Talk:Climate Audit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still a stub?[edit]

I did a minor cleanup today. Do readers think this is still a stub? Pete Tillman 19:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the website[edit]

Climate Audit is currently down with a 403 error. I haven't read any official news yet but the word on many blogs and internet forums is that they are being DOSed. Does anyone else have any further information? --Jayson Virissimo 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess it is the Slashdot effect. --Kim D. Petersen 05:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym expansions needed[edit]

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen made a nice addition (re Y2K climate-record errors), but we need expansions for these cryptic acronyms:

  • USHCN
  • GISS

Thanks in advance, Pete Tillman 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting[edit]

User:Atmoz recently redirected this article to Stephen McIntyre's page. The policy and usual practice for articles like this seems ambiguous. E.g., there is Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com as Atmoz states. But there is also Pharyngula_(blog) and PZ_Myers. Given that the article existed separately for almost all its lifetime (4 years, I'd suggest that the redirect be discussed first. SausageLady (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. It seems to be no discussion about this on this page or anywhere else. Nsaa (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This blog can be compared to existing articles like RealClimate, Bishop Hill (blog) and probably many more, and it's covered by our policy at Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. Nsaa (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This blog is highly notable, why was it redirected? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rv why[edit]

There is no consensus nor has there ever been to merge these two articles mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there most certainly was a consensus - otherwise the merge wouldn't have happened (and lasted for so long). And (just a hint) - you are looking at the wrong talk-page for both the old discussion - and for starting a new one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to it please, and remember consensus can change mark nutley (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it can, following discussion. Where is the discussion that shows a change of consensus? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And were exactly is this consensus which allowed for the merge? mark nutley (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it stood unchanged William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there is in fact no discussion which lead to a consensus for this merge? Now were did i see something like this happen before? Well if it was not discussed per policy and was merged without a clear consensus then it`ll have to be undone mark nutley (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that no one challenged it in over a year is evidence of consensus. Mergers happen all the time without votes. If no one takes issue with an action, the assumption is that there's consensus for it. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we see if there is a consensus at present. I'd rather keep this as a redirect: I say one medium-length article is notably better for both readers and editors than two shorter articles. That's why I was happy to see the two merged. Cheers, CWC 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I don't think we need two very short articles when one longer one would do the job better. Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There was never any consensus or discussion for merging, which happened less than a year ago against the (unanswered) objections of one editor above. Before that merge, the article existed as a full text for more than three years.

So Nsaa undid that change from last year and took it to AFD for discussion, which is fine, but editors insist on reverting back to the merge from a year ago. In any case, I'm not going to further edit war over it, but to claim that the merge is a consensus decision is just flat wrong, and I see nothing wrong with Nsaa's reversal of that merge, even a year later. ATren (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit stood unchallenged for almost a year. That's consensus. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody noticed it for a year, except for one editor, who objected and was basically ignored. In fact, if time establishes consensus, then the fact that it stood as a full article several years before the merge would imply that the merge itself was against that previous consensus. Also, even if it is accepted that there was consensus for merging, consensus can change. ATren (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting assertion, but highly unlikely. If no one noticed, then this page gets no traffic and probably should be a redirect. If people noticed and raised no objection (I recall doing so back in December or January when the CRU issue was raging), then there's consensus. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and consensus can change. ATren (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can. But to change consensus you engage in discussion, and that would be on talk:Stephen McIntyre. You don't unilaterally recreate a page, and then immediately AfD it. Doing that is considered disruptive - the AfD procedure isn't there for such cases.
The very best way of course would be to expand the McI page's section on CA to the point where it is obvious that it needs to be split off. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Per AFD"[edit]

I have undone the "restore content per AFD" since the conclusion of the AFD was "Further discussion over whether to redirect or keep as an article may be continued on the article's talk page". Absent any such discussion, I'm returning the article to the previous version. Guettarda (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems best to make the blog the focus of our coverage of it. The blog contains content by people other than Stephen McIntyre and so it seems inappropriate to put such coverage into his BLP. The AFD result was Keep not Redirect and so that is the baseline. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're misconstruing the rather clear language of the closing admin. And the "baseline" for the last year or so has been a redirect. Yilloslime TC 06:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the consensus is to redirect then admins commonly indicate this in their close. As for the substantive issue, time has passed and so there are more good sources about this topic. Some of these refer to the blog by name without mentioning Stephen McIntyre and so it would be improper to include these in his BLP. For example, see David Adam (22 April 2010), Climate scientist sues newspaper for 'poisoning' global warming debate It seems safer to use such sources here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per AFD closing admin which was to KEEP i have reverted you. I will begin work on restructuring this article today mark nutley (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective reading of the AfD closure is not really good. Keep was for the redirect page. Per AfD: Discuss whether to create this article again on Talk:Steve McIntyre - which is the correct location for such a discussion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which should be the correct location, but I think you mean Talk:Stephen_McIntyre :) Thepm (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another mention in passing - which really doesn't give us much. All we can use from that article is that it gets mentioned. (and that it exists). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Changes made by Chris Chittleborough 16 February 2006[edit]

  • Trimmed stuff about McIntyre which is not relevant to the blog - that stuff can go in the Stephen McIntyre article - most of what remains is there to explain the blog's name
  • Trimmed description of RealClimate -- details should go in that article not here
  • Removed Environmental Science & Technology from list of press references -- it is a specialised magazine, not part of "the press".
  • Moved sentences around, changed paragraph divisions.
  • Mentioned that the blog allows comments. Did not mention that comments are open to anyone who doesn't trigger SpamKarma, though certain non-climate topics (eg., entropy) are vigorously censored.
  • Removed POV attack on McIntyre whose only source was articles (actually a collection of ad-hominen attacks) in ES&T by Paul Thacker, a journalist. (The POV attack was added by User:216.143.112.239, an IP which tracks to ES&T or its publisher.)

Nominated for AFD[edit]

I've just nominated it for Deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Audit (2nd nomination) since so many think so (either delete or redirect, the same in practice). Nsaa (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, though it seems a waste of time. I've restored it to its default statae while the AFD proceeds William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For copyright reasons, you can't delete this article without also deleting Stephen McIntyre, since content from here has been merged into that article. If that's what you intend, please nominate both articles. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like ATren has reverted this but it was beneath his dignity to trouble himself to discuss it. The default state is the version that has been around for more than a year and that is the version that should stay pending the AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please self revert WMC? This is just disruptive for my nomination of this article for deletion. How can people make a sound judgment when the only thing they found is a redirect. What do the Keeps mean. Keep the redirect?. This is just silly. Nsaa (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are nominating an article which is a redirect, and had been for a year. Recreating it and then immediately AfD'ing is an abuse of process. AfD is not an excuse for circumventing regular consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to create this article anyway soon. There are enough sources to support it as a separate article. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the correct way forward is to start on the McIntyre page, and then work towards a point where the content could be split off. The trouble isn't lack of material - but instead that McI and CA are tightly coupled. McI is notable because of the blog, and the blog is notable because it is McI's. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, the same thing could be argued for merging RealClimate with Hockey stick controversy. From what I understand, Mann and his colleagues started RealClimate primarily in response to M&M's, Wegman's, and North's reports and the main purpose for its existence is to support and defend the research that produces that graph. Nevertheless, I support having both RealClimate and Climate Audit as separate articles. I think the sourcing and notability are there for both. Climate Audit, by the way, has a higher Alexa ranking than RealClimate, 54,309 (21,633 US) to 73,509 (26,815 US). Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. RC is not tied together with a specific person. If the group of scientists at RC had an article, then the comparison may have been valid. RC's notability is not tied to any single one of the scientists that blog there, nor is it tied to the hockey-stick controversy. And please don't start with the Alexa strawman - Alexa's rankings are not reliable for figures at that level - as you well know.
And while you are (partly [wegman, NRC came quite a bit afterwards]) correct in what spawned RC - you are incorrect in your assessment of the scope of what RC was created to comment about, and what it does comment about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

I created a new article and have moved it here mark nutley (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on expanding this article based on different sources, including several that have surfaced recently because of this blog's role in the Climategate story. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heffernan Comment at Nature[edit]

WMC has reverted an entry by Mark Nutley which quoted Nature News (at [1]). The diff is at [2]. Is there a concensus about whether this can or cannot be included?Slowjoe17 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well naturally i want it in. how about you? mark nutley (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re adds it. Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's tenuous and problematic. The proximity of a neutral description (from Nature) sandwiched between positive comments (from doubters) may give readers the false impression that Olive Heffernan is endorsing the site. The statement seems pretty unremarkable otherwise. Perhaps that was the intention? Hope not. Wikispan (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m guessing you did not read the article in nature then? mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is it I have missed? Nothing that I can see. Wikispan (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it down, so its not sandwiched, and I added the full quote in the ref., so we see that its fully covered. See [3]. Nsaa (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't WMC do that instead of just reverting it? Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Comments and Criticism[edit]

I see plenty of comment but zero criticism. Has it been removed? Did it ever exist at all? Wikispan (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can`t find any in a wp:rs feel free to try mark nutley (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've asked myself that. Hopefully someone following this article closely or have the time to investigate the history can tell. Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any criticism either. By the way, when a section is added on the blog's involvement in the Climategate controversy, there will be criticism related to that. The CRU scientists and others criticized the blog's regulars for making so many requests for data. One of the scientists called the blog "Climate Fraudit" in an email. Did Fred Pearce's Guardian articles mention Climate Audit? If not, we'll have to source most of the Climategate stuff to the books which are coming out on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RealClimate Attacks[edit]

I'm not sure why one editor believes we need to identify the rationale for CA's founding as McKinty're's "considering" RC to be attacking him. Don't we go by what the source says in these cases? Fell Gleamingtalk 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the text should say that "described as attacks on his [McIntyre's] works by Fred Pearce" because it is Pearce that said that in the source, not McIntyre. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is what we should say. Fell Gleamingtalk 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Anyone still want this as an article? I'd like to merge it back into SM William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "merge it back into SM".
  • 21:14, 5 September 2004 - WMC created Stephen McIntyre
  • 19:26, 22 August 2005 - Dragons flight created this page
  • 19:42, 22 October 2005 Lumidek added the first mention of the blog to Stephen McIntyre
As far as I can tell, these two articles were always separate.
In my opinion, there are good reasons for keeping these separate. For instance, at this point in time, blogs are still a new form of communication. As such, it makes sense to me to keep blogs separate from the articles about the people that create them (in the same way that some books have their own articles). I know that many people don't think blogs are reliable for anything, but it is too early to know that that is what will be said 5 or 10 years from now. Remember, this is an encyclopedia for future generations. Therefore, it seems a bit short sited to merge these at this time. On the other hand, I think that there is too much about this blog on the Stephen McIntyre page, and I support moving most (not all) of that content here.
That said, I am interested in your reasons for wanting to merge these. Q Science (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Also[edit]

As having been started by Stephen McIntyre and as McIntyre was mentioned over 100 time in the Climategate emails, added:

DLH (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should first look to see if these articles are currently available in the main body. Wikispan (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stupid article[edit]

why have a page about a webpage. It's just some skeptic blathering. Wiki sux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge with McIntyre?[edit]

Do we have a whole separate page for the Michelle Malkin blog as well as for her as a person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.43.222 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add May 2011 SciAm article on Richard A. Muller[edit]

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick (Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American.

Muller called Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods.

Also in the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology).

The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.130.14 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Richard A. Muller. 99.181.141.251 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... continued[edit]

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick May 25, 2011 reprinted from Scientific American of Richard A. Muller's response to skeptics such as Stephen McIntyre of the Climate Audit. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Critical balance. 108.73.113.82 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You waited less than 24 hours for a response after two users previously reverted your addition to this page. We both (and I suspect most other page watchers as well) disagree with including it. By my estimate you have asked to add this link or ones like it to no less than four wikipages. The problem is that Dr. Muller's information really doesn't belong anywhere except in his biographical article at this point (this is not an endorsement to add it there, however). We don't know at this point if it's had a larger impact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It certainly doesn't belong in either of these two blog articles, to which it only has the most tenuous of connection. So please stop your campaign to spread this link throughout the Climate change area until there is a clear consensus of users other than yourself that support adding it. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you disageee Sailsbystars? Scienific American isn't a blog, and the interview with Muller directly comments on the Climate Audit work of Stephen McIntyre. There is nothing wrong with notable voices calmly making scienfic counter-points. Wikipedia is about balanced well-rounded articles, is it not? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SciAm online version is currently accessible http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science
Then suggested would be add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American of Richard A. Muller response to skeptics such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? 99.181.135.177 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you consider your (multiple IPs) request as a consensus, I still see no reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I've changed the heading to a much shorter subheading, for reader-friendliness.)
In that interview, Prof Muller only mentions Climate Audit once. He does mention Steve McIntyre a few times, but we already have sources for the things he says. So I too don't see that this news item has much relevance for this article. Cheers, CWC 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Stephen McIntyre. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example excerpts:

More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.

How did the BEST project come about? A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick]. I reviewed the paper that the hockey stick was based on, and I became very uncomfortable. I felt that the paper didn’t support the chart enough. A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components. So I was glad that I had done that.

Given the favorable things you’ve said about climate science critics such as Watts and McIntyre, do you think you were called to testify because Committee Chair Ralph M. Hall thought you’d come down against the mainstream consensus? Before my testimony, there were news articles in prominent newspapers already claiming that I had a bias, that I had an agenda. I don’t know where they got this from. Well, I can guess. I think they were predicting what I was going to say in the hopes of discounting it when it came out. I’m not even going to guess at the Republican committee chair’s motivations. Having testified before Congress, I have a sense that most members of Congress are serious, that they are thoughtful, that if they have a point of view that disagrees with what you call the mainstream, it’s because there have been legitimate skeptics who have raised real issues that have not necessarily been answered. I don’t care whether I’m speaking to a Republican or a Democrat; science is nonpartisan. And I believe that my refuge is sticking to the science. I have no agenda. I have no political reasons for saying one thing or the other. I stick to the science. I think that’s what I’m good at. And if I say something that’s surprising, that’s good. That adds to the discussion.

Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?

No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.

I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.

99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this suggests reasons why it is relevant to Climate Audit or Stephen McIntyre. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so Arthur Rubin? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can I prove a negative? It's just not related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is related quite nicely ("related" being a symmetric and transitive relation, and both being related to climate change), it's just not directly relevant to this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Art, you just got schooled in English, imagine that ... -1 Art. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respect Art's authoritah !!! 99.119.129.32 (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL  ;-P 141.218.36.44 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do y'all IPs actually have anything constructive to suggest where and how this link might be used to improve this particular article? If not, consider this discussion concluded. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapp's view[edit]

moved from article:

Donald Rapp, author of Assessing climate change: temperatures, solar radiation, and heat balance, has written that Climate Audit was technically competent and "anti establishment". ref name="Donald Rapp" Rapp, Donald (8 January 2008). "2". Assessing climate change: temperatures, solar radiation, and heat balance (1st ed.). Springer. p. 90. ISBN 978-3540765868. /ref [relevant?]

Rapp's notability appears to be purely that he had this book published. DeepClimate's investigation into Wegman's plagiarism from Bradley found the same passages, with minor modifications, in this book by Rapp.[4] The book seems to have more problems, so elevating it as an authority on the validity of CA is very dubious. DC's writing is of course a blog, but it has already led to Edward Wegman's paper on networks of scientists being withdrawn due to the plagiarism that was uncovered. . . dave souza, talk 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: "Deep Climate's" anonymous investigation was a bad joke, and Mashey's extension of it was no better. In my opinion, of course, but both are far from being WP:Reliable Sources, as I'm sure you will agree.
That said, I have no particular opinion on Rapp & his book, and agree the quote isn't really needed here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The book is clearly written and well referenced. It clearly mentions the topic at hand, so is relevant. I have reinstated it until we can have a more full discussion. Particals of Phoof (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)(Suspected Scibaby Sock- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby)confirmed scibaby sock --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McGahan quote: delete?[edit]

I've moved this quote here for comments. Doesn't seem to me to add much to the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McGahan writing for The Economic Voice[clarification needed] has said "Whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change is a separate argument, one which you might find very interesting, but this article will not cover that. However, a trip to iceagenow or climateaudit, and a few hours reading, coupled with the fact that no real improvements or investments by global governments in the essential infrastructure have taken place in the last six years, despite the need, will leave you much more balanced than you may currently be thinking."<ref name="Peter McGahan">{{cite web|url=http://www.economicvoice.com/ethical-investment-green-or-not-how-do-you-choose/5009055#axzz0myTFgTHQ|title=Ethical, green or not, how do you choose? |last=McGahan|first=Peter|date=April 19, 2010|publisher=The Economic Voice|accessdate=4 May 2010}}</ref>[clarification needed]

Reception section needs expansion + improvement links[edit]

That's self-explanatory, but I'm also going to use this to store links to interesting articles that might help improve this article or others.

--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NYT content[edit]

This edit, which has been repeated several times, attempts to remove sourced content from the article. I'm not clear on why it's being removed, and have asked that the editor attempting to remove it come to the talk page to discuss. The content seems well sourced to the NYT, which is a reliable source, and the content is well supported by other sources. If you know of sources that contradict their coverage, please list them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Court jester[edit]

"James Hansen, the former director of NASA's Goddard Institute, has dismissed McIntyre as a "court jester"."

Looking for more detail, all I found on the net were:

  • Pretty much exactly this quote ("court jester") from the denial industry (Wall Street Journal, Climate Audit, WUWT),
  • Extracts from e-mails.

Are those the stolen e-mails? In any case, it does not look as if Hansen said this in public, and since we do not have a bona fide source for his assessment, I do not think we should use a second- or third-hand quote that can be traced back only to a private e-mail. The denial industry, of course, does not mention that Hansen has good reason for thinking that about McIntyre, but uses only the bare two words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ is in the "denial industry"? Who knew? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal#Political stance. Last paragraph.
Climate denial strongly correlates with free-market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I missed seeing your term "climate denial" there ;-] Perhaps you are politicking at Wikipedia? Let's not, Pete Tillman (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. I'm trying to keep the bullshit out of this encyclopedia. And the WSJ is a source of bullshit when the subject is the conflict around climate science. WSJ is clearly on the anti-science side there and should be used as a source only with caution. There is a connection to politics, but it is not on my side: free-market fundamentalism is the underlying reason (almost a necessary condition) for climate change denial but acceptance of climate change is simply a consequence of familiarity with the science. The Wikipedia rules do (and they should) have a pro-science bias, you know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Hansen's remarks[edit]

Per WP:DUE, "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." As James Hansen is notable, his remarks are included in the article as-is, with the reader left to make of it what they will. I hope this clarifies things. Firestar464 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_Audit&oldid=1211961609"