Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 10

"Former student"

The "former student" is Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, who got his PhD under Lindzen, has co-published several papers with him, and is now a climatologist teaching at the University of Maryland. He is well-qualified to have an opinion on Lindzen, both personal and scientific, and is being cited by Seed (magazine), a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's former PhD student and co-author Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, now teaching at the University of Maryland....

Just an idea. --TS 01:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We have much more reliably sourced statements being removed from pro-GW articles. This needs to be rectified per NPOV. On RealClimate, established scientists are suppressed on weight arguments, while here, former students and environmental weeklies are used as sources for criticism. This double standard needs to be addressed. ATren (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• You seem confused about what NPOV is about. All content policies (NPOV,...) are about single articles - the reason for this is that subjects while seemingly similar (though these aren't) have a completely different background in how they are covered in reliable sources and how the balance of these describe the subjects. As an example within the context of BLP's: Lindzen can't be compared to Pielke Sr. because L is significantly more a "public" person (lots of RS's cover his personal views), while PSr isn't - this goes for all articles. They must all be edited and judged on the individual coverage in reliable sources. Sticking to a false dichtomy like yours (pro vs. contra articles) is a flawed argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Is this your personal view or is this actually stated somewhere? If so, where? --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seed is not an environmental weekly, but a pop-sci bimonthly. And while Kirk-Davidoff is a former student - as are, more or less without fail, all academics - he also is an established researcher who worked for years with Lindzen and apparently got along well enough to co-publish a paper with him in 2000 - 2 years after his PhD was awarded, 3 years after he went from MIT to Harvard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, that is correct, and it is the reason that KD is almost certainly being quoted out of context by the journalist. It is the reason that the source is unreliable, for how it is used, and why it should be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is your personal interpretation - I'd say OR, but there is not even any R in it, as far as I can tell. You can have a good working condition with someone, you can even be a friend, and still have and state an honest opinion, and you can still disagree with them professionally. Being called a "contrarian" is not automatically an insult. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled a different quote about Lindzen's purported contrarianism from the Seed article. The quote I added summarizes the views of more than one person and doesn't place undue focus on the one former student.

I still disagree strongly with the last paragraph of that section, which links Lindzen's smoking views with his GW views. Those sources are weak, and the link is tenuous at best. It seems to be little more than opponents saying "see how he opposes GW consensus, he did the same thing with smoking", a kind of guilt-by-association. If this appeared in a stronger source it might be OK, but the weakness of both the claim and the sourcing makes it unacceptable. ATren (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

shocking

I am pretty busy at the moment, but this text is truly shocking; it is damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia (the biggest problem; yes, Lindzen is probably laughing, whereas Jimmy Wales is probably crying); and of a disappointing slur against Lindzen. It'll take me some time to figure out exactly how to fight this, given it is violating so many basic Wikipedia principles, but fight it I will. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second this; this article damages Wikipedia's credibility. In no way does this article represent a neutral POV. Surely there is a process to remedy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrtkay (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note BLP/N

I have alerted the BLP/N here: WP:BLPN#Richard_Lindzen_2. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on contrarianism, which was mostly sourced to magazines like Grist and Seed. On RealClimate, criticism from the Guardian, a major UK newspaper, is being suppressed, so I can't see how Grist, Seed, and Griffith Review should be acceptable here. We need to apply consistent editorial standards across articles on the same topic, especially if that topic is contentious. ATren (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reveal reality to you - the Guardian is not being "suppressed" on RC. Try reading those discussions again, no one has at any point in time argued against "the Guardian" (hint: either you have misunderstood the discussion completely or you are misrepresenting things). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra references on "contrarian":

• Sampson, Patsy (2000). "The Science and Politics of Global Warming: The Climate of Political Change at MIT" (PDF). MIT Undergraduate Research Journal. 3. MIT. Who would know better than Professor Lindzen,who has been assigned by the media the title of "climate contrarian."
• Stevens, William K. (Feb 29, 2000). "Global Warming: The Contrarian View". New York Times.
• Lindzen, Richard S. (Mar 16, 2007). "On Global Warming Heresy". I am frequently asked to describe my experiences as a contrarian about global warming.
• Eilperin, Juliet (Oct 2007). "An Inconvenient Expert". Outside. That is Dick's natural personality—to be somewhat of a contrarian," Wallace says. "He feels he can work the argument and win. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
• Yang, Hu; Tung, Ka Kit (1998). "Water Vapor, Surface Temperature, and the Greenhouse Effect—A Statistical Analysis of Tropical-Mean Data". Journal of Climate. 11 (10). doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2686:WVSTAT>2.0.CO;2. A contrarian view (Lindzen 1990) holds that the increased convection associated with the CO2-induced warming should act instead to dry the upper troposphere:

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple more:

• Grundmann, Reiner. "Climate Change and Knowledge Politics" (PDF). Environmental Politics. 16 (3): 414–432. Apart from the US contrarians (such as Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer, who are given very little attention) - note here talking in context of German media.
• Boykoff, Maxwell T. "Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change". In Liverman, D. G. E.; Pereira, C. P. G.; Marker, B. (eds.). Communicating environmental geoscience. Geological Society Special Publication. Vol. 305. Geological Society of London. ISBN 1862392609. "Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates, Sherwood Idso, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels
• Broecker, Wallace S. (2006). "Global warming: Take action or wait?" (PDF). Chinese Science Bulletin. 51 (9): 1018–1029. doi:10.1007/s11434-006-1017-4. Further, as his detractors point out, Lindzen is well known for his contrarian views. For example, with equal vigor, he denies that cigarette smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) ::I've restored the smoking-only version. Kim, you seem to have a much different approach on this page than you do on RealClimate. Here, any criticism is fair game, even if it's sourced to shaky sources like Grist. But on RealClimate, you reject criticism sourced to the Guardian, home of the oft-quoted (on Wikipedia) skeptic critic George Monbiot. You try to justify this inconsistency with weight arguments, but that's weak. These are not fringe views we're dealing with, they're significant minority views, and weight cannot be used to justify total omission for one side of the debate coupled with piling-on for the other. ATren (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah - more misrepresentation. The only argument given on RC was one of weight (ie. the lack of it), perhaps you may take a look at the references that i've provided above? They show that there is rather a lot of weight behind the description of Lindzen as a "contrarian". That's what makes the difference. Or are you going to argue that the sources above are from minority positions? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

→ This article just came off protection four days ago, and I would really rather not lock it again as there is plenty of room for improvement outside that one section. The currently active editors here are perfectly well aware of WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. Please abide by them so I do not have to protect The Wrong Version. When the above discussion resolves, we should get a nice stable article that everyone can live with. In the meantime, there is no pressing need to clog up the edit history and waste server space and editor time that could be more productively invested in discussion. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Contrarian article to indicate that it's a neutral term, like contrarian investing. While I don't think additional explanation is required, I have no objection to it if that makes this section more palatable to other editors. We could even add a reference to Freeman Dyson and James Lovelock as suceessful contrarian scientists who were sometimes right and sometimes wrong.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, I am not going to assume good faith here. The term "contrarian" is absolutely not a "neutral" term here, in this context, and you know full well that it isn't. It is used pejoratively, to imply that his views are not reliable. Stop playing silly word games. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Alex. As someone who's placed a substantial amount of money with a contrarian investment firm, I disagree with your statement that contrarian is a negative term, and I don't see a contextual difference. Now I personally think Lindzen is an unsuccessful and wrong contrarian, and maybe you've guessed that, but the negative aspects have to do with unsuccessful and wrong. This section should just be about Lindzen being a contrarian, and I'd oppose anything in it that implies contrarians are necessarily wrong.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take a break if you are incapable of seeing other editors as peers instead of opponents. I do not agree with your interpretation of the word "contrarian" and Brian apparently doesn't either... but as always it really doesn't matter what we think. I've demonstrated that rather a lot of reliable sources (including peer-reviewed ones) describe Lindzen as a contrarian, that establishes that it at least has some weight when we are talking about Lindzen. Can you explain to me why/how we can ignore these sources? (and please do not give me a i don't like it argument. The only way that i see for us to be able not to mention it, would be by removing Lindzen's personal views on climate change (ie. opinion columns, interviews, public appearences) completely...Just describe him as a scientist and ignore the public debate 100%. But i don't think this is doable since Lindzen is (has made himself) an important part of the public debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, do you agree or disagree that a number of advocate scientists (e.g. skepticalscience.com, "Eli Rabbit", Gavin Schmidt) have argued that Lindzen's "contrarianism" makes him an unreliable witness, and discredits him? Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equally, lots of Lindzen's supporters have made arguments that treat consensus as a pejorative, compared Lindzen to Galileo and so on. There's no serious dispute that Lindzen is a contrarian - the dispute is whether his contrarianism makes him an unreliable witness. Critics typically say yes, and that criticism is presented here with reliable sources. Supporters say no. You could do better in balancing the article by citing some of them than by trying to remove the criticism.JQ (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

JQ, good stuff; thanks. And Kim, will you also agree that "contrarianism" is used here to discredit a great living scientist? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, i do not agree with that. As far as i can remember climate contrarian is/was commonly used term for what today is called climate sceptic. Iirc Pielke Jr. wrote something on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's very amusing. At 22:53, 8th Dec, after I had argued that the designation "contrarian" is purely arbitrary, and that every good scientist can be called a "contrarian", you contradicted me, saying, "I think you are confusing contrarian with sceptic. Every scientist is a sceptic." Now, at 4:21, 11th Dec, you say, "As far as i can remember climate contrarian is/was commonly used term for what today is called climate sceptic". So you seem to be getting a little tied up in knots here, Kim. Tell me again: what's the difference between a "skeptic", which every scientist is, and a "contrarian", which apparently, only Lindzen is. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) What is your problem with my 2 comments? Here is a more formal description: Scientists are all sceptics. Some sceptics are scientists. Some sceptics are contrarians. Some contrarians are scientists. (Some X are Y - means that there is an intersection between X and Y, and that X is not entirely contained in Y. X are all Y means that X is a subset of Y.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, tell me, Kim, what is the difference between a "skeptic" and a "contrarian"? I put it to you, Kim, that the difference is that, one is neutral, and the other pejorative, in the context of climate change debate. Thanks for your kind attention. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys... this is not your personal playground. Please do not use it as such. Thanks Bigdatut (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Health Risks of Smoking Section

I note that this page is protected, a lot of edit warring has occurred, and someone has restored the libelous, unsourced health risks of smoking nonsense, despite prior agreement, and much Wikidrama, that it should go. We finally had agreement from a number of admins, and Atmoz, in the past that it failed utterly weight, and shouldn't be here.

Can someone fill me in on what has happened here? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that the source given for the smoking nonsense now, is, wait for it, an old Wikipedia diff! How creative! Alex Harvey (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a Newsweek article based on an interview with Lindzen. It can be assumed that he read it, and didn't find it to be libellous. In any case, what is it with the sensitivity of GW sceptics about the fact that most of their leading sources are also passive smoking sceptics (and that the same is true on the other side - bodies like the UN, EPA and scientific academices have done a lot to promote the consensus view in both cases). The sceptics on passive smoking like FORCES have no problem acknowledging that the cases are linked. The arguments are pretty much identical in both cases. Lindzen is consistent here, but his own supporters apparently want to muzzle him.JQ (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JQ, and sorry for my lack of patience as evidenced above. Can I assume you're the editor who put it back in? (Sorry, I'm fairly busy in "real life" at the moment, and haven't the time to check these things). I don't want to start the same dispute again; I'll simply ask, have you checked the archives for the protracted arguments on this point? To cut a long story short, we have policies in Wikipedia referenced here: WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP; and this section on smoking was found to violate these. The Newsweek reference to L & smoking contains but a single, ambiguous sentence on L & smoking. Further, it doesn't mention "passive smoking" at all. The rest of the stuff on the internet about L & smoking is largely folklore (apparently originating in this Newsweek piece, perpetuated by its long history of being included in this Wikipedia bio, and probably as with all folklore, containing some kernel of truth). As such, it is found to be given undue weight by inclusion in this short bio. L has no real connection with tobacco, thus for this BLP, WP:UNDUE insists that it can't be included. I ask you, respectfully, to acknowledge the pre-existing consensus and remove it again, as soon as full protection of the article is removed. Is that okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been away and missed the discussion. I'm happy to go with the consensus.JQ (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it as written. In the article the claims are sourced to smoking is basically an aside, only taking two sentences of one paragraph, and most of that is descriptive. However, presuming that it is a view that is more important that the source suggests, there are a couple of problems. The source doesn't mention passive smoking at all, although the text we're using seems to attribute that claim to the source; he never says that the risks are overstated as such, but instead the article says that he will "expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking" - from this it may be inferred that he downplays the risks, but that's just an inference; and the second sentence being quoted, "He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" merely tells us that Lindzen smokes, and adds some colour to what is a well-written Newsweek article - it doesn't really relate to his views on smoking. From the source, the most we can say is that he is a smoker, and that he believes that the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is weak. Are there better sources for his views on smoking? - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, Find the previous discussion in the archive and if it was a consensus I will remove it through the article protection. --BozMo talk 08:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, proving a Wikipedia consensus could be harder than proving or disproving AGW itself... Anyhow, the discussion that resulted in the removal of this recently-restored section and led finally to resolution of a long-standing argument is here: Talk:Richard_Lindzen/Archive_5#ref_29.... Atmoz & admin Oren0 gave the same view that I have summarised above, and Bilby seems to have independently given a similar perspective. Previously an admin Rd232 had almost agreed that BLP policy was contradicted by its inclusion but finally suggested an RfC instead. Atmoz is the editor who actually removed it, and at that point Kim D. Petersen gave up. An era of Wiki-peacce has almost reigned since. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was actually consensus to remove it. I just think everyone got tired of yakin' and warin' about it. -Atmoz (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I have taken it back out. I waited until the end of protection although largely that was down to good weather and the orchard needing mulching. It looks pretty weak to me in terms of notability and relevance. --BozMo talk 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One more vote for the consensus against. Good grief. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion, I've concluded there isn't a consensus, and that the secondary sources clearly make the point that this is part of a general pattern in which critics of the mainstram scientific consensus on climate change have a track record of similar criticism in other areas, and particularly of involvement in the tobacco debate, either as general contrarians (Lindzen) or as paid advocates (Singer, Seitz, Milloy, Bate, CEI, Cato, IPA etc). The eagerness of some editors with a similar POV to remove this only strengthens the case for inclusion in some form. It may well be that this article is the wrong place, but the general point is clearly notable, and correct, and should be referred to.JQ (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

One more opinion that it should be left out per the previous discussion. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more that is should be included. As previously stated, there was no consensus for removal. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at this point, the question is "where is the consensus to reinstate it?" --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the start, it seems clear that everyone who supports Lindzen's views on climate change also wants to suppress any mention of his views on tobacco smoking. This seems to indicate, pretty clearly, that his views on this point, if established by a WP:RS would have a significant effect on hsi credibility in general, and that WP:WEIGHT would therefore support thier inclusion. In my view, the existence of multiple reliable sources is clear, so the material should stay. But I'd be very interested if any "sceptic" would be willing to say what they see as the difference between the two cases - I can't see much of one, and clearly neither can most of the sceptical experts.JQ (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another source on this, from the ABC (Australian national broadcaster) science reporter Robyn Williams, based on a personal interview and linking Lindzen's views on climate science to his general contrarianism, as indicated by his attitude to tobacco smoking [1].JQ (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new section on contrarianism, with a string of sources linking Lindzen's contrarianism on climate change to his tobacco contrarianism. The relevance doesn't need to be inferred, it's spelt out by the sources. JQ (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted as a BLP violation. You have found an op-ed by a comedian, now, who reports on the anecdote. He probably read it on Wikipedia, a while ago. You refer to Lindzen as "notorious" for his "contrarianism". This is terribly biased writing; please leave this out, or at least make some go at building a consensus for a new section here. It is not the job of Wikipedia to be doing psychological assessments of the personalities of living scientists. To do that, you need extremely high quality, reliable sources. Robyn Williams is indeed a very smart, and funny man. His opinions on Richard Lindzen, however, don't belong here. Your new section is WP:OR practically from end to end. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Robyn Williams (science reporter) not Robin Williams (comedian). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@A: Please read the edit before reverting, which you clearly didn't do based on your post above. -Atmoz (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can say I "clearly" didn't read it. Is it your highly attuned Wiki-telepathy? Or just a cheap assumption of bad faith? I not only read it; I downloaded the Williams piece and read that too. I'm surprised it's not Williams the comedian, because the essay is actually quite funny. "I like Bob Carter. Even in a kilt. He has that baritone warmth that men share when they assume they’re united against the Philistines." Now Atmoz, I have correctly reverted your revert, taking me to 2RR, although your side is only a 1RR each. What fun. This material is clearly original research from beginning to end, and it doesn't belong here. Please do the right thing, and enforce policies, not personalities. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read it because the edit stated that Williams was a science reporter, not the comedian. Yet on the talk page you only talk about the comedian as if it mattered.

For future use: [2][3] -Atmoz (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"a science reporter, not the comedian" - Are these two mutually exclusive? --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I missed that; you're right. One point to you. On the other hand, I correctly found the text to be violating enough policies to suggest that the correct thing to do next was REVERT, and then DISCUSS.

So tell me, where are we going with this? Have you found evidence that Lindzen's views on smoking are connected with his notability sufficient for inclusion in a bio that doesn't mention that he solved the mystery of the quasi-biennial oscillation in his 20s? The Williams the Science Reporter piece is almost a replica of the Guterl piece. Two unreliable sources for a section don't add up to an RS. Yes, Lindzen is a smoker; yes he apparently has a view that maybe it's not going to kill him. Given he's survived till he's 69, maybe he's right, who knows? Where are we going with this? The same WP:UNDUE problem exists, and it'll still exist if you find another 10 pieces that are almost identical with Guterl. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've reverted me, anyhow, so I'll be back in a few days. If the WP:BLP violating material is still there, I'll be taking the appropriate actions, in the appropriate forums (plural, unfortunately, since a number of different policies are violated...). Alex Harvey (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had the impression you were an Australian, Alex. Do you really not know who Robyn Williams is, or what the Griffith Review is? As for your suggestion that this is derived from Wikipedia, Williams is giving a first-hand report, independently confirming Guterl. But at least you've outed yourself as a sceptic wrt the dangers of tobacco smoking. Given that you agree with Lindzen on this, why are you so keen to suppress his views? JQ (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I live in Sydney, Australia, as it says on my user page. Meanwhile, I didn't have the impression that you were an academic, actually working for a university. I had the impression that you were some random climate change blogger. Well, there you go. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The new section really isn't convincing, and I find I have to agree with Alex that it looks like undue weight - as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things. But the evidence is that he doesn't see that the link between smoking and lung cancer has been strongly established. That's not much of a case to build a section on. I'm not completely opposed to it, so long as it remains factual, but it really doesn't come across well, and probably makes those opposing him look worse than he does. It just feels like an awful argument on which to base a very strong claim, and the sources are themselves far from excellent, as they provide only three brief, throwaway mentions of this view. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"as it stands, the implication is that he opposed climate change because he simply likes to oppose things." Absolutely right. This suggestion has been made by numerous WP:RS sources and should be included in the article.JQ (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, strong claims need strong sources. it is getting better, but the smoking side of things doesn't help establish this as a worthwhile view. - 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I read the articles cited in the second paragraph of the contrarian section, i.e.:

"This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."[26] Writing in the Griffith Review, Australian Broadcasting Corporation science reporter Robyn Williams stated "I interviewed Lindzen in Boston and was impressed by his assurance as well as his cheerful chain‐smoking and delight in being contrary. He is known to dispute links between cigarettes and lung cancer". [27]"

While these quotes do, in fact, appear in the cited sources they are wholly unrepresentative of the much larger articles whose topics were completely unrelated to the quotes being set forth. This looks to me to be significantly WP:UNDUE based on the sources actually cited and as a result the entire topic appears to be WP:OR in order to purpetuate an ad hominem attack on Lindzen. I think that the second paragraph should be removed as WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no OR here. A string of reliable secondary sources make the link between Lindzen's contrarianism on smoking and GW, some favorably and some not. If you think it's an unfair characterization of his position, find a statement by Lindzen repudiating the views imputed to him by people who have interviewed him first-hand.JQ (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim he didn't say these things, or that he even holds these views. I am claiming that you are giving them WP:UNDUE weight since you are basically having to cherry pick references to make the connection. It is this sifting through sources to find quotes to cherry-pick that looks like WP:OR. Find an article where this connection is the primary focus of the article and you might have a case. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not contrarianism it's self-justification of an addiction! How many other scientists or doctors are also smokers and also say the same dumb things? ie it's totally irrelevant. For real contrarians check recent history; economic contrarians like Bill Bonner and Nouriel Roubini predicted the meltdown from bad credit. Quite a few contrarians said BSE probably could transfer to humans when government scientists said it couldn't and programming contrarians said the millennium bug was much ado about nothing. Happily Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Pasteur were all contrarians too. In fact virtually every major scientific or engineering breakthrough came from contrarians. ie that's also irrelevant. If you juxtapose this squabble with the rather more important fact that Schneider used to promote global cooling (of course Lindzen didn't) and yet it's been mighty difficult to get that fact into his wiki bio then it all becomes bizarre. Criticism about L's scientific stance from his scientific peers is fine but the rest are cheap smears that demean Wikipedia. Let's stick with correctness as far as is possible and leave our own political correctness out. Apparently Lindzen's peers care what he thinks whether they agree with him or not.JG17 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)