Talk:John Clauser

Notice

There is a discussion about recent edits at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#John_Clauser. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of DeSmog

POV note from an unreliable source. No reason to add it. If we have an RS criticizing Clauser's view on climate change then let's add it properly in the text of the article (and source it properly), not as a note.

The International Panel on the Information Environment, organized by the Nobel Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed approximately 4,798 peer-reviewed publications about online misinformation and how to fight it. According to the New York Times, "The findings suggest that the most effective responses to false information online are labeling content as "disputed" or flagging sources of state media and publishing corrective information, typically in the form of debunking rumors and disinformation."[1] That's exactly what DeSmog is doing.[2] The note is not POV, it cites the DeSmog database, which in turn references Google Scholar.[3] DeSmog has a professional editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking.[4] It passes the bar for a RS, particularly in terms of the accuracy of its database entries. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 and ජපස:. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Viriditas.

Thanks for starting a discussion here. As an "activist website" (per DeSmog), I don't think that DeSmog is RS. That being said, if their opinion matters then, instead of a note, we can (and should) add in the article According to DeSmog.... Still, I think that an article centered on John F. Clauser would be better than an undated database entry on an activist blog (without any author either). What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I will wait for others to chime in. I think you have the upper hand since this is a BLP, so my position is automatically the weaker one. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If DeSmog blog is not acceptable, then certainly ConstantContact.com is not either. At some point, we end up removing all citations and all facts about a person if we end up in this game of arguing that sites are not reliable simply because they have an agenda. All potential sources have an agenda. The question is whether we can identify usable information from those sources. In the case of DeSmog Blog, I do not see any impeachment of their reliability, so I question whether this makes sense as an argument. jps (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully, given the recent controversy surrounding his canceled talk there will be more RS articles about him and his (lack of?) credentials on climate science. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed your WP:NEWSWEEK source since it seems that the article only relied on an unreliable source. Admirable that the journalist tried to get a comment from the IMF, but having been unsuccessful, it is basically a rehash of a PR push by CO2 Coalition. jps (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSWEEK: "Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." No one can deny that John Clauser disputes climate change. When Newsweek reports "Nobel Prize winner Dr. John Clauser, who has disputed issues surrounding climate change" and ""I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Clauser said during at Quantum Korea.", it is reliable, unless proven otherwise. These are just facts and reported speech. On the other hand, as you said, the rest of the article I agree is just a PR push by CO2 Coalition and shouldn't be included in the article. I see no reason not to mention Clauser's global warming denial. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's the original source reporting Clauser's "I don't believe there is a climate crisis": https://www.sedaily.com/News/NewsView/NewsPrint?Nid=29R07JMSQ2 It's published by ko:서울경제. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also reported here ("기후위기는 없다고 생각한다") by The Korea Economic Daily, "the largest business newspaper by revenue in South Korea" (per WPEN). Definitely RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem we're going to run into is how exactly to source the identifying point. Clauser is properly a climate change denier by our definition of the concept, but since it is a contentious WP:LABEL, without at least one decent source that says that or the close equivalent, we're left scraping around for different ideas. I see that others are trying to get the idea that he is on the board of the CO2 Coalition included, but even that seems like it is poorly attested to excepting primary sourcing. Still, if you want to workshop some wording using Newsweek and SE Daily, that's fine with me. jps (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I removed your WP:NEWSWEEK source since it seems that the article only relied on an unreliable source.

That's not a valid reason for removal ... in fact it's OR. Newsweek is a RS and it's not the role of editors to second guess them and evaluate their sources. 2600:8802:571B:E00:5C30:93D7:71E2:667 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason why WP:NEWSWEEK was linked was that it enables you to click on the link. Click on the link and read the sentence Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree that https://desmogblog.com is a blog with an opinion and this is a BLP, approve removal of cite. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

DeSmog is discussed here. Users who are notorious for defending deniers are against it but there is no good reason to dismiss is as a reliable source. It just defends climate science against anti-science zealots. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Hob.

You do realize your sentence "Users who are ->notorious<- for defending ->deniers<- are against it but there is no good reason to dismiss is as a reliable source. It just defends climate science against ->anti-science<- ->zealots<-" contains so much biased wording, but we're expected to believe you (and the others here) are arbiters of neutral POV? This whole project is laughable when it comes to political issues. You should stick to encyclopedia:ing mushrooms and insects et cetera, where your blatantly obvious bias and private political views become less evident. 78.82.156.86 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not know enough about insects and mushrooms. I know about crackpots. And your idea that Wikipedia should be neutral in questions where one side is clearly wrong is, well, clearly wrong. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Independent of whether DeSmog is a trustworthy source or not, Clauser's affiliation with the CO2 Coalition should be noted. I would propose to include at the very least a short note of his board membership at the Coalition by citing its website with the board of directors.. I have chosen the earliest archive URL that lists him as a member of the board.

This would - hopefully - decouple the discussion around his personal beliefs from his affiliation (which is just a documented fact), and allow readers to come to their own conclusions based on that. WetAlpaca (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is now resolved. jps (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

John Clauser is associated with the CO2 Coalition, of which he is a Board Member. This is a right wing think tank funded by the oil and gas industry for the purpose of promoting climate change denialism. John Clauser has no background or degree in climate science but promotes himself as an expert due to his PhD and Nobel prize in physics. His views are a minority opinion and not backed by science. Ptduff (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ptduff, nothing will happen until we get proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This adds nothing but unfounded bias. 2601:C2:1980:F150:44F9:9CE9:8D8D:F7A (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As this is a BLP, any allegations about the person needs reliable secondary sourcing before it can be included. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No mention of his public statements on climate change?

We aim to be encyclopedic, and the current version of this article contains no mention of Clauser's public statements on climate change? Ridiculous! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What source do you propose we use? jps (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest using Newsweek, The Korea Economic Daily, and the Seoul Economic Daily to write: In 2023, Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition, a climate denial organization. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It was actually originally published by the Yonhap News Agency here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Please be bold and add it. jps (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

climate denial reference

This is a stupid phrase. No-one denies there s a climate. No-one denies the climate changes. Very few sceptics of the " climate emergency" dispute there may be some element of human contribution to the ever changing climate. Climate emergency sceptic is fair and objective. Climate denier, or climate change denier is a loaded term implying some comparision with Holocaust denial. It should be removed. Exevalley (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is common but false. See climate change denial for the scientific definition of the term. It describes people who deny different aspects of human-caused climate change for ideological reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The term " denier" attached to any isuer is simply propaganda, designed to be pejorative and imply that the views held are completely evil ( Holocaust denier).

You may as well attach " climate cultist" to any proponent of the belief in a climate emergency, or " climate alarmist", These are not anywhere near as loaded a term as " denier", and the use of this term destroys any site claiming to be reasonable or objective. Exevalley (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia follows reliable sources. The accusation that declensions of the word "deny" are propaganda have been made, but unfortunately for your position, the consensus in reliable sources does not support alternative labels. We are not here to right the wrongs so perceived. If you want Wikipedia to change, your job is to change the WP:MAINSTREAM sources out there in the real world. Then we will follow suit. jps (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The term denier is an insult, You don't need references to work out that one.

Sorry that is not obvious to you.

Repetition of pejorative insulting terms does not make them right.

Ineed their use demeans debate, undermines rational scientific thought and weakens the status of your encyclopaedia.

There are multiple sources who would make this point: you choose not to use them. Exevalley (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, we aren't here to right perceived wrongs. You need to change the reliable sources out in the real world. jps (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Exevalley, please check out the Skeptical Science website. It goes into great detail with an enormous amount of footnotes, documenting people who deny climate science and the arguments they use. All of it is merely a variation of what has come to be popularly known as the Climate Denier's Prayer: "Climate change didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault". Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This comment is similarly loaded.

You have every right to believe in a climate emergency.

That does not make you a climate cultist, climate alarmist or anything else designed to dismiss your views as beyond the pale. Exevalley (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Exevalley, I just took a look at all of your arguments and sources you used to back them up on the page. The vast majority are eight to ten years old, which from the POV of evaluating sources, fails the currency criterion. There has been a virtual sea change in the climate paradigm within that time, with numerous researchers publishing authoritative accounts of how oil companies and PR firms used intentional denial strategies and tactics to prevent government mitigation and regulation. This is what informs climate denial behind the scenes. Because you intentionally chose old sources, none of them are informed by this newer information. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have a proposed edit to the article that relies on reliable sources, please go ahead and propose it. Right now, we have pretty reliable sources backing up the content in the article. jps (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The use of the term denier is polarising and plain wrong

Source 1

https://theconversation.com/deniers-vs-alarmists-its-time-to-lose-the-climate-debate-labels-37765 Exevalley (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Exevalley c'mon dude Hakbijl (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Source 2: leading scientist on IPCC will not use the term denier..

Comments about the use of the “denier” label are a fair criticism. We were focused on the main readership of this journal – climate scientists who read Nature journals, most of whom hold the view that anthropogenic climate change is real. It should also be noted that describing skepticism as denial is a term increasingly used in the social science literature on climate change (e.g. in Global Environmental Change, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society), and is used informally by some within the climate science community. So we were using a term that is known, used, and understood in the target audience, but which we thought involved a stronger negative stereotype (e.g. being anti-environmental, contrarian) than skeptic. My thought was this would highlight the contrast with the data, which suggests that you need not believe in AGW to support pro-environmental action, especially when it had certain types of (non-climate) outcomes (demonstrating a non-contrarian position). So in my mind we were ultimately challenging such “denier” stereotypes. But because we were focused on our target audience, it is true that I naively didn’t pay enough attention to the effect the label would have on other audiences, notably skeptics. Although I hope this helps explain our rationale for using the term, I regret the negative effects it has had and I intend to use alternative labels in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?pagewanted=all Exevalley (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Source 3

Why one should never use the term climate denier.

Professor Cliff Mass, UW Atmospheric Sciences

https://www.whatcomexcavator.org/the-dredge/uw-professor-writes-why-one-should-never-use-the-term-climate-denier Exevalley (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Source 4

Science: On Tuesday, the Associated Press (AP) announced that its official style guide for journalists would no longer refer to people who question the scientific consensus on climate change as "skeptics" or "deniers." Instead, it recommends using the phrases "climate change doubters" and "those who reject mainstream climate science." The change in wording, which was included in the AP's expansion of its entry on global warming in the 2015 edition of the AP Stylebook, may have been prompted by a December 2014 open letter in which dozens of scientists and science advocates criticized the media for using "skepticism" and "denial" interchangeably. The new wording has been questioned by some climate change activists who say that "doubter" doesn't accurately describe the rejection of the science and that the longer version is simply too wordy to be readily used.

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.5.029233 Exevalley (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Source 5: ue of term climate denier is imprecise, fallacious and hateful.

How many more sources would you like?

FOrbes magazine

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2017/01/17/climate-denier-imprecise-fallacious-and-hateful/?sh=59d3c4581757 Exevalley (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to look at the sources in our article on climate change denial to see that the majority of sources identify it as the most commonly used term for the ideology. We even cover the arguments you reference here in that article. Again, the goal here is specificity not pejoration. If you want to change the way the term is used, you need to get your preferred vocabulary used in reliable sources beyond an op-ed in The Conversation and Forbes, a reference from a dozen years ago in The New York Times, and an obscure blog called "The Whatcom Excavator". As for the AP styleguide, this issue has been discussed at length at Wikipedia and the consensus has been that the euphemism chosen by AP ("doubters") is not the one most used in reliable sources. Until the AP's preference actually overtakes the more commonly used epithets, our hands are tied. jps (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a scientific subject. You need scientific sources, not journalistic ones.

Of course, climate change deniers will not look at the preponderance of sources but cherrypick those few, no matter the quality, that say what they want to hear. It is their modus operandi. They cherrypick data, studies, experts, and sources. This dishonesty is why they are so despised among scientists, and that is why "deniers" is the correct word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is a scientist. He is a Nobel Prize winner. In 2022. But this does not protect him from the use of the term " denier". There are many scientists who dispute whether there is a climate emergency, on a wide spectrum from those who believe humans contribute only a little to warming, to those who believe the warming trend is not a serious issue etc. All are labelled " deniers".

What are they supposed to be denying?

They are disputing many different things, from the fact of human induced warming, to the seriousness of human induced warming, to those who believe humans do cause warming, and it is serious but has been exaggerated.

The term is meaningless and simply used to shut down debate of any kind, which is anti intellectual, anti scientific and anti rational.

It has spread to other areas ( Covid ) and is always used to shut down debate.

It is antithetical to rational debate, scientific enquiry ( where no science is ever settled, not Newtonian physics, not Einsteinian relativity in the quantum world etc).

Science is the process of continually checking and verifying theories - and encouraging critical debate and the revelation of flaws ( computer modelling anyone).

The use of the term cannot be justified. Exevalley (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You need to take your questions to the people who write the reliable sources. We just repeat what they say, without taking the opinions of random people on the internet, such as you, into account. It's the rules. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You're dipping ever so slightly into the world of WP:NPA, Hob Gadling, I suggest you stop it. Dr Clauser is so distinguished, not even propaganda site Wikipedia can hide it. 149.86.130.158 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

He is not at all distinguished as a climatologist, and that is the point. That is not a personal attack, it is a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The PA I was in fact referring to was to Exevalley: "[a] random [person] on the internet, such as you". We're all randoms here, including you, so there is no need to be so arrogant. 149.86.130.158 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Very obviously not a PA, exactly because very obviously We're all randoms here. Very obviously, my opinion matters as little as yours or Exevalley's. Only reliable sources count. Maybe you should have familiarized yourself with the rules before making claims about them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We simply are not equipped to deal with your objections. Just because you disagree with the reliable sources we are using does not mean that we can just follow your lead. jps (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to chime in in light of the Washington Post article reporting that Mr. Clauser proclaims himself to be a "climate [change] denier". In light of that news, now are we as editors going to claim that he does not? This discussion looks like one waiting to be closed. FreeMediaKid$ 21:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobel disease

Looking for sources that link the subject of this biography with the term Nobel disease, as I would like to add it to the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

reliable source concerning climate change denial

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/ -- 2600:8802:571B:E00:8945:7749:7A14:4CB3 (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

last sentence

I wonder if the last sentence can be maintained. It seems like a rebuttal of Dr Clauser's views of climate change, based on original research. Whoever wrote it, found two articles, that don't mention Dr Clauser, and put them together. In any case the article is A Biography of a Living Person, not An Examination of the Truth of Dr Clauser's Claims. If you could find an article that says something like "In 2023 The Peripheral Climatologists stated that Dr Clauer's arguments were unpersuasive and in fact silly" then go for it. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

We must stay consistent. It is fine if an outlandish claim is rebuffed, however we would then need the following:

1-determine clearly what is to be seen as outlandish

2-apply whatever rule across the board

I certainly don’t belive we should have right/left turning this site into a debate forum.

Cite what a subject says and leave to the reader to research further TruthWithstandingScrutiny (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Your position sounds a lot like Fox News: "We report, you decide". Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: The above discussion is about your latest edits. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

By "the last sentence", do you mean Low-altitude, thick clouds do have a net cooling effect, in contrast with high-altitude, thin ones, but there is observational evidence that the current cloud feedback is positive, not negative? Indeed, the sources of that sentence do not mention Clauser and do not belong here. But if we remove them, we also have to remove "He has concluded that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet, and stated "there is no climate crisis" because the context of that claim being false is missing. See WP:FRINGE: Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted this edit. This edit promotes climate denial talking points, particularly the introduction of doubt, which is straight out of the denier handbook. To this end, the edit in question deleted the statement about a "consensus among meteorologists and climatologists" and replaced it with a statement that said "Clouds are not well represented in computer climate models because their complex effects on absorption and reflection of energy are not well-understood". The source itself says "Clouds are not well represented in these models due to a limited understanding of their energy characteristics (how well they absorb or reflect energy) and distribution (where and how many clouds there are)". While this might be true, it is also a major talking point among the climate denying subset of physicists who wish to downplay the significance of anthropogenic impacts with diversions like this, particularly those with connections to oil companies and the George C. Marshall Institute. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

If you agree that the cited source is reliable, that the rewording in the edit is accurate, and that the edit improves upon the content, what is your reason for reverting the edit? sbelknap (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The material you added has nothing to do with Clauser, attempts to justify climate denial by appealing to uncertainty and doubt, and does this to promote a fringe theory of climate denial. Those sources are not used to justify climate denial in their original form, but you have used them here to make that insinuation. That’s not how we do things here. Further, I mentioned the George C. Marshall Insitute, because Nature magazine and other sources pointed out that this was their chosen tactic of climate denial in the 2000s before they were superseded by the CO2 Coalition. An interesting coincidence, wouldn’t you say? Viriditas (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The current version of this article ends with these two sentences that are also tangential to Clauser.

"The consensus among meteorologists and climatologists is that low-altitude, thick clouds do have a net cooling effect, but high-altitude, thin ones have a warming effect; there is observational evidence that the overall current cloud feedback amplifies global warming, and does not have a cooling effect."

If you consider the context for Clauser's assertions to be irrelevant to this article, then why are these two sentences included? I agree that Clauser's opinions on this topic are notable and are worthy of inclusion but IMO this is best conveyed in a more balanced context, where the uncertainty regarding clouds & climates is presented. It is simply not the case that the effect of clouds and aerosols on climate is understood. That is not where the science is. This point is made in the IPCC reports.

The current version is unbalanced and inappropriate in a BLP. sbelknap (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style is to follow the guideline on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The current version is not unbalanced, as Wikipedia uses WP:NPOV, not false balance to write articles. Part of the overall success of the climate denial movement from the late 1980s until the mid 2000s, was to infiltrate media and journalism, and to impose climate denial-based false balance on the presentation of opposing view. This was done by the fossil fuel industry in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus to spread doubt and uncertainty and to prevent government regulations from impacting their bottom line. The problem here is the same. You are imposing a false balance that doesn't exist by implying that doubt about cloud modeling casts doubt on climate change science. What you are proposing is not a form of NPOV but rather public relations. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the relevant IPCC FAQ, "How Do Clouds Affect Climate and Climate Change?"

"There is as yet no broadly accepted way to infer global cloud feedbacks from observations of long-term cloud trends or shorter-time scale variability. Nevertheless, all the models used for the current assessment (and the preceding two IPCC assessments) produce net cloud feedbacks that either enhance anthropogenic greenhouse warming or have little overall effect. Feedbacks are not ‘put into’ the models, but emerge from the functioning of the clouds in the simulated atmosphere and their effects on the flows and transformations of energy in the climate system. The differences in the strengths of the cloud feedbacks produced by the various models largely account for the different sensitivities of the models to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations."

I consider the IPCC to be an authoritative source. It is not the case that there is an overwhelming consensus on cloud cover & climate. Let's stick to the consensus, please. sbelknap (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Why does this material need to be added to this biography? Please address that question. Clauser believes that "Earth's temperature is primarily determined by cloud cover instead of, as stated by the scientific consensus on climate change, carbon dioxide emissions. He has concluded that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet, and stated "there is no climate crisis.'" You're intentionally adding off-topic content to promote Clauser's fringe theory. That's not how we do things, and this is a notable tactic of climate denial. By adding this content, you're intentionally injecting uncertainty and doubt about the science, when the material doesn't imply that. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Logically Facts link

[5] "Undid edits as of 24 July 2024 by Isi96. If one bothers to check what logicallyfacts.com links to, one finds that the person who actually said "pseudoscience" was Michael Mann"

Not true. The logicallyfacts.com article links to a paywalled article that may not say that, but Clauser did say it.

• [6] says, He has called the IPCC’s misinformation “a dangerous corruption of science” and “(a) massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.” Dr. Clauser asserts climate change is “not a crisis.”
• [7] says, According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis.
• [8] also says that he says it.

Of course, the first two are not RS, but the third is. Also, no climate crisis exists and that climate science is "pseudoscience." come from the same original. There is no reason not to quote the logicallyfacts.com article. They may have made a small mistake by not linking the right source, but what they say is true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact it is true that the article that they cite does not say Mr Clauser called it pseudoscience, it is true that the article that they cite says that Mr Mann used the word (when referring to something Mr Clauser said) (Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that argument is “pure garbage” and “pseudoscience.”), from which it is clear that the logicallyfacts.com article was sloppily written and misleading. So I believe that removing it immediately was the right action per WP:BLP and Hob Gadling has no business calling a statement untrue without actually being able to check -- I invite others to do so and add it to the Michael Mann article if they believe all uses of the word pseudoscience must be in Wikipedia.

Moving on to whether there is a different source about Mr Clauser using the term: CO2 Coalition would in fact be a reasonable source since this is "about self" and WP:RS/QUOTE says go back to the original where possible, and a fuller quote would be: The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science. Then the reader of the Wikipedia article can decide whether Mr Clauser is condemning all climate science or only misguided climate science. That could work. However, the third proposed source, bpr.org's republication of a weekly newsletter by David Boraks, quotes only one Clauser word without saying where from, and I don't see why it has been brought up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

the person who actually said "pseudoscience" was Michael Mann" Two people said it. Clauser was one of them. Starting a sentence with "The person who said it" makes that sentence untrue. But that is beside the point. Clauser actually said it and we have a source that says he said it.

And no, quoting the CO2 clowns is right out because they put an anti-science spin on it. Leaving the stuff out is better thatn quoting them.

I don't see why it has been brought up To show that what Logically Facts wrote is actually true and that your pointing out the fact that they linked the source for one of his statements but not for one of the others is just nitpicking in the service of motivated reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Does anyone else have an opinion about whether to add the sentence citing the logicallyfacts.com article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent deletion of Sabine Hossenfelder

Regarding this removal, I think Sabine Hossenfelder's comments are relevant as both a popular science communicator and as a physicist, and should be restored. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note, Hossenfelder is not commenting about Clauser; she is evaluating what Clauser has said or published about climate change. That is entirely within her remit as a science communicator. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note, I've gone ahead and restored the material and self-filed a noticeboard complaint on myself. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now self-rv, as there's no support for my position. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

The reference listed under footnote 15 is incorrect: the authors are Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack. Isaac Held was the editor. Climate Academic (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)