User:Brian A Schmidt

Brian - (eGads! Hasn't anyone ever wanted to talk to you here? Am I the first?)

Kip Hansen here - and I want you to know that I do not think that you are lying about your telephone call to Dr. Gray. I thought your little story about talking to him (other than your POVish idea that he has some obligation to place a bet with you based on this professional opinion about future climate change) touching and enlightening.

It spoke worlds about Dr. Gray, who I suppose you already know is not just "some guy" but is a celebrity-class scientist in the field of Tropical Storms and Hurricane Season Prediction. Remember, he is a guy who regularly receives calls from the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Science Magazine, ( add here a list of nearly every major newpaper and news service) asking his opinion about his area of expertise.

That he would patiently and graciously have a conversation with you at all - I mean, honestly - is just plain nice.

I originally thought you had edited in the original "When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation." That wasn't you? Do you know who it was?

You seem to say you only added the 'WHY Gray won't bet' bit. This true? (I think it was very good of you to do so, by the way, even though the whole bit will have to come out Gray's bio) Can you please make sure it is included on the Climate Bet page?

If you have been following the discussion on Gray's Talk page, you'll see that the entire accusation of "Gray refuses to bet" comes down to your phone call (and, in reality, he did decline your offer of a bet - see later bit on decline/refuse) and Annan's hurt feelings over unanswered email.

Decline/refuse: reference the New College Edition - American Heritage Dictionary - "Refuse is used of a positive, unyielding, sometimes brusque decision not to act, accept, or do something. Decline involves withholding consent but usually doing so courteously."

Clearly, by your description, Dr. Gray declined your offer of a bet and gave his reasons for doing so, courteously, according to your report. Thus, based on your experience, the statement "he refused to accept any bets" is not true.

So, is it true in Annan's case? Annan only claims to have offered via email and to have received no reply. (The offer and no reply would apply equally in your case, if you emailed and received no reply, or in Connolley's case, which he can't recall.)

No, it is not true. There has been no refusal, and to claim such is defamatory (said of a false statement, maliciously or knowingly made to injure someone). Neither you nor Annan nor Connolley nor Kim can pretend that the statement is not intended to make Dr. Gray look "bad" in some way and to undermine the "credibility" of his stand on Climate Change.

Are you with me so far? Ok, hold on to that thought and let's try to clear up one more thing.

WP:RS -- Kim and Connolley have the mistaken idea that a person can be a WP:RS. This is not true. See Richard's explanation in the discussion on Gray's talk page. For example, James Annan MIGHT be a WP:RS if he was writing about the mathematics of certain areas of climate modeling, his area of expertise, in a reliable journal, magazine, or, in some rare cases, a reliable online journal or site. Then it MIGHT be appropriate to quote his expressed opinion from that article and cite it. Anything that he writes on his "I hate climate change skeptics" blog is automatically disqualified, particularly from Biographies of Living Persons, as such specifically "should never be used" WP:BLP. Just because James Annan is employed in a job that bears on climate science does not make him a) an expert on Climatology, b) an expert on William Gray, c) a WP:RS on Climate Change or anything else really. Even if he were an expert...that wouldn't make him - as a person - a WP:RS. Only SOURCES can be RELIABLE SOURCES. You see?

This isn't Yellow Journalism - this is Biography of Living Persons.

Please, read for yourself WP:BLP [1] and see the standards required here. Look to some of the linked WPs therein, such as WP:RS and WP:V.

So - to sum it up after all this chatter:

1. The statement that "Gray refused" is simply and explicitly false - verifiably false by the way, which makes its inclusion in his biography DEFAMATORY (as it is clearly malicious from the linked sources - except yours) and actionable under libel laws.

2. The above means that it MUST be removed per WP:BLP. It not only MUST be removed, but the editor removing it is not liable to action under the three-revert rule when acting under this policy.

I ask, as the outcome of this, that you support Richard and I in removing the whole bit about the bet from Gray's bio.

(What you 'climate bet enthusiasts' care to do on the climate bet page is up to you, but I urge you to consider that WP:BLS re defamation applies on ALL pages, including Talk and Discussion pages, not only articles).

Thank you for taking the time to read all this.

KipHansen 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kip - I read everything you wrote, and I appreciate your statement that you don't think I'm lying about my phone conversation with Gray. I hope reading what I said indicates I had a more nuanced view of him afterwards - I actually like the man's personality. Unfortunately though, he's following Lindzen's path of someone who did very good work in a related field and then blew it on global warming, and is being used to the great detriment of humanity. Even for a skeptic, he's an outlier, saying last year that temps will drop within 3-4 years.

The one thing I'd suggest to you is that wikipedians are allowed to do OR outside of WP, publish their work outside of WP and that work can then be cited in a WP article (WP policy even allows editors to cite themselves, while holding their pubs to the same standards as other pubs). That's what's going on here.

Connolley is considering my blog as a RS on this issue, not me personally. I agree it's very hard to reconcile the section with the no blogs policy, except that policy seems to be intepreted as applying to blogs that aren't a RS. I think the policy needs an update to reconcile it with actual usage.

Re refuse/decline, I can't find your reference on the web, but [2] defines refuse as "To decline to do, accept, give, or allow something." Some things aren't worth arguing over though - if you want to use "decline" in the article instead, that's okay with me.Brian A Schmidt 04:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I did write "When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop, even bets that survive the bettors' lifespan by being given to a charitable foundation."Brian A Schmidt 04:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian. I appreciate your calm and sensible reply. I'm sure though, as a lawyer (didn't you say you were an environmental lawyer?) that you understand what libel is and why WP:BLP is so strict on RS. No one wants some editor to get Wiki sued out of existence.

In fact, as a lawyer, maybe it would help if you looked at WP:RS and WP:BLP section on RS as somewhat similar to Rules of Evidence. In many cases, the truth of something is not in question, but its admissibility in court is. Similarly, things may be true, but not allowed to be entered into the encyclopedia - particularly in the Biography of a Living Person.

Imagine if I wrote a blog entry saying that "When I was in college, I called Hillary and asked her for a date. She was pleasant but refused to go out with me that night or any other. She said she didn't date strangers, but in my opinion it was because I was black." Then, edited her Biography to say "Hillary Rodham has always been an outspoken opponent of racial discrimination. However, when contacted by a black man in 1965, she refused to go out with him that night or any other. There is no evidence of Hillary ever dating a black man." (If I was as nice as you, I might include her reasoning - like "she claimed it was because she didn't date strangers.")

I'm not saying your entry is as bad as all that, but you see the problem. There is no one to verify if the incident ever took place. There is nothing but the word of someone who either doesn't like Hillary or doesn't like her politics. Even if we allow that the call took place, maybe I was just horrid on the phone, or sounded like a jerk, a phone stalker, heavy breather, or something. We only have the one-sided report. No tape recording, no certified transcript, no witnesses.

It wouldn't matter either if Al Sharpton said "I know that guy, and he wouldn't lie". Even though Sharpton might be an important guy in race relations.

It just isn't admissible.

Now, if someone were writing a newspaper article, and interviewed you, they might use it. But a careful journalist would make sure to quote you ("Brian Schmidt...") and use weasel words like "claims" and "alleges" unless he was able to contact Gray and verify the conversation (and get the other side of it).

It has never been my intention to deny your claim or put you down in any way. Just to enforce WP:RS and WP:BLP/RS.

KipHansen 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't work Kip. If accepting date offers over the phone made by men she barely knew were relevant to her article, and several men called her over the phone and were rejected, and I reported on my blog that she rejected my date offer, and then I added to her article that she rejected my date offer without mentioning my opinion that it was because of my race, and if at least one RS for this kind of thing had said my blog is a RS for this kind of thing, then you'd have a closer analogy.

And as for whether you think I'm truthful, it's really not at all helpful for you to make the above disclaimer, nor does wikipedia require you to do that, and since you're very concerned about libel, I hereby promise I won't sue you over anything you have said on this issue. I'm only interested in the policies, so lets focus on that.Brian A Schmidt 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Brian

Hi, Brian. I don't know if you are still active on Wikipedia, given that your last message here is from 2007. I just wanted to let you know that I rv the categories at the tail end of your Sandboxed Jane Goodall article as otherwise your userpage would continue to appear in those categories as though your userpage were one of the subjects of those categorizations. I am probably not explaining this very well, but please contact me if you have any questions. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I am a new editor of wiki looking at similar articles as you.Stella kabasiri (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)