explain how it is not reliable. Ref 15 is only used to source the fact that Hugh Morgan is the Group president, and as such, is reliable for this fact. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a published book (from an imprint I can't determine as reliable), but the sentences adjacent to the one quoted are clearly solely the opinion of the author. The sentence quoted may be factual, but the context suggest it could also be classified as solely the opinion of the author, without evidence that even the author had facts to back it up.
WP:BLP requires that controversial statements about living persons be taken from reliable sources. An individual expert is specifically disallowed as "reliable" for that purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:BLP changed since I last read it, but can you point me where in that policy it disalows individual experts? Also, and I'd like to be perfectly clear, I don't have an opinion on keeping or removing the section, just that these paeans to unreliable sourcing are bullshit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That appears not to be explict. WP:RS normally allows self-published material by a recognized expert to be considered reliable, and WP:BLP#Self-published sources specifically excludes that for statements about living persons. It's not specific as material published by a recognized expert by a non-reliable publisher, unless it's essentially self-published.
The book (at least the parts available on google books) is clearly an attack piece (possibly qualifying as "hate speech" in some jurisdictions), but those are no longer considered inappropriate per se in Wikipedia. It leans against it being considered a WP:RS, even so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The source in question is not self-published. Your "hate speech" accusation is bizzare to say the least. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read the excerpt? If Paltridge were a member of a protected class, it would be illegal hate speech. As it stands, it's just "hate speech". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense, Arthur. Criticism is not "hate speech", whatever politically correct drivel that is. ► RATEL ◄ 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. Have you actually read the excerpts in google books. That's "criticism", but it's not based on fact, nor claimed to be based on facts. It's based, at best, on "guilt by association" (without stating whether there is any basis for the claims of association), and, more likely close to the "has (he) stopped beating his wife" school of "argument". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So your position is that Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change may not be used as a source on the page on grounds that it is too critical and may be hate speech? Is that correct? ► RATEL ◄ 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Primarily, but the I don't see the publisher as being reliable, and I read WP:BLP as requiring the publisher to be reliable in order to include controversial information. (I doubt the publisher's reliablility because of the hate speech.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If I may, I think it is going too far to call the Hamilton piece a "hate speech"; I mean there's no doubt that climate change skeptics are victims of hatred for their beliefs, and where this applies it really is a kind of quasi-religious hatred. The trouble is, I can't see how you can prove that Hamilton's disparaging remarks about Paltridge come from this kind of "class hatred" (actually, I doubt this is real "hate speech" but it could be I suppose). It doesn't matter, though, from the BLP policy perspective. The remarks are unquestionably disparaging; he's definitely not citing any evidence or reason for his belief in a Lavoisier/Paltridge connection (i.e. it is anecdotal evidence); there are question marks over the publisher; as such it seems the argument against reliability of the source is sound either way. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can publish a book on anything. Unless it's published by an academic press, books are generally not reliable. Scorcher is no exception. (My view is slightly more narrow than WP:SOURCES which considers "respected publishing houses" reliable, as well as "mainstream newspapers".) -Atmoz (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This argument i can buy. The trouble becomes then: How do we determine reliability of the source then? From what i can see, the thing that the book is referenced for, that Paltridge speaks at Lavoisier conferences is unproblematic. (now as i said before - there might be WP:UNDUE concerns, but thats a whole other issue than source reliability). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Why exactly would Black Inc. be an unreliable publisher? What exactly do you base this on? Your entire argument seems to be one of "i don't like" what the book says, therefore it must be unreliable.... You still haven't explained how, we as editors, can determine per content, whether a book is reliable or not. You seem to be forgetting that its not whether a source contains criticism that makes a book reliable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) There is no indication that that Black's intentionally publishes factual non-fiction books in any of their imprints, other than in their business finance imprint. "Deepening political discussion" does not require truth. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So do we have agreement here? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreement for what? ► RATEL ◄ 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That for a variety of reasons given above, the section needs to go. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree to that. I'd prefer to see an inline tag like [dubious – discuss] or [disputed – discuss] or [non-primary source needed] or [better source needed] if there are doubts about non-controversial associations. Have you made a clear case that any of this information is harmful to GP? Not that I can see. ► RATEL ◄ 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessary that it "harmful" to GP for it to be banned by WP:BLP, only that it be controversial. And it seems the string of associations (WP:SYNTH or not) is controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
And moreover, we have wide agreement on both/either the unreliability of the source, and/or undue weight given here. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No, we do not have a "wide agreement" on the unreliability of that source. Sorry. If you check the comments, then you will find that the weight of arguments are 6(7) who say reliable and 2(4) who say unreliable [parants indicate non-conclusive]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) i have only counted comments here, not reverts --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, can you give the names of editors in your count? I'm a little busy right now, but I know this isn't true. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
How do you know? Have you counted? Or are you simply going by gutfeeling? (WMC,simonmm,Verbal,KDP,hipocrite,Ratel) are the 6 who say reliable --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the question of reliability should be sent to WP:RSN for discussion, but WP:NPOV/N#Garth_Paltridge certainly seems to indicate that the synthesis is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Kim, I count Poujeaux, myself, Arthur Rubin, and apparently Atmoz to have all agreed that Scorcher is not reliable here. WMC hasn't actually expressed an opinion either way; most of his comments are about me unfortunately. Then there is also the UNDUE argument which you yourself seem to be wavering on. Given that we have some support for both RS and UNDUE and this is a BLP, aren't we just dragging this discussion out a bit by now? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Issues like this can easily be resolved by couching the text in terms that make it clear the association is the opinion of an author of a book. Clive Hamilton is a well known author in Australia. The sentence could be prefixed with Clive Hamilton writes in his book Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change that Paltridge .... etc ► RATEL ◄ 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look way back at the beginning of this discussion, that's what I said: we could have a single sentence somewhere, According to Clive Hamilton, Paltridge has sometimes spoken at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group. This could be sourced to the page in Scorcher. The trouble is, this is to me gratuitously WP:UNDUE. The reader will ask, "um, who cares? Why is Wikipedia telling me this? I don't understand why it's important that Clive Hamilton said that." They'll then follow the link to Lavoisier Group and say, "Ah, Wikipedia wants me to know that the Lavoisier Group is a group of bad people." All in all, this material has as close to no weight at all in the reliable sources. If a RS/N discussion concludes that the Scorcher page is reliable, at best it will conclude minimal reliability. Thus, we will end up with a guilt by association claim based on a minimally reliable source with utmostly marginal weight. It will be wrong, and still a BLP violation. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


  • (outdent) Who cares?, you ask. I care what associations any person who writes a book opposing mitigation of climate change has. And so do most other people. The only people who would want to obscure or minimize such a person's affiliations, collaborations, friendships, associations etc is someone who is trying to massage public perceptions. So .. "um"... this is important stuff, much more important in fact than almost anything else on the page to me. By his friends shall ye know him. There is no way this can feasibly called a BLP violation. Do you know why the BLP policy exists at all? Hint: It's to stop libel lawsuits. Why would Paltridge sue WP for quoting a known fact about him from a bestseller? Sheez. ► RATEL ◄ 06:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with most of this, I'm afraid, but there could not be a clearer admission by an editor in Wikipedia than the one you've made here that your agenda is to establish a guilt by association connection with the Lavoisier Group. Can you see that? Can everyone else see that and agree on this much? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It hardly matters what my "agenda" is (if I even have one), or whether you are paid to do what you are doing here or not, or whether I think Paltridge is an opportunistic and unethical old fool in the pay of polluting industries to sow doubt in the average "punter's" (to use one of Plimer's favorite words) mind. As long as we can adequately source the info and it's not overweight (and only one mention of what Walker thinks about him is hardly overweight in the article), then all is well. ► RATEL ◄ 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, I have once again to resist anger and instead repeat Wikipedia's policy: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. So you have admitted (flaunted, in fact) your bias that Paltridge is, "an opportunistic and unethical old fool in the pay of polluting industries to sow doubt in the average 'punter's' ... mind". Aside, this is certainly all in your imagination. You have also said, "By his friends shall ye know him." So a number of us are insisting now, appropriately, on the clear demonstration of relevance to Paltridge's notability. Can you see, and admit, that the policy really says that? And, of course, this one line in Hamilton that you have found is of absolutely no relevance to Paltridge's notability, and you have not even attempted an argument (no one has) to suggest that it is. Paltridge's notability, in fact, is established through his MEP hypothesis, his textbook on atmospheric radiation, his election to the Australian Academy of Science, his role at the CSIRO, and finally his views on climate change. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Anger, Alex? That's not how you play this game.
You still have to prove why an association with Lavoisier makes GP "guilty" of anything. It's not as if we are saying the poor fella is a member of NAMBLA now are we? You misinterpret my words above. I was positing a position, saying it does not matter even IF I thought Paltridge was this or that, or even a modern day Caligula. Do you have reading comprehension problems, perhaps? You have no idea what I think about Paltridge. None. Notability: GP's notability is almost wholly his maverick views on climate change. Any search engine will tell you that. ► RATEL ◄ 07:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty weird alright. You started with, "By his friends shall ye know him!" That was why, you said, the article MUST note "association" with the Lavoisier Group. This is what people really care about! This is why they look him up in Wikipedia! And now you end with, "You still have to prove why an association with Lavoisier makes GP 'guilty' of anything." I feel like I am Alice at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So does anyone else, aside from Ratel, not agree that a single sentence According to Clive Hamilton, Paltridge has sometimes spoken at conferences organised by the Lavoisier Group is given WP:UNDUE weight here, in that this is in no way connected with Paltridge's notability, and that at least some editors are trying to establish guilt by association with it? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your strategy seems to be to keep asking the same questions again and again in the hope that people will get bored. Well, I *am* bored William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
ZZZzzzz :-) - The whole guilt by association claim is silly... Why is there any "guilt" associated with the Lavoisier group? (thats one question thats been asked many times - and still hasn't been answered). There is nothing disparaging here, nor is the Lavoisier group association used in any rhetorical tricks. Its simply a statement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion of the Lavoisier group is a distraction. The fact that someone who has not done any serious research in climate science for the best part of 40 years doesn't justify the existence of a page this detailed (significance test?) to commemorate the fact that he's published a 100-page pamphlet. This whole page is therefore by its nature POV. Contrast with the page on RealClimate, a blog run by serious scientists with hundreds of publications between them: a short summary. Philip Machanick (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

insert Philip, although I disagree with you that Paltridge is not independently notable and it's certainly not true that he hasn't done serious research, I think you are on to a good observation. Wouldn't it be good if some of the editors so determined to insert negative associations into the articles of scientists they disagree were instead trying to contribute with positive associations in other living scientists' biographies. Some of the RealClimate scientists' biographies are frankly garbage level in quality. Why is this Lavoisier association with Paltridge, at best vaguely established, more important? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The amount of content in an article, is not a description of importance or weight. It is simply an indication of how dedicated the editors of that particular article is. None the less, i also agree that Paltridge is borderline-notable (if notable at all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Kim, as you would know, I do not myself believe that there is anything "guilty" about speaking at conferences organised by Lavoisier. Neither, as far as I can see, do any of those who share my side in this dispute. On the other hand, Ratel and William M. Connolley do, and I know this because they have both said so in this talk page. The question I asked is, do you or don't you agree that if the only semi-reliable source for this so-called assocation is the sentence from Hamilton, then we do not have weight sufficient to include it? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So you base your "guilt by association" claims (which is one of your arguments for removal) upon what you think other editors think? Sorry, but that simply isn't an acceptable answer, since this means that you have left all associations with WP:AGF behind you, and that you are treating this as a battle. Try again please. As for the "semi-reliable", thats something that i do not agree about, and neither does the majority of editors here. Finally on the weight/notability thing, i have very large troubles seeing Paltridge as notable in general (lack of third-party references for everything), so i have no basis whatsoever to say whether or not this is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Lack of third party references? What nonsense, he has contributed a scientific theory that has its own historical review paper. He has a textbook cited in scholar over 400 times. You don't get historians writing review papers about you unless you did something notable. Now have another think about it. Is this line in Hamilton in any way connected with Paltridge's notability? Alex Harvey (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Whats the normal citation number for a text-book published in 1975? Which historian do you refer to here? Did he write only about Paltridge, or does it just mention him? And whats the citation count of the history paper? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks to me like there are reliable, peer-reviewed, third-party references to Paltridge numbering over a thousand. Have a look here. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Except of course that you did the search wrong. You need to check for "author:"GW Paltridge" - which gives a figure of a bit above 100 papers or books.[2]. With the overwhelming majority published before 1970.
So there are still around 1000 cites in total, and "the overwhelming majority published before 1970"?? Here are the first 10: 1977, 1975, 1988, 1978, 1979, 1974, 1978, 1980, 1974, 1981. I suppose you meant "before 1980"? And a quick look at his publication history shows he's been publishing papers the whole time. That was a bit misleading, Kim... Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any secondary biographies of Paltridge? Has he gotten any medals, prizes or other recognition? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And please stop twisting my words. It has nothing to do with what I think others think, but what they very explicitly said. William Connolley has said above "In my position the L group aren't very respectable". Ratel's comments above are much stronger. I am assuming nothing here, and you know this. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It was what you wrote, i'm not twisting it... In fact you just reinforced the view. (hint: not very respectable is not equivalent to "guilt"). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Alex, that sort of Google search is meaningless. I can get thousands of hit on my name (which is as unusual as Paltridge). Here is the sort of GNEWS search that counts, and it shows the almost total lack of notability. ► RATEL ◄ 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I suppose I must agree with Alex, not because of what anyone has said, but because there has been no reason given for including the (minimal, at least as sourced) association of Paltridge with the Lavoisier Group other than trying to discredit one or the other. Has anyone proposed such a reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of article

  • In light of the comments of several editors above who suggested the article be abolished completely because of Paltridge's lack of notability, I have given this some thought and I must reluctantly agree. I started this article, thinking that Paltridge would make much more of a splash than he did. His book is, as someone said above, a mere pamphlet that has disappeared without trace from the news and web generally. I will not object to a move to delete. ► RATEL ◄ 17:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No responses here so far. This search of GNEWS (for GARTH PALTRIDGE CLIMATE CAPER -blog -forum) means there is a strong argument to say that the article fails wp:n and unless there are cogent reasons presented to retain the article, someone should {{prod}} tag it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Do not prod it. That is for uncontroversial deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Where's the controversy? ► RATEL ◄ 01:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:PROF #3 and probably #1 too. I'm just saying that if someone tries to prod it, I'll remove it. So just skip that step and move along to AfD if you want to delete it. -Atmoz (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please see WP:PROF before AfD.

  • #1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Yes. Even Kim's corrected scholar search showed 116 hits and at least over 1000 cites. Papers published in all the prestigious journals, Nature, JGR, J. Almos. Sci, Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc, etc.
  • #2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Yes. Received WMO Research Prize.
  • #3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) Yes. Fellow of the Australian Academy of Sciences.
  • #4 The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Yes. Director / CEO of the AISOS. Professor.

All things considered, Paltridge scores much higher on WP:PROF than a number of other scientists in Wikipedia who have biographies. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lavoisier and WP:UNDUE continued

Editor Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) has said above, I suppose I must agree with Alex ... because there has been no reason given for including the (minimal, at least as sourced) association of Paltridge with the Lavoisier Group other than trying to discredit one or the other. Has anyone proposed such a reason?

The answer is, no, no one has proposed such a reason. Is anyone going to, or shall we agree that the section has to go? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It really does like you do propose to keep ansking this question util people get bored with you William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
For my part, only until someone answers it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

On Garth Paltridge and the Lavoisier Group

Let me get this straight (been out of this discussion for a while): the endmembers of the debate seem to be whether to use RateL's version (posted here) or to remove the Lavoisier group references. I am starting a new section because the old went down an AfD discussion path (which I think will fail per WP:PROF). As a note, I agree with Atmoz that the book is not an acceptable source.

From what I see, it is clear that:

  • The Lavoisier Group launched The Climate Caper at an event where their president spoke. (RateL also mentioned that Garth Paltridge responded, but I can't find this on the source - perhaps he can enlighten us) (insert by Ratel: Source here for Paltridge responding, not RS, no objection to removing the fact the he responded, not important) ► RATEL ◄ 23:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Garth Paltridge is quoted as being skeptical about global warming in Nine facts about climate change, published by the Lavoisier Group
  • He wrote a letter to the newspaper The Australian about his skepticism towards climate change, which is referenced on the Lavoisier Group website.

I think that these three can be summarized into a sentence or two, and are the most distilled versions of what the reliable sources support. I would therefore support these three points being what is represented on the article page with respect to the Lavoisier Group. Awickert (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. Thanks for bringing some calm to the matter.
This doesn't fully deal with Tatel's version, though, as there are other questionable-sourced-and-relevance matters in that version other than just the Lavoisier Group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's stick to the Lavoisier for the moment; we can get to other things later. Lavoisier seems contentious enough (and I expect editors to disagree with me as-is) that adding other issues would be IMO to the detriment of solving this one. Awickert (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Awickert, welcome. Let me concisely address your three bullet points.
(1) This appears to be a fact, and it is established by a Liberal Party blog post (i.e. the Lavoisier Group did organise the book launch). The Quadrant source establishes that Hugh Morgan spoke, but doesn't mention him in his capacity has Lavoisier Group president. Did Paltridge respond? Yes he did, because a friend of mine was present. There is, however, no source for this.
(2) That is incorrect. Although Ratel has said repeatedly that Paltridge was "quoted", the truth is that Paltridge is merely mentioned -- not even cited -- and only once, in passing. The story was then repeated in an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald.
(3) True, but again, what is the relevance? The Lavoisier Group are wont to mention all skeptical views at their website.
Thus, we come back to the question of weight. Paltridge is notable for his theory of maximum rate of entropy production in the climate system, his role at the CSIRO, and if we care about what is in the news right now (e.g. WP:NOT#NEWS ?), his book, Climate Caper. If we are not trying via original research to establish a kind of guilt by assocation connection with Lavoisier, and if the fact that two editors have strong opinions that they just want it included for various reasons they've given above is the only reason we know of, how is there weight sufficient to include anything about this vague Lavoisier connection at all, given the present length of the biography? Would Encyclopaedia Britannica include this? (updated) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
First facts and then WP:UNDUE for orderliness. Replies to comments on factual issues:
  1. Well, then, since we don't know if he was operating in that capacity, it may be incorrect to say that the Lavoisier Group launched it, but we can still say that the group's president spoke at the launch.
  2. "Quote" is correct as I read it. The report reads, Australia’s Garth Paltridge, a distinguished scientist who retired recently from his post as Director of the Antarctic CRC and IASOS at the University of Tasmania, commented on the way in which the IPCC and its supporters operate:, and goes on to a blockquote type of text in which Paltridge blasts what he perceives as a silencing of dissent from the IPCC consensus.
  3. Relevance low, agree.
Now WP:UNDUE: A book launch is IMO signficant. Either we can barely mention The Climate Caper, or we can mention it at some length. If the former, I think that its launch could be passed over here and mentioned at the book's page - except that was deleted (huh, I voted "keep", oh well). If the latter, it should probably be mentioned here. Perhaps in one sentence, e.g., Lavoisier Group President Hugh Morgan praised the book at its launch.. Since the book is somewhat significant and has no Wikipedia article, I would go for a fuller introduction to it here. Awickert (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Previously, I'm afraid, we had a fairly wide consensus that it was WP:SYNTH to state anything like "Lavoisier President launched the book" for the very good reason that none of the sources actually say that. And here is why we really need to be pedantic and always follow the rules: Someone has just sent me an email privately advising me that Hugh Morgan, at the time Paltridge's book was launch, in fact had not yet been elected Lavoisier Group President. I am presently trying to find evidence that will hopefully settle this, but I do hope my point is made.
  2. Okay, sorry. I've double checked and you're right. It doesn't alter the fact that it doesn't say where Paltridge said that, and it's not a reliable source.
  3. Looks like we agree on that point.
By the way, I completely support dropping coverage of the book from this article altogether. It is terribly out of proportion to its significance in Paltridge's career. I think it should be forked to create a new article. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I see in yr edit summary you say "this is important" referring to the fact that Morgan may not yet have been president of Lavoisier when he launched the book. May I ask (1) why is it important (I mean, since he started the group and even in 2004 was known as "the force behind the Lavoisier Group"[3]) and (2) who is sending you emails about this page and your efforts here? If you are acting as a proxy for Paltridge himself, as I suspect, you have a wp:COI that must be declared. ► RATEL ◄ 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that our discussion can now focus on the first point, as RateL seems to be already doing. I think it is important to say why a certain individual is significant when they are first mentioned. It seems that Hugh Morgan has been with the group since the start, but I haven't seen a reference that he started the group, and the Wiki article notes that while he spoke at the inaugural event, he was not one of the initial officers. As before, RateL may be able to find a source (this time for his starting the group) that I was unable to find. He is also significant as the former CEO of the Western Mining Corporation, which is another significant way to introduce him. Other posts he's held are mentioned on his Wiki page and elsewhere. But we need to say something—otherwise no one will know why to care what he says.
Alex: are you in contact with Paltridge or members of the Lavoisier Group? If so, it does give you a WP:COI, but it would be good to know as it also gives you some insight as to their thoughts on the matter. A list of past officers of the Lavoisier Group or what positions Hugh Morgan has held would indeed be helpful. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been contacted by a Wikipedian who doesn't want to contribute here due to general tone of this discussion, which is sad because he's a very knowledgeable person. He happens to know Professor Paltridge personally, I believe. More than that I don't know. I think a number of editors here have conflicts of interests but let's not go there. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Awickert, regarding Morgan, he gave the inaugural speech for Lavoisier [4], and then there is this quote: "the Lavoisier Group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan" [5]. ► RATEL ◄ 00:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for both your answers and your patience in getting me up to speed. I wouldn't mind recreating a relevant article on the book and shunting this material over there, but this same discussion would need to take place, so let's do it now. From what I can see, Hugh Morgan's info on the launch should probably be one of these two:
I would lean towards the second as it has more info. What do you (plural) think: is one of these two options better than the other? Are they both bunk? Awickert (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless I am misunderstanding the rules -- which is always a possibility -- they are both synthesis/original research. It is not a question of what is true; it is a question of what is covered in reliable sources. A the point we have made repeatedly is, none of this is covered in reliable sources, in the way you are proposing to present it. If not, it may still be true (or not), but it lacks weight. Weight, again, again, again, is what this is all about. Prof. Paltridge has contributed a real theory to mankind's knowledge that is still written about in the literature all the time. This is a fact, and to the scientifically educated, a well known fact. Meanwhile, this Lavoisier stuff is vague, shadowy, and it is my feeling that if we let it in, the Wikipedia will become the source responsible for creation of discussion of these vague associations. This is bad. Please see WP:BLP, and avoiding guilt by association claims. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To Andrew, the second formulation is fine and is, as you say, more descriptive. To Alex: I don't think you're misunderstanding the rules as much as misinterpreting them. It's not OR to describe someone accurately, based on RSes. Nor is it OR or SYN to take an accurate description of someone from one RS and combine that with an accurate description of what that someone said or did from another RS. That's not OR or SYN. As to weight, how could it possibly be overweight to mention in one or two sentences the fact that the book was launched at a Lavoisier function by one of the leaders of the Group? It's both true and important. It puts the book in context, whether you like it or not. You cannot wish reality away. ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. It is WP:SYNTH if the facts are not related by any credible (I mean, reliable) argument. That the book was launched at a Lavoisier function by a person who wasn't one of the leaders of the group at the time would be odd, but apparently correct, and not appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I categorically reject that it is WP:SYNTH to say that Hugh Morgan is former CEO of the Western Mining company. To say so is to say that it is WP:SYNTH to say "George H. W. Bush, former president of the USA, spoke at [event]", which is totally absurd. Hugh Morgan is known for Western Mining, George Bush is known for being US president. This is essential context.
  • My second statement does not say that it was a Lavoisier function, but it says that he founded the group, which is reported on in a newspaper. If we have issues with the source, that is OK. But again, this is not WP:SYNTH because it is introducing the significance of the person. As Alex says, he was not president during that time, so calling him that would be wrong and WP:SYNTH. But the fact that he established it is notable and not time-dependent.
I believe that the WP:SYNTH argument can be thrown away, but reliability of the source for Hugh Morgan as a founder and its WP:WEIGHT are potential targets for discussion. Awickert (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as synthesis is concerned, I am inclined to agree that Awickert's modified wording is probably okay, and that the residual problems are still reliability of the sources, and weight. WP:SYN states, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The original wording was combining material from multiple sources to imply that Paltridge was affiliated with the Lavoisier Group, and that the Lavoisier Group launched the book, whereas neither source actually said that. I think it is okay to have two reliable sources providing two different facts in the same so long as they're not advancing a conclusion.
However, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are still big problems. As I have been proposing for a very long time now, it seems to me that we should focus on WP:WEIGHT first because I am far from convinced that any of this has weight. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If we want to make an article about the book, then we can pick up with WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, but I am happy with Atmoz' bold edit. Awickert (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Large problem in the current article.

Per WP:UNDUE, while the article may have an indepth description of a minority viewpoint (sections "View on climate change" and "Book: The Climate Caper"), there has to be due description of the majority view (Scientific opinion on climate change), and the minority view must be described as such.

The section Garth Paltridge#View on climate change describes such a minority view, and has absolutely no description of the current scientific view. And where he disagrees with the political view, there is no mention that his views are also a minority one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. But GP's notability is so low that I doubt someone will find the time to address this. ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kim, can you show me the policy that actually says that, so I know exactly what's required, and then I'll fix it up for you. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I already linked the policy on the second word in my comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to some kind of statement indicating that Paltridge's view is in a significant minority, and will even endeavour to write it if you like. Firstly, though, since this would likely lead to new disputes, can we resolve the issue we're already discussing for over a week first? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"Significant"? You will better have to reference that to some scientific source, since we are talking science. Its probably correct with regards to the political part though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Atmoz made a bold edit that removes most of the page. It does answer a lot of problems, so it's an attractive move from that POV, but at the same time, can we simply sweep all the controversial bits 'n shit under the carpet and get away with it? I suppose Atmoz could argue that Paltridge has not really figured in the global warming debate much, and he'd be right (his book disappeared like a stone in a dark pond). Dunno ... I'm leaning to supporting this deft move, if it resolves all debates. I mean, Paltridge's AGW stance is covered elsewhere if people are really that interested. Anyone object to Atmoz? ► RATEL ◄ 07:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems a definite improvement, although my revert was based on block or 3RR evation, rather than a firm committment to the change. Consider my position neutral, rather than in favor, of the trimming of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A more relevant problem that needs to be addressed

Skimming though this extraordinary Discussion Page, it surprises me that no one seems to want to address the major topic of Paltridge's recent extended and very interesting essay on the Global Warming/Climate Change controversy (The Climate Caper, with a Foreword by Lord Monckton). Ignoring that 'elephant in the room' seems bizarre and extremely unencyclopedic. This is surely yet another incomplete Wikipedia article in need of urgent attention. Ombudswiki (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That it has a foreward by LM tells me all I need to know ([6] etc etc). But what did you think we should be saying about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That comment is a very succinct and revealing indication of your position. You need to say no more. Thank you. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we must make a decision: do we cover his whole career equally, or do we cover things of recent interest unequally? I suppose that there could be a link here to a resurrected article on the book to avoid undue weight here while talking about the book. But I'm just a talk page lurker, not motivated enough on the topic (sorry Prof. Paltridge) to do anything, Awickert (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with AWickert. The book is a Wikipedia troll magnet (don't get be wrong; it's a superbly written book and I'd thoroughly recommend it). The biography, on the other hand, is the career of a distinguished scientist, and should steer away where possible from controversy. The book is not significant in this man's ~70 year life. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • James Lovelock had very nice things to say about The Climate Caper in his recent Guardian interview:
There is one sceptic that everyone should read and that is Garth Paltridge. He's written a book called the Climate Caper. It is a devastating, critical book. It is so good. This impresses me a lot. Like me, he's convinced that if you put a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which we will have done in 20 years' time, it's going to have some nasty effects, but what we don't know [is] how nasty and when...

Source: James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed, The Guardian, 29 March 2010. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garth_Paltridge/Archive_3&oldid=804960712"