Jump to content

Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Rv; why

I restored some stuff [1]. If the intro is going to puff him as an academic plus papers, it seems reasonable to point out that they aren't on cl ch. And I don't understand why Ratel's addition was "comedy" - it certainly doesn't look like it (NPA folks, please) - so I restored that too William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was added as a joke, perhaps not, it doesn't seem to have a value apart from comedy, it's not very encyclopedic is it? The citation that is added is also a strong opinion piece. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

according to Lenore Taylor of The Australian, Plimer was a star attraction of the two-day event. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/plimer-the-toast-of-copenhagen-sceptics-meeting/story-e6frg6so-1225808821955

Taylor is a senior science correspondence for Australia's biggest paper, and she attended the conference (one of the few who did). If she says Plimer was a star there, that's a significant detail in his bio. Capiche? ► RATEL ◄ 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It fails weight, as does much of the critical stuff on this page. It doesn't belong in a BLP. ATren (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. When you compare the Taylor article's coverage from a weight perspective, how does it compare to the total amount of coverage that Plimer got for/during the Conference? (ie. (taylor colum inches)/(coverage column inches)) And how does the publisher/article/editorial reliability compare to the rest? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree, its basically an attack comment from an opinionated attack editorial. Adding such poor detail adds nothing to the article in fact it simply makes it all the poorer. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed some extraneous, unencyclopedic commentary on the weather in Perth then, from this section. I have no idea why it was in the article, but it's certainly not needed. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It should stay out. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I respect ChrisO's judgement, so I agree to the current revision. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes

I'm reading through this, and caught the statement about volcanoes. We have:

One of Plimer's central hypotheses is that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans. Climate scientists respond that humans emit 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.[15] NASA's Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist, examined the Plimer hypothesis and said it was based on a "basic logical fallacy".[16]

This sounds a bit silly to me, considering we're an encyclopedia, and presumably should have something more to say on a simple factual issue than an appeal to what "climate scientists" as an aggregate say (I suppose they all said this at once?). Looking around, it seems we would do much better to note that, for instance, George Monbiot responded by citing the U.S. Geological Survey's statement that humans produce more than 130 times the CO2.[2] There's also the fact that it's a critical editorial being cited to say that this is Plimer's central hypothesis; shouldn't that be attributed as well? Naming the sources on controverted points should be a good thing, regardless of POV. Mackan79 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Some sources you can use for the volcanoes issue are: [3] see transcript [4] [5] [6] ... and more. ► RATEL ◄ 06:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And using sources clearly marked as blogs or opinions is useful in what manner in a BLP? First is an op-ed piece by the " policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment." Some might argue that the piece is exactly what one would expect from a paid PR person. Second is a transcript from a person who "was heavily involved in preparation of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2007, in several different roles." And it notes "He is correct that on time scales of the last 100 million years, the recent global-scale warmth is not unusual." Not exactly a ringing condemnation of Plimer. The Gazette piece is a "letter to the editor" and not usable. Next is an opinion from "onlineopinion.com.au" which is also not usable as RS. Last is a book review from an astrophysicist. Not even a climate expert in any definition of the word. When dealing with a BLP, we ought to be sure to use unquestionable RS sources, and make sure that where the source has material which is not critical of Plimer that such material also be included as a matter of proper weight. Collect (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
That's such an asinine, deliberately selective reply that I won't bother addressing it. ► RATEL ◄ 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Try NPA and AGF. The comment covered every single proposed cite you furnished, so I wonder just where "selective" comes in. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Selective in that the "letter" is from a well known journalist and is not a mere reader's letter, asinine in that you try to impute an unimpeachable academic source as little more than a PR lobby group, selective in that you ignore David Karoly's forthright and unambiguous statement about Plimer's errors, namely (enlarged to make sure you actually read it this time):[Plimer says] 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined'. Both are wrong.... Scientists have estimated emissions from volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with total global emissions from human sources. I won't go on ... you are simply in over your head on this.
If anyone wants to use opinions of a real climate scientist to source the comment on Plimer's volcano bullshit, this should suffice. ► RATEL ◄ 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the volcano claim is coatrack - the only apparent reason it's there is because it allows the rebuttal to be written. I'm removing it. ATren (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it back. It's one of Plimer's central claim and chief errors, an error that has been pointed out to him repeatedly by many scientists and yet which he has failed to withdraw. there are numerous mentions in RSes, so I suggest you not misuse an article-oriented policy like COATRACK to delete a titbit of core information that makes your guy look like an idiot. ► RATEL ◄
So why is this particular claim relevant? He's written a whole book, why is this one claim pulled out and listed here? The volcano claim is not notable except for the fact that it is a nice hanging fastball for others to knock out. That's coatrack. ATren (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This claim is relevant because it's a central belief of Plimer's, and as a climate scientists said, a basic fallacy, from which much else of his bafflegab and hocus pocus flows. Excluding it is like excluding Christ from a page on Christianity. ► RATEL ◄ 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
From my perspective, it's cherry picking of views intended to put him in a negative light. There is already a more general criticism in the following paragraph, where his overall view is stated and refuted by scientists. That makes the specific volcano claim even less necessary. ATren (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the Monbiot. This is a trivial item that was covered only by Monbiot himself, and does not belong, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. ATren (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You did that without consensus. You are being disruptive. ► RATEL ◄ 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense, there is extensive discussion above, with much support for removal. ATren (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And also much mention of that fact that no consensus exists for removal, which you gave conveniently ignored. You keep saying it's trivial, but it's been mentioned on thousands of pages and in quite a few RSes. So your trivial is not my trivial. It was big news in Australia. Most people in Australia know about it. ► RATEL ◄ 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I interpret consensus differently than you do. And if it was big news in Australia, then please provide more sources than currently exist -- right now it's all Monbiot. See my earlier discussion with Kim - I asked him for more, he didn't provide them, other than a brief mention in an Australian op-ed 2 days after the event. Other than that, nothing. This is a fleeting, irrelevant story that doesn't belong here. How about this: let's wait 6 months: if reliable sources cover it, we'll add it back in. OK? ATren (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. You completely forgot Lateline didn't you? How many TV coverages does Plimer get of this length, where the only focus is Plimer and Plimers book? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Kim, as I said earlier, the Lateline episode is the debate which is being reported on here. Presenting it as evidence demonstrating the weight of the debate, is a circular argument. I keep asking to provide sources that demonstrate that this is something more than a trivial event, and you keep presenting the trivial event itself. And it doesn't matter if he doesn't appear much on TV, it doesn't make this appearance notable. You continue to misinterpret the weight policy to justify decisions that support your own POV. ATren (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed Monbiot on Monbiot from this article per wp:weight wp:notnews and the apparent consensus for it to be removed mark nutley (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Content has editorial construction

This article contains at least one example (possibly more) in which content on the surface appears factual, but has comments and quotes that are structured in a way that is clearly driven by a particular political perspective.

Stating Ian Plimer is a Director in several mining companies is fair enough. Following that with quotations specifically designed to cast doubt on his motivations on the climate change debate is editorial, and from my perspective at least undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. In addition the comment "he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars" while connected to newspaper editorial is unsubstantiated in the editorial, and therefore should be removed unless concrete evidence is available.

Perhaps the entry needs cleaning up and the section on "Climate Change Scepticism" enhanced to include reference to the Directorships and other contentious issues.

Wikipedia users are not stupid. We do not need our attention drawn to potential conflicts of interest of Dr Plimers position by misplaced statements. Simply stating the facts, with editorial comments in an appropriate section away from factual paragraphs is more than enough for us to draw our own conclusions. Br14 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're on about. Plimer's financial interests were obtained from readily available primary sources (company reports on the net) and reported in the media (RS). We quote the media. There is nothing wrong. Maybe this page contains links that will lead you to the primary sources so you can satisfy yourself as to the veracity. Hope this helps. ► RATEL ◄ 08:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Monckton?

The section about Monckton appears to have no direct connection with Plimer. Ought it be removed? This is supposed to be a biography, not a basin for anything separated by six degrees <g>. Collect (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Ottre's Guardian addition

Does anyone else find this an odd edit? What is the purpose of this? ► RATEL ◄ 03:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph makes complete sense given the coverage of the debate in Australian broadsheets, with several commentators predicting the Guardian would back off. The bit about the John Vidal article does need some clarification, but a single sentence is not an "off-topic narrative" as you claimed in this edit. Ottre 04:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Who gives a tinker's cuss about the machinations of editorial decisions at the Guardian in relation to climate change, and to Plimer? You are inserting something that adds nothing to the biography of this man. You're on the wrong page. ► RATEL ◄ 04:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I hope you are not pretending to be offended by comments such as this. That is extremely unhelpful in resolving such a minor dispute. IMO, your link to WP:RPA is equally rude. I have been editing for years and am extremely familiar with our etiquette policies.
I do not want to include every detail about the Guardian's coverage of Plimer's work, but it is necessary to mention how this one particularly critical article was presented (directly beneath the John Vidal article). Do you acknowledge they jumped on the report by the WMO that found the 2000s has been the warmest decade on record? It did not develop into a major story until late December/early January. They certainly rushed the article to print, as most newspapers included comments from several independent experts (see this article in the Daily Planet, for instance). In light of this, it is remarkable they did not ask Plimer if he was working on a revised edition of the book, and completely ignored his performance in the debate. They would surely have had time to put together a more neutral article. Ottre 05:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You're digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. This article has nothing to do with how the Guardian's editors have decided to cover either Plimer or the issue of global warming. I hope some other editor sees how misbegotten this edit is and removes it, because I don' want to open myself up to more abuse from this editor. ► RATEL ◄ 09:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Plimerite

Has this received any coverage in any RS? Google news archives show zero hits. I've taken it out of the lede. ► RATEL ◄ 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

See Mineralogical Magazine; February 2009; v. 73; no. 1; p. 131-148; DOI: 10.1180/minmag.2009.073.1.131 and Mindat - Plimerite
Agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blogs as Sources

Material being used to impugn Plimer from these two blogs:

And appears to violate BLP policy. The USGS is not a blog, agreed, however, it's claim, by itself, appears to have no bearing whatsoever on Plimer personally. I have, however, left it in the article. Fell Gleaming(talk) 03:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that blogs under the aegis of major newspapers are regarded differently? The blog in question is written by the Guardian's Environment Editor, James Randerson, and describes an actual interview Randerson conducted with Plimer. This is completely RS. ► RATEL ◄ 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The Garman piece is not written by a professional journalist. It's opinion, written by the founder of an environmental group, clearly hostile to the article's subject. It is not treated differently, and it clearly cannot be used in this context. Fell Gleaming(talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Further, the statement that volcanic CO2 is one of Plimer's "central hypothesis" is one I couldn't find in the Randerson piece. Did you find that elsewhere, or is it WP:OR ? Fell Gleaming(talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
From the article in The Independent: "an Australian academic whose central thesis involves the assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans." Plus, the volcano claim is in many interviews and forms a prominent part of his book. I suggest you read this link to see why this has to go back into the article. [7] ► RATEL ◄ 05:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Did the USGS source specifically respond to Plimer? If not, then it can't be used becaue it violates synthesis. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree the USGS could be seen as a SYN vio. We don't need it. Para can be rephrased .... oh, do I have the time today? ► RATEL ◄ 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really better. Especially since it gives a huge possible variation for the Eyja event, the Eyja event has a huge anount of SO2, and the twin volcano, if it erupts, will give off an order of magnitude more gas. Still too much SYN at best for a BLP, though not as much for other articles. Collect (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It does contain a section that is directly related to Plimers claim:
Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia's ABC Network website last August:
The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.
And contains a direct answer from UGSC to Plimers claim:
Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:
I can confirm to you that the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial ... Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.
These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja - and since they are directly connecting Plimers claim and USGS - there is certainly no synthesis. We can discuss the reliability of the reference for this kind of information - but a synthesis it is not. (the "central" part seems to be synthesis though) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Nothing to do with Eyja"?
The central part is from the Garman piece in The Independent. ► RATEL ◄ 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption
The entire article is premised on Eyja. And on an assumption that oits peak output of CO@ is 300K tons/day -- based on the twin which presumably emited 3 million tons/day when it last erupted (roughly a factor of 10 according to a number of sources). So, yes, the entry is SYN and, at best, is the opinion of the author and not "fact" per se. Moreover, this is a BLP and subject to rather more stringent requirements than other articles, as you have stated before <g>. [9] Icelandic volcanoes are noted for SO2 emissions more than CO2 emissions, and one case a bit over two centuries ago is the "gold standard" for volcanoes. Collect (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you miss out a comma in the sentence of mine that you quote - and the subsequent sentence which changes the meaning of that first sentence? The subject of Eyja is used as a pretext to addressing Plimer's (and other sceptics) claim about Volcanoes and CO2 - it is not an article about Eyja. The question of synthesis - and the question of whether the reference is reliable for this kind of information - are two different aspects. I'm addressing the one on synthesis (which it isn't). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I missed no commas at all. I quoted your post exactly. The article, moreover, is quite specifically about Eyja - as the heading indicates fairly clearly. Unless, of course, one thinks that the headings of news articles have nothing to do with the articles as a rule <g>. And when you mention "commas" be sure that you used them. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No, you didn't quote me exactly - you cherry-picked some words from my comment - here is the whole sentence, with the important (and missing in your quote) part bolded: "These paragraphs have nothing to do with Eyja". (and then i quote two paragraphs - which do not have anything to do with Eyja...)
No, the article is not "quite specifically about Eyja" - and the subheading from it tells you so, rather well: "Climate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption" - Or in other words: The Eyja eruption makes this a good occasion to address sceptic nonsense. And that is what the article is about.
And of course titles cannot be used (as a rule) as reliable sources - one shouldn't at all use them in text in any article. Headlines are typically written after editorial review - and purely for sensationalist purposes, and are thus often misleading as to the content of an article.
Finally i used commas to make you look rather more specifically than just a glance (hmmm - where is that ....) ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Unreliable source?" tags not appropriate

Cadae has tagged 2 sources as "unreliable". If you read the paragraph, you'll see that the source preceding the 2 that are tagged is the transcript of the actual debate, and from reading that it is clear that the rest of the paragraph is accurate — based on that transcript. The Guardian sources were included as confirmation of what happened, in case one or another source goes dead. But to call the sources "unreliable" when they are completely reliable for the text in the article is absurd. If we'd inserted "...and Plimer was made to look like an utter fool" and cited the Guardian columns, then you may have a point, but not as it stands. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They are unreliable, you are using monbiot`s blog to assert something monbiot said in an argument between both parties. The second is also unreliable as it is just a copy and paste of monbiots earlier column. Not very reliable at all, in fact as monbiot is essentially a blog should he even be used in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The transcript is certainly a reliable source, and so is the debate itself. And that is enough to verify the text in the sentence. Whether Monbiot is a reliable source, here, is a grey zone.... The column/blog wouldn't be reliable for personal information - but they may be for the information cited here (which isn't BLP material), since it is relating to claims in the book and the subsequent debate. Since Monbiot was a participant in that debate, he is certainly a reliable source to some information on that debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Further reading here seems to show that the Monbiot references are used as extra sources to the information, and for that the references are certainly reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Monbiot was not merely a participant in that debate, he was Ian Plimer's opponent in the debate. To cite the blog of that opponent stretches credulity - wikipedia should be seen to be using reliable sources - the blog from an opponent is clearly biased. A reader would have no idea whether or not Monbiot has cherry-picked parts of the debate or not. A cite from an unbiased source would be fine. Cadae (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Cadae -- this seems clearcut. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be the case if the actual transcript were not available, but it is, so there is no "cherry-picking", as even we, as editors, can see. As Plimer's interlocutor in the debate, Monbiot's views are very pertinent and using his column at the Guardian as a source is perfectly acceptable, especially since we are not using the source to justify the inclusion of anything controversial or contentious. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I reverted [10]. It looks OK to me William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, what makes you think that such an opinionated editorial from a greenpeace activist is a balanced citation to add opinion from? Joss Garman is a Greenpeace activist and co-founder of Plane Stupid Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm particularly surprised, as there is already an open discussion on this issue above, and William has personally removed many edits citing the "blogs as sources" objection. Fell Gleaming(talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Um, Off2riorob, even BLP does not require - or even allow - us to turn articles into hagiographies. There's absolutely nothing in policy that says we can only cite neutral sources. In fact, that's a clear contradiction of policy. Guettarda (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You cannot cite blog entries of random advocates as fact. You're welcome to use Garman's opinion, but you must attribute it to him. You cannot express his claims as gospel fact, especially when he is admittedly hostile to the article's subject. Fell Gleaming(talk) 17:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Blog entry? Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, it's Garman reporting Schmidt's opinion. It's not Garman reporting his own opinion. It would be incorrect to report Schmidt's opinion as Garman's. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I do not have a problem with the reliability but something supported only by this source is screaming lack of notability to me. There is already a better supported refutation given. Anyone prepared to swear we haven't included it to dis the subject and because we like it rather than on a balanced basis? --BozMo talk 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the material because the rationale for removal was itself fallacious. From the perspective of balance, Plimer's hypothesis seems very fringe, and added material adds balance. Because Plimer's not a terribly notable character himself, it's probably a challenge to find a way to stating this that doesn't create UNDUE problems. But the whole section is badly presented (probably because it has been sliced and diced in a variety of fights). Rewritten with enough context for the average reader to understand, and the problem probably disappears. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The EPA statement that Plimer's claim had no factual basis is, after all, an argument from authority, just like Schmidt's. What this section needs to do is to briefly explain, and link to, the real role of volcanism. Then arguments from authority are irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not our job to explain why Plimer is wrong and link to sections/articles that show he is wrong. That's becoming SYN/OR-ish. The EPA, Schmidt, Monbiot and the USGS seem to have done all the work for us, and they should all be mentioned in the article. Plimer's views are just way out there, faaaar from any scientific consensus (see wp:FRINGE). There's no hiding it. That is the balanced view the article needs to take, the protestations of our fellow denialist editors notwithstanding. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a direct refutation of the Plimer claims, try [11] or [12]. Also this is what the US Geological Survey says: “Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes”. [13] All this documented at realclimate and desmogblog and Media Matters (a RS, BTW) ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The entire reason newspapers separate op-ed pieces from straight reporting is that such pieces are allowed to contain opinions. Things which are not well-established fact. Reputable print sources are scrupulous in maintaining this separation, for that very reason. Further, the problem of using Source A for a claim about Plimer, and Source B for a claim about volcanoes, then combining them into Claim C about Plimer and volcanoes, is classic WP:Synthesis.
Er ... we have numerous sources saying Plimer is wrong on this issue, no SYN or OR reqd. Schmidt, for example, is an area expert and his "opinions" (actually, his re-statement of scientific FACTS) are completely usable. ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And here is another direct refutation from a true area expert's own website (this man, Prof Barry Brook, works in the same building at the same university as Plimer). [14] Scan page for "volcano". ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
'"no SYN or OR reqd...here is another source"' -- Wonderful. You see, when we challenge and throw out unreliable sources for facts that are correct, we ultimately wind up with much better ones, which improves the article as a whole. There's no need to rely on shaky opinion pieces for things like this. Fell Gleaming(talk) 00:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

IPCC lead author David Karoly

Marknutley removed the fact that David Karoly said Plimer was wrong. Karoly's words:

Now let me address some of the major scientific flaws in Plimer's arguments. He claims 'it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity' and 'volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined'. Both are wrong. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope C12and reduced C13 and essentially no C14, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen, exactly as observed and as Plimer states on pages 414 and 415. Scientists have estimated emissions from volcanoes on land for the last 50 years and they are small compared with total global emissions from human sources.

Nutley gave as reason that a "metorologist" knows "what about vulcanisim (sic) exactly?" ► RATEL ◄ 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and your point would be? He is a meteorologist commenting on something outside his area of expertise, thats not good enough for a blp mark nutley (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
He's a Professor of Earth Sciences, a lead IPCC author bio and an expert on climate change (not my words, source available) who is commenting on the composition of the earth's atmosphere and the sources of the gases therein. He is eminently qualified to comment, more than almost anyone else on this planet. ► RATEL ◄ 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Another quote from Karoly that shows his comment on Plimer needs to be included [15]:

Plimer even argues that the recent sources must be underwater volcanoes. This is not the case, because the net movement of carbon dioxide is from the atmosphere to the ocean, based on measurements that the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean is less than in the atmosphere. In addition, measurements show that the concentrations of two other long-lived greenhouse gases with human-related sources, methane and nitrous oxide, have increased markedly over the last 200 years, at the same time as the increases in carbon dioxide. This is not possible due to sources from underwater volcanoes.

This shows that Plimer really is all 'at sea' on this issue, and doesn't know what he's talking about. ► RATEL ◄ 08:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Karoly's bio indicates that this is indeed within his area of expertise, Marknutley's reason for removing Karoly's views is clearly not applicable. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect, his phd is in meteorology, thus he is not reliable for this at all, per your own words [16] mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Mark, you're heading for another enforcement request if you carry on like this. Please desist from frivolous wikilawyering. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Try to AGF, you yourself said According to his CV his Ph.D. is in air pollution, not climatology. Anyone can write papers on climate and head organisations doing (denialist) advocacy on climate issues; that doesn't make them climatologists Now Karoly`s phd is in meteorology, not vulcanisim, so he is speaking outside his area of expertise. Now please reply to what i have said and save your threats for the playground mark nutley (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Come on, this is just silly. He is an IPCC lead author. What part of that do you not understand? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Besides which, the topic at hand is atmospheric composition and not volcanology as Mark incorrectly states. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Mark, the article only stated that Karoly disputed Plimer's position and the source is solid. I think it's fine to include it. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article is no longer neutral. It violates WP:FRINGE, specifically Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#In-text_attribution, "Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported." Pilmer's volcano claims are wrong, and right now it appears that there's a he-said-she-said because his wrongness is being attached as a debate. Pilmer says x, while the USGS says y. Not George Monbiot says the USGS says y, the USGS says y. It's not about a debate, it's about how much CO2 volcanoes let off, which is a factual question that reliable sources agree on. Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with attributing sources. This is especially true in BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You are misleading the reader into believing there is some dispute about how much carbon volcanoes let off. Hipocrite (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
One other thing, Hipocrite, is that this article is about Plimer. Therefore, it's not a place to prove or disprove his ideas. It's a place to present his stances on whatever issues he has taken a notable stance on and mention notable, specific opinions about it. Do you feel that it is appropriate to try discredit BLP subject's ideas in their BLP articles in Wikipedia? This is an important question. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite, why do you feel that attributing the sources in the "Volcano" section is POV? Are you going to add a POV tag to all the articles that attribute sources? I noticed you just deleted about half of the content from this article. Several people have spent a lot of hours, including Ratel, building that content, and I think most of it, if not all, was in accordance with the BLP and RS policy. Why do you feel that it was coatracky, since it fairly clearly expounded on Plimer's specific opinions on things? Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe Hipocrite's first edit on the volcano-CO2 section [17] was the best version. Present Plimer's view succinctly, then point out the USGS official statement. If its worded properly (i.e. we don't "draw conclusions" from it) it is not synthesis. The reader can draw their own conclusions. This format also presents the view, without undue weight or coattracking on either side. Fell Gleaming(talk) 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with FellGleaming that that version was the best version. Without objection, I'll return to that version shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't. That would be very disruptive.► RATEL ◄ 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you shure you're looking at the same edit I am? Please describe what in making that edit would be "very disruptive," and please describe why it's a bad idea using wikipedia guidelines, policies and precident, not just assertions of disruption. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version explores the issue more fully. It's an important issue in Plimer's life, and there is no good reason to reduce the discussion of it to a stub. In fact, it could be significantly expanded. That would be completely in keeping with wikipedia's goals of information transfer. ► RATEL ◄ 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • If Hipocrite doesn't revert it back in a few hours, I'll do so. There have been a few edits in the meantime, so we'll have to make sure those don't get messed up during the revert. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Be certain to revert it to the position that has bi-partisan support - namely, [18]. You wouldn't want to revert to the version of the article that you alone prefer, would you? Hipocrite (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I'll be taking it back to the version just before you blanked it all. The other editors here, such as Ratel and Mark, can then resume cooperating, collaborating, and compromising on any text they still have concerns about. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've taken the article back to where it was before most of it was blanked. We can get back to work on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Back to the POV anti skeptic BLP, fabulous. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The volcano section is too long and the prose is painfully tortuous. I'd fix it, but don't want to risk being reported to the enforcement noticeboard. Anyone want to try cleaning it up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, then I think that refutes the statements by some editors that they don't think the enforcement board is working. Anyway, please just propose what you think the section should say and we can discuss it. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The enforcement board is "working" if it inhibits good-faith edits intended to improve the article. Thank you for clarifying. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've simplified it. There is no question that Plimer is simply wrong on this issue, and wiki should say so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
WMC, the words "Plimer is wrong" has 4 references. Two of them are blogs and one of them is an opinion piece. I think the article reads better without those three words. You end up with;
"However, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that Plimer's statement "has no factual basis" since "Volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone."
which says the same thing with fewer words (always a Good Thing imo). If you elect not to delete those three words, then please put a full-stop after 'wrong'. Thepm (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add the refs; I agree, we don't need 4. All I did was remove the text that the refs were for. So feel free to delete some of them. I think a simple statement that "Plimer is wrong" is a useful and accurate summary; people (above) were complaining that the language was confusing. So it is nice to be simple, where the situation is very clear William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you OK if I take out all 4? The final reference states that it has "no factual basis" so I don't think the others add much. Thepm (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
How does it look now? A few hve gone William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think "Plimer is wrong" is unnecessary and sounds POV, but it's much better. I also fixed some of your full-stops, which appear to have taken on a life of their own :) How would you feel about taking out;

", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone."

The point that he's wrong and a reason to support that has already been made. Thepm (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Plimer is wrong" is too strong to be supported by a bunch of opinion pieces. I removed it, but WMC reverted. It should be changed to something like "Others have also criticized this claim" with those opinion sources after the EPA statement, which is what I tried to do after my removal but WMC had already reverted.

I still think this entire section is a coatrack, BTW, and I think it should probably be removed, but at a minimum we should change the "Plimer is wrong" statement. ATren (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realised that the two you left in were the two blogs! I'm going to make some additional changes on the basis that I'm sure you won't be shy in letting me know if you disapprove. Thepm (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Took out the two blog references on the basis that the EPA response is more authoritative and the blog references therefore added nothing. Deleted ", and because volcanoes produce 200 million tons of CO2 a year compared with 600 million tons from U.S. passenger cars alone." because it repeats a point made immediately before it. Thepm (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've taken out 'Plimer is wrong' on the basis that it reads better without it and that it's unnecessary as we already say that the "(EPA) has stated that Plimer's statement "has no factual basis" ". I'm going to bed now, so I can't self revert, but if you really feel that the extra words are necessary, you have my permission to revert on my behalf. Thepm (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is regrettable that you can't bring yourself to say "Plimer is wrong" even when it is so absolutely clear that he is, and it is nice and simple and easily understood. This really doens't bode well for the "skeptic" side of science articles. Unless we're veering off the the social-sciences type of "everyone gets their own reality" you should be able to accept that some things are right, some are wrong, and some are arguable. "GW will cause terrible damage is arguable". "volcanoes are responsible for a significant fraction of CO2 increase" is simply wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Thepm, "has no factual basis" from the EPA is more than sufficient here. ATren (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No. An honest description would be "a gross error that no-one competent in the field could possibly make by mistake". Simply "is wrong" is being very kind to Plimer. Plimer is perfectly well aware that he is wrong; no-one even vaguely familiar with the field (and he is) could possibly make this claim by accident. He is being deliberately deceptive.
Now, over at the probabtion page, Thepm is condemning battlefield behaviour. But here he is showing it. So, lets try a question for Thepm: do yuo accept that Plimer is, in fact, wrong? ATren wimped out [19] and pretended he just didn't know. How about you? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly appears that Plimer was wrong on this issue, but I am not qualified to comment on that and my opinion is not relevant anyway. You seem to mistakenly believe that my wording is trying to promote a particular viewpoint, when I'm just trying to make it read better. I think 'Plimer is wrong' sounds like it's editorialising (whether it is or not is irrelevant to me), whereas 'Plimer says X > Y, but the EPA has shown Y > X' is more straight reporting.
In the same sense, I think the current version is soft on Plimer. We are now saying that "Plimer's view contradicts the generally held scientific view on volcanic emissions of CO2". To me, this implies that Plimer holds a legitimate minority view. I'm not fond of the "generally held scientific view" phrasing that occurs in the climate change pages. I think it makes articles more clumsy to read. Thepm (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You have a fair point - Plimer isn't just wrong, I've never seen him cite a source for his claims and as far as I know he's never acknowledged that his view is contradicted, even when it's pointed out to him (e.g. Monbiot's debate with him). The problem is that we can only go so far in the article without stepping over the line into POV and OR. Saying that it "contradicts the generally held scientific view" is perhaps a little mealy-mouthed, but it's probably as far as we can go with the current sourcing. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in danger of missing an important point here. The statement sourced to the EPA is fine. However, it would be misleading to represent this as merely "the EPA's viewpoint". In fact, it's the generally held scientific position. (Has any other scientist come out in support of Plimer's claim? I've not seen any such statements of support, and I would have thought he would have trumpeted them if there'd been any.) I agree that it's problematic to say "Plimer is wrong", as this is overly editorialising; however, it's entirely accurate to say that his viewpoint contradicts the generally held scientific position, which is summarised in the EPA's statement. I've therefore reworded the lines in question as follows: "However, Plimer's view contradicts the generally held scientific view on volcanic emissions of CO2, which holds that "volcanoes are only responsible for a couple of hundred megatons per year of CO2 — a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than human emissions — and are balanced by deep ocean burial."" That avoids the he said / they said issue which has got some editors concerned. Hopefully this will be acceptable to everyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this works. As I said above, I was going to add a less strongly worded statement after I removed "Plimer is wrong" (see above), but I edit-conflicted with WMC's revert and I decided not to revert again. ChrisO's version is better, though I still have some concerns about the whole section. ATren (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Concur with ATren & ChrisO. I do have to wonder if the news reports on this are accurate, as it's such a dumb (& easily-refuted) mistake by Plimer, and should be within his field of expertise ... Ah well, he's far from the first scientist to go astray in a venture into "political science". Pete Tillman (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The news reports are entirely accurate - it comes from Plimer's own mouth. See this transcript of an interview/debate in December 2009 between Plimer and George Monbiot on the ABC Lateline show, in which Plimer makes the claim, the host challenges him on it and Monbiot says (quite accurately) "I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong." Plimer's response, revealingly, is simply to complain that Monbiot is being rude - he doesn't say what his source is and he doesn't make any attempt to defend his claim other than insisting that he's right without explaining why everyone else is wrong. Plimer came off very badly in that debate - if you watch the video, his body language is quite revealing. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Plimer/Archive_5&oldid=952587622"