Talk:Robert M. Carter

too praiseworthy?

Is it just me or is this page a bit too praiseworthy, without any critical analysis of his views. One begins to suspect that the subject may also be an author... Kwakpwns (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I get this too. And it focuses on his recent career in climate change denial, rather than his more mainstream academic work in marine geology, with the "Selected Papers" (Selected by whom, I wonder) being baised towards this corner of his research (and including a couple that are not academic publications). There may be some climate change politics involved in the creation and editing of this page. RobinGrant (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

restored the .au critique

I've restored this:

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]

Which was cut, stating WP:BLP reasons (specifically that it was the opinion of a journalist). That particular critique is not valid - as the article is not an Op-Ed/Editorial and thus is part of the newspapers normal journalism. Its a WP:RS - but WP:WEIGHT might be an issue though (haven't looked that much at it). --Kim D. Petersen 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim please reread the original article and my correction. That journalist only cites one former climate scientist's own position. The news item does not support a blanket statement made by "the Australian climate science community". You have restored a blanket POV statement. I am reverting to the correction. DLH (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The news item ONLY states regarding Carter:

• A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.DLH (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The paper says exactly what it was quoted as saying before you changed it and reverted it. [1]. You replaced it with a lower quality source without discussion, and also added a large amount of NPOV material. I am reverting much of it and I ask that you discuss it on the talk page below (which you have ignored) before making these kinds of changes. Phil153 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil please reread my change - there was NO change to the reference - i was rephrasing the statement to accurately report what the article cited Pearman to state. Please review. The present statement is inaccurate. The Royal Society of New Zealand made Carter an Honorary Fellow for his research on the climatology of New Zealand. Reporting one scientist's objection as referring to ALL Australian climate science seems inaccurate and POV.DLH (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the current version is an important quote. It's in a reliable newspaper subject to editorial oversight, and it says:

'Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Changing this to a quote from a single individual degrades the quality of the article. It is important to note the nature of Carter's climate science credentials, as others have noted in the section below. The above quote does that (and has the weight of the editorial board behind it), the quote you put in does not. His honoring by the Royal Society is related to his work as a geologist. Phil153 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

removed the .au critique

The comment by the Sydney Morning Herald reporter is quite inappropriate for this article. First of all, it gives undue weight to the reporter's completely unsourced and unverified statement. Even though article from which the statement was taken was not an Op-Ed, since the statement was not sourced or verified, the statement is unquestionably the reporter's opinion.

Furthermore, the statement is false, or at least misleading. This is because the purpose of the statement is to call into question Prof. Carter's qualifications, yet presents him only as a marine biologist while conveniently omitting his qualifications as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, and environmental scientist plus peer-reviewed publication record in environmental sciences. The reporter's mis-characterization, perhaps, borders on libel.

Additionally, the reporter herself, Wendy Frey, is well-known to be a global warming advocate and her objectivity toward Prof. Carter is clearly questionable, certainly not neutral. DrPaul0401 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a repeat of the section above. I don't think there is any requirement that material we quote from elsewhere be sourced to your satisfaction - only that the source itself be considered reliable. I'm not too familiar with au papers, but is there reason to believe the SMH is unreliable? I don't think we should be taking into account your opinion of the reporter, either William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The points I am making are: 1. The statement by the reporter is clearly an opinion and it is disparaging. 2. According to W-BLP the statement must be a neutral point of view and verifiable. You could argue whether it is neutral or not, but it is definitely not verifiable. This is not my requirement, it is W-BLP. 3. The statement is simply incorrect to characterize Prof. Carter only as a marine geologists. For these reasons, the statement should be removed. DrPaul0401 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it again. Clearly it gives undue weight to one person's opinion. In general WP readers are not so stupid that they need a newspaper reporter to tell them what to think about an issue such as global warming. Redddogg (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of source that we should be using, factual statements from a news article published by a reliable mainstream publication. Gamaliel (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By a single non-notable (red link) journalist. Find a second source to corroborate this per WP:V (extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources) and WP:BLP (do no harm and remove poorly sourced material immediately). --GoRight (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say. In particular, there is nothing extraordinary in the sourced statement; it's a sourced, factual criticism of him that's fully in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not factual, it is one journalist's opinion. If this is not true you should have no trouble producing a second source. Per WP:BLP this is a disparaging remark and should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced as a statement of fact and one article stating the opinion of a non-notable journalist does not rise to the level required in this context.

Strawman ahoy. Its not "one journalist's opinion". Its not an Op-Ed or a column, but a regular article in a newspaper. That means that it has the news-paper behind it, and the full editorial oversight of that newspaper. Its a journalist who is reporting the facts as they are presented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is a statement of fact then you should not have any trouble finding a secondary source to corroborate this point. As it stands now it is only one person's opinion regardless of whether it is in an Op/Ed or not. Given the sensitive nature of the statement extra scrutiny is warranted. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Robyn Williams article says much the same, and why exactly is it an information that has "sensitive nature"? He is a sceptic, who is arguing against the mainstream scientific opinion. (thats fact). And do try to drop the strawman - We have a newspaper that says this not one persons opinion - its not an Op-Ed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"As usual, GoRight is making claims about policy that do not accurately represent what they actually say." - This is all smoke on your part. Does WP:V not state that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources?" Does WP:BLP not state both "do no harm" and "remove poorly sourced material immediately?" You seem to forget that these policies are actually written down and people can verify that my statements regarding them are accurate. I'll also ask you to refrain from future personal attacks of this sort. --GoRight (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not an extraordinary claim, it is a simple statement of fact: a scientist with non-mainstream views is out of the scientific mainstream. This is obvious and non-controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is extraordinary because it is potentially libelous and this is a BLP. Pejorative, defamatory, and potentially libelous material requires extra scrutiny in a BLP. This is standard practice. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this defamatory? He's clearly not in the mainstream. It's an objective fact, not a libelous criticism. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. The article is full of the usual ad hominem rubbish youd expect (Isnt a real climate scientist! BIG OIL! BIG OIL!) from the SMH. Hate to sound like a conspiracy nerd, but if the majority of the rabid far left said the moon is made out of cheese, the SMH would publish articles saying so in its science section. Jaimaster (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats a rather impressive claim. Now you can take it up on WP:RS/N, because if the SMH really does this - then its not a reliable source... And that should be noted on that board, so that we do not reference it again (anywhere), on such things. On the other hand .. it may just be your opinion, and the SMH is a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21108534-7582,00.html?from=public_rss

Journalists considered themselves advocates instead of straight reporters. Not that this substantiates my personal opinion of the SMH's leanings, but it gives an insight into how it and The Age can often get a little over-invested in an issue on idealogical grounds. In any case is a single article from an otherwise completely not notable author in a WP:RS newspaper sufficient WP:WEIGHT to state what it does? That is the real issue here. Jaimaster (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is not a legitimate source for determining "standing in the Australian climate science community." But if idle opinion published by any wanker is enough to satisfy wiki's standards for determining what is fact, Id be more than happy to pull a new blog out of my ass saying Carter is a frickin genius. But in all seriousness, the only way to legitimately publish a fact about scientist's "standing in the Australian climate science community" would be if you had a source polling the Australian climate science community. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.112.247 (talk • contribs)

The SMH is certainly a reliable source, and this is a regular journalistic piece (not opinion). Whereas your blog idea wouldn't be a reliable source (please see WP:RS and WP:SPS). Please be aware that calling the journalist a "wanker" is a violation of WP:BLP (even on talkpages). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blatant Self Promotion?

It looks like the subject of the bio has done a lot of the editing. There are three separate links to his personal website and a rather complete list of his papers which aren't of particular interest. According to his website, he is a paid speaker on climate issues, despite having no expertise in the field. If there are no objections in the next couple of days I'm going to clean up the self promotion a bit. Phil153 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. But keep in mind that WP's purpose is not to attack individuals. Nor is it even to fight global warming, as evil as that is. Redddogg (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of the list of "external links" section. The external links part of his page contained a huge number of references, something that I haven't seen listed on the pages of any other scientists (see, for example, List of Geologists and the pages of a few from this list: Sue Henrickson, Jack Horner, Kenneth J. Hsu )

Most of the references are hosted on the subject's own home page and not media links. In addition, the long list of journal citations aren't external links.

The few authors of this page have also added a large amount of other not notable information to the main text. For example, the information in the current second paragraph of his page doesn't differ at all from most academics in most universities; many prolific scientists and writers have far less information provided. To me it read like a deliberate personal resume for a paid speaker (especially given the edit history), but I'm not sure what the wiki policy is for this kind of thing so I've left it be. I'm also apppreciate comments about the deletion of the references.Phil153 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The self-promotion needs to be edited, for example ... has published more than 100 scientific papers ... is self-promotion, as is ... his current research focuses on stratigraphy..., from the second paragraph. I think that the removal of Selected Research Publications is reasonable. GrahamP (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it seems reasonable enough not to need editing, but feel free to improve it, of course.Phil153 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Added "palaeoclimatology" as Carter's descriptive term for his climate research. DLH (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I just went through the footnotes and I notice that a lot of the article is sourced by primary sources, including Dr. Carter's own website. It probably would make both sides happier if the secondary sources, the articles written about him, were used more. Redddogg (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any articles about him? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If nothing has been written about him then the article should be deleted because he would be non-notable by WP's definition. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Attack page, thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. The WP:BLP guidelines do not rule out critique, as long as its adequately sourced to a reliable source. Simply stating that the journalist is writing opinion, doesn't make it so. The article is printed in a respectable news-paper, by a respected journalist - and is not marked as an Op-Ed, or a column, thus having to adhere to the newspapers general review guidelines (which is what RS is specifically about). The information is also not surprising (ie. should invoke a red flag - since we can find equal descriptions elsewhere). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative comments removed

I took off a couple of sentences saying that he has not published a scientific paper denying global warming and that he is not a climate scientist. The article needs to be about what he is and what he has done. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that stuff is directly relevant (see discussion above) and I'm restoring it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My objection isn't the information but the way it was expressed. What he didn't do and what he isn't. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If he's going to publicly discuss global warming, then the fact that he has no standing in the climate science community is directly relevant and it would be a glaring omission if we didn't mention this pertinent fact. It isn't simply a matter of mentioning "what he isn't". It's not like we are mentioning he didn't go to clown college. Gamaliel (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Should WP mention that Sarah Palin was not in the military? Or that Barack Obama didn't go to medical school? I think that if we start mentioning what everyone has not done it could really get out of hand. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel was very clear, so either you haven't read what he wrote or you are deliberately ignoring it. Carter is not a climate scientist and he has not been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, nor is he recognized as an expert in the field. NPOV is also clear on this point and supports inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the recent negative comments stating no publications, with two direct references to his peer reviewed publications reviewing climate change issues. It appears that Carter has an strong grasp of the major climate change issues. Stating he is not an expert appears to me to be POV. DLH (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reinstated the comments related to Carter's lack of peer reviewed evidence, leaving the links to the recent publications, and leaving most of the adjusted wording. The "Knock, Knock..." article does not present original evidence contradicting the consenus - it is an opinion piece stating Carter's well worn position, with many supporting references from skeptics. It offers a worthwhile read, and provides Carter an opportunity to state his case, but is essentally a rehash of the same newspaper and magazine articles that Carter has published over the preceeding decade. Note that it was published in an economics journal. GrahamP (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to Video/Interviews

The current generation of internet users being highly video oriented, I believe it is important to link to video interviews/presentations where available. I added the following section: "===Videos featuring Carter==="

• 2007 Australian lecture on relationship of CO2 to global warming

-

• Testing the Hypothesis of Dangerous Global Warming YouTube (Parts 1-2), Climate Conference (Heartland Institute), New York, March 2, 2008

-

• Balancing the Climate Debate (Alan Lee, Nzone Tonight), Youtube Shine TV, Auckland, New Zealand, April 18, 2008

---

KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted the section alleging possible copyright violations. Please explain in detail. I see no violation in providing a link to posted videos. This is distinct from the issue of directly adding the videos themselves.DLH (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not link to possible copyright violations. And these are highly likely to be such. Since WP:COPYRIGHT distinctly says that we can't link to such - they are out. (see specifically WP:LINKVIO). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim you are overreaching. Reread the policy:

Linking to copyrighted works Shortcuts: WP:COPYLINK WP:COPYLINKS WP:LINKVIO

"Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content. However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The linking restriction is explicitly to sites you know are breaching copyright.

I emailed Bob Carter who replied that the copyright was owned by Leon Ashby. Leon Ashby in turn emailed on Nov 14 2008, with explicit permission:

• 'I have the original copyright of all of Bob Carters videos. Yes Do whatever you can to sort of any difficulties. I grant copyright for anything that assists with the improvement of Bob`s message or giving wider viewership of them as long as they are non profit activities.

cheers Leon Ashby Bushvision president' With this explicit approval and in light of Wikipedia's actual policy, I am reverting the deletion. DLH (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research or thought

I've noticed some recent edits adding videos and comments that come directly from Carter himself.

As an encyclopedia we're meant to mostly quote reliable secondary sources about the subject, not list the thoughts and assertions of the subject themselves, especially for someone who isn't notable except for his media advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. I haven't trimmed some of his comments, such as his assertion that he receives no funding from interest groups (and haven't added the counterpoint that he's on the board of conservative lobby organizations that DO receive funding from oil and other interests). But if this uncritical self commentary keeps getting added I'm going to insist on a stricter application of policy. I hope this is ok...feel free to discuss it. Also, comments such as Responding to major economic reports advocating climate mitigation policies are close to POV. I won't edit them yet in the hope that there will be some discussion on this. Phil153 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted your recent edit which removed a well sourced and important quote from the SMH. There is discussion in the sections above establishing the importance of including that quote. Please discuss before removing it. Phil153 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article appeared quite POV to me, so I was trying to correct that by providing some reference to his relevant scientific research. eg the discussion implies that he has not scientific climatic credentials. I am adding a beginning section under Global Warming explicitly citing this primary research into NZ's climate change over the last 3.9 Ma. I have emailed Carter on whether he is a Research Prof or Adjunct and to clarify one page or the other.DLH (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil it appears you wholesale reverted most of my changes with little regard to detail. eg. I had added references to specific research. Please go back and restore object changes and bring those you object to here.DLH (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My reverts were selective, I don't believe I removed anything related to specific research. Please point out what I reverted that should be included under WP policy. Phil153 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the inclusion of his geology related climate research, it's notable information and important for explaining his perspective. It's also reliably sourced. If that was reverted I apologize, but it appears to be back in now. Phil153 (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain some of the reverts in more detail, not explained above:

• The reference (the [1] after the intro) goes to his official staff page at JCU where he is called an adjunct research professor.
• As for his credentials, Carter has no expertise in climate science (except related to geology) and no published papers in any climate journal (to my knowledge). He is a geologist.
• You can't say things like "His expertise is demonstrated by"...this is POV and original thought. Just like I can't say "his lack of expertise in climate topics is demonstrated by...". I can only quote reliable sources that make these claims.
• His appearance at the "International Conference on Climate Science" is misleading and not at all notable...it was put on by the Heartland Society, a private conservation lobby group/think tank to which his organization has ties. Such a conference has no standing of any kind, so I deleted it.

Thanks for you patience. I won't revert any content that is in line with NPOV, RS and Weight policies, but the above seem clear violations to me. Phil153 (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil I do not understand your position relative to Wikipedia's. Geological climate science is one of the well established areas of climate science and is reviewed in IPCC etc. Consequently, stating he "has no expertise in climate science" appears POV to me.

I'm only stating it on the talk page. Climate science involves detailed analysis of atmospheric and surface processes, and extrapolations from past and present data. The only relationship that geology is in obtaining records of past climate within ice and rocks. It's like saying the radiologist trained to x-rays your ankle is qualified to comment on medical issues. Phil153 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The International Conference on Climate Science was attended by over 500. It is the best extended public presentation of Carter's summary of climate science. Please review the presentations at 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. I count about 45 PhD's presenting materials on their research. Just because it is not the majority view, does not justify dismissing scientists presenting their research on climate change in a public forum. I say it should be included.

On his career, see Carter's extended career details at

• Carter's CV

• 2001-2005, Visiting Research Professor, University of Adelaide, Geology & Geophysics
• 1998-2005, Adjunct Research Professor, James Cook University, Science, Engineering & Information Technology, Marine Geophysical Laboratory
• 1981-1998, Professor & Head, James Cook University, Science, Engineering & Information Technology, Earth Sciences

These appear to be noteworthy. Propose listing those under Career: DLH (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This page shouldn't have a complete listing of his positions, CV, and all his research papers. That's not what Wikipedia does. Look at any of the pages on List of geologists, for example, all of them far more notable than Carter. It merely reports and weighs notable information gleaned from secondary sources, such as newpapers, meta reviews, books published by reliable publishers, and so on. As for the rest, I'll let others comment so we can get some kind of consensus. Phil153 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been 28 citations to Carter's publication: The Stern Review: A Dual Critique RM Carter, CR de Freitas, IM Goklany, D Holland, … - World Economics, 2006 http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/GlobalWarmingIPCC2007RptCritiqueSternReview.pdf DLH (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of "However,"

The article currently contains the following "However, he is a member and adviser to the Institute of Public Affairs, a group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.".

The use of this particular conjunction suggests that the statement following it is in direct contradiction to the statement preceding it. In this case the cited source does not justify that implication. Carter clearly asserts that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments." The cited source does not contain any information that contradicts this statement. It merely asserts that he is "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs". This does NOT imply that he has accepted research funding from any particular sources, nor does it imply that he "is a member and adviser" to that group as the article now states. It merely means that he is "on the research committee" and nothing more.

Even so, I have not removed that fact as it existed in the article. But if we are going to throw around unsubstantiated accusations such as this, the subject of the BLP should certainly be allowed to have their own stated positions used in their defense, should they not? Even the cited article was that fair.

The article as it stands fails WP:NPOV on this point and it should be corrected.

Regarding the text that I added, I would remind everyone that per the ArbCom Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. Please provide some acceptable rationale for why you have removed this properly sourced material or kindly replace it. --GoRight (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a senior member of a body that has received money from oil and tobacco interests. This is an important qualification to the claim on his website, and since it contradicts the sense of his disclaimer the word "however" is appropriate. We're trying to write a biographical article about the subject, not conceal his publicly acknowledged commercial entanglements. --TS 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I never tried to remove those facts, so I am not trying to conceal anything. Where does the cited reference state that he is a "senior member" of anything? Do you have a WP:RS to back that up? If so feel free to add it to the article. If not then I would ask that you stop embellishing and simply stick to what the source actually states.

I obviously have no problem leaving the factual material in, since well, I left it in. I do have a problem with the current wording and your assertion that the facts "contradict the sense of his disclaimer." His disclaimer says he has not received funding from the stated sources. The reference merely states that he is a member of a committee. The current wording suggests that being a member of a committee somehow equates to accepting funding which it does not. As such, that assertion is inherently WP:OR and should be removed unless a WP:RS for that statement can be provided ... especially within a WP:BLP.

On the issue of including his own statements regarding whether ones funding sources affect the validity of ones research, does anyone dispute that he said this? Does anyone dispute that this is a WP:RS? Does anyone dispute that this statement pertains directly to the context in which I included it? Does anyone dispute that this statement pertains to the subject of this article? If not then per the above cited ArbCom ruling the removal of the material is improper and it should be restored. --GoRight (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TS, which is why "however" was used. Look at the why of it. The reason he makes the statement about funding is to dispel any notions that he benefits from denying regarding global warming, as many prominent advocates do. That's what the statement means. That's it's only purpose. The "however" is a joiner used to say "this statement doesn't tell the whole picture", not "he's lying", which is clear from what follows. I can't think of any word that would be more appropriate.

As for the arbcom ruling - arbcom does not rule on content issues. I consider the placement of that quote to be a bad editorial choice, especially the comment about peer review which is irrelevant to the section. I wouldn't object to it being properly placed elsewhere. The arbcom ruling also applies to neutral material only. I see the inclusion of his negation and the removal of "however" as a whitewashing (not necessary intentional) of clear and simple facts. As for the text you wish to include, OF COURSE he thinks and says that his own conflict of interest is perfectly ethical. Providing that adds nothing except to clutter the very simple facts, which the reader should be able to make up their own mind about without Carter dropping into the article to spin it his own way. Phil153 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are merely after the "clear and simple facts", then simply remove the however and leave the rest, except for the advisor part since the reference does not support that assertion. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This may sound a bit brutal, GoRight, but I think you're wikilawyering at this point, trying to interpret policy in a way that suits your wish to remove the word "however". In particular, asking for a "reliable source" for my comment on this talk page that Carter is "a senior member of a body that has received money from oil and tobacco interests" seems disingenuous, given that we agree that he's on the research committee of that institute. Carter's close relationship with fossil fuel interests is, if anything, understated. --TS 04:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Its OK, I can take it. But the facts are the facts. The cited source does not refer to him as a "senior member", so for you to use that term is clear embellishment and indicative of a POV. The current wording also asserts that he is a "member and advisor" when the reference makes no such claim. It only states he is a member of a research committee. Embellishing with "senior" and "advisor" is not WP:NPOV. Just stick with what the source actually claims and I'll shut up, or find a WP:RS that claims what you WANT to say and I'll shut up. Until then the embellishments are WP:OR on your part and clearly NOT WP:NPOV.

If you feel his relationship to fossil fuel interests is understated please find some WP:RS that agree with you and we can discuss how best to get that point into the article. As it stands now, based purely on the provided source, the implications being actively made here are unjustified given the actual statements made in the source. You can call my sticking to the actual statements made in the reference wikilawyering if you want, but that doesn't change what the reference actually does say. --GoRight (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's an advisor (or a similar capacity) to other front organizations of the IPA. I believe he's also involved with the Heartland Institute. I'll try to dig up references. In the meantime, advisor can go, obviously. But he's more than a "member" of the IPA. Far more. As for RS, it's kind of hard since no one really cares about Carter and little has been written about him in newspapers. His main notability is his promotion of his viewpoint in the media. We're left with his own assertions on his own homepage. Phil153 (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I am asking is that wikipedia policy be followed, especially on a WP:BLP. This seems like a small point to waste a lot of time on, actually. I am not arguing taking out the factual material as supported by the existing source which is 95% of what you want. I just object to the embellishments and the unsupported implication (at least by tdenihis source). --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a texbook case of Gaming. Yes, I think hunting more sources will help here, Phil153. Thanks. --TS 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Carter is on the list of Global Warming Experts in the Personnel section of the heartland.org website. --TS 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed your edit mentioning the Heartland Institute...It looks like a list to me, and doesn't show membership or significant involvement. Phil153 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looks like I was misled by their rather expansive use of the term "Personnel". "People we know and like" seems to be their preferred meaning. --TS 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, his advisor status and links to organizations that receive funding from oil companies (which was the original wording) is contained in the article itself. The article states that he is a science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. So "member and advisor to organizations" was accurate. Phil153 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was only going by the reference directly cited by the statement. Given the shear number of references in this article, would you mind pointing me to the ones that substantiate that claim? And if this truly is accurate please feel free to revert the original language, if you are so inclined, and simply add the additional references that you mention here. --GoRight (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See here, where SPPI explicitly lists him as a Science Adviser. --TS 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Frew, a RS?

Frew's statement that Carter "appears to have little standing" in the climate community appears very clearly to be the reporter's own opinion. She doesn't source or attribute it in any way, and given Carter is a published paleoclimatologist, it seems to be not only incorrect, but inserted to bias her readers against Carter. It's unclear whether or not it should even be included in the article, but if it is, the reader should be clearly alerted to the potential bias here.FellGleaming (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry FG, you can't just put something down as "the reporters own opinion". We differentiate between opinion articles, from which we cannot source factual information, and regular news-articles, from which we can source factual information.

This is a newsarticle - thus we can rely on the full editorial control of the news-paper for the information. Attributing it as Frew's opinion amounts to POV. It seems very clear that you do not like the information, but that is not something that we can use for anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't applyt, as I'm sure you realize. The issue here is the reporter's statement is not just unverifiable, it conflicts with verifiable fact. A journalist is not competent to say a published climatologist "has little standing in climate". Further, this environmental reporter has a lengthy history of leveling false accusations against climate change skeptics. Quoting directly from WP:RS, the relevant bit is "it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement [is] something that must be assessed on a case by case basis."

To conclude, the issue here is not whether or not the SMH is generally reliable, but whether this particular statement is verifiable or not. FellGleaming (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going round this loop again, via anons William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IPA

The text as written (especially with the leading "However..." phrasing, implies the source contradicts Carter's claim to receive no funding from oil or tobacco. However, the source doesn't do this, nor does being on a committee for a group that once may have received funding from a source equate to you personally receiving funding from that source. Clearly a NPOV issue, especially in a BLP Fell Gleaming^talk 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal snipes

Rather than get into an edit war, can Wikispan explain why a personal snipe by an environmental reporter has any place in a BLP? Saying that Carter "appears to have little standing" isn't backed up by his research record, published articles, and his status both as a professor and a Fellow of the NZ Royal Society. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Robert Carter thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is patent crap. He feels so strongly about the topic he made a television appearance in The Great Global Warming Swindle. That is fine. But you must also accept that by taking such a position — against scientific consensus — Carter will inevitably draw criticism. Thus, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald Wendy Frew says Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community."^[2] You sought to deflect from this unfavourable judgment by placing Frew's remark "into proper context" (diff) noting simply that Carter had published research in palaeoclimatology. Well, yes. But that is a personal observation that has no bearing on Wendy Frew's opinion that Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community." You subsequently removed all trace of criticism, calling it a "personal snipe that isn't supported by Carter's research record". (diff) Once again this edit summary is unsatisfactory because Carter's research record — which nobody doubts exists — is a separate matter from how well (or poorly) his research is received. We should not inject our personal opinion on the quality of Carter's research into the article. Instead, one can show that Robert Carter's work is regarded highly by his peers through the use of reliable sources. This should not be too difficult if Carter is genuinely changing scientific opinion on the causes of recent warming. Wikispan (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One additional point. It is circular reasoning to suppose that environmental reporters are biased simply because they report on the environment. Many criticisms of people who reactively dismiss Nuclear Power are penned by environmental reporters. The trick, as always, is to relay the best scientific advice. Wikispan (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You admit this is Frew's opinion. The opinion of a journalist on a scientist's standing is irrelevant. Frew sources this claim nowehere, and it's not born out by the facts, such as Carter's professional standing. Her bias is displayed not by her being an "environmental reporter", but by her interjecting opinion into her column. That's strike one. Strike two is that placing derogatory, personal opinion into an entry violates BLP. Stating a person lacks standing in their professional field is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims in BLPs require extraordinary proof ... not simply the off-hand personal opinion of a person who herself has no standing or experience in the field. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Who says criticism is irrelevant? Criticism is permitted (even encouraged) providing it is correctly attributed, sourced and worked into the main body, which this is. If the criticism had been made by a sports reporter, you could fairly doubt its relevancy. Wikispan (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Err, what? Did you mean to actually type what you did? The most important aspect of criticism is not whether its "correctly sourced", but whether its accurate and relevant. For a BLP, this is triply important, as implying a person lacks professional standing in their field can open Wikipedia up to potential for a lawsuit. Criticism of Carter's views or positions, from people competent to criticism them, is highly relevant. Scurrilous personal opinions on Carter himself are not, especially when they attack his professional standing, by a person not competent to judge. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Relevancy, yes; accuracy, no. Who is to say whether a criticism is accurate or not. Me? You? This is the reason why attribution is important. WP:ATT says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." We must make it crystal clear who is making the criticism. Attribution is of crucial importance. I can't emphasise this enough. Always attribute opinions to those providing them. If we were to follow your curious approach instead ("the most important aspect of criticism is ... whether its accurate") then this conversation would still be over, because anyone who supports the argument that AGW is a fraudulent scheme will certainly have little standing in the climate science community. In any case, let us do away with personal emotions, please. Wikispan (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Policy on BLPs states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Further: "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.". A single brief statement that a scientist lacks standing in his field is the very definition of a poorly sourced claim, especially when the person making the claim gives no source for it, and herself lacks all standing in the field. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This criticism is not a "titillating claim" from a tabloid. Please correct your error. Wikispan (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe tabloids are the only source that can promote a titillating claim? BLP policy is very clear here. A single offhand remark-- that you yourself admit is a personal opinion by a person not in the field -- is not nearly well-sourced enough to impugn the professional standing of a BLP subject. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Personal snipe", "biased", "not born out by the facts", "extraordinary claim", "open Wikipedia up to potential for a lawsuit", "scurrilous personal opinions", "sensationalist", "titillating".

All of your arguments are fallacious. You simply want to delete this criticism because you like this guys message (i.e. Global Warming is a crock of shit). Unfortunately for you, and mark, there is more reliably sourced criticism that can be added to this article. I will work on this over the weekend. Wikispan (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your admission that you're going to spend the weekend slavishly searching for criticism of Carter doesn't help you to portray yourself as a neutral editor. It smacks rather clearly of an intentional attempt to bias the article. Fell Gleaming^talk 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am inviting Marknutley to explain why he has deleted the same criticism without conversing here on the talk page. This edit summary is inadequate. (diff) Robert Carter considers AGW to be a nonexistent. How is it undue weight to quote an environmental reporter who says Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community"? There is more criticism where this came from. Would you like me to provide addition critical commentary to make this point clear? Wikispan (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP and one persons opinion on his standing within the Oz climate community is undue. Is this supposed low standing reported widely in reliable secondary sources? mark nutley (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Funding sources for IPA

I'm not entirely sure that the sources of funding for the IPA are entirely relevant on an article about Robert M. Carter. I would suggest that they might be relevant at the article on the institute itself but I don't see why it's relevant here. Could someone please put an argument that it should stay? Thepm (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- this seems to violate NPOV by implying that Carter might be a corporate "shill". Doesn't seem appropriate in a BLP. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problems in "Global warming" section

I've tagged this for NPOV and WP:Weight problems. Aside from the IPA funding issue, the sentence on the Heartland Institute's funding and secondhand smoke, sourced to Grrenpeace, seems inappropriate in a BLP. Comments? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any other comments, I have been bold and made some changes. It appears that Carter is not a "committee member" at IPA, but rather a member of staff. I've taken out references to second hand smoke and funding sources, partly because the reference was sourcewatch, which is itself unreferenced except to a dead link, but mainly because it's not relevant on this page. I've also taken out the second reference to the NIPCC.

I've left the NPOV tag and will leave it for someone else to take it off. Thepm (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better -- thanks! I also trimmed the "industry funded" bit mentioned above, did a bit of copyediting, and pulled the tag. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV again

The article as it stands provides a distorted account of Carter's scientific credentials regarding global warming. There is an extensive list of co-authored articles (mostly in economics journals), external links to his own speeches or articles in support of him, including double reference to a POV by (economist-politician) Vaclav Klaus. Yet the criticism surrounding him is made to appear as marginal opinion of a journalist. In fact, the quote from the SMH that he has "little standing in the Australian climate science community" is rather an understatement and not simply the opinion of a journalist. For instance David Karoly of Melbourne University / IPCC considers Carter's theories an "alternate reality", a review of his latest book by New Zealand scientist James Renwick states that "is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions", while another article considers that Carter is "Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument" ... "bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact" and that his "half-truth"s amount to "a whole lie". --Elekhh (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of payments by the Heartland Institute

It would appear that new evidence has emerged that Robert Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute which he does not deny.. Claims are being made that this is a channel for funding from fossil fuel interests. I'm not sure about the most acceptable way of including this information is here?Dean Morrison (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Given recent developments my principal advice would be to do nothing until the dust settles slightly. Then it's just a matter of applying the usual principles (reliable secondary sources, NPOV, especially as applied to biographical material, and due weight considerations). A good question to imagine asking yourself if how you would respond to a report that somebody ws being funded by, say, Greenpeace, funnelled through a think tank. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

I agree with Jonathan Jones. I don't see any compelling reason to rush something into the article. Madman (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course is no need to rush, but given that he admitted to receive funding from that source, and this has been widely reported in the global media, there is no compelling reason not to include it, except if one doesn't want to see the facts, which I'm afraid is common phenomena among his adepts. Also the repeated removal of criticism does nothing in favour of due weight and NPOV. --ELEKHH^T 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences about this with just the relevant information: that the documents were obtained fraudulently, that some were claimed fake by Heartland, and that neither Heartland or Carter deny the payments take place. All are sourced. Please fix if I've used any inappropriate language; I've tried to keep it neutral. Guybrush (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Heartland was paying Carter (and others) for writing part of the NIPCC reports that they have been sponsoring. So the news quote, "high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message," may be a bit much. I'm travelling, and will look this up when I return. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

potential resource paragraph by Naomi Klein

But deniers’ relative economic and social privilege doesn’t just give them more to lose from a new economic order; it gives them reason to be more sanguine about the risks of climate change in the first place. This occurred to me as I listened to yet another speaker at the Heartland conference display what can only be described as an utter absence of empathy for the victims of climate change. Larry Bell, whose bio describes him as a “space architect,” drew plenty of laughs when he told the crowd that a little heat isn’t so bad: “I moved to Houston intentionally!” (Houston was, at that time, in the midst of what would turn out to be the state’s worst single-year drought on record.) Australian geologist Bob Carter offered that “the world actually does better from our human perspective in warmer times.” And Patrick Michaels said people worried about climate change should do what the French did after a devastating 2003 heat wave killed 14,000 of their people: “they discovered Walmart and air-conditioning.”

from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4

99.190.86.244 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Empathy? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of your point. This source probably qualifies as a blog -- it certainly isn't NPOV -- and it only has one sentence concerning Bob Carter, a quote of his. I suppose the quote could be included if another verifying source could be found. Madman (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources are not supposed to be NPOV, articles are. Klein is a well-respected journalist writing for a mainstream news source - "the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States" according to its Wikipedia article. 129.15.163.119 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could put a bit about this article (or link to it) at Naomi Klein -- if it fits there? Seems pretty minor. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of career and awards.

Bob's current job is Emeritus Fellow and Science Policy Advisor to the institute of public affairs.

His webpage doesn't mention him getting another academic post since being dropped as professor emeritus by James Cook University.

He is more correctly describe as a scientific advisor, not "palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist".

Furthermore is there any evidence of this "2005 - Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand [1]" Award. There doesn't seem to be any mention of him on the Geological Society of New Zealand pages, except for his 1975 Hochstetter Lecture, and googling "Outstanding Research Career Award" with "Geological Society of New Zealand" only turns up pages of Bob Carter. I don't think that the award exists. RobinGrant (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

His current position can be added to the introduction but scientist credentials can include scientific research they have done or scientific positions they have held. Einstein did not stop being a physicist when he retired. Emeritus positions do not get dropped from your title. The source for those awards is cited, http://web.archive.org/web/20110723214618/http://myprofile.cos.com/glrmc Citesource (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

re: "Emeritus positions do not get dropped from your title." This is not true. From the JCU website: http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/handbooks2013/JCUDEV_010039

6. Withdrawal of Grant of Title of Professor Emeritus

Council may, at any time and without giving any reason, withdraw its previously given grant of the title of Professor Emeritus to any person.

But Dr. Carter was not a Professor Emeritus, he was an unpaid Adjunct Professor, and that title is dropped when the university withdraws the status, without any further act of the University Council.

re "The source for those awards is cited, http://web.archive.org/web/20110723214618/http://myprofile.cos.com/glrmc." Yes, I agree that he claims to have the award. But without any evidence that the award exists, or any mention from the Geological Society of New Zealand, then his own profile isn't sufficient evidence. I am happy to write to the society and ask them if their response to a personal email is a sufficient source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinGrant (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You just said Dr. Carter was dropped as Professor Emeritus and that is not what I meant. If someone is appointed the title of Professor Emeritus it does not get removed because they are no longer at that institution. That is not him claiming anything, that is the Community of Science (COS) profile from ProQuest. Personal emails cannot be used as sources. Your accusation is egregious, you are not only accusing ProQuest of manufacturing awards but also Dr. Carter with no evidence. Citesource (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I just said that Dr Carter was dropped as Adjunct Professor. I also pointed out that the title of Emeritus Professor with respect to James Cook University can be removed by the University Council. But Dr. Carter is not an Emeritus Professor of JCU. I've contacted the GSNZ through their website regarding the 2005 "Outstanding Research Career Award" award. Did people not create their own profile in COS? The URL goes "myprofile". RobinGrant (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the Geological Society of New Zealand have got back to me. They didn't give the award themselves, but (according to the recollection of my correspondent), was awarded by the conference committee of the 2005 conference. "my recollection of that award, given to Bob Carter, Henry Pantin and Keith Lewis at the 2005 conference, was that it was actually a one-off, organised by the local conference committee, and not part of the official awards of the Geological Society of NZ (note we are now the Geoscience Society of NZ). This particular conference at Kaikoura also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the GSNZ, and these "special" wards were designed to commemorate three scientists who had contributed significantly to NZ geological oceanography over the previous 50 years." It's a small point but the article could be more precise RobinGrant (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede and WP:BLP

I've pared back the lede to a bare-bones sentence. It was getting problematic per WP:BLP. Add back RS stuff but please, no personal opinions! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the lede to reflect Carter's continued activity in scientific research: he has continued to publish technical papers since his retirement from JCU. The most recent I found was published in July 2014 in Earth Science Reviews, abstract; Carter is a co-author. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Career: sources?

The first para of "career"

Carter began his career as an assistant lecturer in geology at the University of Otago in 1963 and advanced to senior lecturer after obtaining his Ph.D. in 1968. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005.

is essentially entirely sourced to his own words (the same ones in three different versions) William M. Connolley (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed "2005 - Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand". I can find no sources for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There exists http://cdn.securepages.co.nz/~gsnz/file_downloads/GSNZ_NL_Mar2006a.pdf which says "Lionel Carter [no relation -WMC], aided by Jarg Pettinga, spoke on "Uncovering the face of the eastern New Zealand margin - a view from the sea". They described major work done by three innovative marine geologists over the last 50 years - Henry Pantin, Bob Carter, and Keith Lewis - who were afterwards given tokens of the Society´s appreciation of their work. " That's not quite the same thing, but might find a place in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Notability?

He seems to have a moderately successful academic career. There are millions of those, but they do not qualify as "notable" by Wikipedia standards. What is he notable for? Keith McClary (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

His career was undistinguished. His notability is as a "skeptic" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then the article should feature his skeptic activities and mention that his day job was academic. Don't we have a policy about undue emphasis on non-notable matters? Keith McClary (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "climate change denial" is inaccurate and contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policy

Owing to the antics of a single formerly-banned "editor", who has made it his life's mission to amend the biographical pages of hundreds of climate skeptics to place them in the most pejorative possible light, honorable scientists such as the late Robert Carter have had their reputations unfairly maligned. Professor Carter, whose lectures I had the pleasure of attending, cannot fairly be compared with Holocaust deniers. He accepted, and taught, that Man can influence nature, and that returning to the atmosphere some fraction of the CO2 that once resided there is one of those influences. However, he raised legitimate questions, based on his formidable career in geology, most of which has been either omitted from his biography or edited out, about the rate at which future anthropogenic global warming would be likely to occur, about the magnitude of global warming, and about the relative costs of adapatation and mitigation. He approached this subject with great scientific gravitas. Several of his friends, on whose behalf this note has been added, would like Wikipedia to revoke once again the editing privileges of the totalitarian campaigner who has, over and over again, altered Professor Carter's page to make him out to be a monster. Wikipedia does itself a disservice, and marginalizes itself as a source of information, by allowing the sour prejudices of a few totalitarians to interfere on a large and damaging scale with the biographies of those who dare to question the Party Line on the climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.65.71 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

based on his formidable career in geology: LOL. See section just above. However, if you'd care to point out some of that formidable career in geology that we're missing, we could put it in William M. Connolley (talk)

This isn't the appropriate forum to discuss another, unnamed, editor's conduct. But perhaps you have a point about "Wikipedia's neutrality policy" -- presumably you're pointing to WP:NPOV -- and I have a concern about WP:RS. For the statement that Mr Carter was "prominent in promoting climate change denial", the cited book is by Mark Davis. So: is Mark Davis an acknowledged expert about Robert M. Carter, and is it sufficient that Mr Davis calls Mr Carter a denialist without backup? Apparently you'd say "no, and no", and I say "I don't know, and no". Does anyone say "yes, and yes"? I believe User:Dave souza put in the words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As you'd have found from the linked source, Mark Davis teaches in the School of Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne, and the book was published by Melbourne University Publishing, a respectable academic source. Since you've raised the point, the description is matched by Riley E. Dunlap; Aaron M. McCright (18 August 2011). "2.8 International diffusion of Climate Change Denial". In John S. Dryzek; Richard B. Norgaard; David Schlosberg (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. OUP Oxford. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0., so I'll add that. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't know whether Mr Davis is an acknowledged expert on Mr Carter, and his accusation still has no backup. I'm dubious about the Dunlap McCright source too, but here I merely have to observe that it does not say Mr Carter promoted denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, regardless of your lack of knowledge, we have two reliable published sources showing Carter's involvement with bodies devoted to promoting climate change denial. By the way, why are you calling Carter "Mr Carter"? Surely you know that's wrong, and of course WP doesn't go for such titles. . . . dave souza, talk 05:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that one needs to be "an acknowledged expert on" someone in order to... write (1) anything at all about them; or (2) use the word "denialist" about them? Either would seem to be weird, and a far higher bar than used elsewhere, particularly for stiffs William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunlap and McCright are the experts on this topic. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying "Mr" is not wrong; anyone who wants to critique other editors' word choices should look at the word "stiffs" instead. There is one possibly-unreliable source for the claim that Mister (or Doctor or whatever) Carter "was prominent in promoting climate change denial", I see that nobody is claiming any more that a second source says that. As for "acknowledged expert" -- no, there are many grounds that can make a source reliable, but since Mister (or Doctor or whatever) Davis obviously doesn't seem to qualify on other grounds such as journalist or psychiatrist or person who has researched, the only possibility I could imagine was expertise about the person. I see that my imagination failed me here, apparently the reliability claim was made because the University of Melbourne published the book, which apparently might imply that it was peer-reviewed -- "peers" in this case being PhDs in English literature. I suggest we wait and see whether Mr/Ms 86.185.65.71 wants to add something new or whether anyone new wishes to join in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Carter wasn't a surgeon, and Davis is a published expert in the relevant topic area, as are Dunlap and McCright. Carter's involvement in what academic sources call climate change denial is well documented. Peter, you may think you're righting great wrongs, but that's the established terminology, so please desist. . dave souza, talk 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Speculations about my motives belong elsewhere. But no new participants have come in to agree with us that dave souza's "denial" edits were inconsistent with WP:RS or WP:NPOV, so on that basis I'll desist till circumstances change. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that "climate change denier/denial" is pejorative, and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. All instances of its use should be replaced by "climate change skeptic/skepticism." MAGoldberg (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Climate change denial is the term used by experts on the phenomenon, as shown in that article, and it's not skeptic/skepticism as also explained. Your opinion is unpublished, while Melbourne Univ. Publishing and The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society are reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this discussion, I think we're only talking about one instance, though -- Dave souza's editing to say that Mr Carter "was prominent in promoting climate change denial". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

On June 17, 2012, Nature Climate Change 2 published a letter by Paul G. Bain, Matthew J. Hornsey, Renata Bongiorno, & Carla Jeffries, "Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers," on pages 600–603.

On July 4, 2012, Nature Climate Change issued the following correction:

In the above Letter, we used the term ‘denier’ to describe people who are not convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. The denier label refers to an image held by some in the mainstream climate science community that such people are contrarian, which other terms like ‘sceptic’ do not capture. We hoped our findings would suggest to mainstream climate scientists the benefit of looking beyond this contrarian image, by showing that deniers were more supportive of actions to address climate change where these actions produced beneficial social outcomes. However, since publication we were contacted by people offended by the label denier to describe their group due to its broader negative connotations. We acknowledge this point and regret any offence caused.

Here, sorted from oldest to newest, is a representative sample of published references concerning the application of the terms "denier" and "denial" to climate change skeptics. References [3] through [7] deal with the above controversy.

Obviously, we are not talking about only one instance. This particular pejorative is found throughout Wikipedia in nearly all articles pertaining to climate change. Already, the pejorative title of the article List of climate change deniers has been changed to List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Therefore, I request that in the interest of fairness and neutrality, and in compliance with its own philosophy, Wikipedia immediately change all instances of "denier" and "denial" when applied to climate change skeptics to more neutral, non-judgmental terms such as "skeptic" and "skepticism," then refrain from such use in the future. MAGoldberg(talk) 05:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References:

NPOV

There's already a section for this, just above

It is unfair, inaccurate and inappropriate to describe Professor Carter as "promoting climate denial". He did no such thing. Instead, he raised scientifically legitimate questions about the rate and magnitude of global warming, and about the relative economic costs of mitigation and adaptation. Wikipedia does itself irreparable harm by allowing a handful of propagandists to tamper with what are supposed to be biographies with a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.177.87 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Accuracy of career and awards, again

See-also #Accuracy of career and awards..

Many of the awards are only cited to "cos", which is essentially a self-cite. Those are [1].

• 1964 - Commonwealth Scholarship Award, British Council [1]
  • Can't find a ref for this.
• 1974 - Travelling Fellowship, Nuffield Foundation [1]
  • Can't find a ref for this.
• 1975 - Hochstetter Lecturer, Geological Society of New Zealand [39]
  • well sourced
• 1992 - Bennison Distinguished Overseas Lecturer, American Association of Petroleum Geologists [1]
  • Carter's bio is as far as I can tell the only google hit for "Bennison Distinguished Overseas Lecturer". Seems dodgy.

It does exist and confers some degree of prestige: http://foundation.aapg.org/programs/distinguished_lectures.cfm

TimOsborn (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1997 - Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of New Zealand [1][40]
  • [40] is https://royalsociety.org.nz/who-we-are/our-people/our-fellows/view-our-honorary-fellows, but he's stiff now, so isn't on that any more. Anyone got a better ref?
• 1998 - Special Investigator Research Award, Australian Research Council [1]
  • "Special Investigator Research Award", "Australian Research Council" - again, only hits this bio and copies

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Better ref for Hon Fell RSNZ is https://web.archive.org/web/20081016083514/http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/tools/clients/directory.aspx?SECT=Honorary_Directory

The first two look like monetary grants. While valuable for the individual recipients and no doubt won via some competitive process, there are many minor grants awarded around the world every year so hardly notable for wikipedia even though they are notable on one's personal CV. Suggest they be deleted. TimOsborn (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Will remove first two as no one has disagreed, but re-instate Bennison for reason give above. TimOsborn (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert M. Carter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012014621/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104165110/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert M. Carter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007162007/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)