Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Global warming denial

• Interview by Brian Carlton "In terms of global climates, no: climates have always changed,they've never been driven by carbon dioxide in the past, they've been driven by much much greater forces." at 1'20"

This guy is openly denying global warming. It's his whole point.--TS 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have an unusual definition of denial. Looks to me like an alternative explanation, from a geologic perspective. CCD (to me) implies bad faith. --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) Yes, but the denial page speaks about disinformation - which is intent to deceive - and profit motive. Even if Plimer has described himself as a denialist, I'm guessing he never admitted to any of that. Linking to that page is much more serious than calling him a denialist, it's calling him a fraud who lies for financial gain. I'm sure there are people who believe that about Plimer - Monbiot obviously does, and even I have my suspicions - but linking it as "see also" implies that it's an unambiguous association rather than a claim made by others. ATren (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It also talks about other forms of denial. Disinformation is only one such form (a subset). Ideological or personal reasons are entirely within the same concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the Climate change denial article actually distinguishes between "skepticism" and "denial" in its opening paragraph, where skepticism is identified as "good faith" opposition, leading the reader to believe that denialism is inherently bad faith. Denial is a loaded term that should only be linked from text in the article which provides context and attributes the claim to a reliable source. ATren (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

He has interests in mining and he denies global warming. This isn't rocket science. He admit that he denies global warming. This isn't a claim made by others. It's what he does: he denies global warming. It's what he's famous for at the moment. --TS 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:SYN. And even if others have made that connection, the connection should be attributed to those who say it, by including it in the article itself, not as a "see also" which appears unambiguous. But one thing we do agree on: it's not rocket science. :-) ATren (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors have mistakenly seized on the fact that I cited only one source desribing Plimer as a denialist. Here is Leigh Dayton accusing Plimer of"[boarding] the denialist ark, claiming global warming is just that: hot air, " and that was back in May. --TS 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

--and it's an opinion column, so usable as RS just for that writer's opinion. Look, there's no doubt that Plimer opposes the AGW consensus, and that he's very outspoken, and speaks (and writes) carelessly. But that doesn't make him a climate change denier -- by BLP standards, anyway.--Pete Tillman (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm... We have a lot of such sources, including some from scientists who are talking within their field of expertise. (you've acknowledged this yourself). A "See Also"-link does not mean that Plimer is a denier, but instead refers us to relevant other readings. I personally think that a sufficient number of experts are stating this in a way so that it definitively is related. (one (iirc) even states that his book is pseudoscience, on par with Velikovsky and Von Däniken). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As a way of moving on from here, can anyone provide an argument that either (1) Plimer doesn't deny global warming, or (2) Plimer hasn't misrepresented the science of global warming, or (3) Plimer hasn't been described as a denialist or hasn't himself admitted to denial enough to be called a denialist. --TS 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all moot if you can't demonstrate conclusively that he's perpetrated fraud in publishing his beliefs. In order to prove that, you'd need an actual investigative report from a respected journalistic entity (not opinion pieces written by ideological opponents) or a conviction in a court of law. Once again, I'm not arguing it doesn't belong as a claim made by others. ATren (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but science isn't "ideology". And there is such a document. We also have Plimers (so far) rejection of answering questions about sourcing of graphs, misrepresentations of research papers etc. But its all moot, because climate change denial does not by necessity involve "fraud" - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tillman, could you explain what you mean by "AGW consensus"? Do you mean the consensus on global warming? If somebody says that Global Warming is a load of hot air, does that not mean he's a denialist? What would be required? --TS 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"If somebody says that Global Warming is a load of hot air, does that not mean he's a denialist?" - The answer depends on their motives. If they truly believe it in good faith then the term to use is skeptic, not denialist or denial which implies bad faith. I haven't seen any news articles claiming that he is acting in bad faith, i.e. that he does NOT believe what he is saying is true and correct. --GoRight (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. He doesn't have to be in bad faith to be in denial, in fact the very wording shows this not to be the case. Lets take one definition (of many) Diethelm&McKee(2009):

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that this definition has yet been shown to have a consensus here, but which of these are you asserting is the case for Plimer? Do you have a non-opinion piece that substantiates that claim? --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to ATren's comment of 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC): What relevance does the statement "perpetrated fraud" have to this? Are you being deliberately obtuse? He openly denies global warming. Others call him a denialist. He's a denialist. --TS 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disinformation - " false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately... an act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth." The word disinformation implies a judgement is being made against the person making the claim. It is a serious accusation, and it is said in the intro to climate change denial, along with the implication that denial is not "good faith". Unless you have strong, reliable proof of such, it is inappropriate to say unqualified. ATren (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Global warming denialism: that's what we're talking about. Plimer denies global warming and has been called a denialist. He has mining interests and he has been criticised for misrepresenting the science. Stop trying to change the subject. --TS 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made my point clear, and others have supported the general principle. Read my earlier points if you misunderstand me, but I'm not going to keep repeating it. ATren (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Plimer says about global warming:

"satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)

He cites this paper to support his claim:

Global Warming 2007. An Update to Global Warming: The Balance of Evidence and Its Policy Implications

The Scientific World (Journal) 2007 vol 7 pp381-399

Keller, Charles F. [1]

What it actually says:

"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."

(My emphasis).

Monbiot has pointed this out. He has found Plimer to be misrepresenting the science. [2]

He's a denialist. He's misrepresented the science of global warming. Why are we arguing about this? If these mysterious "others" agree with you, they are wrong on the facts, as are you. --TS 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to have an unusual definition of denial." What on earth is that supposed to mean? He says global warming isn't happening. That's what denial means. --TS 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot has stated that he is unqualified to answer questions related to climate change so the fact that he thinks Plimer is misrepresenting the science of climate change doesn't carry any weight. --GoRight (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Read Monbiot's article and stop misrepresenting him. --TS 18:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's rather hard to misrepresent "I am unqualified to answer your questions." --GoRight (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, those questions that Monbiot are unable to answer, where not from the book, nor are they related to the book. So you are misrepresenting things here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the topic is Plimer's book, and Monbiot has asked Plimer to clarify points from his book, then Plimer's questions to Monbiot are irrelevant. Thus, Monbiot's qualification to answer is also irrelevant. Given that Plimer has not yet answered Monbiot's question, I think it's fair to say in the article that Monbiot raised several issues with Plimer and that Plimer has not responded; and on that basis Monbiot has called Plimer a denier (with a link to CCD). ATren (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a discussion of the fact that Monbiot asked Plimer some questions and that Plimer has not responded, but then I think we need to also include the bit about Plimer asking questions of Monbiot and Monbiot responding that he was unqualified to answer. In any event, I object to any notion that Plimer's simply not responding to Monbiot = he's a Denier. There could be any number of reasons why he has chosen not to respond. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You've bought the Red-Herring. The questions Plimer asked Monbiot are not in the book, nor are they related to the book (or M's questions) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I say they were? It is irrelevant. The questions were asked and Monbiot responded that he was unqualified to answer them. Those are the facts. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its not irrelevant - unless you are trying to misrepresent things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't personalize disagreement. If you disagree that they are irrelevant, just state why. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Its relevant - because otherwise we misrepresent the situation. The questions that Plimer asked Monbiot are not related to the book (they are also in some cases unanswerable). The topic at hand is not whether Monbiot is a climate scientist (which he isn't - and doesn't claim), but whether Plimer can (and will) answer some relevant questions about his book, concerning errors - and the simple fact is: Plimer (apparently) will not answer these questions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be running the debate on climate science on this article. Plimer's book misrepresents climate science, and it's been eviscerated by scientists who have reviewed it. Monbiot is a journalist who has asked him to account for his misrepresentations. We can write about these facts within due weight because they're facts relevant to Plimer's most recent, and to date most famous, book. Plimer's attempt to misrepresent Monbiot as a climate scientist, and to wrongfoot him by asking largely unanswerable questions, may also be something we can write about. These are facts. --TS 11:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you cite a reliable source which says exactly what you just said, then, as far as we're concerned, they aren't facts. Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Iirc, we have (had?) rather a lot of expert sources that say exactly that. For the last part about unanswerable questions, we have Realclimate which is an RS on this particular subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be rather frustrating if we're going to be faced with facile denials of simple and straightforward descriptions of the situation, facts which are well known and well sourced. --TS 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, there shouldn't be a problem. If some person or organization has said in a reliable source that Pilmer's book misrepresents climate science, then add it to the article with neutral working, i.e., "So-and-so states that Pilmer's book misrepresents climate science"[cite] or "Monbiot says that Pilmer has tried to misrepresent him as a climate scientist and has asked unanswerable questions."[cite], Plimer responded to Monbiot's statement by saying, "[whatever he said in response]" [cite]. As long as the information is presented fairly and neutrally, there shouldn't be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That would become a fairly long list, since just about all scientists who have commented on the book have said so (i can't recall any scientist who has stated that there was good science in the book)... here alone, we have 7, all subject matter experts. As for the "unanswerable" - lets take RC here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As I hinted earlier, this is a clear case of obstructionism. The intention is evidently to prevent balanced, factual material about the mainstream opinions of Iain Plimer's arguments, and the implications of their poor quality, being inserted into the article. --TS 17:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As I hinted earlier, this is a clear case of obstructionism. So you're admitting to it now? Nice to see you've come clean. :-) ATren (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What a disgusting attack. Withdraw it,. --TS 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony. You call us "obstructionist", then demand withdrawal when I playfully feign misunderstanding. This is simply delicious. :-) ATren (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Could i ask both to tone down? (imho you should both redact this (and my comment))--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, feel free to remove it all. I was just playfully tossing your insult back. I thought you would understand it was done in jest, especially since the insult originated with you. ATren (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK Kim, I would suggest a paragraph or two summarizing the opinions of the seven observers who take issue with Plimer's views. Naming all seven should be ok. That should present their opinions without violating undue weight. Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New edit for inclusion

{{editprotected}} Please add this to the paragraph about the debate (sourced from new Monbiot column on Plimer):

Negotiations for the debate broke down when Plimer refused to answer the questions Monbiot sent to him, and which he'd agreed to answer. Monbiot concluded that Plimer has a similar profile to other climate change deniers and does not have "a leg to stand on".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial |title=This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change| George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian |publisher=guardian.co.uk |accessdate=2009-09-15 }}</ref>

(Remove the nowikis) ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus." Which is it?  Skomorokh  01:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's say it's supported by consensus until proved otherwise. :¬) The edit is required, because the debate is now closed and this is the post-mortem. ► RATEL ◄ 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Come back when your co-debators agree :)  Skomorokh  01:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note to co-debators: qui tacet consentit. ► RATEL ◄ 02:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  I disagree. I could agree to:

  Negotiations for the debate broke down when Plimer failed to answer the questions sent to him by Monbiot before the deadline set by Monbiot after the fact had expired. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/14/climate-change-denial |title=This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change| George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian |publisher=guardian.co.uk |accessdate=2009-09-15 }}</ref>

  Monbiot's puffery and conclusions are irrelevant. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My problems with it are (a) your sentence is clumsy (to me) and does not seem to parse well. Can you rephrase the last part about "after the fact had expired"? And (b) it's clearly not sensible to have a paragraph about a debate or contretemps between the obscure Plimer and the very well known Monbiot and then refuse to accept Monbiot's conclusions at the end of it. GoRight, try to GoCenter and see this from a NPOV. Ta. If Plimer ever comes out with a view, I'm sure we'll include that too. ► RATEL ◄ 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's position is polemical rather than scientific skepticism say scientists

The case of Plimer's denialism has been made in reviews by several scientists. From Kim's two links:

RAPID ROUNDUP: New book by Ian Plimer doubts human-induced climate change – experts respond:

(emphasis in these examples is mine)

Colin Woodroffe finds many errors in the book and says Plimer has misrepresented the IPCC. He accuses Plimer of polemicism:

Scepticism and scientific debate are essential elements of science and the scientific process. In that context, I would regard it as completely appropriate if Plimer’s arguments sparked a major scientific reconsideration of one or more issues in climate science, but this book has not been written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and is evidently not aimed at a scientific audience."

Matthew England's contribution reads, in full:

“In 2008 I debated Ian Plimer on one of Sydney's top rating radio stations about the facts and fiction surrounding climate change. All of what he had to say was either patently untrue or horribly misleading. Foremost among the misleading is his assertion that in the deep past the Earth experienced much higher air temperatures and much higher CO2 than we have today. Yes, this did occur at various times, for example 40 million years ago during the Eocene. But does Plimer tell his readers that at this time sea levels were 50 metres higher than today?? Certainly humanity did not yet exist and importantly all of our cities, agriculture and infrastructure were millions of years from being built. In fact, the building of our cities, infrastructure, and the location of modern farming have all been set during a very stable climate era – the Holocene.

Ian Plimer’s affectionate recollections of past warm and fertile times are dangerous. We can go on and warm the planet to levels of those past eras, but there will be profound payback, via sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change that is of an unprecedented scale since civilisation began.

Graeme Pearman, like Professor Woodroffe, singles out the lack of peer review, and criticises "the use of misleading argument in which literature appears to be selected to support a position, rather than to expose the uncertainties."

Ian Lowe's comment in full:

"I have also twice debated climate change in public with Ian Plimer. His position is a combination of sound geological knowledge which is irrelevant to the debate about climate change, and a wilful misunderstanding of recent climate science.

His book will be applauded by those who are desperate to find some pseudo-scientific justification for their unthinking rejection of the reality of climate change, but it is not a serious contribution to the debate. The harsh reality is that the probability of dangerous human interference to the Earth's climate system is now alarmingly high and the survival of civilisation demands urgent concerted action."

Now I've only referred to statements by the four scientists who happen to have Wikipedia articles. There are other, similar statements from scientists equally qualified and eminent in their field. The consistent evaluation of Plimer is as one highly qualified in his own field but disdainful and even wilfully ignorant of other fields, and given to cherry-picking facts to agree with him or misrepresenting the facts when they don't.

Now moving on to Kim's second source: RealClimate blog's evaluation of Plimer's "homework assignment":

Plimer has responded with a homework assignment that is clearly beyond even his (claimed) prowess. This is quite transparently a device to avoid dealing with Monbiot’s questions and is designed to lead to an argument along the lines of “Monbiot can’t answer these questions and so knows nothing about the science (and by the way, please don’t notice that I can’t cite any sources for my nonsense or even acknowledge that I can’t answer these questions either)”. (Chris Colose and Greenfyre have made similar points). It’s also worth pointing out as Andrew Dodds has done that each question is actually referencing a very well known contrarian and oft-debunked argument, but dressed up in pseudo-scientific complexity.

This, I should think, speaks for itself--though perhaps I should emphasize that Monbiot's questions themselves referred to instances where Plimer had misrepresented the facts of his cited sources or had produced graphs and figures without properly describing their source.

And that is why this article is unbalanced if it does not fairly represent the scientific community's evaluation of Plimer as one who has played fast and loose with the facts in presenting a polemic for public consumption rather than a contribution to scientific debate. In short, this is denialism rather than skepticism. We don't necessarily need a "see also" tag, but we do need to fairly reflect the scientific community's reaction to Plimer's polemical position. --TS 19:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From the above I get the following two paragraphs to add:

Plimer's position in his book Heaven and Earth has been described by several scientists eminent in fields related to climate change as polemical rather than scientific in nature. Among them were coastal geographer Colin Woodroffe and Graeme Pearman, an atmospheric researcher and former chief of CSIRO, who writing in separate reviews, both lamented Plimer's failure to submit such a large work to peer review. Woodroffe remarked that "I would regard it as completely appropriate if Plimer’s arguments sparked a major scientific reconsideration of one or more issues in climate science, but this book has not been written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and is evidently not aimed at a scientific audience." Pearman singled out Plimer's "use of misleading argument in which literature appears to be selected to support a position, rather than to expose the uncertainties." Physical oceanographer Matthew England, who said he had debated Plimer on climate change in the past, also criticised Plimer for misleading arguments and false statements.

This can be sourced to Kim's first citation.

George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist and campaigner, had put a series of questions to Plimer which were intended to highlight Plimer's problematic use of sources. Plimer's response to the questions put to him was to put more questions, which were characterized by the NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt at the acclaimed RealClimate blog as a "homework assignment that is clearly beyond even his (claimed) prowess....quite transparently a device to avoid dealing with Monbiot’s questions." Schmidt referenced other scholarly climate blogs which had reached a similar conclusion. He also graded the questions for relevance and scientific content, and was often able to trace a question to its source in common canards about climate change.

This can be sourced to Kim's second citation. --TS 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I support TS's proposed inclusions. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've softened the first sentence in the paragraph about Monbiot. intended to highlight Plimer's problematic use of sources. That Plimer's use of sources is seen as problematic to say the least by several eminent scientists is well established in the preceding paragraph. Monbiot's point is that Plimer blatantly misrepresents some sources, but Monbiot's opinion as a columnist of no particular scientific achievement is worth less than those scientists' opinions. The pivotal point of the second paragraph is that Plimer's response was seen by the climatologists of RealClimate as a dodge, and that they were aware that others had commented on it in the same vein. --TS 01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I took TS's proposed paragraphs and suggest the following modifications:

Plimer's position in his book Heaven and Earth has been described by several scientists with experience in fields related to climate change as polemical rather than scientific in nature. Among them were coastal geographer Colin Woodroffe and Graeme Pearman, an atmospheric researcher and former chief of CSIRO, who writing in separate reviews, took issue with Plimer's decision not to submit the book for peer review. Woodroffe remarked that "I would regard it as completely appropriate if Plimer’s arguments sparked a major scientific reconsideration of one or more issues in climate science, but this book has not been written as a contribution to any scientific debate, and is evidently not aimed at a scientific audience." Pearman singled out Plimer's "use of misleading argument in which literature appears to be selected to support a position, rather than to expose the uncertainties." Physical oceanographer Matthew England, who said he had debated Plimer on climate change in the past, also criticised Plimer for what England considered as misleading arguments and false statements.

George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist and campaigner, [remove passive voice] put a series of questions to Plimer with the intention of highlighting, in Monbiot's opinion, Plimer's problematic use of sources. Plimer responded to the questions with more questions. The excahange was characterized by NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt in the RealClimate blog as a "homework assignment that is clearly beyond even his (claimed) prowess....quite transparently a device to avoid dealing with Monbiot’s questions." [Remove the rest, this is all that is needed. If Plimer has responded to Schmidt's criticism, then his response should be added.] Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little long, it gives the appearance of piling on. For the first paragraph, I would remove the quotes and simply summarize with "several scientists accused Plimer of making misleading arguments and false statements, and took issue with Plimer's decision not to submit the book to peer review". This is short and to-the-point, which I think is more appropriate here (as opposed to the article for the book itself, which can contain the actual quotes).

For the second paragraph, I'm a little concerned about the RealClimate ref in a BLP. RealClimate is a blog that is acceptable as a source in articles about the science (since it gives the views of respected scientists) but for a BLP I think it is inappropriate: some of the language on RealClimate is ridiculing when dealing with opposing scientists. But I do believe the point should be made that people have openly questioned Plimer's avoidance of Monbiot's questions about the book. If RealClimate is the only source, I think we can use it, but I'd prefer not a direct quote. A different source might be better, or paraphrase Schmidt, e.g. "Schmidt has accused Plimer of using the rebuttal questions as a device to avoid answering Monbiot's original questions about the book." ATren (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cla68:

• 1. with experience No. The exemplar I chose are eminent in the field to the best of my knowledge. I am amenable to argument on this but I would need to see good arguments.
• 2. took issue with yes, much better than "lamented".
• 3. Plimer's decision not to submit. Not sure we know this. Perhaps it never occurred to him to do so. "failure to submit" is more faithful to the available sources.
• 4. what England considered as. Accepted. England gives no examples.
• 5. with the intention of highlighting, in Monbiot's opinion,. I think we should discuss this. Monbiot's examples are pretty damning and are corroborated by the opinions of eminent scientists.
• 6. The exchange was characterised. This is a great improvement.
• 7. You say "remove the rest." The rest is "Schmidt referenced other scholarly climate blogs which had reached a similar conclusion. He also graded the questions for relevance and scientific content, and was often able to trace a question to its source in common canards about climate change." Why? I can see myself being convinced on this but I think we should discuss it.

--TS 02:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to ATren:

You write: For the first paragraph, I would remove the quotes and simply summarize with "several scientists accused Plimer of making misleading arguments and false statements, and took issue with Plimer's decision not to submit the book to peer review".

Okay with me as long as we say "scientists eminent in the field". These aren't just blokes who work in science, they're guys at the top of their profession, and those professions are intimately related to global warming. And again, I think "failure to submit" is better than "decision not to submit" because we don't know it occurred to Plimer to do so.

You say that you have a problem with RealClimate as a source. Well consider that the guy writing this opinion on RealClimate is Gavin Schmidt. But there is a point to be considered here. --TS 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Schmidt's RC posting is aggressive ("ridiculous compendium of non-science", "bizarre claims", "please don’t notice that I can’t cite any sources for my nonsense"), which is unfortunate, because the rest of his post is a reasonable analysis of the questions, and he could easily make his point without resorting to aggressive language in the intro. It's not as bad as some I've seen from RC, but I still think there's no place for blog sources in BLPs, especially when those sources speak condescendingly of the subject. Is there any other published source that makes the claim that Plimer is avoiding the questions on his book? If not, then maybe we can open up to the BLP noticeboard and get some input on RC as a source in just this specific instance. ATren (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Schmidt isn't using any language that is special (or surprising) considering how the language has been from the commentaries by most other scientists, in other RS's, i do not see it as a specific problem. The problem would only manifest if we cited/quoted that commentary - but we aren't - what we are quoting/citing here is the science part.

We have to take into account here that most scientific responses have been significantly negative, to the extent that some have been calling it pseudoscience and comparing it to Von Däniken and Velikovsky. We can't of course quote that (singling such out would be both undue weight and a BLP violation), but we must take into account that the language and opinion from the scientific side is significantly negative.

Handling BLP's does not mean that negative material, or material that is using strong language is ruled out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not the strong language per se, it's strong language in a WP:SPS that's a concern. But, in fact, I think Monbiot's latest opinion covers it nicely. Monbiot uses strong language, stronger than Schmidt, but it's published, so it's a better source (as long as it's properly labelled as Monbiot's claim). So if we add the bit about Plimer's apparent avoidance, we can source it to Monbiot and avoid the blog entirely. ATren (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think ATren is proposing a fair compromise. Cla68 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Monbiots opinion on IP's science is better than Schmidts is absurd William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, nobody said that. ATren (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I read your suggestion re using Monbiot rather than Schmidt to mean. The answer is the same William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed using Monbiot only as a source for the claim that Plimer is trying to distract from answering Monbiot's questions about his book, not regarding any of Plimer's science. ATren (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The reviews by eminent scientists are far more important than Monbiot's though both are important to this article. Plimer has presented his book as a scientific critique of the global warming consensus, and eminent scientists tear holes in this claim, particularly singling out his work's lack of peer review, his ignorance of the science in fields outside geology, and his poor use of sources.

The Monbiot piece is an attempt by Monbiot to get Plimer to address this lack of scientific rigor. Plimer's response is in turn sliced and diced by a NASA climatologist. Plimer's arguments have failed to engage his fellow scientists and they have been quick to point to the holes that doom this attempt. Some of the scientists have said that the book doesn't seem to be aimed at scientists, despite being couched in the language of science.

We should certainly use Schmidt because without Schmidt's expert commentary it's impossible to be sure what Plimer is doing. --TS 13:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised that by "WP:SPS" ATren meant a "self-published source". Why couldn't he bloody well say so instead of using these bloody silly initialisms? The fact that the source was self-published of course has no bearing on this matter. Schmidt is a fully qualified climate scientist and, just as Plimer, is entitled to an opinion. His opinion on Plimer's gambit against Monbiot (who is not, and has never claimed to be, a climate scientist) is very relevant--not the least, to see how he slices and dices Plimer's questions. --TS 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the initialism, I thought SPS was a well-known term here. In any case, BLP policy is clear on self published sources in BLPs - only the BLP subject's own SPS is appropriate, and even then only under certain conditions. Schmidt is certainly entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion as a source in Plimer's BLP, especially not for criticism. In this case, we have Monbiot referring to Schmidt's criticism here in the Guardian, which is reliable, so we can include a statement about Schmidt without sourcing to a blog. ATren (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. While Realclimate (RC) is an blog - its written by experts, on the subject of their expertise - thus it gets raised to a reliable source, by the exceptions on self-published sources. We can't use Schmidts comments on anything but his expertise topic - but that (using his scientific expertise) is exactly what we do (or propose to do) - so there are no problems there. Remember that BLP doesn't exclude critique, and especially not when that critique is supported by due weight (hint: all scientist that are active in the field who have commented, are critical). Monbiots referral to the RC-post shows that it is relevant and pertinent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP:BLP supercedes WP:SPS, so while some SPSs may be appropriate in general, they are not for BLPs. The SPS section within BLP explicitly states this distinction. In this particular case, there is an accusation of bad faith implicit in Schmidt's RC posting, in addition to his scientific criticisms. Schmidt is not only questioning Plimer's science, but also his integrity, and that's why it's important to avoid the SPS source and go with Monbiot's reporting of Schmidts analysis, which is published. ATren (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that BLP supercedes SPS - and if we're citing anything that was personal then it must go. But that is not the case, what is proposed is to cite the science. And furthermore none of Schmidts comments are surprising or raise any red flags, when we compare with the comments from other scientists in non-self published sources and very reliable sources, in fact its very muted compared to the majority of these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Book in my hands

If anyone wants details from the book or confirmation of anything, I now have the actual book in my hands. My first impression is that it's a mess, with spelling errors everywhere, even in the chapter headings, eg "alpine" spelled "alphine". Cheap and nasty, rushed out the door to influence the Australian political debate. ► RATEL ◄ 07:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, do you think that perhaps you're personal feelings on the subject are a little too strong to facilitate neutral editing? Cla68 (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and we all have feelings one way or another, or most of us wouldn't be here. ► RATEL ◄ 09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ploughing through this book is terrible. Not only is it badly written, but it seems to be, as indicated above, more polemic than science. And the level of vitriol and the accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy levelled at the IPCC and allied scientists on almost every page is disappointing. He also goes to great lengths to accuse others of having ulterior motives while never disclosing his own (he's a director of mining companies that stand to lose if emissions trading is adopted). I quote from page 470:

Global warming hysteria is big business. Just follow the money. Various green movements claim that those who do not accept the hypothesis that humans are causing climate change have this view because they are supported by the petroleum and coal industries. A US Senate report shows that the greens are the best-funded quarter of the advocacy industry. Between 1998 and 2005, the 50 biggest green movements in the USA attracted revenue of $22.5 billion.2204 This is the GDP of a few impoverished African countries. Such funds could provide massive improvements in the health of millions of people and would have a far greater environmental impact on the planet than advocacy.

And so it goes on, for 500 pages. ► RATEL ◄ 09:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - but it gets filed under WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

At least one source quizzed him on it. "This commercial interest in mining, according to Plimer, does not colour his arguments, which he says are based on pure science." [3] Yeah, right. ► RATEL ◄ 10:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RATEL's opinion is certainly original research (I remember the day when Wikipedians started to refer to policies by initialisms, and it was not a happy one). It adds weight, however, if further weight be needed, to the massive weight of scientific opinion against Plimer. We've got some of the most eminent scientists in Australia pulverizing his science and some of them questioning his claim to scientific intent rather than polemic. This should be mentioned prominently in the article about the man. --TS 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

use of unreliable sources

Ratel, I've noted your revert here and you've asked me to take this to talk. As I see it, these are two very obvious violations of a number of policies, but to keep it simple, a Philip Adams op-ed is not a reliable source, especially when used to make an offensive labelling of a living person in a BLP ("denialist poster-boy") (in the lead!), and a creationism website(!!) is used to list a living person's scientific "bloopers"... Ummmmm. Are you serious? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Op-eds are not banned from BLPs. They may require qualification, and I'm prepared to do that. Creationists websites are completely acceptable in this context. Plimer attacked these people and took them to court. Their comments on him are therefore completely germane and carry no undue weight here. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that op-eds are banned from BLPs. What I said is that they can't be used to make offensive, negative statements about living people. For that, very high quality references are required. You already know this, as you've been told many times. So yes, please qualify this, which presumably means you will remove the offensive quote and replace it with something reliably sourced. Meanwhile, this is a website, and cannot be used. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The description of him as a denialist poster boy is there to balance the positive opinion. It is the opinion of one of Australia's most well-known journalists and commentators, printed in Australia's largest circulation newspaper. That is a very, very high quality reference. As to the creationism issue, you are way off base. The section covers his clash with creationists, and cites their valid comments on the accuracy of his statements. There is no possible reason to remove it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know why you want that quote there, but it's inappropriate and against the rules. It doesn't matter who Philip Adams is, how much you like Philip Adams, how much you dislike Ian Plimer, or how many copies of The Australian are sold each day. WP:RS makes very clear that your op-ed cannot be used here. Please refer to section WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion. This section should help you understand why neither Adams' "denialist poster boy" nor the Creationists' list of bloopers can be included. End of story. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the section you reference and can see no rule that excludes properly cited opinion from a RS. Care to quote the sentence? ► RATEL ◄ 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)