Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster

Untitled

This source was discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [1]

tags

Within two minutes of my creating this page a "notable" banner appeared at the top. This seems a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to include graphs in the article but don't have the technical know how to do this -- hence the banner at the top and a request for help in this connection from other editors. Cheers,Jprw (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

wikilinking

{{orphan|date=February 2010}} has been removed for noe..will give editor a few days to fix this!! Hello we need to wiki link this article to other articles ..by aading this tile to see also sections in related articles..I will start!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Update ok i have wikilinked a bit see here...will will have to do some more..PS nice article!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs work

This article needs to carefully seperate out Bookers very "skeptical" views of climate change from the scientific view thereof, which are very different. I have no objection to the article saying "Booker says <odd thing X>" but simply "<odd thing X>" isn't acceptable. I've fixed up some of those.

As to Moscow July 2004: this isn't a garbled ref to World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, is it?

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would appear not -- this is how Booker describes it:

"The Russians decided to stage a high-level international seminar in Moscow on 7 and 8 July 2004, chaired by Putin's chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov." (Booker, page 114). King apparently appealed to the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (who was also in Moscow at the time on different business) about the make up of the scientists who had been invited (among them Nils-Axel Morber and Reiter). Best, Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, we have chronology problems. Chapter 6 "culminates" in Dimmock et al ("The controversy included in a court action in the UK.") but chapter 7 includes TGGWS. Dimmock et al was *about* TGGWS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Dimmock et al seems specifically to be connected with the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in English state schools Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be less "skeptical' however...is a book with a very specific views..we cant loss that fact when neutralizing the article..but what your doing is just perfect i think..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removed ..this is the 5th different tag this article has seen in 5 days.There is going to be a big problem with POV dew to the fact its a POV book ..so we need to balance it all out ..wont be easy...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a real problem with the use of primary sources - about 80% of the "readable text" is cited to the book itself. The second problem is formatting - is there any reason why the chapter titles are bolded, or why the paragraphs start with "Chapter x: Name of chapter"? Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I would hope that eventually other sections would be added and expanded to balance out the synopsis. As for formatting, I'm sure that there may be better alternatives available. Best, Jprw (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right on that point (other sections needed) however if your hoping not to see those tags again ..you need to even out the bias tone !! now i see that is hard to do seeing the fact its a book dealing with basically one side of a subject...but even the author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit!...PS i have no clue about the subject in question i am just here because you asked for help (editors help desk) with all those tags.. We have taken care of most ...we need to link this up more and try to neutralizes it a bit more..or people will places those tags back!! And if your done using {citing} all those quotes We should remove them...... Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit"

I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing starting?

I just reverted some edits that replace "asserts" with "describes" [2]. I don't think these are acceptable - Bookers version of reality isn't the real one, and this page should not say it is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But can we on occasion compromise, e.g.,

"In this chapter the author asserts the increasing involvement in the global warming debate of the politician Al Gore"

just sounds like bad English. Surely "outlines" could be used here instead of "asserts"? I agree that a "according to Booker" type tone needs to be struck. Also, isn't language like "Bookers version of reality isn't the real one" inappropriate for Wikipedia? It makes him sound like a lunatic.Jprw (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, well you said it, not me :-). This shouldn't be a place to re-fight the old wars. Essentially the tone of wiki's coverage of the *science* of GW is set by global warming. This article shouldn't say anything that contradicts what is there. But it can say that Booker contradicts what is there; or rather, it can report Booker saying things that contradicts what is there William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like a promotion/index rather than an article

Unfortunately that is the case. Most of the article is dedicated to uncritical description of each section and chapter. Why dedicate this much space for it? Where is the critical review of the claims? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article too incomplete to be encyclopedic

I have just added the {one source} template to the article. It is an encyclopedia article about a book, but at the moment is little more than a synopsis of the book. It does not even aspire to being a book review, far less an encyclopedia article about the book. Of the 34 references cited, all but 7 reference the text of the book itself. To become encyclopedic, this article needs to explain the historical context of the book's publication and writing, it needs to give evidence of how the book was received and reviewed on publication, and it needs to give some indication of the effects the book has had on the world following its publication. If these matters are so trivial that they cannot be adequately sourced, then I would propose that the book itself is of such marginal importance in the wider world that it does not deserve its own article, when set alongside all the other political and opinionated pulp that is published monthly in the world. That would lead us to AfD, rather than trying to expand and balance the coverage of this product. --Nigelj (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of synopsis

I've removed the synopsis, which was extensive and seemed to rely almost completely if not exclusively on somebody's personal reading of the book or promotional material for it, a primary source. Please rewrite from reliable secondary (ie: third party) sources, so as to highlight the major points of the synopsis as determined by those sources. --TS 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've acknowledged above that the synopsis is out of balance with the rest of the article -- but that shouldn't be a reason to remove it entirely. Rather, the synopsis should be edited and a criticism/origins section should be added later (the article is after all very young). Why should one editor have the authority to remove so much material without discussion? I am going to reinistate the synopsis based on this. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it back if you can justify doing so. Personally I'd say that such a substantial synopsis, dwarfing as it does whatever we do know about the book from reliable third-party sources, is to be deferred until firstly, the other sections of the article have been filled out, and secondly, we can do the synopsis properly from such secondary sources as are available. --TS 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I based the layout of the synopsis on this. I would more than welcome other editors reworking the synopsis though I believe my rendering of it is fair. And in time any contentious point mentioned in the synopsis can be addressed in a criticism section. William Connelley has already gone through it three times -- I think -- which is a start. Jprw (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, your chosen model is absolutely horrid, especially in view of the extensive study and critique of Marx's prominent and influential work in the past century or so. But at least I can see why the synopsis of this article is such a mess. --TS 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it should be possible to compile a synopsis from the reviews? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. To produce an exhaustive item-by-item account is not sensible. We should follow what the reviewers found worthy of comment. --TS 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But I should mention that this is how I envisaged the synopsis looking eventually, with the help, of course, of other editors. At some point I intend to reinstate a synopsis that is more along these lines. I also think that, rather than other editors summarily hacking out without discussion what synopsis there was, it might have been better to mould it gradually into something more appropriate for a Wikipedia entry.Jprw (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Synposis should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as being complicated." following the guide here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article would be on target. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the guide [3], the synopsis is separate from reviews and criticism. The two sections should complement each other, however I believe the synopsis can be restored with faith that multiple editors will make it appropriate and relevant to the sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seem the article on The God Delusion before and was surprised to see that, despite my dread and foreboding, it wasn't the sprawling mess I expected. I think you could do worse than to aim for a summary like that, though I think any reasonably intelligent person could summarize Dawkins' work in 250 words or so. To show you that it can be done (and obviously this would need more work):

Dawkins examines several definitions of the term "God" and concludes that only the weakest, vaguest definitions are plausible within the context of what is now known about the universe. The fundamental argument for a creator--the argument from design--is dismissed by appeal to evolution. Dawkins contrasts the elegance of Darwin's solution with the existential problems of an intelligent creator: if intelligence demands a creator, where did the creator's intelligence come from? Dawkins also examines the argument that God is needed in order to impose morality on humans, and he mounts a humanist argument for morality. Finally, Dawkins argues for a positive conception of atheism, conceived as the freeing of humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought.

I make that about 120 words. It's a start. We could easily do something similar with Booker. The advantage of a brief synopsis (and I hate having to point this out) is that it will be read and understood by many more people than a long one. --TS 04:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting Dawkins genius aside (smile) ... I suspect we could take the existing synopsis, remove the chapter references and bring out the essence of Booker's genius. Seems the "five" error he investigated are most significant toward "freeing of humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought." (chuckle) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have only just seen the above conversation -- I was busy on the IPCC talk page. Very glad to see that things are more genteel over here)) Zula Papa 5 well done on finding this I was actually going to try and get help on writing a synopsis (before posting the "slab of words" referred to by TS above) the link is excellent and gives us a clear guideline for what it acceptable from a WP point of view for a non-fiction book article. My original synopsis was about 1400 words -- how about I try to cut it in half, post it again, and we take it from there? TGD could still serve as a rough comparison – e.g., perhaps a summary of the three parts. Jprw (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restored with faith

Restored it with good faith [4] in source and editors. Included a tag so editors may contribute and collaborate with the existing sourced text by adding new sources. Any specific verification issues can be removed. Perhaps even condense as suggested above. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for this? It's my impression that this massive and disproportionate synopsis has not been missed. --TS 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I assumed consent that editors were here to work on content with sources. Go ahead an work on it with sufficient sources. Removing was too much. I agree, it can be improved with faith. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too big to be manageable. Really we'd be better off starting from scratch and writing something brief from the commentaries available. --TS 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that huge slab of words with a very brief summary sourced from the review in The Observer by expert science writer and former Nature editor, Philip Ball. --TS 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's another start. Does't seem to help the reader see into the book. Kinda of lowers the article quality IMO. Thanks for contributing, wish I could believe it was in Wikipedia's best interests, but that's my issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole

I've removed an external link to a piece by James Delingpole in The Spectator. I think we may want to use that article to flesh out the book's very positive reception in what remains of the British traditional intellectual conservative tradition. I don't think we need worry that it's the second piece hosted by The Spectator--the mag has a proud history of intellectual contrarianism that few other publications anywhere can rival. This is Booker's intellectual background and the voice of his primary audience. --Tasty monster 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should make it plain that I, Tasty monster, am Tony Sidaway down the pub with a cellphone. --Tasty monster 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5482258/you-know-it-makes-sense.thtml

Finally added a bit of it to the end of the intro. Jprw (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

I have restored a perfectly fair summary of the book which was deleted. Peterlewis (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restoration

The synopsis, which now may well have gone through as many rewrites as the script to The Godfather Part III, has been restored. It's almost half the size of what it was, which brings it into line with this. Thanks to Zulu Papa 5 for retrieving the original one from the system.

Hopefully this time other editors will focus on tweaking/moulding it and not just removing it completely. Jprw (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article reviewers

I have personally asked Dave souza, Cla68, Mark Nutley, Peterlewis, Viriditas, and KimDabelsteinPetersen to look at the article to see if in their opinion it should qualify as a good article, just to get the ball rolling on this process. Of course, other editors can and would indeed be very welcome to make their views known as well (please follow the link at the top of this page). Jprw (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job, everything looks ok to me, but i am curios as to why in see also the hockey stick illusion is in italics but not the other links? It looks a bit out of place the way it currently is. But other than that one small gripe, top job mate mark nutley (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You should really have a look at some of the existing GAs in this category. If I were to review it (which I shouldn't), it would be an obvious quick-fail. If you look at the Good Article criteria (see WP:WIAGA):

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The writing needs improvement, especially in the synopsis. The sentences are overly long, they're hard to follow. In addition, the synopsis is not a synopsis, more a blow-by-blow. It should cover what the article is about, not x happened, then y happened, then z happened. The body of the article is also just not there. There's a synopsis, there's a reception, but there's no real discussion of the book.

   b (MoS): The bolded section titles - are questionably MOS-compliant. The use of American English spelling in a book by a British author published in the UK is also a problem. Actually, I think the article included both AE ("skepticism") and BE ("criticised"), so that's a real problem.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources): much of the article (695/1584 words "readable prose") is sourced to the book itself, which seems like excessive use of primary sources.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Not even kinda. While major reviews are mentioned, they are simply mentioned. They are not used to construct the article. There's also an inherent problem with trying to write an article about a book that's only been out a few months.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: This links back to 3a. The book isn't discussed, its case is simply presented (via the primary source, the book itself) and the reception is provided. Its content is highly contentious, but that's not at all obvious to the reader.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In addition to that, the nom lacks a subtopic. That needs fixing (see the error message in the banner at the top of the page). Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you are mistaken: language is fine and your critical comments mistaken. I have peer-reviewed many books and articles in learned journals and elsewhere and find the current article very fair in presenting both Booker's strongt arguments and the criticism. Peterlewis (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Leach review

I think WP:UNDUE might come into play here. The text of Leach's review includes some... novel... views, like "But in the Seventies environmentalism joined forces with the continuing backroom campaign of international bureaucrats for world government." and "The collapse of Soviet Communism brought a fresh ally. The Left found in global warming an appealing new anti-capitalist cause, and when EU governments and US Democrats adopted ‘fighting climate change’ as their badge of environmentalist solidarity, an unstoppable coalition of forces had assembled, able to silence dissent and seduce or cow the media on a scale hitherto seen only in ideological or religious regimes." I respectfully suggest that this is off the chart when it comes to a reality check, and should not be treated as a source in the reasonable range. It is being given undue weight just by being included. I would also suggest that this article cannot reach GA when the book is so new, as peer-reviewed reviews are not yet out. This is creating a problem with the "reception" section, which appears unduly weighted to critics with like-minded views - who by Booker's own argument do not represent the majority of critical views on this subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seitz

I took out:

The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report – the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate – were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question has accepted the supposedly final text".

This isn't even close to balanced. The overall scientific reaction to the SAR was positive acceptance. The above must as a bare minimum be prefaced by something along the lines of "Despite the overwhelming positive acceptance of the SAR, the book chooses to highlight the one negative report by..." or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it -- it's a crucial piece of criticism. And is commentary along the lines of "Despite the fact that..." appropriate in a synopsis? Jprw (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this pushes an already badly biased article ove the edge, so I've added the POV template. What does "it's a crucial piece of criticism" mean? That you consider it so? that Booker considers it so? Do you feel any need at all for this article to reflect rality? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a crucial part of the synopsis, or the gist of what the book is about (IPCC reports this, subsequently criticised by x person, etc.) As it currently stands, the synopsis is merely outlining what Booker says in the book. It's for other people to make up their minds about what he says, and for other sections to deal with commentary, criticism, etc. That would appear to be within the guidelines set out here Jprw (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that won't do at all. The section says (and this is typical of other problems with the article), very baldly The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that.... Either that statement (and quite a few others) needs to be very clearly prefixed with "Booker says this, altough it is quite misleading) or there should be some general statement ni the intro making clear that this is a deeply partisan view William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that Frederick Seitz criticised SAR? If there is, then I agree that "According to Booker, Seitz criticised, etc." may be better. I also see no problem in using Booker alleges/claims/asserts hedgers. It may well be the case that the article needs more of them. Jprw (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But is that good enough? We're not quoting every word of the book here. Who is asserting that *this* is a critical part of the synopsis? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adressed the POV issue in the Seitz statement by attribution to Booker's writing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't address the problem. If you read what I've written above, you'll see "and this is typical of other problems with the article". There are others. Please restore the POV tag that you've incorrectly removed. In the book, Booker chronologically charts the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe is another example. This sentence is somewhat incoherent, but the most obvious interpretation - that Booker chronologically charts the history - in unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have detagged-n-run, so I've done what you should have and re-inserted the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

that Booker chronologically charts the history Would you actually explain why you think this is unacceptable? mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly: because this is a bald statement that he actually does so. Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, i read the book, have you? cos if you have not then how can you comment on it? mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda beside the point, isn't it? The statement assumes that he does chart it accurately. Something like that needs to be supported by secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, i read the book - that wasn't the question. The question was, Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? and you've evaded that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

have put "attempts to" in front of it as a compromise. Jprw (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We're not there yet. (1) to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies,; (2) Booker also describes how The Real Global Warming Disaster became a necessary continuation; (3) Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years[7] showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have consistently fluctuated and how when they again began to rise in the 1970s, scientists such as Paul Ehrlich began - actually that last is more incoherent than POV - how can a graph show what PE began? But attributing the scientific response to PE is wrong/POV William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(I've numbered the points, since it wasn't clear that they were separate) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And I was too swift with my thanks. Whilst "attempts" was no doubt well-intended, it doesn't really help: all you've done is replace one problem with another: what evidence is there that Booker is trying to tell the truth? I very much doubt that he is. An alternative, quite plausible, hypothesis, is that this is propaganda William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

References

GA review process

Well, the review process was instructive, as were the comments regarding how to improve the article. I had no idea that it was wrong to approach individual editors to comment (as I explained above it was to "get the ball rolling" – naivety on my part, I'm afraid). I also think that Pyrotec's choice of language here ("This review looks very much like a "favour" being granted to the article's nominator by a co-conspirator") is very regrettable – perhaps he would like to retract it, look again at the six editors I asked to review the article (I chose a cross-section of editors experienced in CC pages but who had not made a contribution here – also explained above), and admit that he jumped to conclusions. Another example of why good faith is so important. Anyway in future, I'll just make a general post on the talk page about GA nominations. From the comments re: the article itself it's clear that the article needs work in certain areas. Specifically:

• MOS issues, esp. with regard to the synopsis
• Restructuring of criticism section and dealing with "stubby paragraphs"
• Consistency in spelling
• Overlong sentences in synopsis (although Guetterda's criticism "the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form" may be misplaced as the book is a chronological account of this subject)
• Delingpole's review quoted in the lead but not the main body
• Further critical review needed/possible problems with tone
• Needs more images
• More than one editor pointed out that it may be too early to submit the book for review -- a very good point. Perhaps we should give it another six months.

That should be enough to be getting along with)) I don't regard the rejection as a setback, but merely a blip on the road to getting The Real Global Warming Disaster to GA status one day, in strict compliance with WP guidelines, though I still have reservations about how wise it was to choose a book from this subject area. Anyway it is a terrific learning experience. Thanks to all who shared their opinions. Jprw (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm more than happy to accept your explanation that it was naivety on your part and not anything else. Please note that, in a GAN review the Reviewer (there is only one and that is the editor who opens/creates the GA1 page) gets the final say, but anyone can contribute; and since that is not me I should not have failed it (well I broke the rules). Good faith applies on both side, I'm happy to acknowledge that it would have been better to leave a note on your talkpage before taking it to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, but as you are not prepared to accept good faith on my part I'm not withdrawing any comments. But I do wish you well with the article. I've been reading Christopher Booker for years in the Telegraph and I consider that he makes some very valid points. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation, accepted in good faith. As I said, it's been quite a learning experience. Actually, I now understand that it is probably just too premature for the article to be considered. Jprw (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I take it that Kenoshay and Fleurdalis are socks -- does anyone know how to protect the page? Jprw (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the level of activity is this low, the cost of semi-protecting the article (in terms of lost improvements) probably outweighs the damage. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I am having diffculting comprehending where the POV dispute is in this article. Best I can tell, any real issues can be quickly mopped up with active and appropriate edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mop Number 1 - [5] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered reading the sections above? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the first paragraph of the lead shows some of the problems:

The Real Global Warming Disaster (subtitle Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?) is a 2009 book by English journalist and author Christopher Booker that examines,

So far, so good, though I'm not sure it's in keeping with the MOS to subtitle)

from the point of view of climate change scepticism,

misleading link; something like this or this would be less problematic, since we aren't talking about actual skepticism here

the subject of man-made global warming.

Looks OK

In the book, Booker attempts to chronologically chart the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide (CO
₂) emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe.

There are a lot of problems here. What does "attempts to...chart" mean - that he tried, but the records aren't there to chart the history? And the assertion that Booker calls this "the brink of catastrophe" contradicts the end of this very paragraph.

He interweaves the science of the subject with that of its political consequences to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies, the scientific evidence for global warming is also, in his opinion, becoming increasingly challenged.

This is problematic because, at the very least, it contradicts what Bell says in his review

Booker questions whether global warming is supported by the world's climate scientists,

This is problematic wording, since it presents something that's obviously incorrect without adequate context. Clear POV problem

and consistently criticises how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents evidence and data, citing in particular its reliance on potentially inaccurate global climate models to make future temperature projections.

Again, we have the problem - the average reader could easily get the impression that the underlying premises here are accurate

Booker surmises at the end of the book that "it begins to look very possible that the nightmare vision of our planet being doomed" may be imaginary, and that, if so, "it will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made".

Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made an initial attempt to rewrite the introduction which I hope will deal with the majority of the issues raised by WMC and Guettarda above. Jprw (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Booker attempts to chronologically chart - I agree, this is a problem. I don't think he does make the attempt William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

References

1000 / 11,000

Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years[7] showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have... is odd. If all Booker is doing is talking about the last 1kyr, why doesn't he just show the last 1kyr? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted it accordingly. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Err yes you have but I'm not sure it is satisfactory. Now the graph shows 1000 years. Is it the same graph? If so, either the current text or the previous text is wrong. Which? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to pick up on this -- it is indeed 11,000 years, not sure how the 1,000 crept in. A mistake of almost IPCC-like proportions)) The graph is based on proxy studies from G. Bond, et al, and CO2 levels based on Parrenin et al. If it exists in Wikicommons I would like to include it as one of the criticisms that came out during the GA nomination process was that the article needs more diagrams and pictures. Jprw (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar

Sooo... evidence emerging to the contrary: that the earth had in fact begun to cool, and how this may have been as a result of solar variation. But then there is a picture of Svensmark, and the assertion of a connection between solar and warming. So what exactly does Booker claim? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me at the moment but will double check later to make sure there is no contradiction here. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you could work that much out. That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects. It has so many clauses and sub-clauses that when the next sentence begins, "The theory was...", I imagine most readers would have no idea which theory we might be talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What other theory could it possibly be? And re: "That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects". Yes, but all working together quite harmoniously -- where is there confusion? (I have however tweaked it a little by adding "perhaps"). But these are copy editing issues -- why not make these changes yourself, or at least suggest constructive alternatives on this page? Jprw (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What other theory could it possibly be? - this worries me, because it suggests we're getting your paraphrase of something you may not fully understand William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"the earth had in fact begun to cool, perhaps as a result of solar variation" this is the "theory" in question. If it is wrong, can you suggest an alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that the "solar variation" theory of climate isn't really coherent; whilst I'd be happy for the article to say that I'm not really going to try and push it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Svensmark wording

I've changed it to "Henrik Svensmark, who carried out controversial research into a link between solar and temperature trends". Hopefully this will deal with any consistency/accuracy issues. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance?

This edit reverted to misrepresenting sources in the lead, presenting an impression of praise from a review and an article that strongly criticise the book, and then presenting a columnist's view as though it's the view of the magazine concerned. There are further possible ways of doing this, for example using the Spectator's review, but the point remains that the book was criticised and the lead should show that balance. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You two need to stop edit warring and work towards some compromise wording. Cla68 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a compromise can be reached, as has been the case for this article in the past. My main concern at the moment is that cramming the lead with every negative response and flaw to the book is not balanced. Jprw (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be very few reviews of the book, and it's misrepresentation of the source to pretend that Philip Ball's review in in The Observer is uncritical. Extracting his sarcastic comment about it being "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" without showing the context is the sort of spin expected of billboards for dud theatre shows, and wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ball has the credentials to express the clear majority view on the science of the subject, which should be shown in the lead and elsewhere in the article to comply with WP:WEIGHT and at present is sorely lacking in this article. James Delingpole is noted for expressing fringe views in his columns and blogs, and The Spectator is a political magazine not noted for neutrality. It would be more appropriate to represent that magazine's views by its review, which appears similarly opposed to the scientific mainstream. The Independent's item is not a review, but a news piece about the misattribution of the opening "quote" in the book. Since it's a significant part of this article it's something to note in the lead, and not something to misuse to claim that the book is a definitive "manual". Cramming the lead with misrepresentations of sources is unbalanced, as is pretending that it has been well received by mainstream expert sources. . . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. There are plenty of reviews of the book, mainly from conservative publications, which, it could be argued, are underrepresented in the lead.

2. There is no pretence that Ball's review is not critical -- the criticism is presented at length in the criticism section. I also don't see why you think "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" is sarcastic. It seems to be a fair general description that fits well into the lead. (Ball repeats the wording twice in his review).

3. “at present is sorely lacking in this article”. Where and how do you think this could be addressed?

4. Delingpole's review in The Spectator could be changed for “generally positive reception”-type description in the conservative media.

I think that to restore balance (it would be obvious to any neutral person reading the intro now that it was written by someone with clear antipathy towards the author and the subject) the "bunk" wording should be replaced with "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" description.

I also think that WMC’s “purported” is inferior to “attempts”.Jprw (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Got more from reliable sources? Not sure what you mean by conservative, but the four other reviews cited are by journalists with no scientific credentials, unlike Philip Ball. Since the book's making claims about science, due weight has to be given to the mainstream scientific view of the book and of its subject, which Ball ably represents.

2. There should be no pretence in the lead that Ball is uncritical, and quoting the "manual" bit out of context gives a false impression. Ball doesn't repeat the wording twice in his review, there's a subhead which in UK practice is written by the subeditor, who also repeated the "bunk" description.

3. The other points that Ball makes can be added, and in the synopsis care needs to be taken to be clearer that Booker's anti-majority views aren't generally supported. Since the synopsis is cited entirely to the book, this is obviously difficult. Language like "describes how" implies the truth of Booker's presentation, when we have only his word for it. Out of interest, how does "a graph" (whose?) show how "scientists such as Paul Ehrlich began to postulate"? Needs splitting, and presenting as Booker's statements.

4 Once again, "conservative media" seems a misnomer, and it seems to be some conservative organs and some other papers. Welcomed by some journalists seems more accurate.

The intro should give due weight to majority expert views and not endorse the book's claims which seems to be what you're getting at. Any neutral person should recognise that. As for "purported", the phrase "is claimed" might work better. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

I still don't see why including "the definitive climate sceptics' manual" in the lead is a problem. These are Ball’s words, it is a good general description, and is presumably an obvious and immediate black mark against the book in the scientific community -- it seems to fulfill the function of expressing criticism and after rereading the review I do not see the way Ball wrote it as being sarcastic. Because of its general nature it seems to belong in the lead and “the bunk” and more detailed criticism in the criticism section.

Re: No. 3, the synopsis is based on this and I think an agreement had been reached that it was important to make clear that these were Booker's views (In chapter 3 he claims, etc. etc.). I agree that the wording re: graph at the beginning of the synopsis does not work well and perhaps should be removed and replaced with general background description.

Re: 4: all the positive reviews do seem to be coming from journalists writing for conservative newspapers.

Afterthought: (still trying to reach a compromise) A completely different wording in the lead, along the lines of:

"The claims made in the book were dismissed by Phillip Ball, and the book was praised by environmentalist Sir John Lister-Kaye as being an "important, brave book making and explaining many valid points""

Perhaps… Jprw (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your afterthought looks like a better approach.

On the details, Re. 4: the The Herald (Glasgow) is clearly not a conservative newspaper, and describes our conservatives as "a toxic brand" ;-) .[6] Oddly enough, Brian Morton's review there starts from a position more extreme than Booker's, and we should note his view that "though Booker lands effective jabs, the book glances off the real issue". It appears that The Irish Times isn't particularly conservative, either. However, the writers praising the book are columnists and some are very conservative indeed, the exception apparently being Sir John Lister-Kaye.

So, returning to your proposal, I'd suggest:

The claims made in the book were strongly dismissed by science writer Philip Ball, but the book was praised by several columnists. The conservationist Sir John Lister-Kaye was dubious about the credibility of some of the claims in the book, but described it as important and brave, "making and explaining many valid points".

You may prefer environmentalist as a description of Sir John, the conservation aspect is given more emphasis in his bio. In my view the issue of the careless misattribution of the quote opening the book merits a brief mention in the lead, suggest:

The book opens with a misquotation commonly used by sceptics, Brooker acknowledged the error and said he had been misled.

Hope that's the suitable, dave souza, talk 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks, look like we may have made a breakthrough. I'll try to cobble together a reworded end to the lead sometime in the next 48 hours. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

Flipping through the book, I find myself rather curious as to why the synopsis includes some things, while omits others. For example, while Booker titles the section Three men who would help to change history, the synopsis only mentions two of them (Strong and Bolin). While the book goes all conspiracy theory on carbon trading and "world government", there is no mention of this in the synopsis. Is there a reason for leaving this out? Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Booker covers a lot of ground in the book and it was very difficult to write a synopsis within the space constraints indicated here. I tried to include the most salient points/themes but may well have not succeeded. If there are any editors who have read the book and who would like to try and improve/edit the synopsis please go for it. Maybe it should be increased, and a discussion had on this page of "the synopis should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as being complicated" guideline from here. Jprw (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fabricated Houghton quotation

I'm wondering if all the detail in this section that is not directly Real Global Warming Disaster-related would be better off in Houghton's article. Jprw (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It all seems relevant to me - useful relevant background, just what an encyclopedia gives. It's not as if it's a long section. --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the New Scientist article mention The Real Global Warming Disaster? (I can't read the whole article). If not, it would appear to be a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

There appears to be a mini-edit war going on between KDP, WMC and CB.[7][8][9][10][11] I don't know who CB is, but they appear to be right. The claim that Ball was "very critical" appears to be WP:OR. Where exactly does the cited reference state that Ball is "very critical"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note here: CB is a suspected scibaby sock, it is entirely possible that he isn't - but please see WP:GS/CC/RE#Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets, as well as the relevant SPI. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He might be, or he might not be. Either way, there seems o be WP:OR in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

AQFK, you seem very coy about who CB is: CB is the wittily named Caring Butz – oh look, "This account is a sock puppet of Scibaby and has been blocked indefinitely", as has The Last Methane Bender. . . dave souza, talk 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If your assessment is correct, then the only way forward for you is to submit an AfD. Since everything in the article would then be WP:OR. I fail to see even a single paragraph that wouldn't be such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? That doesn't even make sense. We have plenty of articles that don't include WP:OR. Please see our featured and good articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense - please check this article, go through each and every paragraph - and strike every sentence that doesn't follow your requirements for this source. You will be left with only quotes - and hardly any content. Which means that we can't establish notability or any of the other requirements for the existence of the article. I'm going to bed now - since it is very early morning, and i've been up all night - perhaps when i return, i will see things with different eyes - though i doubt it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait. So you're arguing that if other parts of this article contain WP:OR, that makes the rest of the article OK to violate WP:OR? OK, I'm going to bed now. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing OR about "very critical" as a reasonable summary of Ball: calling Booker's book "bunk"; saying that he engages in "faulty science and procedural misdemeanour"; and observing that Booker's "aim is simply to sling enough mud and to hell with consistency" (that is just a selection of Ball's measured criticism). I still think this WP article lets Booker off the hook in terms of the balance of expert opinion about the quality of the book; to suggest there is some problem with describing Ball as "very critical" is laughable. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, see also various discussions here on talk. If this is WP:OR, then we must stop using reviews (and lots of other things) entirely - since it would then be impossible to summarize them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be drawing a conclusion not explicitly stated (or even implied) by the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? How is "very critical" not implied by, for example, the selection of quotes of Ball above ("bunk" etc)?? 03:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - maybe i'm just tired. But it seems to me that your assessment runs contrary to actual editing practice - if we cannot summarize - then (as i stated above) most/all of the article has to go. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might be your standard practice to include WP:OR but it's certainly not mine.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quest, you are being disingenuous at best. That was not what Kim said and that should be obvious. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone: How do you know that I am being disingenuous? To the best of my knowledge, I don't think that I've ever interacted with you before. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really think that this is an OR matter, but there is a matter of NPOV to consider. While I think that either Caring Butz' or the existing version of the article are acceptable, I talked the matter over with a FAC reviewer. They pointed me towards Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Characterizing opinions of people's work, which they say would support the usage of the more neutral "described as" rather than adding the clause about very critical. I tend to think it doesn't matter either way (especially when the quotes immediately follow), but it is up to you guys to decide which version to use. NW (Talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, a compromise on the wording here appears to be fairly easy. Just say something like, "In his review, Ball stated..." and then follow it with a few dramatic quotes from Ball's review. Then the reader can decide on their own what Ball thinks of this book. There is no reason to argue over this. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise of not working on this article for a while? The "very critical" phrase was a compromise reached in full discussion on this talk page, because some editors didn't like the simple quote of what Ball thinks of the book – "bunk" . . . dave souza, talk 06:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the review, it was very critical. There is no OR here just a statement of fact mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's not WP:OR then simply show us where exactly the cited reference states that Ball is "very critical". Furthermore, Ball's opinion appears to be a minority viewpoint about this book. Why are we giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority viewpoints? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::WP:NPOV is why ball is in there, you gotta have balance man. If saying Ball`s bit is OR then so are the following, Writing in The Herald, Brian Morton was largely sympathetic to A very positive review by Henry Kelly in The Irish Times I admin there is a bit to much balls, it maybe could be trimmed a little but i really see no OR, just statements of fact. mark nutley (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ball's opinion looks mainstream to me. Why do you think otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Because it's the only one (assuming our article is correct). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Different use of the word mainstream I think. We're running into the in-universe problems again, and weight on quality competent sources William M. Connolley (talk)

It appears that what you're saying is that because only a limited number of sources take position A, we cannot publish position A - because the majority (or vast majority) of sources take position B. Is that, give or take, correct? That you feel articles should not represent all viewpoints published in reliable sources, but rather only the most common viewpoint published in reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC: WP:NPOV is the correct policy to follow here, not WP:SPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Weight should based on reliable sources. Unless someone can provide evidence otherwise, Ball's appears to be a minority viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel that significant (and I think we can agree that Dr. Ball is significant) minority viewpoints should be removed from articles? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm an inclusionist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What undue weight is being provided Ball's opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarify: "threat to Earth" would more correctly be "threat to current human civilization", see Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Earth would exist without life on it.

Clarify: "threat to Earth" would more correctly be "threat to current human civilization", see Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Earth would exist without life on it. 99.39.185.226 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP Boomer! 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Passed quick-fail check. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1b. "Purports" in the lede is a word to avoid, see WP:ALLEGED. Citation is missing from first quote in lede, and citation #1 is in the middle of a quote - it should be at the end of the quote. "Allegedly" is used in the Synopsis section, Part One (word to avoid). Internal quotation marks inside a quotation should be a single (') not a double (") quotation mark, as in "consensus" inside the quote in the Reception section. "Heavily criticized" in the Reception section is use of a weasel word - should be adjusted or clarified.

2b and 4. Reference 3b supports a misleading statement in the reference. While the exact cite is technically correct, it is cherry-picked and out of context, ignoring the earlier quote from the article - "Predictably, he attacks the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, a plot of global mean temperatures over the past 1,000 years produced by two scientists in 1998 which shows little change for the entire period until suddenly soaring in the 20th century.It is now mostly accepted that the analysis that produced these data was wrong." (emphasis added).

2b. Reference 5 is a dead link - not found error. Not a problem, but you may want to see if you can find another link. 2b. Reference 28 is quoted, but the material in the source does not match the quote in the article exactly. This needs to be corrected. 2b and 4. Reference 33 only mentions the book in passing, and it is not really suitable as a reference in the Reception section. The focus of the reference is on ocean acidification, not on the book. It should be removed, as it exists solely to promote a POV. 2b. Reference 34 is quoted, but the material in the source does not match the quote in the article exactly. This needs to be corrected.

4. Reference 32. Gibbons criticism of Meyer appears to be slanted to put Gibbons in a better light. The source quotes what appears to be a profanity laced tirade - for balance, that fact should be included.

GA comments

I've incorporated most of GregJackP's comments, but didn't know what he meant by "Citation is missing from first quote in lede, and citation #1 is in the middle of a quote - it should be at the end of the quote" in 1b. Also, "2b. Reference 5 is a dead link" -- it doesn't seem to be, perhaps he got the wrong reference? Anyway thanks to GregJackP for finally getting the GA process going. Jprw (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake on 1st quote - it's there now. Cite #2 is in the middle of a quote, I went ahead and moved it to the end. Ref #5 seems to be working now - sometimes that just happens. GregJackP Boomer! 05:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Unfortunately, the individual who approved this article did not see the obvious fail of criteria #4, namely that the article be neutral. In particular, there are two points of Wikipedia policy/guidelines to which the article fails to conform: namely undue weight and fringe theories policies. Essentially, this is an article written about a fringe theory and pseudoscience, in this case, global warming denialism. The article, as written, does not conform to these guidelines. In particular, the sources from the most reliable reviewers, those being ones with scientific credentials, are given short-shrift and the reviews by denialists and, frankly, charlatans are given equal weight in defiance of Wikipedia policy. The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book without looking at the fact that it is far more likely for self-selected and ideologically-similar denialists to review the book than actual scientists or disinterested parties. Moreover, as the book itself is a minor player in the ultimate context of the article which is the scientific history of global warming, it is fairly clear that the article is not offering proper analysis of the subject the book purports to be about. In particular, the major scientific flaws of the book cannot be addressed because the book itself is too obscure to have been reviewed thoroughly by scientific experts. This means that the content coverage of the book isn't sufficiently vetted and, indeed, coverage of the details of the book are in explicit violation of policies on primary sourcing and the need to use independent sources to evaluate fringe material. It is with regret, then, that I conclude that unless these major problems are fixed this article cannot be listed as a "good article".

Pursuant to the recommendations of GAR, I have added the NPOV template to the article to indicate that its failings in this regard need to be addressed. Hopefully, this will attract the appropriate attention to fix these problems.

On a more general note, it is very difficult to write about a fringe/pseudoscience field to the level required to get the accolades in the Wikipedia review process. I commend the person attempting this for their effort and regret that the article is so problematic. A much shorter article that didn't weight the content of the book as heavily is basically all that can be allowed from the sourcing idealizations of the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Sorry.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose reassessment -- Article was correctly assessed under good article criteria by the reviewer, and ScienceApologist is applying the wrong standards in this reassessment. SA is judging the content of the book rather than the article about the book. There is nothing that prevents a book about a non-majority view from meeting the good article criteria, as this article does. For an example of a good article based on a book about a true fringe theory, see The CIA and September 11 (book). There is no indication that the article does not conform to WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE -- the article is presented in a neutral tone with all available notable viewpoints and critiques, some are positive and others are negative. There is no indication that any notable critique of the book has been omitted, nor is there indication that non-notable critiques have been improperly included. The synopsis conforms to WP:BOOK, as does the section regarding reception of the book. SA mentions "scientific flaws" in the book, which indicates SA's misapplication of good article criteria in this reassessment -- the GAR is not a judgment on the content of a book, it is an assessment of the article itself and its treatment of the book's coverage in verifiable and reliable sources. There is simply no argument to be made about the underlying science covered by this book -- it's irrelevant to the GAR process. The NPOV tag should be removed, as the tone is entirely neutral and NPOV has been previously and adequately addressed. Minor4th 08:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comparison GA. I actually agree that that is a good article based on a book about a fringe theory. The article about this book does not nearly rise to that standard. Note that, compared with this article, a much smaller fraction of the space in that article is devoted to attempting to explain the content of the book (only the content that is judged relevant to the notability of the book and that which was vetted and evaluated by third-party commentators). The basic fact that most reliable sources have found extreme flaws with much of the content in that book are clearly laid out for the reader from the lead and onwards. This is in stark comparison to this article which presents the book not in context but rather as something of an objective take on the situation.

While you are superficially correct that I have made a judgment about the contents of the book, I've only done this to the extent that our guideline on fringe theories require. In particular, we are asked as Wikipedia editors to judge whether subjects are fringe theories or not in order to decide how to properly handle them. I am empowered by that guideline to make a determination, based on reliable, third-party sources, whether this book is a mainstream textbook about science or science policy or whether it is something else. It is pretty clear to me by this standard that this book is an opinion-piece with an agenda — and the particular position taken by the author in writing the book has been impeached by a multitude of reliable sources as being, if not explicitly pseudoscientific, then at the very least divergent from the documented academic consensus. This is as far as I went with making any judgments, simply following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia to come to the conclusion that the book in question was covered under our guidelines on fringe theories. After that, it was simply a matter of deciding whether this article rose to the standards we as a community have agreed upon are needed to write articles neutrally on such subjects. And this article, sorry to say, does not rise to those standards.

Incidentally, stating that you "oppose reassessment" as though this were some sort of !poll makes no sense. GAs are supposed to be reassessed at any time by anyone. You can ask for a third-party reassessment if you think my reassessment is no good, but unless you deal with my complaints the article will be delisted because the whole point of the Good Article system is to allow any user in good standing to review/reassess the article at any time. Unlike WP:FAC and WP:FAR which require consensus reviews, good articles are left to be handled by individual editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a book about a fringe theory, and you calling it a fringe theory does not make it so. In any event it doesnt matter. The content of the book is not what is being evaluated. Do not apply criteria that are inapposite. You are trying to suppress content that you disagree with. Let's be honest here. Take the reassessment to the community because you are reassessing to push an agenda. The nominator just moved a fringe, marginal critique to the top of the list to appease you and you have made a mockery of the good article process. It disgusts me that you would do this. Step back. Minor4th 17:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being needlessly personal and are manifestly not assuming good faith about my evaluations. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that ScienceApologist misapplies labels to an article on a book. First, it is not a fringe theory. Second, you need to read up on pseudoscience, because the questions that are raised are legitimate criticisms and are not pseudoscience like astrology or paranormal activities. For example Ball pointed out (as did the National Academy report here) that the Hockey Stick graph was flawed, and all it can show is that the current temperatures are the highest since the Middle Ages Warm Period. Well, duh. This is about the book, not the science. I stand by the original review, and I am quite willing to take it to a community review if needed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the content, this is about appropriate handling of an issue where consensus is clearly opposed to the author. The article does not do a good job of explaining that and so fails to be neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Additionally, I would like to point out a potential impropriety with SA's reassessment on this particular topic. SA was the subject of an arbcom case related to WP:FRINGE and has been blocked two or three times for editing WP:FRINGE in violation of his arbcom sanction [12]. The fact that he is trying to improperly change policy to advance his own agenda should be carefully considered in view of this reassessment -- this reassessment based on WP:FRINGE is yet another attempt to define topics as "fringe" when SA disagrees with them and when they clearly do not belong there. SA should recuse from this GA reassessment. Minor4th 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I've never edited the article. That's the only criteria for being a Good Article Reviewer. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• [13] Minor4th 18:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• [14] ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you show me where GAR says to place a NPOV tag on an article you're reviewing for good article? Thank you. Minor4th 20:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• At WP:GAR, Individual reassessment step #2. Direct quote: "If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article." ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag as ScienceApologist (talk) did not state any grounds for the tag. The article is about a book, and is not an article about climate change science, so the matters that he is raising in his misguided reassessment do not apply, as neither WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE apply to the article on the book. If there are specific examples of POV that need to be addressed, then they need to be listed so they can be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Greg, considering your strong, and some might say biased opinion on this topic based on your past contributions, you should have recused yourself from reviewing it, and in the interest of neutrality, you should have asked someone you respect but disagree with on this topic to join you in a shared review. It's one thing for someone to have an interest in a topic, or a passion for a topic, but it's quite another when an editor has a history of favoring a singular POV on the topic. Please don't make me pull out the dozens of quotes you've made on this topic showing that you shouldn't be within several light years of reviewing this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, considering your POV position on the issue, perhaps you should recuse yourself from commenting on CC articles. I am one of few that am trying to bring this area back into NPOV and the standards that the rest of Wikipedia meet. Or, perhaps you ask WMC to respect COI and stay away from articles where he is involved. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did state grounds [15]. I don't care if it's removed, just following recommendations of GAR. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's reassessment

I have two main problems with ScienceApologist's reassessment:

1. His assertion "In particular, the sources from the most reliable reviewers, those being ones with scientific credentials, are given short-shrift and the reviews by denialists and, frankly, charlatans are given equal weight in defiance of Wikipedia policy".

• Actually, Philip Ball's review is given pride of place in the lead, and is quoted extensively in the criticism section and further, lengthy quotes from it are given in the footnotes.
• Who are these denialists and charlatans? How does ScienceApologist know they are denialists and charlatans? They are labelled as "columnists" in the lead to indicate that they are non-science writers, and not one of their reviews is quoted as extensively as Ball's. Therefore, the statement "The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book" looks very inaccurate.

2. The amount of space covering the book's contents (i.e., the synopsis) is within the guidelines recommended [here].

I've also had a look at the The CIA and September 11 (book) article and I'm not sure it is helpful to use it as a comparison.

Jprw (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just promoted the Ball review to the top of the critical reception section, to give it further prominence within the article. Jprw (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Jprw, we should at least go with people who have degrees in science or history as the most reliable reviewers. This is not done in this article since we spend a whole lot more space on the reviews of people who are not scientists nor historians. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who reviews the book. There is no rule saying those without degree`s can`t review a book is there? mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub. We can't make people review a book, but when someone reviews a book that doesn't have the qualifications to discuss its content, it's inappropriate for us to weight it heavily. For example, Petr Beckmann wrote a rather famous book called Einstein Plus 2 about his personal claim that he disproved relativity. It received very little in the way of review from physicists but was praised up-and-down by a number of Objectivists who wrote glowing reviews that are essentially reliable sources for their opinion, but certainly not scientifically reliable. If we were writing an article on that book, it would be irresponsible to give equal weight to the amateurs and non-scientists who gave rave reviews to the book even though there is a dearth of reviews from experts. That's the major reason we have both WP:FRINGE and WP:UW. These issues must be dealt with appropriately if Wikipedia is to remain neutral. Otherwise, we'll get articles which are slanted through the accidents of obscurity. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The book received considerable attention in the popular media (unfortunately it wasn't reviewed by The New Scientist – it would have been nice, but there you go) and all the article is doing is reflecting this. Perhaps that aspect can be pared down though. I still maintain that SA's assertion "The analysis by Philip Ball is given such minimal attention in the article, it is almost as though the article-writer is promoting the positive spin reviews of the book" is very inaccurate. Will SA concede that the Ball review is in fact given prominence within the article? Jprw (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Ball is in the lead, but if you just simply measure how much of the article is devoted to the opinions of global warming denialist supporters and how much is devoted to the opinions of scientists, you might begin to see why I'm saying that there is a short-shrift problem here. The considerable attention in the "popular media" may make the book notable and, conceivably, could be a good starting point to write about the book instead of focusing on content which is only sourced to the primary source itself. Also, as an aside, I'm not a particularly big fan of New Scientist either since their editorial policy gives rather wide latitude to assertions that not backed-up with evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are perverting the good article criteria and process. You can only arrive at your conclusion by making value judgments about the underlying content of the book, and that is not your place. Good Article Review is not peer review of the underlying science. Please step back and let a neutral uninvolved person reassess if it is to be reassessed. Minor4th 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have made myself clear as to what the neutrality issues are with this article. Your choice is to either: a) fix the problems or b) go through dispute resolution. Shooting the messenger will not help matters. I'm as uninvolved and as neutral as you're gonna get (see this for how we need to all acknowledge that we come to Wikipedia with preconceptions, but that this fact alone does not make it impossible to be neutral editors). ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SA you say I'm as uninvolved and as neutral as you're gonna get this is however obviously false given your previous statement the opinions of global warming denialist supporters you are neither neutral or uninvolved and you certainly show your POV with that statement mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was writing a bit off-the-cuff, as it were. A better phrasing might have been "I'm as uninvolved and neutral as I need to be." The standards by which GA reviewers are judged is made pretty clear at WP:GA. Sure, I have personal opinions about the lack of intellectual honesty, capacity, and rigor exhibited by global warming denialists, but that does not make me an inappropriate reviewer. The point is, really, that people who have (even strong) opinions on a topic can still be neutral evaluators of whether an article on a topic is neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that you think anyone is a global warming denialist supporter shows you not only have strong feelings but that you are unable to write from a NPOV perspective. If you could you would not have written that to begin with. mark nutley (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? According to what policy are you making this judgment? I can't find anything in WP:NPOV that indicates that if someone thinks anyone is a "global warming denialist supporter" that they are unable to write from a NPOV perspective. Also, this isn't about writing, it's about reviewing, but maybe you meant to say that you believe anyone who thinks that anyone is global warming denialist supporter should be banned from doing anything on Wikipedia. Is that what you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SA: Given that you are involved in an ArbCom case about this very topic, I think you should recuse yourself from doing a GA review. I recommend that someone uninvolved in the CC articles do this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a named party in the arbcom case, and neither is anyone else. You can take that in two ways: either everyone is qualified to do a GA review or no one is. I respect your opinion, but refuse to recuse myself as I believe there is no rational basis for such a recusal. It's also curious that you did not ask GregJackP to do the same. Do you have a rationale for that? I'm just curious. Me? I believe that it was great that GregJackP did a GA-assessment. I just disagree with his determination of one criterion. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

SA: The reason why you are not a named party in the case was because there was no formal list of parties to the case per the ArbCom clerk, Amorymeltzer.[16] In any case, I didn't say that you were a named party, I said that you were involved in the ArbCom case. As evidence, I submit the following:[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Please let me know if you want more diffs, because I can supply them if requested. As for GregJackP, I'm not aware of him doing a GA review. I got the impression that he was responding to the GA review. But if not, then he should recuse himself as well. SA: Will you please recuse yourself? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Do outside observers never comment on arbcom cases? I will not recuse myself since I don't think anyone needs to recuse. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally i think anyone who will use forum posts, twitter and SPS should not be reviewing an article anyway, nor someone who deliberately misrepresents sources. It is obvious SA is not capable of putting his obvious POV aside on an article like this mark nutley (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Were is the PA? What written above is actually wrong? mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the contributor is bad practice. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be bad practice but it is not a PA. Again, which part of what i wrote was wrong? This is why you should not try and review this article, you are incapable of being neutral mark nutley (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA in a nutshell: "This page in a nutshell: Comment on the content, not on the contributor." ScienceApologist (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets try this again, Personally i think anyone who will use forum posts, twitter and SPS should not be reviewing an article anyway, nor someone who deliberately misrepresents sources. It is obvious SA is not capable of putting his obvious POV aside on an article like this that is commenting on content. You know the content you inserted into an article using forum posts and SPS. For blp information. That is commenting on content not contributor. As for commenting on your POV that really can`t be helped as it needs to be said with regards to what you are doing here, which funnily enough is a content issue. So looks like i was commenting on content after all, would you actually care to respond to the points raised? mark nutley (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've been clear. You are commenting on me personally rather than the substance of my arguments. Please stop trying to pick fights. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is out of SA's hands now. It is subject to community review now because of the disputes with SA as a reviewer. Please follow the link in the section below. That is the appropriate place to comment on the good article review. Minor4th 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My individual assessment must be dealt with in that as well. I note that this meta-discussion has prevented any discussion of the actual issues. This is a shame. I will ask at WT:GA whether it is appropriate since my concerns were not raised whether to default to delist. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. I guess I haven't followed this issue close enough. Am I to understand that GregJackP performed the GA review? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh jeez. I'm not familiar enough with WP:GA process, but that seems like a bad idea. GJP and SA: If you guys are so keen to do GA reviews, there are plenty listed here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just saw some issues here and my understanding of the GA process has always been that anyone is allowed to review a work. I don't think this article should yet be listed as a GA. That is why I was trying to explain my objections. I haven't done anything yet except explain my objections because I don't think my objections are intractable, and don't see any reason why this article can't be brought to GA-status. If you would remove the GA listing and set it up for a third-party reassessment, I'd be fine with that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not being delisted as a GA while it's being reassessed. See below, it is already listed for community reassessment which in effect supplants your individual reassessment. Of course you're aware of this since you commented on the community reassessment. Minor4th 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Community reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1. The edit link for this section CANNOT be used to add comments to the reassessment, you will need to use this link.

The Real Global Warming Disaster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent GAN review • Subsequent individual GAR review

Result: Delist per unresolved concerns and comments below. Articles can be renominated at GAN at any time. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting community reassessment because after the article passed GAR, within hours an individual reassessment was started. The individual reassessment is applying the wrong criteria to the article and is treating as a peer review process of the underlying science treated in the book that is the subject of the GAR. The reassessment reviewer has been sanctioned in the past for editing WP:FRINGE and I feel that the reviewer is now once again attempting to misapply WP:FRINGE and use it as good article criteria. The article treats all critiques of the book in a neutral way; there are no notable critiques omitted, and no non-notable critiques included. The synopsis follows WP:BOOK, and the Good Article criteria are met. I would like the community to look at this so that the article is not delisted based on one editor's opinion that may be a bit too biased against the underlying content of the book. Minor4th 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an idiot when it comes to this subject matter, but I am going to give my view on the other critrria. There has been protection and edit wars in the past 2 weeks, so without your addition of the POV tags, I still believe the article might not be quite stable yet for GA. Try again in about a month or so. Images, they all are freely licensed except for the book cover. I think there is too many images in the second part, mostly of things that are not remotely related to the book, such as a shot of Copenhagen. I would remove those, but keep the graphs. If we need to see what the guys look like, just click the links to their bios. Other than that, it passes the other criteria. To me, it is honestly 50/50 when it comes to having it stay at GA or not, but if those slight improvements are made, then I will be happy to see the article remain as GA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too much should be read into the NPOV tagging. Nor do I think waiting a month is necessarily needful in any case. No comment on the substantive issues raised, as I stay out of all Global Warming content areas, but it is interesting that a review was raised so quickly after the article passed. Perhaps someone who has no dog in the fight would have been a far better choice to do the initial assessment, and certainly to do a reassessment. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How does one know whether one has a dog in the fight? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Delist The article fails to be neutral because it gives undue weight to a fringe theory inappropriately. I have explained in the individual reassessment how to fix that. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Do Not Delist SA should not be trying to assess this article given his obvious bias and POV mark nutley (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - reasons stated in request for community reassessment. Hoping some editors who are totally uninvolved in the global warming topic can weigh in . Minor4th 14:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Do not delist" - The delisting proposal is an attempt to push fringe Wikipedia SPOV policy by bashing a NPOV article. The article is sufficient for "Good" criteria rating. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: In order for this entire good-article process to mean anything, it will be necessary to get the opinions of people outside the climate-change arena. All the more so since several of the above comments are personal commentary and attacks, and do not address the merits of the article as they apply to good article criteria. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems to me that ScienceApologist's reassessment was flawed as it appears to be a review of the book rather than a review of the article about the book. The individual reassessment is also incomplete as no decision to keep or delist was made and the reassessment is incomplete, not having been closed. Hence the article should be kept at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: as the initial reviewer that passed the article for GA status, just hours before SA began his individual reassessment. I believe that outside editors (of the CC/GW area) should be involved in the process and that their opinions should be given more weight than those of us that have been involved in the area. I would recommend that those editors look both the initial assessment, the individual reassessment, the block log for myself and the block log for SA. The last two items are due to the fact that SA is asking us to believe that since he believes the article to be written about a fringe subject instead of the review of a book, he basically believes that the book should be peer-reviewed before it can get to GA status. This is not supported by policy, and it is possible that this policy area is honestly misunderstood by SA (which is shown in the last entry above). I concur with Jezhotwells comment above. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Good articles can indeed, be written about non-peer-reviewed books. Democracy_(Judge_Dredd_storyline) is, quite likely, not a peer-reviewed book. Werner_Erhard_(book) quite likely is not very scientific. The criterion for "good article" is that the article meets WP GA standards, and nothing more. This is a matter of process - if the person demurring about what "GA" means wishes to change the process, he is surely welcome to seek consensus for the change in the process. Collect (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Initial comments. I agree with the chorus so far that the individual reassessment begun by ScienceApologist conflated criticism of the content of the book with criticism of the article about the book. In terms of process, the article is thus currently correctly listed as a GA. However, I'd like to remind everyone that the purpose of GAR is not to criticize individuals or the reviewing process to date, but to decide whether an article meets the GA criteria or not.

In this case, there are some GA issues that editors might like to consider - hopefully of a nature that can be agreed upon and fixed within the timescale of this community reassessment.

1. First it seems to me that the lead does not stand alone as an adequate summary of the article (1b). The first paragraph appears to summarize the argument made in the book, rather than the synopsis given in the article. For example, the events leading up to Copenhagen conference are not covered. (As an aside, the timing of the publication of the book is likely significant and may be worth addressing.)
2. Second, also unmentioned so far I think, there are some word usage issues to consider (1b). The lead invokes many synonyms for "says", and some editorializing, such as "consistently criticises". Word's need to be chosen with great care in the synopsis too, in order to present a neutral summary ("Booker then identifies..." may suggest insight to the reader).
3. One of ScienceApologist's points is that the synopsis is rather long in relation to the whole article. Given the agreement above that the article is about the book rather than the argument made in the book, it follows that primary source material should be minimized as much as it is in a plot summary of a work of fiction. This is a 3a issue: the article is not part of the debate on global warming, it is about a book. (There is also a minor 3b issue: the book apparently has an epilogue - is this covered?)
4. The most substantial issue raised by ScienceApologist is that the Reception section has problems with regard to neutrality and due weight (4). One of the really difficult things to do in a Reception section is select appropriate reviews, and to represent these reviews fairly, with due weight and suitable quotes. For example, the language selected from Philip Ball's review is colourful: "queer", "polemic", "bunk". In contrast, Peter Hitchen's review is represented with authoritative and balanced language. Yet his review ends, "This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West... while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing."

I hope discussion of such concerns will lead to article improvement, so that the listing of the article as a GA is endorsed enthusiastically for meeting the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have left the following talkback message on the article creator's talkpage - I'm unsure if he was aware of this discussion.

"Jprw, you may want to look at this page, with an interest in addressing concerns that neutral, uninvolved editors are bringing up. I would invite your attention specifically to the comments of Zscout370 and Geometry guy especially, as both offer concrete examples of how to improve the article and retain GA status." Hopefully he will address the issues raised. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion in this discussion. Minor4th and GregJackP are acknowledged IRL friends, but neither is the primary author of the article and so the initial review was legitimate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question Is it not true that the two of you are friends in RL per the comments made during the SPI? If so, then yes this needs to be done by someone totally unrelated to any of the above and also should not be done by a friend. I can put up a dif for the SPI case but since it was blanked as a courtesy I think it would be rude of me to supply the dif at this time. Comments please, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, Minor4th and I know each other in RL. We have not discussed this, nor did I ask him to put this up for community reassessment. We generally have the same views on the lack of neutrality by a certain group in this area, and their efforts to silence anything that does not toe the CC/GW line. The reassessment is about the article, as Geometry guy noted. If you object, please state your objections. If you don't like the fact that I have friends in RL that are also on Wiki, I would suggest that you get over it, unless you want to propose a rule that all friendships or acquaintances of editors be disclosed. You may do so at the Village Pump, and to set a good example, perhaps list all the editors on Wiki that you've either corresponded with off-Wiki or otherwise know. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Just to understand your position: Previous actions by SA are highly relevant, but when your relationship with Minor4th is brought up we should concentrate on the article only? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Please show me where there is a Wikipedia policy being violated by having a RL friend. SA's previous actions deal with the fact that he does not understand WP:FRINGE - and he inappropriately tries to apply that here. I have no problem stating that Minor4th is a RL friend, and have done so on a number of occasions. It's not a secret. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) You are welcome to have as many friends as you want, online and offline. However, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a concern. It's certainly less drama-prone to let uninvolved editors perform things like GA reviews in contentious areas. But what I am primarily concerned with is your shift in argument. It's always just the the article that should matter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Stephan, I probably wasn't very clear on what my concern was initally, but it has always been about the article in my opinion. The point about SA was that he was applying an incorrect standard to the article, and I believe that he honestly believes that he is correct. The point is that the area of WP:FRINGE has been difficult for him to get a handle on, thus the sanctions. It's not that I feel that he is acting maliciously, or is not acting in good faith - it is that fairness to the article requires that we apply the correct standards, and this article is about the book, not the science. On the WP:COI issue, it is not applicable. I don't have any of the listed conflicts with the article, and I'm pretty sure that Minor4th doesn't either. GregJackP Boomer! 15:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (ec)::I'm sorry but there is a big difference in having a RL friend promote an article of yours than me disclosing my friendships of editors I email with. You both disclosed your were RL friends that edit article of common interest. I have no problem with that at all. But taking your article instead of letting someone more neurtral do it, is wrong in my opinion. If I had a RL friend editing here I would not allow that person to judge my work in this manner, just for the record, as far as I'm aware none of my friends are editors. I'd like to hear from others about this, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC) What article of mine? Are you talking about John S. Loisel? Or United States v. Lara? Or Bryan v. Itasca County? Or Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe? I did not create nor edit this article. It is not "my" article. I had not even seen the article until I reviewed it for GA status. Please retract that misinformation, and an apology would be warranted also. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) User:Jprw was the writer and requester of the GA. GregJackP was the second reviewer. I did the individual reassessment which was challenged by Minor4th. There doesn't seem to be anything untoward about this. The community review is ongoing and Geometry Guy has put forth some very important points which need addressing for the GA status to remain. This discussion, however, is irrelevant to this matter. Therefore, I've archived it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(Thanks for closing the tangent: I would have removed it to the talk page if I had been online.)

• Further comments. I have had more time to read the article again, and it looks good thanks to improvements made. I have a few further comments on the level of detail:

  The book and the article play a bit fast and loose with the credentials of the scientists involved. I hope we can rise above the discourse of creationists who use non-biologists questions about evolution to throw the science into doubt. In this case, Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist, so he should not be represented as the state of the art climate science at the time. Similarly, Frederick Seitz is a solid-state physicist.

  I have now read the review of Philip Ball, and am unconvinced that the article represents it fairly. It is a meme that those who support the scientific consensus ridicule those who do not, and selective quotation can propagate that meme. However, Wikipedia should not do so. The latter parts of the review provide specific criticisms of specific claims made in the book. Wikipedia should present the reader with such views. It is then up to the reader to decide. Geometry guy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit concerned by how the listing in The Scotsman is handled. The review itself seems to me to be rather throwaway as it's really a discussion of a year's worth of books, but its quoted almost in its entirety at Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we're doing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article could leave it as Sir John Lister-Kaye chose the book as one of his "books of the year" but that would be a little misleading since the review actually includes a criticism of the book's credibility. What do you think? Minor4th 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, The Scotsman asked him what was "the most engrossing reads of 2009", it seems. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. GJP should not have assessed this article in the first place, due to bias - he is heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and this article is part of that case. The article itself is not good - it is far too "in Universe" - far too much of it essentially goes along with the book; it is not really an article about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Can you explain more specifically why/where/how the article does not meet the GA criteria, in your opinion? GAR is not a vote. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  I believe William is talking about the synopsis which is an assessment with which I agree. However, proposing specific edits may be seen to be in violation of temporary measures that are in place to try to calm disputes in this area. I think sticking to your specific actions are good for the time being, Geometry Guy. I'll make some suggestions here below through to the first section of the synopsis. After changes are made to help address the "in universe issues" described below, I'll continue with the rest of the article:

1. The phrase Booker interweaves the science of the subject with its political consequences in the lead is problematic. Booker's discussion of the "science" is criticized by reliable sources and so simply stating that he interweaves the "science of the subject with its political consequences" is not WP:NPOV since there is a legitimate claim to be made that Booker actually does not really handle the science of the subject properly. Rewording this phrase may alleviate the problem.
2. The phrase in the lead Booker also postulates that global warming is not supported by a significant number of the world's climate scientists is somewhat artful, but needs some further work to avoid the obvious WP:COATRACK. The statement being made is akin to "Mary postulates that most people do not speak any language." In his book, Booker clearly states that this "postulate" he makes is contrary to the prevailing understanding of the situation. This needs to be much more clear.
3. In the first section of the synopsis, the sentence, "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph[8] showing changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentration over the last 11,000 years." needs work. There is no context provided for the reader as to why Booker chose Singer and Avery and why 11,000 years was what Booker chose. However, it's unclear as to whether this is a useful synopsis anyway. Why not just say that Booker borrows heavily from Singer and Avery, identify their ideology (which Booker explicitly discusses) and leave it at that?
4. The next sentence, "In his analysis, rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the 1970s led scientists such as Paul Ehrlich to postulate that the earth, as a result of the greenhouse effect, may have been heating up or cooling down, either of which could have potentially disastrous consequences." is entirely equivocal and confusing. Basically, it's claiming that Booker made an "analysis" that concentrations led scientists to postulate warming or cooling. Really? That does not follow from my reading of the book. First of all, I don't see an "analysis", but rather a story of how scientists were confused. That's it. The claim Booker makes in this part of the book is that the scientists didn't have their acts together, but certain scientists that he doesn't like, such as Paul Ehrlich, jumped to conclusions. He's trying to make a claim that the environmental movement skewed the science by yelling loudly about preliminary findings. Fine. But that sentence doesn't illustrate this at all.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is a serious question to ScienceApologist -- do you really not see how your proposed edits are advancing a POV against the content of the book? Once again, it is not the place of this article to critique the content of the book or comment on the reliability of Booker's conclusions or analyze the content in any way other than to report what third party reliable sources have said about the book. Minor4th 05:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm criticizing specific wordings in the article which are not NPOV because they implicitly or explicitly advance claims which certain reviewers dispute or, worse, summarize the book in a way that does not follow the text. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then that is dealt with in the reception and reviews sections, not in the synopsis. The synopsis is just a summary of what's in the book, right or wrong, good or bad, whether you like it or don't. Whatever criticism of the underlying content there may be can be included in the reviews section so long as it's coverage from a reliable source. You cannot discount the content of the book in the synopsis though. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read below. Synopses can be non-neutral. For example, "The Creationist Truth is a book which describes how evil, atheistic scientists have been under the power of Satan for 150 years and have caused most major world wars and genocides through a propagation of the demonic theory of evolution." Not a neutral synopsis, but rather an in-universe synopsis. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no "in universe" issues in this article. Minor4th 05:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply asserting this will not make it so. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And simply declaring an "in universe" issue does not create such an issue. If there's an issue, please state it specifically so that it can be dealt with rather than throwing out blanket characterizations without identifying anything specific. I have no idea what the "in universe" issue would be, but I'm open to correction if you identify something I've overlooked. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read above. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- mostly @ ScienceApologist and William Connolley -- I think these issues are more along the lines of content questions that can be dealt with on the talk page of the article, and they are not really issues with the good article criteria. I understand that NPOV is part of the good article criteria, but no one is suggesting that criticism of the book should not be included or that all notable views should not be represented. I think the only issue in that regard is keeping the criticism in the proper area of the article rather than rewriting the book by including critique in the synopsis. Minor4th 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:Criticism sections are not meant to be ghettos where you trap all the neutrality while the rest of the article coatracks. That, to me, is what it seems like you're suggesting. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Please take this discussion about content to the talk page. Minor4th 20:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I showed above how it is. And unless it's fixed, the article should be delisted. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. NPOV is not achieved merely by letting each viewpoint have its say. The neutral point of view is a point of view, the one Wikipedia adopts in its articles. It is crucial to this viewpoint that primary source material is both clearly attributed to the primary source, and not implicitly endorsed or refuted by choice of language, but only with explicit reference to secondary sources. Getting the synopsis right is crucial to NPOV: it does not suffice to have counterbalancing sections on support or criticism (indeed such sections are often discouraged as inappropriate).

There is no problem in this article with primary source attribution, but the wording needs careful consideration. The specific concerns made by ScienceApologist above need to be addressed by specific responses. In some cases a tweak in the wording is all that may be needed. Changes to the synopsis which make Wikipedia dismiss the book are just as unacceptable as sentences in the synopsis which appear to support its worldview. Geometry guy 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing ScienceApologist's specific points -- I am not the article creator and have not actually edited this article, but I do not believe that anything ScienceApologist has raised is sufficient to kick this from the GA list. He has not actually specified anything that is not worded neutrally, and that is the GA criteria he is relying on. I also believe that he is still trying to review the content of the book within the synopsis, just as he was when he did an individual reassessment that wound up here. Anyway, here's my quick take on SA's specific points about the synopsis (and I do actually think it's a bad idea to legitimize him by responding to his points that are still applying the wrong GA criteria, which is why I thought these issues are better addressed elsewhere. This could go on forever).

1. Booker is talking about the science. Whether you and your favorite scientists think Booker handles the science properly does not diminish the fact that it is indeed science that he's talking about. Are you saying the book is not about science?
2. This is not COATRACK, it is the major premise/conclusion of the book and is sourced to the book. I think the problem is you don't agree with Booker's conclusions and you want to make sure readers of this article do not have an opportunity to agree with his conclusions either. Whether Booker is right or wrong, it's what he says in the book and that is what is being reported here.
3. The specific conclusion that Booker draws is of course relevant and necessary in the synopsis. I'm not understanding why you think the synopsis should include the details you suggest regarding the number of years or why you think it's necessary to identify the ideologies of other scientists unless of course you wish to discredit the other scientists and by proxy discredit Booker. Again, that is not the purview of a good article review.
4. The word analysis may be confusing in this context -- I suggest the article creator and nominator tighten up the language a bit in this section. I do not, however, agree that it somehow violates NPOV, nor do any of the other sections.

In short, although you have stated that these are NPOV concerns within GAR criteria, you have not stated or made any explication about how any of these sections are not neutral or are worded in a biased way (other than you don't agree with the underlying conclusions). The book synopsis is not the place to give contrasting opinions outside the scope of the book; it is a summary of what is actually in the book. Minor4th 21:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick responses:

1. Booker is talking about his perspective on the science. This is not clear in that wording which may indicate to the reader that Booker is trying to present the science as it might appear in a climate science text, for example. I.e., not NPOV.
2. The coatrack is there because it incorrectly assumes as fact a statement which is an opinion. Linking to the relevant article doesn't quite resolve the issue. I.e., not NPOV.
3. I'm suggesting the specific conclusion is arbitrary to the reason Booker wrote the book. The specific conclusion, however, is a talking point elsewhere. It's easy for this to be seen as a propaganda insertion coatrack for that reason, even if it wasn't intended that way. I.e., not NPOV.
4. The wording indicates that Booker analyzes when certain reviewers don't think he does this. I.e., not NPOV.

In short, not NPOV.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist

• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. Instead, the lead goes into detail describing the contents of the book. This level of detail belongs to the body of the article, not the lead.
• In the body, too much room is still spent describing the contents of the book. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article about a book, not a collection of quotations from the book. Example: A quote of a quote:

Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text".

Is the quote of the quote a fact, or is it simply what Booker claims to be a fact?

• Too little room is spent to give the reader background information about the subject of the book, i.e. man-made global warming. --Frederico1234 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment

@WMC: I assume this means that you won't be participating in any manner in GAN or GAR's because you are "heavily involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change?" Otherwise I "reject" your comment as being obviously inappropriate and unsupported by policy.

@SA: Quicker re-responses:

1. True, that is what his book is about, his perspective. That is what the article is also about in part, his book. Whether his science is accurate or not is not relevant, it is about his book, not the science.
2. Assert the facts about the book - not the science. Your comment completely mis-states WP:ASF. The fact is that Booker states particular items in his book. The article reports those facts as stated in the book, therefore it is NPOV.
3. LOL. Article is on book, not science.
4. Ditto.

In short, argue about the book, not the science. Where in the article does it state something about the book that is not accurate? GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quickest responses:

1. The text right now can be read that it is not just his perspective.
2. There is a reading of that sentence which would assume it is a fact that most scientists don't believe the consensus about AGW.
3. LOLOL. Article is stating a choice of presentation by making the presentation. Not needed.
4. "Analyzed" is simply not NPOV.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment for article nominator -- i do think the synopsis is a bit lengthy and overly detailed. I would trim the synopsis and make it read more like a summary. I still think there are too many graphics as well. Minor4th 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• It's been two weeks and movement is not happening on Geometry Guy's recommendations or my recommendations. Recommend delisting until someone wants to take on the project. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Sufficient unto the day The default would be to "keep listed" absent any consensus otherwise, despite the eagerness of the proponent of delisting otherwise. Almost all those for delisting argue that they do not like the book, which is not a strong reason to delist an article about the book. Collect (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not how WP:GAR works. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Amidst all the sound and fury, there were several cogent content-based concerns raised by Geometry guy and ScienceApologist. Ideally, those concerns would be addressed, but there seems to be a discrepancy between people interested in arguing about the article and people interested in improving it. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• GAR process. As the workings of community GAR have been raised, let me take a moment to clarify. GAR aims to determine, after discussion (during which article improvement may also take place), whether an article meets the good article criteria or not. The outcome is that an article which meets the criteria is listed as a GA and one which does not is not. Only when it remains unclear whether an article meets all of the GA criteria is the GAR closed without action, in which case the pre-existing GA status is retained: this isn't the default outcome, and is most commonly used not to list articles when their GA status is in doubt. Keeping articles listed which may not meet the criteria is not a desirable outcome of GAR, but is more like a stay of execution, giving the article the benefit of the doubt in the hope that further improvement will occur: any failure to meet any GA criterion is a reason to close as "delist", and if the article meets all of the criteria, it is preferable to close as "keep". Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. If I were closing this reassessment now, I could clearly close it as "delist" on the grounds that the lead is still not a summary of the article (1b). I would not even have to express an opinion on whether it is neutral (4), broad (3a) or focused (3b) to do so. Manifestly failing one criterion suffices to delist an article. The reassessment remains open out of politeness and hopefulness that with many editors contributing, GA concerns will be addressed, and the encyclopedia will be improved. Geometry guy 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note The lede has been appreciably shortened/tightened. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that didn't really address the issues above, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue about the lede, which I regard as a valid possible issue, has been addressed. The issue that no book which someone considers "fringe" can ever be a GA topic is not what I consider a valid argument here. YMMV. There are, in fact, many GAs about books which represent odd thinking, but no one suggests we purge the GA list of them that I can find. Collect (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The lead has improved. It now adequately summarizes the article, including the book's critical reception. Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you (noting your emendations as well). Collect (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Are there any other noteworthy reviews or critical reaction to the book which aren't mentioned in the article? Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• When I did the initial GA assessment, I checked, and all of the reviews shown on a Google search were included in the article at that time. That is dated though, and I can't state for sure that other reviews had not subsequently written, or that Google did not pick them all up. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how noteworthy these are, but here are a couple that are not mentioned in the article:

1. National Review Book Service: [28]
2. Ruth Dudley Edwards/Salisbury Review: [29],[30]
3. Scottish Field Magazine: [31]

Minor4th 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I also looked for reviews. The Daily Express covered the book with predictable results (Climate change - The most costly scientific blunder in history); quotes include "Last year, our politicians were even debating the Climate Change Bill during the worst October snowfall London had seen for years." Still it could be used to indicate what the UK right wing tabloid press made of the book (e.g. "With the pace and intrigue of an espionage thriller, he analyses the political and scientific shenanigans...") This may be preferable to Salisbury Review, at least.

The NRBS review ends with "add to cart", which is not particularly inspiring, and the Scottish Field review is 5 lines long.

It is a pity that there seem to be almost no reviews by science journals and magazines, as that would help the article a lot. I only found a review by "Chemistry World" (as quoted by Continuum) but it is somewhat short and superficial, concluding "The only quibble is that the author doesn't make clear that consensus is not a scientific concept, but a political one." Geometry guy 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Further comments. Many thanks to Collect for tightening the lead. I continue to have reservations, but am hopeful that good will to improve the article will continue. Let me then make some more detailed comments.
  • The background section is entirely primary source material. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I believe that Booker wrote the book with good intentions, but it would be really nice to have a secondary source supporting those good intentions, rather than his own words. Instead we have a block quote from Booker's own Telegraph article. Even with my proposed shortening of the infobox (which I believe is sensible, but is not part of the GA criteria), the block quote still spills over into the Synopsis section on a moderately wide browser window, giving the impression that it is from the book. There is too much weight given here to the author's own preview of his book. If no secondary sources are forthcoming, I suggest trimming it back to prose and inline quotations, making clear that this is the author's own statement of the background and intentions.
  • In part one, the text is sandwiched between two images. This is generally discouraged and could be resolved by a paragraph break before "Booker contends that 1988 was a key year..." Also the reconstructed temperature graph starts before the subsection title: I used to prefer this style myself, but have been advised it is contrary to WP:ACCESS. This is not a GA criterion, but I have suggested a possible organization of the images in the edit history.
  • The Further Reading section doesn't seem justified: Booker's own previous book could be cited in the Background, and Montfort's book doesn't seem to me to be an encyclopedic recommendation. "See also"s could be trimmed as well: articles previously linked need not appear. See WP:LAYOUT for advice.
  • In this contentious area, stating that someone is a "scientist" can suggest expertise in an area where expertise may be lacking. Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist and Frederick Seitz is a solid state physicist. On the other hand Bert Bolin is a meteorologist and Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist. These scientists have differing views, but some have more specific expertise than others and they should not be presented as an amorphous view of "scientists". (Note that the experts are not necessarily those who support climate change: I am not trying to make a political point here.)
  • It may be premature to list prose concerns if more significant changes are necessary, but I think we are at the point where such specific details may be helpful.
    1. "Booker combines the science of the subject with its political consequences to contend that..." This suggests that Booker's analysis of the science is objective, which is contended.
    2. "The book's claims were dismissed by science writer Philip Ball,[3] but was praised by several columnists." This is bad prose: "claims" does not match "was". However, it probably needs to be restructured anyway: the review by Philip Ball should not be dismissed as a minority one, as this seems to be the only substantial review by a scientist that we have, and the discussion of reviews in the lead should be more than one sentence.
    3. "The book opens with an erroneous quotation..." downplays a significant issue: a famous alleged quotation was found to be incorrect, and the author accepted this. Wikipedia should not endorse phrases such as "fabricated" (thanks to Collect again for fixing this) as there is no evidence for the source of this quotation, but neither should we brush it aside as a misunderstanding.
    4. "Drawing from Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's Unstoppable Global Warming, Booker presents a graph..." Which graph?
    5. "Booker writes that the SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report—the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate—were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text"[n]" This suggests that the quote is directly from Seitz, whereas the footnote is to Booker. If it is from Seitz, then a more direct quotation would be stronger; if not, it should not be implied.
    6. "...this problem was dealt with by a 1999 graph..." presumably deals with the Hockey Stick, and this should be stated.
    7. "He then asserts that the IPCC's methods, and in particular the draft summary of its next report, came in for serious criticism from scientists such as Richard Lindzen." The prose here is loose: "came in for serious criticism from" should be "was criticized by", but then is there a list of scientists, or is there really only a list of one significant critic?

Well that's all the detail I can manage for now, and I've not yet got to the handling of reviews.

Much as I respect Majoreditor as an excellent long term contributor to GAR, I disagree that the lead now summarizes the article. Instead the first paragraph summarizes the thesis of the book, rather than the synopsis of the article, and there are two lines to summarize other aspects. The background section is not summarized: if well sourced, this is an opportunity to demonstrate the good intentions behind the book. The reviews should not be summarized in one sentence, and the Houghton quote controversy deserves a slightly less terse treatment.

I hope article improvements will continue. Geometry guy 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust the furher emendations meet your approval (including a stray image removal which has little to bear on the topic) (I did not try to tackle some of the trivial wording changes we are now left with - I have seen zero GAs which would not benefit from my own blue pencil <g>. Collect (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes. You removed two images while intending to remove one. Which one did you want to remove? Geometry guy 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest that neither was essential <g>. Add one if you think it helps. Collect (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Article improvement appears to have run out of steam for the time being, and at least one improvement to the lead has been undone. I made a couple of small (hopefully uncontroversial) copyedits, but there remain content issues raised by Frederico1234, ScienceApologist and myself that indicate that the article does not yet quite meet the GA criteria, in particular with regard to the lead (1b) and coverage (3), with possible further concerns about wording (1a/b) and neutrality (4). I am disappointed that nothing has been done about the background section and the promotional quote, and also about the quote of a quote. Still the article has been improved during its time at GAR. Hopefully the desire to renominate and relist will spur further improvement, and editors will encounter a reviewer who challenges the balance of content without pushing a point of view. Meanwhile, with regret, I close this reassessment as delist. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

end transclusion

I have requested a community reassessment because of the dispute over SA's criteria for reassessing the GAN/GAR. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1. I don't know if the community reassessment page is automatically transcluded or not, and I don't know how to do it manually if that's what needs to be done. I would appreciate a more technically skilled editor to do that if necessary. Minor4th 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I transcluded it above. It's not appearing with the "this is transcluded" tagging though. (I added some by hand) You may want to remove your blockquote as it should be visible above. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes incorporated after community reassessment

I've incorporated nearly all of the suggestions made by Zscout370 and Geometry guy which were insightful and constructive.These include:

• Lopping off the bullet points at the end of the synopsis (made it look over extended) and briefly summarising the epilogue in its place;
• Changing some wording in the lead and the synopsis;
• Losing the Peter Hitchens review;
• Losing the photo of Copenhagen.

Hopefully we are now left with just a few tweaks to be made and that should be it for the major surgery. Jprw (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Is Philip Ball really the only knowledgeable person who read that thing and lived to talk about it? Leach and Delingpole are deniers; Morton, Kelly and Lister-Kaye are not known for scientific expertise either. I don't think that reception section should stand, slanted toward the fringe as it is. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hmm, I concur - but how to deal with it? They're all notable denialists - David Gerard (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Morton, Kelly and Lister-Kaye too? Their articles say nothing about it, as far as they have articles.

How about switching the order? First the deniers, then Philip Ball, with emphasis on his scientist status? I'll try it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can drop one or two of the others. We don't want too many fringe opinions. We should keep Leach and Delingpole. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Given this is all UK, it's hard to avoid Delingpole as an opinion-haver. Though he can and should probably be qualified as a fellow denialist - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I added that he "wrote a denialist book himself". I also deleted and paraphrased unnecessary quotes, without removing any of the people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)