Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 15

Changing to clarify that a cite is from a blog

I have changed the words "Dana Nuccitelli, writing in The Guardian, expressed the view that Lindzen" to "A 2014 blog post hosted by The Guardian, written by Dana Nuccitelli, stated that Lindzen". The Guardian is (quoting Wikipedia) a "a British national daily newspaper", but the article is not referring to a statement that appeared in that newspaper. In fact it occurred in a blog post, and the words "hosted by The Guardian" are in the blog's headline. I know that ThePowerOfX objects to this change (he/she/they reverted my change once), but do not understand the objection, and would appreciate a more detailed explanation. Perhaps it would be acceptable to say merely "Dana Nuccitelli expressed the view that Lindzen". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

NYT article

Using a single source (one NYT article) as a source of criticism in multiple places in a BLP is overkill -- the one primary section devoted to it is sufficient. Collect (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to summarize scientific consensus well, and addresses Lindzen's theories in this context. In this light, the repeated use may meet (or be required by?) WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically the same material was used three times in the article -- which seems not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Which policy? --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:NPOV for example, and WP:BLP. Making three sections all using the same source with the same basic criticism to criticize a specific living person violates both quite adequately. Do you have a reason you wish to make the same point about a single person three times with the same source? I would love to see the justification. Collect (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that point. If any given source should be given a particular amount of weight is open to debate, of course. But the mere fact that it is used in different sections is entirely irrelevant - that's just an artefact of the way we structure our article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard re "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli"

This is one of several BLP articles which refer to a blog post by Dana Nuccitelli. I have described an issue on the BLP noticeboard in section "BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: The reference to Nuccitelli is now gone, and I have removed the BLP-noticeboard template. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note that the quote used here is the opinion of a partisan blogger, and it's not at all clear if his opinion is WP:Notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If the quote is used at all, then it must be cited as opinion. The issue of the notability of the blogger was not the issue at WP:BLP/N and is a fair question. Collect (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems undue to include Nuccitelli's opinions at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• I created a story for him , Dana Nuccitelli but there was nothing to report, he is a hobby blogger about climate change without independent notability, I agree with Tillman, his opinion is not WP:Notable - it is citable but not notable - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If a non-notable person has an opinion, and actual opinions from specific notable people are already used, the non-notable one is the one which is superfluous. Collect (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lindzen's wager

The article currently cites Reason magazine's interview where it was said that: "Lindzen is 'willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.'", however, Source Watch (also here) reports that when Annan attempted to take that bet, Lindzen wanted 50:1 odds, meaning that Lindzen apparently believes that warming is more likely than not warming. As is pointed out in that article, if you think the odds are 50:50, then you should be as happy with 3:1 odds as some who thinks warming is essentially guaranteed (taking the bet on the other side). That said, rather than making what might appear to be a POV edit, I'd like to see if consensus can be arrived at. As a starting point, a mild edit I suggest is to change it to add a follow up sentence (with citation) saying, "when contacted by James Annan, Lindzen stated that he would require odds of 50:1 in Lindzen's favor before he would take the bet." Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There once was a mention of the non-bet, at 2:1 odds. Theblog (talk · contribs) removed it in 2012. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to work that in somehow, too, but I admit that it would be difficult for me to do so without being accused of "original research" by pointing out that the wager that Lindzen is asking for is assuming that a warming of 0.3º C per decade is the point around which such a wager should be placed. It seems odd for someone who has been championed by global warming skeptics to create a bet where he would still win if the IPCC's (AR4) estimate of 0.15-0.3ºC was right. Well, he would "win" and the projection would be "correct" if it were 0.15-0.2ºC. He would not lose unless it underestimated the warming enough for the warming to reach 0.4ºC. Hardly sounds very skeptical, though I agree Lindzen likes to paint himself that way. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Lindzen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140305035436/http://www.atmos.washington.edu/gcg/JR_site/papers/1968_1.pdf to http://www.atmos.washington.edu/gcg/JR_site/papers/1968_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)