Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 8

so-called Lindzen Industry links in the wake of CRUgate emails

I invite editors to consider email 0962818260.txt of the CRUgate files.

Here, Mick Kelly to Mike Hulme talks about the funding they're trying to obtain from Big Oil, namely Shell, but also BP and -- shock horror -- Exxon. This whole mythology that "Climate Skeptics are funded by Big Bad Oil" is becoming, rather, laughable now. Within weeks, there will be doubt be reliable sources establishing that UEA is funded by Big Oil. I think this is, therefore, a good time for us all to reconsider -- do we want Lindzen's respected name connected with Big Oil in this article, on the basis that he received a measly $10,000 from "fossil fuel" types once, for doing some consulting work, 20 years ago? It is not fair, and it inexorably heading towards the ridiculous, and embarrassing. Please all serious editors read 0962818260.txt and consider my argument here. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be a myth (and i kinda agree in Lindzen's case), but the trouble is that the literature actually does focus on this particular link, so we cannot ignore it. Its not a choice for us to make, we have to follow due weight in respect to the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But we can ignore it. There is no policy that states "Thou shalt report on all reliable sources." We are not automata. There are not a lot of reliable sources discussing L & Industry, and as far as I can see, we have included every single one of them. WP:WEIGHT applies. Does Gelbspan, 15 years later, even stand by his original assessment of Lindzen in 1995? We can take the high road, and rise above this. All that is required is some cooperation amongst the senior editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a lot of references that talk about Lindzen and industry connections, see previous discussions, these include books, TV documentaries and regular journalistic articles (see earlier discussions). As for your assertion that it all comes down to Gelbspan, that is simply your original research. We are not at liberty as editors to "ignore" if its counters due weight in the literature, since that is a circumvention of a neutral point of view (as defined by one of the pillars of Wikipedia). Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a link to the CRU hacking thing (bit pathetic as an argument) but looking beyond that I do think the question on this is legitimate. And yes I think we do have some latitude in writing an encyclopaedia to ignore things which are beneath our diginity to discuss even if some news sources like them. I took the ridiculous paternity section out of the article on Prince Harry (which was a popular item for the press) on a similar kind of grounds a few years ago and am glad to say it stayed out. --BozMo talk 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But in this case its rather more than a few simple news articles. Something like the paternity case is being pushed beyond its prominence by a short newsburst, thats not what we are talking about here. My question (to myself) was: Would a balanced documentary, book or bio in a newspaper on Lindzen mention this? And the answer was yes it would, even if just to dismiss it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of Lindzen's scientific views ...

This sentence:

"Critics have used Lindzen's contrarian views on tobacco smoking to argue that his similarly contrarian position on climate change should not be accorded credibility. [30][31]."

Is unacceptable given its current sources. This is inherently making a statement about the credibility of Lindzen's scientific opinion. As we are all aware, to comment on the scientific opinion of an acknowledged expert requires someone of comparable scientific stature. Are either of the authors of these sources scientists with applicable publications in peer-reviewed literature? If not then they are not qualified to make statement regarding Lindzen's credibility on scientific issues.

Please either find a qualified source to argue that Lindzen's views on smoking and/or climatology are not credible and cite that, or remove this sentence per the prevailing rules regarding criticisms of scientific opinion. --GoRight (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No particular qualifications are required to make this criticism. The fact that smoking has been shown to cause lung cancer is known to everyone who has ever seen a cigarette packet or had any contact with the media. The inference that someone (not an expert in the field) who is willing to deny this is a person whose judgement is not to be trusted is clear. Anyone who understands the concept of a trustworthy authorit can draw this inference, and many people have done so. Some have stated it in WP:RS publications. I note the implication that you are unconvinced by the evidence on the health risks of smoking. Maybe you should read the Wiki article on this topic.JQ (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this hand waving doesn't change the fact that the statement is fundamentally questioning Lindzen's scientific opinion (regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels about it), and as is the norm on science related pages only people with appropriate credentials and/or peer-reviewed sources are considered WP:RS for that purpose. These sources fail that test and the sentence should be either properly sourced or removed. --GoRight (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, I've removed the statement "the implication that his statements on climate change reflect a preference for dissent from consensus viewpoints". To explain: my concern is that it is OR, as there isn't a source stating that this is the implication. That's not necessarily a problem, as if it is blatantly the case then it isn't OR, but when I looked at the sources they seemed to be implying a number of different things, not all in keeping with this description. For example, the Outside ref quotes Wallace as saying that he "revels in his contrary ways", but Wallace also states there that Lindzen's "main motive is conviction", and that his contrariness means that he won't back down, not that he took it up because of a wish to take a different stance. Some do seem to make the implication, but some don't, and some seem to make quite different implications. Leaving it out seems safer to me, unless we can source that statement better. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrarianism section

In order to include an entire section devoted to discrediting a living person -- this time on the basis of gossip and rumour about his personality -- you need to find extraordinarily good sources, and a lot of them. There are 137,000 hits for lindzen on google, so it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of gossip reported in reliable sources. That doesn't mean we include it in Wikipedia. Indeed, WP:BLP explicitly states that we don't. A number of editors have expressed the same view, so there is clearly no consensus for inclusion of this material. I have reverted it, again. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note, it is a BLP violation for anyone to restore this material again. There are some voices supporting its inclusion, but there are clearly more voices supporting its exclusion. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It's a lot more essential to Lindzen's career than the Exxon money. Obviously not a BLP violation. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To add a little more - Lindzen's either a contrarian genius who's swimming against the mainstream scientific tide and will ultimately be vindicated, or a scientist who let his contrarian tendencies overcome his judgment. Either way, he's a contrarian and the section should be included. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, every good scientist is a "contrarian"... If you were not "contrarian", and not passionate about finding alternative explanations, the scientific method would not work. How did you become qualified to diagnose someone with this psychological condition, "contrarianism". Are you a practising psychiatrist? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing contrarian with sceptic. Every scientist is a sceptic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic sniping. Please confine this discussion to improvements of Richard Lindzen. Climate science in general may be argued at any number of websites that are not this one. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Except climate scientists evidently. WVBluefield (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) No, climate scientists are sceptics - just as any other scientists. There is just a world of difference between rational scepticism and being in denial. Note though that Lindzen isn't such - to his credit he was bonking some of the "sceptic" arguments as nonsense in his recent speech. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC) There is likewise a world of difference between rational skepticism and accepting things as a matter of blind faith. --GoRight (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC) That is correct, now can you give me an example of something that is accepted "as a matter of blind faith"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC) How about the CRU "temperature reconstruction" for starters. --GoRight (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Whats "blind faith" about it? We have several independent temperature reconstructions that show basically the same thing (NOAA, NASA,...) as well as an enormous amount of collaborating evidence (sea level, tree-line, spring onset, glaciers,....) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) It's not reproducible by independent sources, and so is basically moot from a scientific perspective. They have, at least until the recent scandal, refused to release any information related to their raw data and how they manipulated it so that it can be independently assessed, verified, and reproduced. I guess that same is actually also true of the GISS set as well. If people can't independently review and verify the underlying calculations then the results are being accepted on "blind faith". And don't even get me started on the climate models which are already known to omit numerous important feed backs in their calculations. --GoRight (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Strangely enough the GISS set is completely open, i even have an open-source version on my harddisk. And i think you need to read climate-audit a bit more, since McI has (before november) received the data that is freely available. As for climate models - there are at least 3 models that are freely available for download, and all the basic data for the models as well as scenarios are available at the IPCC data site. GHCN database is freely downloadable ... etc etc etc. There is nothing "blind faith" about it. You can chose to disbelieve the CRU dataset as much as you want though, it just so happens that basically all datasets show the same thing (with small variations) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I'll take your word for it and stand corrected on the availability of the GISS data and code. The FOIA requests they have been stonewalling on are for background information and discussions related to the data, not the data itself. I apologize for the confusion. Tell me, what types of "corrections" have been introduced into this particular dataset? As for the models, my problem is not so much with the availability of them as it is with the "blind faith" belief that they adequately account for all the variables which are inherent in our climate system. That alone requires a huge leap of faith well beyond the reasonable given the level of impact on the world economy that we are being expected to impose based on their "predictions" alone. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Kim, tell us all what a "contrarian" is then, and explain the relationship between a "skeptic" and a "contrarian". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See Contrarian. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, so "contrarian" is a sort of bad faith version of a "skeptic." So having defined a "contrarian", how exactly do we distinguish, without appeal to our own opinions or blinded prejudices, between a "contrarian" and a "skeptic"? Do they have a different colour? Do they smell different? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not distinguish anything, that is entirely outside of what we as editors may do (read: original research). You can ask the people who describe Lindzen that way though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, since you deleted my comment I have restored it at my talk page. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fringe

It seems that a number of editors are approaching this article from a WP:FRINGE POV rejecting the mainstream consensus on global warming. The fact that the subject of this article is critical of that consensus does not change WP:WEIGHT which should give credibility to scientific viewpoints according to their representation in the scientific literature. JQ (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

John Quiggin, let me see, you observe (A) A group of editors about whom you know next to nothing want to remove cheap slurs & gutter press gossip from a distinguished scientist's wikipedia biography; (B) you note them raving on about policies like WP:BLP, and WP:SYN and WP:OR and so on; this is all a bit too hard to understand so you conclude (C) these editors are fringe theorists advancing a POV on that global warming is caused by gremlins (cosmic rays, asteroids, etc). Tell me, John Quiggin, is this how the University of Queensland is teaching Australians to think nowadays? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So where is this going?

We've seen

• BozMo remove the section that started it all, apparently agreeing that further controversy and drama on the matter is not constructive.
• Bilby expressed grave reservations, whilst suggesting that perhaps an encyclopaedic treatment of the "contrarian" character of Lindzen might in principle be possible (I agree), but that what we have here is nowhere near it. He made the most crucial observation of all, that this section is making Wikipedia's editors look worse than Lindzen himself. This is quite correct, and it is the observation that ATren, not an AGW skeptic, has also made.
• ATren removed the section but it was quickly restored.
• GoRight has opposed the section.
• I obviously oppose the section as a slur against a great living scientist, and tantamount to using Wikipedia as an echo of rumour & gossip.

Meanwhile,

• John Quiggin has admitted that he is advancing a point of view by synthesis that Lindzen is unreliable, and sees no particular problem with this, arguing that he's doing so through use of reliable sources.
• Brian A. Schmidt & Kim D. Petersen, knowing the policies better, have united behind a storyline that "contrarian" is a perfectly neutral term, and claim that they have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this is discrediting to Lindzen.....
• William M. Connolley has tacitly supported the section by adding further contrarian references to the text from Gavin Schmidt.
• Atmoz provided some reliable sources, but appears from his comments largely to support the section (now...) because I had claimed it was a BLP issue before I properly read JQ's section.

The BLP policy states that contentious material, whether positive, negative or just questionable, should be removed immediately.

We have a deadlock here; so why do we continue to argue, rather an admin stepping in to remove the contentious material, end the arguing, and stop wasting further Wikipedia bandwidth?

The status quo here needs to change on BLPs. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki BLP doesn't say contentious materials should be removed immediately, it says poorly sourced material should be removed. That's not a problem here. I also disagree that whether Lindzen is contrarian could be remotely considered contentious. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, and as ATren has pointed out above, the material is not based high-quality sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Which of the extra sources that i've given in the above section (as well as on BLP/N) are not high-quality sources? Lindzen's editorial? Or is it the peer-reviewed ones? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made no original synthesis. The link between Lindzen's well-established and reliably sourced contrarianism on climate science and his well established and reliably sourced contrarianism on smoking has been made by numerous reliable sources. There is no way you can exclude this, and there is no BLP issue, as you were told when you went there.JQ (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have made an original synthesis. This is the only document in existence deeming a subject "contrarianism" fit for its own subheading. It is the only document in existence attempting to explicitly give Lindzen's smoking habit as evidence for a psychological condition now known as "contrarianism." (We'll get to the subheading problem, don't worry...). There is every way I can exclude this, but if necessary I'll pretend it's not a BLP issue and treat it as a mere POV & SYN issue instead, if that's what the community wants. The material will be removed, and history is not going to be greenwashed at this particular page. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have selective blindness? When you say "This is the only document in existence deeming a subject "contrarianism" fit for its own subheading" - then you apparently haven't read neither the section you started on BLP/N or the section just above. Since i do believe that this:

Stevens, William K. (Feb 29, 2000). "Global Warming: The Contrarian View". New York Times.

is exactly such a document. Oh - well. Have you missed all the other extra references given as well? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have lost interest in this thread, and responded below. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Full list of problems sorted by policy violation (just applies to contrarianism section)

• WP:NPOV, subsection WP:UNDUE - Lindzen is notable as a great living meteorologist, a pioneer of ozone photochemical modelling, who solved a long standing mystery in atmospheric tidal theory after showing an error in classical tidal theory; who resolved the paradox of the quasi-biennial oscillation; who proposed a theory that might have solved the paradox of the superrotation of the atmosphere of Venus above the cloud base; who improved our understanding of cloud physics & parameterisation; who contributed to the development of A/OGCM models; who mentored many famous climate scientists; who was a lead author chapter 7 of IPCC TAR; who became a global warming skeptic in the 80s; who proposed the Iris hypothesis; and who became politically active in opposing Kyoto & Copenhagen, an action which won him many enemies amongst IPCC advocates. His enemies have since then characterised him as a "contrarian". A few of his friends have also noted this. This "contrarianism" section is based on odd references here and there. The term "contrarian" is being used in a number of distinct senses, but all of this is garbled & confused in the present treatment. Until the biography shows first Lindzen's proper placement and significance in the history of science, there are irreducibly problems of balance by including any wishy-washy section about so-called "contrarianism". As such, I am not going to support any compromise position that does not fully remove the section. That is the end of the story from my side. I am not going to give up. I realise, Kim will probably never give up either; so that's fine. We'll keep this up, ad nauseum, until some amused journalist writes a piece about the dispute here, or until Lindzen himself points it out, and the end result will be the further erosion of credibility of those opposing me (this is, after all, a public debate).

• WP:RS: As noted by ATren, we are using less than schmickness in our sources (e.g. screeds from "Seed Mag"), to make strong claims about a living person. The Seed piece is obviously flawed, and Dr. Kirk-Davidoff is almost certainly out of context.

• WP:SYN: The combining of the Guterl/Newsweek aside about Lindzen's hypothetical views on the relationship between smoking & cancer is used here to advance "contrarianism", whereas Guterl seems to be using it to show that Lindzen is opinionated & articulate.

• WP:NPOV, subsection WP:STRUCTURE: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[5] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutral approach can result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other. Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.[6]

• WP:BLP, the sum of the above adds up to a WP:BLP, big time. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

responses

I'd encourage Alex and anyone else to add properly referenced, notable information about Lindzen's scientific work that's unrelated to climate change. I don't really agree with Alex's other three arguments, all of them discussed previously, and the last bullet point is just a conclusion. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

None of these arguments have been answered previously. If I may remind you, what we have really been discussing is your view that "contrarian" is a perfectly neutral term, rather than the pejorative slur that everyone else (including its author JQ) knows that it is. You have argued, since "contrarian investing" is perfectly neutral (which it, um, is), therefore it is also neutral to have a section on Lindzen's "contrarianism". (At my user page is a go at a proper encyclopaedic treatment of Lindzen's career, but the problem is that much of his work is too difficult for me to understand, and it remains unfinished. I don't think telling the truth about Richard Lindzen and his career is very high on anyone else's priority list.) Alex Harvey (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullet 1. There are two aspects of Lindzen (for good or bad): the first one is his scientific career and accomplishments, the second is the public Lindzen that writes Opinion articles, appears in media, speaks to the CEI (and other think-tanks) and involves himself in the debate on global warming outside of the scientific arena. Both of these are important aspects, you can't selectively ignore either of them - which is what you argue that we should.

Bullet 2: I have cited rather a lot of reliable sources, you've ignored this (last one you "lost interest" in - but started exactly the same thing here). Reliable sources are not discarded with "i don't like it" arguments - but they may be discarded for reasons of undue weight - but as i've shown there is plenty of weight.

Bullet 3: Being a contrarian on global warming (which is what most sources say he is), and being a contrarian on cancer risks of passive smoking is seperate issues - but are connected by reliable sources (and thus not synthesis). I'm not married to the smoking part - but the C on GW is well-documented.

Bullet 4: I agree on structure - but not on conclusion. Lindzen's biography should be roughly divided up into the 2 aspects that i mention in bullet 1 - since the aspects are rather separete.

Bullet 5: Nope. The sum of your arguments so far, can be summarized in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not a very good argument.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. There are two aspects, the good and the bad (note, you seem to have let slip here that, yes, we really are talking about a bad and not a neutral, good stuff, thanks.). Correct. And so, we need to get the balance right, do we agree? So I cut & pasted the article into a text file (including refs & so on) and I counted 3181 words total (using wc -w). Then, I count 654 words devoted to L's career, and 1513 are devoted to discrediting Lindzen. Tell me, is that the correct balance? If not, it is a BLP violation. Pare that 1513 back to about 100, and we have fixed the balance problem. Do you agree?

re: WP:RS, why are we talking about sources that are in the talk page but not in the article? I don't care about sources that are not currently in the article, and I don't have time to read them. If you are serious about this, you would have proposed a rewrite based on these new sources.

re: WP:SYN, you write, "they are connected by reliable sources". Correct, and connecting reliable sources together in order to advance a POV that none of the individuals sources themselve advance is the very definition of WP:SYN. #QED.

re: WP:NPOV, WP:STRUCTURE, we're in agreement. Y

re: WP:BLP, it is not that I don't like it, but rather that you don't seem to be able to HEAR the above. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a bold edit, removing all controversy from the article. If I can have support from an uninvolved admin to full protect this WP:WRONG version, I will, in return, in the meantime, write a fair, neutral and encyclopaedic 100 words or so explaining that Lindzen's position on climate change is a minority and extreme position, and generally rejected by other mainstream scientists. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

diff of changes. I am not comfortable preemptively protecting an article, but I will express a distinct preference against edit warring. The article as it stands is missing some major points - AH, I wish that you had prepared the alternate version before stripping this one. On the other hand, if it solves this article, that would be great. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And I wish that my free time was infinite, or that the Wikipedia Foundation was paying me. I think most editors would know that I am good to my word, and that if an uninvolved admin will protect my proposal, I will write a fair 100 or so word summary as promised above. It would probably need to mention that Lindzen is a controversial figure, and that his view is a minority and extreme view, and generally rejected. Wikipedia is not supposed to be NEWS so e.g. the insinuations from the mid 90s that he is a fossil fuel industry shill (which is universally known to be false) doesn't need to appear. Of course, those trying to discredit Lindzen will not be happy, but then, they will never be happy. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this piece of edit warring. I must say I fail to see the difference between "minority and extreme view" and "contrarian". JQ (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

John Quiggin, I can understand your confusion as the point is subtle. Let me make it simple for you: "minority and extreme" is purely factual, whereas "contrarian" contains editorial judgement (see WP:NPOV, WP:BLP). Or, if you like, one is the raw data, and the other is the "value-added" data. Does this make sense? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To William M. Connolley & Atmoz, I remind them of WP:BRD, i.e. that after making reverts that are challenged, it is appropriate to either join the talk discussion, or leave the page alone. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullet 1: I agree with AH that this contrarian/smoking angle is clearly WP:UNDUE when stacked up against all of the man's accomplishments. It is mere noise and petty ad hominem. KDP argues above that we can't ignore this. I disagree, we most certainly can, and for all of the same reasons that he so frequently argues himself. --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you actually find some of my reasons good. Now can you argue with these arguments instead of with vague statements like "that he so frequently argues himself". Try generally addressing issues instead of editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short, Kim. All of your arguments are excellent. The problem is that you try to use them in all the wrong places.  :)

And for the record, "and for all of the same reasons that he so frequently argues himself" IS addressing the issue and not the editor. I am merely stating that I we should substitute your own arguments from other articles where you argue from the opposite side of the fence into this one (with the appropriate adjustments, of course). Those arguments wouldn't be attacking any fellow editors would they? If so, please stop doing that. --GoRight (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, GoRight has quite clearly seconded my reasoning on bullet point 1, and I agree with his decision to put all focus onto that single bullet point. Since I have already responded to your last response, it is, in fact, your turn to respond, not GoRight's. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think i have made my 2 cents of comments. But on bullet 1. No one is stopping you from adding more to the scientific aspects of Lindzen, you seem to have researched it a fair bit. I just went through section 3, and i have trouble seeing the problem, it is balanced rather well. This is what we have most material (secondary sources) on generally, so it is no wonder that it fills a lot. (note that much of it is about science work as well, such as the NAS committee and so on). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that you are part of a minority insisting on continuing with this dispute, it is incumbent on you to offer a little more than 2 cents here. Otherwise, I am going to run out of patience shortly, and revert to the WP:BOLD version. To save you scrolling up, you need to explain why you think 614 words for career + accomplishments, 1513 words to discrediting him is the proper balance. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And what makes you think that i'm part of a "minority"? Are you counting in all the scibaby socks that have reverted this stuff? I count 6 editors that have reinstated the content, and only you as removing it for the last 4 days. (everyone else was socks - think about that a bit). I've commented on the 614:1513 part - the 1513 part contains quite a bit about career as well, and is definitively not as you state above "bad stuff". Since there is significantly more material on the 1513 part, and since this is the part that most people interface with Lindzen on, it makes sense to have more material here. But as said - if you want to add to the 614 - then it would be great. You seem to have made most of the work already. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying that you think 614 words in favour of a great man's career and accomplishments, and 1513 words devoted to discrediting his stance on global warming is the appropriate balance? My draft is unfinished, and I am unlikely to be able to finish it without help, as I've stated before. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, i don't think the 1513 words discredit the man (far from it). It describes various of Lindzen's public stances, scientific opinions and some responses to it. I'm sorry - but while Lindzen may be a great scientist, he has also made himself a public figure, and it is the public figure that most people know, and the public figure that people interface with. Lindzen's notability primarily comes from this part (even though he obviously would merit inclusion as a scientist as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We can get to your latest amusing black-is-white slide in a moment (i.e. i don't think the 1513 words discredit the man - far from it!), but I want you to firstly confirm that, yes, you do believe that the present balance is right (or, you can say that it's wrong, and advise on what you think it should be). After you have confirmed that, we can move to the next stage of WP:DR. Be clear, Kim. No evading. You are clearly not good at politics. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you still can't seem to address issues and not editors. I believe the balance between the two major sections are fairly well balanced, it reasonably reflects the published literature on Lindzen. The section purely on science could be expended (but there is little literature), and the later section shouldn't (even though there is plenty of literature). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You have said, the balance between the two sections is balanced. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything, because you can't reuse the word "balance" like that, and still end up with an intelligible sentence. Can you have another go at being even more clear: Are you saying, the ratio 614:1513 is just about right? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, if we look at the material available on Lindzen, then the balance is significantly weighted towards the political/public part - i would say with several magnitudes more material on the politic/public part. So the ratio 1:2.5 is not undue. Lindzen is also significantly more known for the political/public stuff - so again its not undue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

@AH: Nope, arguing column inches won't cut it even though your point is on track and accurate (not that I have checked the word counts). I am trying to think of how KDP would argue this one. He would definitely have WP:WEIGHT in there. I recommend using WP:V to put the burden on them to demonstrate that this issue has a justifiably large WP:WEIGHT to warrant inclusion. How can they show that this minor issue which is being cherry picked from sources to justify WP:OR attacks? What makes this issue so visible and important relative to the weight of the rest? I mean off hand comments about smoking are not even on the radar of this man's accomplishments. What percentage of media coverage, for example, actually includes discussion of this topic versus other topics? Make them put some hard data on the table because right now he is still at the hand waving level.  :) --GoRight (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GR, I don't frankly care what has gone before; balance is balance; it exists outside of Wikipedia, and it is about to exist here. We are not writing a free version of The Sunday Telegraph; or a free version of the The Daily Green either; we are writing a free version of an encyclopaedia, and this page is about to become historically balanced. There is WP:WEIGHT, and there is WP:NOT#NEWS, and these add up to ~ 1000 words need to be chopped. Thank you, Kim, for finally answering the question; it took a while, but we got there. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GR's somewhat justified cynicism aside, does anyone have anything else to add, or do we proceed with whatever the next step of WP:DR? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can feel free to strike the diff above of me reverting a serial sockpuppeteer. -Atmoz (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex should explain how he got the 1513 words figure: much/most of the global warming section is explaining Lindzen's position and prominence, which is hardly negative. As I said earlier, I've got no objection to expanding the non-climate section, which would help address Alex's concern about ratio. I'm not sure where Kim stands on that, but maybe no one has a problem with it. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure Brian. If you take the section beginning, "Global warming", but remember to also include the sentence William M. Connolley just added to the career section that promotes RealClimate's labelling of Lindzen as a "contrarian", you will find that 1513 words are devoted to discrediting Lindzen's stance on global warming. To spell it out further, the text begins with a 1996 letter that Lindzen wrote to The New York Times, which is followed by a longer paragraph showing that other "experts" disagree. In order, those experts are; Jerry Mahlman, who plays the highly credible witness, and is quoted as stating that Lindzen, "sacrificed his luminosity", I guess meaning, "sold his soul to the Devil"?; followed by William Gray, who is in there to show that even wacko skeptics disagree with Lindzen; followed by John M. Wallace, who shows that Lindzen's friends and close colleagues disagree with him; and finally, the advocate Stephen H. Schneider is allowed to deliver the death-blow. The article continues in this rambling, slipshod fashion, argumentum ad nauseum, to the end, whilst of course we pass the disputed "contrarianism" & "Lindzen is a shill" sections along the way. That makes up 1513 words. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As a completely independent editor who has never heard of Lindzen until this minute (I came from Jimbo Wales talk page) this article a grotesquely distorted by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "Media appearances" paragraph should be reduced to "Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media" in the "Global Warming" section. And the "Contrarian" section removed entirely. And a great deal more space given to what makes him notable - his scientific awards and honors and a fair and neutral synopsis of his scientific views.Momento (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Worth a look at talk and [[4]] to form a view on the weight that should be accorded to this opinion.JQ (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith JQ. It's a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)