Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

What bothers Watts most

Before recent edits by DHeyward, the text read

He further avers that what most bothers him about people who say there's lots of global warming is that "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (bold added)

Although the bolded phrase was not formatted as a quote, it does use the language used by the interviewer, and this is critical because it defines the pronoun "they" in Watts' quote. DHeyward altered the meaning away from the RS by changing the bold text so that it instead reads climate change activists. Watts was not asked about "climate change activists", he was asked about "people who say there is a lot of global warming". Many many many people say that, and while they might want the things Watts describes they are totally inactive trying to make it happen.

To cure this problem, I then imported a direct quote for the journalist's question. What's more WP:VERIFIABLE and objective than that? The result read

" Asked "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" he replied "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society." (Bold added)

OOPS! While "climate change activists" was somehow dandy, apparently the verbatim question-and-answer is somehow toxic waste, which D removed entirely, with the edit summary

rm. don't agree with interprtation of soundbite quotepull that spans multiple questions/answers. It's clear he means activists drawn to a cause and not everyone that believes in global warming (underline added)

Say what? "spans multiple questions/answers"?? No it doesn't. There is this question, followed by this answer. Read the transcript in the ref. Plain as my nose.

Side-bar, Watts' answer to the verbatim question "What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?" became the focus of commentary. There are 1500 Google hits on the verbatim question combined with "Watts". For example, Skeptical Science's Dana 1981 wrote,

Watts on His Motives and Double Standards

At Skeptical Science it is against our site policy to speculate about a person's motives, but in this case, Watts volunteered the information.

"SPENCER MICHELS: What's the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there's lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

"It is interesting that Watts responds to a question about a science-based opinion with a criticism about policy. For example, Watts is not most bothered that people are ignoring or unaware of the biases that he incorrectly believes exist in the temperature record. No, Watts is most bothered that we might implement an economically-beneficial carbon tax.

CONCLUSION The text should be restored to show both the question and the answer because

• What bothers him most about those people is highly relevant to a biography about the man
• The question is followed by the answer without interruption, contrary to D's edit summary
• Using both the question and the answer is objective and NPOV, whereas DHeyward's edit puts words in Watts' mouth, based on DHeyward's interpretation of the word "they". He says his interpretation is "clear". Well, it certainly isn't clear to me, because I prefer to read the RS text without committing WP:Original research.

@DHeyward: please self-revert.

refs for what bothers Watts most

References

Mann's opinion of the blog (redux)

Mann has apparently been publicly feuding with Watts for years. He has gone on twitter to insult and denigrate Watts. The idea that he is merely a disinterested scientist expressing a straight objective opinion on the blog is farcical. [1] We would be breaking new BLP ground if we put the personal opinions of a committed personal opponent in the lede, breaking ground and not in a good way. WP:NPOV. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

He has a time machine? You're citing a 2013 tweet as evidence of "publicly feuding" before a 2012 publication? Of course Mann is interested, he's a topic expert, and his peer reviewed academic publication is an appropriate source for how scientists have recieved the fringe theories of Watts. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree but in thread Mann is a poor source most editors deemed the Mann quote acceptable within the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So should we, under that theory, also include Mann's false personal attacks that Watts is a paid Koch shill, "Court Jester", "Denier for Hire"? These are also the published opinions of Mann regarding Watts. This is absurd and entirely contrary to BLP policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I found "the denialiti" characterization amusing in the blog linked to in the tweet by Mann.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can imagine that you found the Mann's animus towards Watts very amusing. I find it amusing everywhere but at encyclopedia biography articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Mann is opposed to climate change denial and very public about it. That doesn't change the fact that he is a recognized expert in his field, and one of the most reliable sources we can cite for this material. In addition, he's widely cited elsewhere, so his opinion is significant and relevant to the topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that Mann is personally and vigorously at odds with Watts, to the point of making public personal attacks and frankly obvious lies gross inaccuracies. That makes the inclusion of his opinion in the lead not useful as a neutral "expert". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that WP:BLP also applies on talk pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and when one publicly states that someone is paid by the Kochs when in fact the person is not, that is a lie gross innaccuracy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not necessarily a lie, as in your original statement. And I wonder where you get your information and how nitpicky you are. Watts did e.g. get money from Heartland, and Heartland did get money from Koch - directly and indirectly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd vehemently disagree. I'm pretty nitpicky. Cleverly, the Heartland Institute was fraudulently relieved of its internal documents and subsequently published so we all know the internal details of their finances. It is well documented that the Kochs gave $25,000 for the Institute's Health newsletter...not for Watts. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From the Heartland Intsitute article: "In 2011 the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade". Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to be finicky, but a) your link does not work (at least not for me), b) the Charles G. Koch Chartable Foundation is only one of several foundations by the Kochs, and c) it's no secret that more and more funds are funnelled through the Donors Trust and other donor advised funds, so the statement may be literally true, but substantially false. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So there is no evidence that the Kochs gave squat to Heartland for a decade or more. The leaked documents show that the Institute hoped for but never received the desired support. The Kochs deny it. Heartland denies it. Watts denies it. But you think that because Mann says it (without any evidence whatsoever) that it may be true? You posit that they, the Kochs, might have secretly contributed even though it didn't appear in any of the the Heartland internal donor documents. Well, there is no arguing with conspiracy theory. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your reading skill. Again, you manage to read things I haven't even written. My hat is off to you.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of climate scientists in the world. If this is a neutral or common position vis a vis WUWT then we could use another's opinion. It is self-evidently wrong to use one with an ongoing personal battle with the subject in the lede of the biography. We have this policy called NPOV that may apply. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing about this statement that is controversial, and I see nothing about Mann that would indicate his expert opinion on this matter is suspect. If you have another source you would like to replace this one with, propose it, but otherwise, I don't see anything about this that contravenes our policies of RS, WEIGHT, etc.   — Jess·Δ♥ 16:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Except of course that Mann is disparaging and purposefully innacurate about the subject in his other public statements(tweets). Capitalismojo (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That says we use reliably published experts, like, say, Mann when published by CUP. We don't cite Mann's twitter messages. There are plenty of scientists with a low opinion of WUWT. But, unless Mann, they usually don't get viciously attacked by organised mobs, so they can stick to the physical side of the science. However, there are additional opinions, not all as gentle as Mann's. Just from "Denying Science" by John Grant (Prometheus Books, 2011):

• "massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That"
• "Various AGW-denialist factions - notably bloggers [...] and Anthony Watts - were hard at word to spin the evidence"
• "The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism. No serious journalist would rely upon it as a source of informaton"
• "Among the sites still eager to promote the lie are [...] Watts Up With That?"
• Cited and endorsed: "In general, you can assume that if Watts has reprinted a piece, it's filled with anti-scientific disinformation"

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So I take it by this that you agree that we should some other person's opinion about WUWT rather than using the opinion of an individual engaged in an ongoing personal battle? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out were I said that? I think I said the opposite, and just pointed out that his opinion is not isolated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if it is not isolated then good practice would be to find someone to quote not know for indulging in personal fights with the subject. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not using the science-fiction author you quote extensively above. I like his work but find his screed in the Prometheus Press book over the top. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We can add a source if you want, and if you can track down an expert more recognized in the field than Mann, we could replace it altogether. Right now, I don't see that. Mann's the best source we have, and we should use the best sources, not ones we prefer for their twitter activity.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And responding to your comments above, if you think Mann is an unreliable source in this topic, and you source that opinion to the Koch Foundation, you should take your concerns to RSN. I don't really know what else to say about that. This is not a personal dispute, we are accurately presenting the scientific consensus described in a multitude of top quality sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My source for Mann's (very public) disputes with Watts are Mann. I didn't source anything of the sort to the Koch Foundation, your assertion is...odd. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is not a RS or neutral expert as regards Watts. He engages in public battles with Watts on a personal ad hominem basis. (Also Mann is not a recognized expert in the field of Anthony Watts.) We must replace the Mann quote with a neutral source. This is a flagrant and tendentious violation of BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And... I'm done. Mann is an expert on climate change (and surrounding controversy), and we are sourcing claims about climate change and surrounding controversy. Your goal shifting to "recognized expert in the field of Anthony Watts" is disingenuous at best. We are not going to source this article only to "experts on Watts", which would include... let's see... only Watts. Consensus opposes your suggestion. It's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested "sourcing this article only to experts on Watts". We should rely on RS and just not include the personal opinion of someone who has got an ongoing public battle. If we must include a line in the lede saying "WUWT is the most important denialist blog" we should find someone else. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a biography. We are required to be NPOV in biographies. A quote in the lede of this biography is from a (no one doubts) prominent scientist who is nevertheless engaged in a very personal battle with the subject of the biography involving insults and gross inaccuracies. If this opinion in the lede is important and the common understanding then it should be easy to replace the information with NPOV material. That is what I am suggesting. Let's comply with policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And the consensus on this page is that the Mann quote does comply with policy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I have seen no defence advanced on policy grounds. And is it the sense of this page that it is both compliant with (BLP and NPOV) policy and good editing practice to feature in the lede paragraph a opinion from someone involved in a personal dispute with the subject of the biography? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is really dumb. Obviously, most editors of this page support including the Mann quote and do not believe it violates policy. Also obviously, a somewhat smaller group of editors do not support including the quote, and possibly also believe it violates policy. Pretending not to understand this in order to keep going round in this debate is pointless. --JBL (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

JBL's comment is quite sensible. The edit in question is not in Wikipedia's voice, but is clearly described as Mann's characterization of the blog; this is neither a violation of NPOV or BLP. I'm curious, though: what criticism would the editors who don't think this edit is acceptable allow in the lead? Would they allow anything by Mann? Anything by a climate scientist? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. It is a statement unambiguously attributed to a public figure whose own opinions will be well known to the reader and weighed accordingly, sourced from one of the best known books on the climate change manufactroversy currently in print. It is relevant, significant and entirely compliant with policy. And it's time to stop playing silly buggers over it just because the wholly correct notion that climate "skepticism" is in fact denial and not a legitimate scientific position, hurts some people in the feels. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to the categorization of Watt's blog if we have a source other than Mann for it.--MONGO 22:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: We do. We have at least 4: Mann, Manne, Dunlap and Farmer/Cook. See Notes. Some of the other sources are even more explicit than Mann, but Mann is still the strongest source we'd be able to find, considering he is probably the foremost expert on both climatology and the global warming controversy.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Then eliminate the Mann source and keep the rest. Problem solved.--MONGO 22:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree to throwing out Mann, but for NPOV "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", and a minority isn't a prevalence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sure you'd love to throw out Mann, for NPOV we give due weight to majority expert opinion in science when discussing this science topic. Mann's viewpoint is supported by other academic sources, the "majority" you've alluded to seems to be in the popular press or other areas noted for anti-science views. . . dave souza, talk 15:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is not discussing the science topic, Mann is discussing Watts. And for WP:NPOV "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", words like "majority expert opinion in science" don't appear. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann is discussing the science claims of WUWT, which is the relevant topic area. Hadn't you noticed? . . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mongo, huh? I said we have several sources backing up the wording, but Mann is the highest quality. Your response "then throw out Mann" doesn't follow... why would we throw out the very best source we have?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If the opinion can be cited and the bone of contention can be eliminated then that is the cornerstone of collaborative editing.--MONGO 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit war over using the Mann quote in the lede continues

I see that the long edit-war of removing and re-inserting the Mann on Watt quote in the lede of our article continues. I'm not sure how to resolve this. I think we have a sort-of consensus to include a version of the quote in the body of the article, which seems to have settled into stable text. No WP:consensus is apparent to include this in the lede, although a majority of the editors currently active here appear to favor that,

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Mann's memoir and polemic, was generally well-received, but the Wall Street Journal's reviewer said the book was largely "score-settling with anyone who has ever doubted his integrity or work," which would include both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, both included in the "twofer" quote that has become so contentious. The WSJ also described Mann as a "scientist-turned-climate-warrior."

Michael E. Mann is extraordinarily vigilant -- some say vindictive -- in defending his academic work and personal reputation. He has an ongoing defamation lawsuit against two bloggers, a magazine and a think-tank for criticism of his work. Last year, 27 organizations, including the ACLU, the National Press Club and many newspapers, filed an Amici Curiae arguing that the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion and freedom of the press (cites at link). No outside groups filed documents supporting Dr. Mann. Both WUWT and McIntyre have published many posts criticizing Dr. Mann's work, and his defamation lawsuit: many examples.

As other editors have argued (for example), Dr. Mann appears to feel strong personal animosity against both Anthony Watt and Steve McIntyre. We have agreed to mention Mann's charges against Watt and WUWT in the body of the article. Why must we quote his invective in the lede? --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments above are unwarranted attacks against Mann, almost exclusively on issues unrelated to this article. Worse, your only cited sources are to claims made by WUWT and Watts. The content we're including is not "invective", it is an entirely neutral summary of the academic consensus. Frankly, given the large number of sources that back up the content, we shouldn't even be attributing it to Mann, per WP:YESPOV, we should be stating it in WP's voice. If you're disputing that WUWT passed Climate Audit in 2010 as the leading blog on climate change denial, you'd need to provide sources for that claim.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Just to be clear, the quote you (IB) introduced into the lede is that, per Dr Mann's memoir, WUWT has "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog". If that's not invective, I'll eat my socks. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You say, "Worse, your only cited sources are to claims made by WUWT and Watts."

My cited sources, in order, are to the WSJ, the Climategate emails, a laundry-list of reports and filings on Mann's defamation lawsuit, a Google search of Watts & McIntyre criticizing Mann, and a reprise of PG's earlier arguments here. And how else to demonstrate the unsuitability of using Mann upfront, than by documenting his character and methods? I could also have added that Mann sued Timothy Ball for libel, after Ball remarked that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State". That's a joke that was old when I was in kindergarten in State College, back in the late Pleistocene.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Pete Tillman, I'm curious to hear how you think "documenting his character and methods" fits with WP:BLP, since you're assembling purely negative material here, including a link that includes the words "mike mann characterized as crazy". Seems like invective to me...

Even if I agreed that the Mann quote was "invective" (I don't), that is no reason to keep it out of the lead. If it's suitable for the body, which you seem to agree with, it's suitable for the lead. The reasons why Mann's book is a good source have been rehearsed over and over again, so I won't bother to do it again. Those reasons don't change even if a Wikipedia editor posts a bunch of stuff on a talk page about lawsuits that are unrelated to the book in question. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see two external links which can be investigated. One is to wattsupwiththat.com, and the other is to google. You've referenced other people (like the WSJ) without a citation, so it's impossible to investigate. But let me be clear: I don't need a citation that Mann has been criticized. It's irrelevant, and your comments are a borderline BLP violation, making attacks against Mann cited only to a self published source. Provide sources supporting or disputing this article's content, or move on, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to both comments: I cited the Climategate emails to WUWT for convenience -- it was the first Google hit, but the enails are independent of Watt's blog. They are a primary source, readily available elsewhere, here, for example. Primary sources are useable for BLPs, with caveats, but I'm not proposing to use them in the article itself.

Mike Mann characterized as “crazy” over MWP : this is from the Ed Cook ( “drdendro" at Columbia) email quoted as 4101.txt: "He also went crazy over my recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as another attack on him. "

Akhilleus: "The reasons why Mann's book is a good source have been rehearsed over and over again, so I won't bother to do it again." (etc)

OK, but you obviously haven't convinced a number of the editors here.... Please see WP:NOCONSENSUS.

Jess: the WSJ book review is linked at The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. It's a minority viewpoint, but a significant source. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, an editorial columnist pundit for the WSJ (who is not a scientist) is not qualified to dismiss Mann's statements related to science, including those about pseudoscience blogs.

The attempt to denigrate Mann's POV as "minority" based on the editorial statements of Anne Jolis is ludicrous. Here, it should be noted that her review is the only negative review among all reviews cited in the WIkipedia article, among which are several reviews from scientific journals (i.e., written by scientists).

Neither she nor Stephen McIntyre (founder of the other pseudoscience blog, Climate audit) are qualified to represent the mainstream view in a science topic. McIntyre is associated with an industry that seeks to prevent the enactment of CO2 emission regulations, while Jolis is his cheerleader for the WSJ. Obviously, their POV is the minority POV. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You denigrate both McIntrye and Watts for calling then pseudoscientists. McIntrye, specifically, has several peer reviewed publications. Please stop the personal attacks on these gentlemen. Arzel (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

What peer-reviewed publications? In climate science? If not, it doesn't matter. His blog is also characterized as a denialist blog by Mann.

Climate change denial is characterized as pseudoscience.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see McIntrye's by looking at his WP page, you know they exist. They don't argue denial, they argue skepticism, you seem to have them confused. Calling their work pseudoscience is a red herring. Arzel (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

No consensus for this contentious addition to the lede

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter" (etc). Wikipedia:Consensus discusses what consensus is: we're not there yet, and don't sem to be getting closer.. It's very unhelpful to keep edit-warring to add this contentious quote into the lede. Merely asserting that consensus has been reached, or how Dr. Mann's memoir is so high-quality that there shouldn't be any questions asked, doesn't make it so.

It would be best if we could reach consensus over this matter among the active editors on this page. We seem no closer than when this edit was first proposed. It may be time to consider the other options outlines at Wikipedia:Consensus. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that editors dislike the content, but have yet failed to provide any sources disputing it, does not mean there is no consensus. Furthermore, removing it unbalances the lead such that it fails to represent the mainstream scientific view, in opposition to our policies, and fails to summarize the body, in opposition to the MOS. That 3 or 4 editors seem comfortable enough edit warring to their preferred version doesn't mean there is a controversy. It means 3 or 4 editors are comfortable edit warring instead of providing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bald faced assertion that there is a consensus when there clearly isn't does not advance the efforts to gain actual agreement. The mere mention of a guideline and falsely describing it as policy is even less helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having the energy to point out for an umpteenth time how totally false Mann jess's statements are. I'd add: one reason that the lead would "fail to summarize the body" is that some editors including Mann jess have destroyed long-standing and well-sourced statements in the body, again without consensus. I believe that five editors have reverted the addition of the Mann quote in the lead of this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I added Watts's denial rebuttal to the lede, since the Mann quote is up about half of the time. I'm certainly not endorsing the quote -- but we'll end up with denial accusations in the body, and his rebuttal should follow those.

Incidentally, the latest edit adding this quote back explained the edit "As per WP:NPOV", a novel argument. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What is WP:FRINGE?

Editors have pointed to WP:FRINGE a few times, especially with respect to referencing climate change denial. I want to point out this version of the article that keeps being restored. Take note of several things:

• Watts is initially described as a "meteorologist", "president" of something weather related, and "founder" of a weather project
• Watts Up With That? is summarized as simply "a weather and climate change blog"
• After all that, his claim that humans are not causing climate change is shared, with no mention that his view is not an expert opinion (which is, by now, implied)
• There is no mention in the lead that Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, or what that consensus is
• Views on Climate change makes a multitude of claims from Watts, without once referencing the mainstream scientific opinion. Really, not once.
• Among those views, we quote Watts as saying the science is lacking on climate change, and represent him as a skeptic that changed his mind when he became more educated. This is sourced to Watts' own blog.
• In Climate change blogging, only one sentence is spent describing the blog or its contents. That sentence says it is "focused on the global warming controversy, in particular, his skepticism..." One third of the section is devoted to awards it won in the Bloggies, which gives internet-voting awards the same weight as the scientific community's criticism.
• In Connection with the Heartland Institute, no discussion of the scientific consensus or opinion on his project is listed, and Watts' opinions are given equal weight to independent sources.

Watts' views on climate change are fringe, and his notability is based exclusively on those views. Yet we devote no time to clarifying the mainstream scientific view or contextualizing Watts' claims. Our only representation that his opinions are not mainstream is the criticism of his blog, and editors here are contesting that content. They are also contesting any addition of the scientific consensus, or even links to pages which describe the scientific consensus.

Is it a fringe view that Watts advocates climate change denial? No. We have several expert opinions which say he is one of the foremost advocates of those views. But it certainly is a fringe claim that carbon dioxide levels have had little to no impact on the climate, yet this claim by Watts is represented repeatedly without once clarifying the scientific opinion, or even mentioning that it conflicts with the scientific opinion.

Does this article have a problem with WP:FRINGE? Yes. But it's not because we're linking to climate change denial.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess: Maybe you should take a deep breath, or edit something else as a break from this? Your personal opinions seem.... quite strong on this topic, and this person. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

That's your only response to what I posted? Could you respond to what I said, instead of asking me to leave? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're conflating two different issues. It's completely possible for Watts' view on climate change to be a fringe viewpoint while the term "denier" as applied to Watts is a fringe POV. We need to separate these two issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The version supported by Jess does not appear to contain the label 'denier'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AQFK A request: please stop using the word "denier". I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section. I'd like this section to be helpful in discussing the inclusion of the mainstream scientific pov, not another rehash of "skeptic vs denier". Thanks. The issue I'm addressing is that we are violating wp:weight and wp:fringe currently, and attempts to address that problem are all being reverted. The best argument for the reversions I've heard is a pointer to WP:WTW, but the MOS doesn't override NPOV, and beyond that, the specific wording is not the problem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

This page seems to be suffering from a coordination of a group of editors who are convinced that mainstream sources are not the best to use when describing the subject (e.g. the continual removal of content sourced to Michael Mann's book). The editors deny that they are pursuing an agenda, so it has been a slog. I think the flippant and irrelevant responses to your commentary as well as the anemic "slow down" exhortations are just more of the same. Don't slow down, Jess. Baptize this talkpage with fire and fix the article if you can. I support you. jps (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to take this to WP:AE before things get completely out of hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should skip straight to the stage "someone with power randomly blocks or bans 50% of the contributors to the ongoing argument," and hope that leaves a sufficiently lop-sided pool of editors remaining that we can declare a consensus among the un-banned ;). --JBL (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Do you mean you're contemplating bringing it up on WP:AE? Do you have an opinion about formal mediation, WP:MEDCOM, first? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jess: This is getting surreal. You have claimed that "I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section" yet here is a diff where you edit-warred the word "denial" into the article.[2] Also, there is no disconnect between WP:WTW and WP:NPOV. They both state that we should follow the mainstream viewpoint. Which is exactly what I am advocating: We should follow the mainstream viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for you to stop pretending that anyone is discussing "denier". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

AQFK, given the fact that you were topic banned for the better portion of two years, you should probably stop and reconsider whether you might be slipping back into old bad habits. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Surreal, indeed. The one and only use of the word "denier" in the article was removed... by me. You keep putting "denier" in quotes, so I can't be misunderstanding. Do I really have to spell out that "climate change denial" and "denier" are not the same words?   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that I added one line to the article that Watts' opinion on climate change is at odds with the scientific community. That one mention was reverted. As far as I understand it, this is the crux of the dispute: should we summarize the scientific opinion? Policy dictates this isn't even a question we should be asking. Yes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mann_jess: 1. You said, responding to A Quest For Knowledge: "A request: please stop using the word "denier". I've seen no one suggest we use that word in the article, and I certainly have not done so in this section." Err ... In fact a quote with the exact word "denier" was added to the article on April 5, see [3]. But even if you can't see that, you should look at your own statement -- "We do need to describe what he [Watts] is known for, which is climate change denial" -- and realize it's (a) the same thing, (b) just your opinion. 2. With respect to Watts's honorarium for conference speaking, you changed "he acknowledges receiving payment" to "was hired", with the edit summary ... There's a better way to say that. Actually, no. An unsourced suggestion that Watts became an employee is BLP violation. 3. You said " I added one line to the article that Watts' opinion on climate change is at odds with the scientific community. That one mention was reverted.". False.You did not "add", you destroyed the original words "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" and replaced with "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", here. 4. You said "... we are accurately presenting the scientific consensus described in a multitude of top quality sources." False. There is no "multitude" of sources describing Watts or Watts's blog as denier/denialist, and the few that exist are mostly low quality: blogs, authors with bachelor's degrees, books by non-academic presses, and an involved party. There are more reliable sources which say skeptic/skeptical, and the proof that you've seen them is the fact that you've been removing them from the article. Your determination to destroy opposing information is an odd way to be "accurate". 5. You say "Consensus opposes your suggestion" answering Capitalismojo, who said "We would be breaking new BLP ground if we put the personal opinions of a committed personal opponent in the lede". But there is only a majority among editors for "denier" not a consensus (it seemed to be about 2 to 1 in my earlier count), and against that there is a majority among sources for "skeptic". N. That's just addressing a few of the things you've discussed, Your other action -- huge undiscussed changes to the article removing reliably sourced references about skeptic and pushing Watts-is-a-denier or equivalent -- could have been put on the talk page with search for consensus. Except, and by now you should know it, there won't be one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate, I am the editor that removed "denier" from the article. It's not currently in the article, and no one is suggesting it be in the article. No, it is not just "my opinion" that Watts is known for climate change denial; it is presented in numerous reliable sources, including Mann, who is a recognized expert in both climatology and the global warming controversy. Lastly, you've completely failed to address my point that the single and only reference to Watts' opinions being at odds with the scientific consensus was removed, and not for the first time. If you simply want to discuss the wording we use when describing the scientific consensus, feel free to start a new section and I'd be happy to participate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Re: "I am the editor that removed "denier" from the article. It's not currently in the article..." Jess: Looks like you missed one:

...described by climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as having "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog".

Reverted back in 4 minutes by another editor, I think we have a problem here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have a problem. We have several, in fact. One is that some editors cannot recognize a difference between calling a person a "denier" in Wikipedia's voice and quoting an expert secondary source for their characterization of WWUT as a "leading climate change denial blog." A second is the repeated claim that this characterization of Watts' blog is a BLP violation without making any compelling argument to back it up (and no, saying "denier" is in WP:WTW is not a compelling argument). A third is the use of reversion in the absence of substantive discussion. I'm sure there are more problems, but those are the three that jump out at me right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. The text was removed on the entirely spurious grounds that Mann is not a blog expert. That is farcical. He is widely recognised as an expert on climate change and his book is a widely cited authority on the climate change "debate" - it is hard to think of a more robust source. The idea that we can quote a swivel-eyed loon like Monckton and not Mann is ridiculous and entirely counter to policy. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann still isn't a blog expert, and nobody is trying to edit-war a quote from Monckton into the lead (by the way calling Monckton a swivel-eyed loon looks just a tiny bit like a possible BLP violation). I see that there are now five editors who have reverted the inserting of the Mann quote in the lead -- still a minority, but claims about consensus are incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a "blog expert" to discuss Watts or his blog. And your metric for assessing consensus is incorrect. Read WP:CON.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "swivel-eyed loon" is a British colloquialism for the unhinged radical Right. As Richard North put it:

"The BBC has an unerring ability to spot the 'swivel-eyed loon' and build them up. The 'mark', usually with an over-inflated ego, is invariably flattered and falls for it every time. Monckton fitted the bill admirably, and the hatchet job proceeded apace."

And yes, he was referring to Monckton.

However, if you would prefer, I can stick to strictly factual and WP:NPOV descriptions of Monckton: he is a liar, homophobe and crank with absolutely no expertise in most of the areas on which he chooses to sound off. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Kindly read (or re-read) WP:BLPSPS "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." This also applies to Talk pages. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit and this edit are moving us away from the sources and back in the direction of violating WP:FRINGE. Watts is not "skeptical" of the scientific opinion, he is opposed to it. His views on climate change are wholly rejected by the scientific community. I also don't understand the removal of several details, including mention of Climate Audit, and prominent guest authors at WUWT. Nor do I understand why we shouldn't cover that it is among the most prominent blogs in its category (if not the most prominent).   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Expanding opinions

I expanded our coverage of Watts' opinions regarding carbon dioxide and driving forces of recent warming, and I summarized the mainstream assessment of his views with content from Global Warming#Solar activity and the lead of Scientific opinion on climate change. I think our coverage of Watts' opinions on this topic are fairly vague, and more expansion would probably help. For example, his self-description of "very green" doesn't explain much; "supports the use of alternative energy", from his 2010 interview, is better. Any input would be welcome.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to spend some time reviewing our sources. I dumped more than necessary from our science articles; picking the best one (or two) would be an improvement. We also need to begin migrating away from using Watts Up With That throughout the article, and move to secondary sources instead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these suggestions -- and I also think your recent edits have been a significant improvement to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I second that, and if you are looking at sources, there are a number of decent sources referred to above that have not been incorporated and might be useful. I listed some of them simply to support what was already at issue, but if you are expanding...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, given the cavilling we see here I think it is one of those cases where more is more. Any statement that can be sourced three times to independent authorities, should only necessitate three or four months of argument, which will be a huge improvement. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. I'll note that Ubikwit has been doing a pretty good job of gathering sources which you can still find evidence of on this talkpage. I started some source gathering a few months back which you can read about here: Talk:Anthony_Watts_(blogger)/Archive_5#Sources.3F. jps (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Body edits look fine. Some of the political language should be changed to AR5 which has been out for more than a year. For the inline quotes, the science portions should be pulled, not SPM's (e.g. the "Human activity" null hypothesis is 50% of the observed warming is human caused. I think that puts the null hypothesis at 0.4C of the 0.8C - scientists disagree about where the line is actually drawn - some believe it is the low end while others believe it is greater than 0.8C - This is AR5 discussion). --DHeyward (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AR5 discussion is useless. The models of record are the AR4. In several years we can see how the AR5 adjustments actually predict. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does this "null hypothesis" come from? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on WUWT talk page

User Guy has started an RfC about "Denialism" for the lead of the WUWT article, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

A number of editors are reinserting (and removing) the disputed Mann material in the lede. I would like to share the WP:ONUS section of the Verifiabilty policy page. "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I was not sure if all were aware of this section at WP:Verifiability policy page. If you were, I apologize but I do urge everyone to consider that in these cases of disputed content, rather than reinserting, policy directs those who wish to add material to gain consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do a limited RfC on this line in the lede. Just a thought. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You can assume that all of the participating editors are aware of this section of WP:V. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many of the editors who have restored this well-sourced content have said in edit summaries and in comments on this page that there is consensus for including the Mann material. I certainly think there is a robust consensus in favor of including Mann's characterization of WWUT, and the only reason it is being taken out is because a handful of editors insist on edit-warring rather than substantive discussion. Perhaps we could have a post on WP:AE about this edit-warring. Just a thought. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalismojo: Indeed, we know that the onus is supposed to be on the editors who insert material. But they will falsely assert that they have a consensus; Akhilleus's statement here is an example. As for your suggestion about an RfC, I fear that it would be considered too similar to the badly-formed one that has already started on the WUWT talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about as open and shut as it gets. The vast majority of reliable sources don't use the term 'deniar'. We should be following the majority viewpoint, not the fringe minority. And yes, the burder of proof are on those restoring the contentious content, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's last comment, which simply repeats arguments he's been making for over a month, are beside the point in a dispute over whether to include the quote from Mann in the lead: a book from a university press by an expert in the subject which has received many positive reviews in a wide array of newspapers and magazines is not a fringe viewpoint by any standard. This has been said before and will probably be said again. I still don't understand why the editors who don't want this material in the lead are ok with having it in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs)

I guess my request to not use the word "denier" wasn't heard. The content being removed does not include the word "denier". It is also extensively sourced mainstream opinion, which consensus has favored. I get that some editors don't like that, but to quote from AQFK: "Edit-warring is no way to win a content dispute." If you want the content removed, please participate in discussion here and demonstrate it isn't the mainstream academic view with sources. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jess says Watts is known for denial, I doubt that anyone else sees or cares about the claim that this is significantly different from saying he's known as a denier. Anyway, most known reliable sources say skeptic, and that includes academic sources, although we should prefer to go with real Wikipedia policy rather than Jess's invention that only an academic view matters. Discussion has been tried -- what is Capitalismojo's statement above if not yet another futile attempt to engage in discussion? There is no consensus. There may be an edit war and of course accusations about which side is at fault are welcome, but are not discussion of the content. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just check the citations of the article's blogging section as it was prior to recent unconstructive edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please refer directly to the sources you'd like to propose, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have referred you to the citations of the article's blogging section as it was prior to recent unconstructive edits. The ones quoting skepticism are of course the ones that follow the sentence containing the word skepticism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

And we're back to a lead that represents Watts as an expert and then makes claims about climate change without a single reference to the scientific consensus. This is an egregious violation of our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

For the word "policies" you linked to WP:FRINGE, but there is no such thing as a WP:FRINGE policy. The article version lead at the time you wrote did not represent Watts as an expert, and did not make claims about climate change, and is not supposed to be about scientific consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the 3rd paragraph of WP:FRINGE, please. It is a summary of how our policies are applied to fringe theories. No, we can't just ignore it. All of the things you said after your first sentence are untrue, and I've explained them in detail at "What is Fringe"   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As has been noted above, WP:PSCI applies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, as well as being inapplicable, is not a policy, as the third paragraph confirms. However, WP:ONUS, which was supposed to be the topic of this thread, is part of policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your implication that we should ignore WP:FRINGE is nonsense.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The implication is follow policy. The addition is controversial for which consensus has not been achieved. The addition is uneccesary (there being other non-controvesial terms to use). The majority of the weight of RS support non-controversial terminology. Policy suggests that it not be included in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• More sources Re: "pseudoscience" and "pundit"

1. Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists, Inside Climate News, 3-2015
2. Skeptic Talking Point Melts Away as an Inconvenient Physicist Confirms Warming

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Why these links? They don't support the statement, they fail verification WP:V . The NYT ref uses "skeptic" in relation to Watts (not denier), and does not identify him as a pundit, nor does it use the term "pseudoscience" at all. The Inside Climate News story doesn't use "psuedoscience" either, and doesn't identify Watts as a pundit in the bio the article provides of Watts. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so, the first sentence of the ICN story is A network of pundits and scientists is consulted about stopping release of "Merchants of Doubt," a documentary film that exposes their work. That network includes Watts, one of the "bloggers" listed: he is not a scientist.

The NYT piece states ...report...powerfully challenges one of the prime talking points of pundits and politicians trying to avoid a shift away from fossil fuels, referring to Watts as a "pundit". Or do you challenge that?

The post was meant to start a new list. Pseudoscience refs will be included as found.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent change relating to fringe claims

DHeyword made this change, modifying a segment where we discuss Watts' claims alongside the view of the scientific community. There are two problems with this edit:

• Using the word "claim" is important in this context to satisfy WP:FRINGE, because our express purpose is to contextualize Watts' beliefs as fringe, and contrast them to the scientific community's opinion. The formulation "Watts claims X. The scientific community rejects X" is appropriate. By changing it in this way, we are providing a false balance: "Watts says X, the scientific community says Y"
• Providing a date implies that Watts may no longer believe the claim. I haven't seen any source suggest this is true, and in fact, I've seen a multitude of sources which suggest Watts still believes these claims today. Our coverage of this topic should be current; if Watts believes this currently, we shouldn't write it as though its an old opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I've found a secondary source supporting "Watts features claims in his blog...", should we get rid of the primary source after checking exactly what the NS covers? . . dave souza, talk 00:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. That's a distinct improvement! And yes, the more we can replace our primary sources, the better. I'm still working on that, little by little. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That source doesn't support the statement of what Watt's believes or has expressed, nor does it address the WTW problem especially in a BLP. It needs to be Watt's, not a commentator just like everything said on Wikipedia can't be attributed to Jimbo. --DHeyward (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As below, it supports Watts' role in uncritically presenting misinformation to his followers. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You've made this change 3 times today DHeyword, and I've addressed it in detail above. Could you please actually respond to what I've written? Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM is pretty clear. Don't use it. "Watts wrote X, IPCC wrote Y" is perfectly acceptable. "Claims" is to be avoided. There is no false balance, it's neutral writing that has weight of the people making statements. Did you have difficulty discerning which body has more weight? Second, I haven't seen anything since 2007 that specifies what Watt's believes regarding the three items mentioned. Much research has gone on in nearly 10 years and the scientists no longer hold all the same views (whence AR5) so I suspect Watts has also evolved his views. Either way, it's a temporal statement and the data does hurt it as it is juxtaposed against AR4. --DHeyward (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the top of WP:WTW. No, it's not forbidden to use the word "claim". Your suggestion that we give equal time to both Watts and the IPCC is exactly the type of false balance WP:FRINGE warns about.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. For policy on false balance, WP:GEVAL applies. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, Watts isn't even a scientist, so the attempt at equivocation is simply ludicrous. Such assertions are disruptive at this point.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• re WP:CLAIM -- "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." In regard to Watts's assertions about the causes of global warming, it seems perfectly appropriate to use "claim" precisely because doing so casts doubt on their credibility. To say that WP:CLAIM means "don't use it" is to miss the point of the guideline entirely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So we should use "claims" to discredit Watts? Seems like a violation of NPOV and BLP. Suggest you read WP:ADVOCACY. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to make the point about Watts. IPCC does it. Whence we use neutral terms. There is no false balance because it's absurd to think that IPCC and Watts are on equal footing to begin with. We don't need advocacy language to show that. It is not NPOV for WP to cast doubt on anybodies "claims", rather we write neutrally about various viewpoints according to their weight. It's very clear what scientific consensus is from this article and all the associated articles. Watts has a biography on WP - this means we adhere to NPOV and BLP when writing about him. "Claims" is a decidedly non-neutral term (we have a WP:CLAIM to illustrate this). When "wrote" can be used for "claim", we should do so. It takes nothing away from IPCC or the scientific consensus to use "wrote" instead of "claim." Nor does "wrote" add any more credibility. It's simply neutral where "claims" is not. --DHeyward (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A recurring talking point within climate change denial accuses the IPCC of being wrong; there are conspiracies, claims they don't represent the "real" consensus, claims they're political and not scientific, etc. Your assumption that our readers will understand the IPCC is more reliable than Watts is misplaced for at least a portion of our readership.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They have made mistakes, this is undeniable. Your assertion about what some readers may believe falls into WP:ADVOCACY. You are essentially saying we have to make this point so that these readers are not fooled into believing Watts over the IPCC. That is not the purpose of WP. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Abiding by WP:FRINGE is not advocacy. That's a pretty strange claim. Yes, I get that you want to provide "balance" between Watts and the IPCC so that readers can make up their own minds, or whatever, but that's forbidden by our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New Scientist source

Statements about solar variation cited to the primary blog article ref name=sunstupid are at least to some extent covered by ref name="New Scientist Watts 2012">"Leaked IPCC report reaffirms dangerous climate change". New Scientist. 14 Dec 2012. Retrieved 31 May 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link). That's a secondary source for this blog post by Watts featuring Rawls as a "Guest Blogger", with update comments by Watts. The NS says "Rawls posted the latest draft of the report's first section on his website. It was swiftly picked up by bloggers critical of mainstream climate science, such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That and James Delingpole," and ""The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are," says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. "If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence."" That's a significant part of what Watts does, posting contributions promoting CC denial. . . dave souza, talk 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no "New Scientist source" here that relates clearly to Anthony Watts (blogger). Somebody named Steven Sherwood (not the article author) was quoted as saying a spin about a report could be echoed by "very influential blogs" without saying WUWT and "deniers" without naming anyone; the article author wrote about WUWT and Watts in a different section. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is, but there's more to the story: Watts and/or guest poster Rawls added a total of 9 updates to the original post, including "A rebuttal to Steven Sherwood and the solar forcing pundits of the IPCC AR5 draft leak", by Alec Rawls with Jo Nova. According to them, Sherwood was tap-dancing around some inconvenient data and behavior. Rawls includes 24 citations in his rebuttal -- which makes Sherwood's claim re "how deeply in denial the climate deniers are" (and yours) look a bit over-the-top. Note that all of this was back in 2012.

Dave wrote, "That's a significant part of what Watts does, posting contributions promoting CC denial." Nope. And making that claim in your name is a borderline BLP violation, I think. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources which identify specifically denialist posts that have been made to WUWT. Whether Watts agrees with the posts that he allows to be posted on the blog he owns is a question to which I have not seen a decent answer. jps (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Re this edit: what to do about the fact that the edit has been performed on behalf of Watts, per his request: "So, since this is a numbers game, and because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, I ask WUWT readers to help out in this matter. Here’s some instructions on how to do so, including the official Wikipedia instructions. You can make edits after you create an account." Regardless of the merits of the edit, we'll have to consider WP:COI and WP:MEATPUPPET here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm that editor. I've been active here for about as long as Watt's been publishing his blog. I'm not his meat puppet  ;-]

I'd previously posted an explanation of this edit here, upthread. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What are we to do about any editors who might have come because editor William Connolley blogged about this article dispute? What are we to do about any editors who might have come because editor jps appealed for help in this dispute? Nothing, of course, unless such editors confess that they're here due to Connolley or jps. Why get worried selectively and only make plans to bite newcomers who might come due to non-editor Watts? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

William Connolley did not appeal for somebody to make specific edits. He simply noted the dispute and used the opportunity to educate his readers on how Wikipedia works. Anthony Watts, on the other hand, is clearly encouraging people who side with him to edit the article on his behalf. — TPX 11:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Look past the request to the source. He provided a statement on his AGW position. Does anything else matter? --DHeyward (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As a note, it's important we recognize the goalpost shifting that happens so frequently in politics, pseudoscience, and other PR-heavy topics. It is common in these areas for a subject to say "I'm not really this thing. My views are much more nuanced." Of course, there will be times that is true, but there will also be times it is not, and we must be careful to discern what independent sources say when deciding on our coverage.

In this case, Watts said he's not a climate change denier because he doesn't deny that the climate is changing. This is clearly goalpost shifting: while he superficially acknowledges the changing climate, he disputes how much it's changing, whether it will continue changing, the cause of the change, our ability to slow the change, and nearly every other bit of the science on climate change one could disagree on. Climate change denial encompasses more views than "denying the climate is changing at all," so even with Watts' clarified view sitting in front of us, he clearly falls into the "promotes climate change denial" group, whether he likes the characterization or not. Call it "climate change denial", or "climate change skepticism", or whatever else you'd like, but he's in it, and independent sources back that up.

Yes, we can express Watts' opinion, but we need to make sure we don't overturn quality independent sources using what is said in Watts' blog. As is all too common in any topic which gets criticized by the mainstream community, the subject of criticism disputes all the criticism; that is to be expected, and we must do our best to filter their views through NPOV so the mainstream, independent opinion shines through.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I daresay that AR5 moved the goalposts much further than anything Watts has said. Ar5 moved closer to Watts than Watts did to AR4. Who's right? I have no idea but damned if I disparage either one over ideology. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss the sub-decdal SRM model accuracy and the change to 2050 and 2100 temps? Fairly significant in terms of numbers. Watts view seems to have not moved. Neither deny CO2 adds to warming. I con't know anyone that considers AR5 to be stronger than AR4 in terms of worst case AGW.--DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong dichotomy? Sure, in a large document you can always cherry-pick some values, especially if motivated. But I see no major difference between AR4 and AR5 with respect to the severity of climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity is essentially the same. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure but the main thing driving the uncertainty in climate sensitivity is how clouds will respond. The signature isn't yet strong enough to observe how clouds respond and how much positive feedback there is, whence there is little change in the estimate (or confidence) as our understanding hasn't improved that much. Kind of hard to get excited about unchanging estimates to climate sensistivity when the largest driver of it remains elusive. --DHeyward (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We know that Watts may be used as a source of information about Watts, and we know that the mainstream says Watts and his blog are skeptic, but the topic of this thread was supposedly meatpuppetry. Can we gather from the above digressions that the topic is dead? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please -- all involved editors here have been involved for a while; meat puppetry is irrelevant and should not have been raised here. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to ask whether an established editor is editing at the request of an article subject. We can also evaluate the edit in question on its own merits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not inappropriate, but we do not need to explore every avenue related to behavior to discuss what is ultimately a content dispute. (It's just another rabbit hole of endless whining, in my opinion. We have enough of those already.) JBL (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit posts what I would tend to consider an "unduly self-serving statement" from the subject's blog, which is not policy-compliant editing per WP:SPS.

In the explanation he linked to he tries to denigrate and dismiss Mann's book, and also claims there is no consensus for including Mann's statement in the lead, while a number of editors have unambiguously declared that there is consensus.

Those are editing issues that verge on exceeding the scope of a good-faith content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit, While I concur that refutations of assertions or allegations made by others about oneself are necessarily, innately "self-serving"; but cannot concur that they are "unduly" so, as might be intended under WP:SPS or WP:BLPSPS. "Unduly self-serving" would cover puffery & self-promotion. There is additionally the requirement in the final sentence of the second example at WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks for the thought provoking comment. On the one hand, yes, I wouldn't find it objectionable to include Watts statement of rebuttal in some form. On the other hand, one thing to bear in mind is that this is not a one-off scandal or something with Watts, it relates to his everyday work for which he is notable, and apparently he is notable for nothing else. Another related aspect is that Watts claims, in the recent retort against Wikipedians on his blog, that he does not deny climate change, which is weasely, because he does deny the scientific consensus on climate change, which seems to trigger another policy on Wikipedia in the form of WP:PSCI, as Dave souza (talk · contribs) first pointed out here.

And regarding the specific edit, the RS statement was deleted and replaced with Watts self-serving statement. In that context, it seems to become unduly self-serving. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit, Likewise thanks for your thoughts. If there are verifiable, noteworthy opinions on the subject, then I am sure we should include them "fairly, proportionately, and without bias"; neutrally worded & attributed; as required by WP:NPOV. W.r.t WP:PSCI, I am not quite sure how it factors into this Article. If this were the Article on "climate change", I would wholeheartedly agree it is relevant; but this is a BLP for "Anthony Watts (blogger)". As above, I don't concur that a simple "I am not a climate change denier" refutation is unduly self-serving, within the meaning of WP:SPS & WP:BLPSPS. W.r.t the edit itself, if we mean this one, I don't see the removal of a WP:RS; or that the previous version contained the refutation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's true that one of the examples at WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests including the subject's denial of an allegations, but in this case Watts' denial is packaged with Watts' off-wiki meatpuppetry. I'm not inclined to link to his his meatpuppetry for purposes of providing a denial, when we already have a perfectly good denial in the form of his claim to be a skeptic, i.e., the PBS Newshour interview. The following are both a denial of the allegation

Example Allegation	Denial (stated in positive)	Denial (state in negative)
"NAEG is dead"	My name is NAEG, and I live.	My name is NAEG, and I am not dead.
"Watts/WUWT is a climate denier."	My name is Watts, and I am a climate skeptic.	My name is Watts, and I am not a climate denier.

Since we can use his affirmative statement "I am a pragmatic skeptic" to deny the allegation he is a climate denier, we should not reward Watts' offwiki meatpuppetry with linking in the article.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, Many thanks for your thoughtful response. I share your disdain for WP:COI & WP:ADVOCACY editing, but cannot concur that suggestions of meatpuppetry should be used to determine what appears in the Article; as though it were a content policy.

I also note that as WP:NPOV is policy, not guideline, the example referred to would be better seen to require, not suggest that refutations be included. One potential question is if the "climate change denier" allegations are of the order of "a politician alleged to have had an affair". I suggest that they are sufficiently similar for the requirement to apply.

I have (now) read the alleged "meatpuppetry" (the only piece of the subject's writing which I have read), and while I agree that it might be reasonably construed to encourage WP:COI editing, I do not see that it precludes inclusion of the refutation contained within the same source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If the May 25th post by Watts is used at all, it should be given full context, including Watts overtly trying to influence our consensus here by sending readers to our pages and that this resulted in the need for some page protection at the WUWT article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' views

It is possible to quote Watts without worrying about the baseless "meatpuppetry" accusations of Nomoskedasticity and NewsAndEventsGuy -- restore an earlier sentence ("Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming.") that cites Watts as saying " I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues". This long-standing reliably-sourced sentence was destroyed by Mann jess without consensus on May 22 and May 24. I partially reverted so that the opinion is back in the article, along with other self-description ("green in many ways" etc.). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't remove any of Watts views, especially not in that edit. Every one of those sentences is still in the section, so you've just duplicated the content so it is repeated. I'm going to revert for now to the version has been in the article for several weeks. Hopefully we can discuss any additions or wording changes, but duplicating the content is probably not helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the article after your edit, with matching views highlighted:

Explanation of diff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. He believes carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change. Watts is "green in many ways", mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil." Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change. Watts claims in his blog that variations in solar irradiance, the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate, contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide...Watts says he advocates for alternative energy sources and for the United States to "disengaged from Middle East Oil."

As you can see, your edit duplicated existing content.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement made above by Mann jess is false. The links that I provided show that Mann jess destroyed the sentence ""Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming." on May 22 and destroyed the citation which accompanied the sentence (saying "I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues ...") on May 24, just as I said. The sentence is no longer in the article, and neither is "green in many ways", just as I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tackling one issue at a time: do we have a secondary source for the "green in many ways" description? My recollection is that it comes from Watts' self description during an interview. I'm not even sure what "green in many ways" means, which is why I expanded it to cover his actual views, such as support for alternative energy. What is gained by the more vague "green in many ways" over the explicit description of his views?   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did some edits on that lingo in April, and the source, I believe was the transcript of the PBS Newshour interview. struck my own mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the source -- according to the citation -- is a book by Fred Pearce. The original statement in the article was: In spite of his climate change skepticism, Watts says that he is "green in many ways",[39] mainly to get the United States "disengaged from Middle East Oil.[40]" but user:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc changed to "In spite of his stance, Watts says that he is ..." here and then user:DHeyward changed to "Watts is ..." here. Let's say: if no other editor cares about keeping "green in many ways", okay. Now: re the real issue, the sentence ""Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming.": this and its citations including the Watts quote should stay in the article, unless and until there is consensus to remove. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I should have looked first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider it a tendentious POV-push to argue that we need to keep describing Watts' stance as "skeptical" when it is outlined that it is not necessarily "skeptical" in the sense of scientific skepticism. I would appreciate simply avoiding that word unless it can be properly contextualized. jps (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool, so we're done with the "green" comment. Onto the next one. How is "Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" different than "Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change", with a following description of his rejection of CO₂ and humans as a primary driving factor?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, it is also necessary not to present Watts self-serving claim (of "skepticism") as having parity with Mann's (and others') characterization as a "denialist", for the same reason.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The criteria used for "scientific consensus on climate change", especially in the well known "97%" papers was so vague and broad that Watt's statements clearly fall into them. Watt's acknowledges post-industrial warming. That was enough for the research paper to be in the "scientific consensus." The statements about IPCC agreement were a lot of puffery that in the end were not the criteria used to define "consensus" as they oversimplified IPCC conclusions so that virtually everyone would agree. It was a broad acceptance of data that the planet warmed and humans contributed. This includes nearly all the sceptics such as Curry and Lindzen that also believe the climate warmed and that humans contributed. They don't agree on the relative contribution but that wasn't the criteria for being part of the consensus. Thus, a "skeptical view of anthropogenic CO₂-driven global warming" and the "scientific consensus on climate change" are different definitions (at least in the 97% paper). If we aren't using the "97%" paper criteria, then we have no measure of consensus and we need to revise all the references to it as consensus. For reference [4], the implicit endorsement of "AGW" (category 3) "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause" - Anthony Watts says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to warming. Category 3 abstracts are part of what Cook, et al consider an "endorsement of AGW." Curry is also in that category and says "All things being equal, an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature." IPCC, however, states it as a null hypothesis of of 50% of warming at the 95% confidence level. They are VERY different. --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on the scientific consensus on climate change. We can refer to that rather than speculations about which papers may or may not have been included in some coding study. jps (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia made that up as a list criteria and it cannot be used to create a label --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The article in question contains no list criteria. If you think there is something wrong with the article, you can go boldly change it. Use good sources! jps (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't qualify for List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and the criteria for belonging to it is solely created by wikipedia based on the other article. There are no sources for any such list. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That complaint has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. jps (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts made his name by not acknowledging post-industrial warming; 2009 – "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable." Watts 2010, with Joe D’Aleo – "The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant 'global warming' at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of 'global warming'." . . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With new bias calculations, NOAA just restated it in a significant way. If the previous error in the sample missed the population as much as NOAA said, what was the error? --DHeyward (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, with long planned dataset improvements NOAA just came more into line with other datasets, and at the same time showed how fragile the supposed "hiatus" or slowdown was. Reaffirming and to be read together with other studies. What error are you talking about? . . dave souza, talk 06:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's statistics. A temperature data set is a sample of the true population. If it's sensitive to small changes, it's an indication of the range of differences between the sample and the population which is an indication of error. It's no different than, say, election polling. If small changes in the corrections for bias in polling technique reflect large changes in poll results, the error is very large. It's very sensitive to bias in that case. If the result is invariant to the changes, the error is small. Statistical sampling like temperature measurements, are trying to reflect the true population of a uniform, unbiased temperature population. It should be very difficult to manipulate them in a small way that has any effect unless you also conclude it's very sensitive to bias. This is what happens when a sample set is too small or too skewed but you can't escape the sensitivity. Variance goes up once the sensitivity is discovered even if the goal was to reduce reduce variance in the mean and range of the measurement. And why do you think a dataset that now shows a slight increase in mean temperature against other datasets and against the hiatus discussed in AR5 is any more valid than stratospheric water vapor and deep ocean heating that has also been proposed? Are those explanations now bogus? --DHeyward (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This line of discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

To return to the topic "Watts' views" ... if the original sentence was really the same as what Mann jess added, then Mann jess's reason for destroying the original has gone away, and the reason for restoring the original remains: it cites Watts's view, along with other sources confirming that that's Watts's view ("skeptical"). I see that jps asserts it's pov-pushing to keep it, but it's easy to refute an unfounded assertion: one just says "no". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts' views on climate change are fringe, and we are compelled by policy to reflect their weight properly within the broader context of the scientific consensus. While the two sentences serve the same role (Watts' views are in opposition to the mainstream), the current sentence does so by reflecting on the mainstream opinion within climatology, while the sentence you are reverting to does not. The sentence you are removing is extremely important to keep us in compliance with our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are several errors here. One: it's not a fringe view that Watts is a skeptic if it's a view held by the majority of reliable sources. Two: WP:FRINGE is merely an inapplicable guideline so nobody is "compelled" to do anything on account of it. Three: WP:WEIGHT in fact says that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" -- what you're trying to do is remove those published reliable sources, thus violating the policy that you cite. Four: this is not about mainstream opinion in climatology it's about mainstream opinion of Watts's views. Five: the sentence that you want to add is based on sources (Mann the climatologist and Mooney the English BA and Cook the Physics BSc etc.) that don't directly support what you're saying anyway. I'm glad though that we're finally seeing an admission that the original sentence was destroyed and a new one was added -- perhaps we're making (slow) progress. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You've misread. WP:FRINGE applies to Watts views, not the labels. We are spending significant time covering his ideas in the next several sentences, and they must be contextualized within the mainstream academic view. The relevant field is, indeed, climatology. Your suggestion that we ignore WP:FRINGE is at odds with widely held community standards. Please stop edit warring.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an academic article, and his views are not fringe. His core issues, (Increase in temps are not going to be as much as claimed-current rate is backing this up, CO2 does not have as much of an impact as claimed-current increase in temps back this up, models are not accurate-current models back this up) are not fringe. It continues to amaze me that disagreeing with the future predictions can be called fringe, especially when the current world temps (the bogus NOAA study withstanding) show that the world temps have not, over the past 15 years, matched the predictions. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What's "the bogus NOAA study"? Really looks like you're getting in-universe with Watts' fringe views: by definition he disagrees with the science, even when someone he previously supported does it, and his views are that mainstream science mendaciously alters results for nefarious purposes. That second aspect should be covered in the article. Also, what predictions? . . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "academic article" is, but the idea we shouldn't represent the mainstream scientific consensus because this article isn't "academic", or whatever, is not a position rooted in policy. Watts views are absolutely fringe within the relevant field of climatology, and our sources absolutely back that up in spades   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arzel (and anyone else), if your defenses of the position "Watts's views are not fringe" keep coming out as "mainstream climatology is wrong/bogus", you're doing it wrong. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

John Grant, Denying Science -- problematic use?

I note new use of this book for material critical of Watts. The author "is a prolific science fiction and fantasy writer," per the Google Book link provided, who also writes pop-sci books. It appears that using this book may well be a WP:Weight problem. Why is he a credible source? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You entirely left out the first sentence, identifying him as the critically acclaimed author of several books on science, as well as the first half of the second sentence, too. The sentence you quoted begins... "In addition to his popular science writing, Grant is a prolific science fiction and fantasy writer."   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, "Critically acclaimed" is just the publisher's blurb. See John Grant (author). Again, why is he a credible source? --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing, including your quote, is just the publisher's blurb. Yes, our start-class article on him is lacking a lot of details. Perhaps that should be corrected. His interest in science fiction doesn't preclude him from writing books on science, which he has done on several occasions, nor does it invalidate his books as sources. No, he is not an expert like Mann, Dunlap or Weart, but the statements his work is being used to support are uncontroversial, and his work is ideal to cover them, since it provides a good amount of detail.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

His book is a polemic, published by his sci-fi publisher's non-fiction imprint. It is reliable only for Grant's opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• I propose removing Grant as a source. He's not an expert, and no evidence has (yet) been presented that his opinion of Watts is notable, per WP: Weight. We don't need to include every minor critic. But we do need (per NPOV) consideration of ALL POVs covered in RS's. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't require experts, we just prefer them when they are available. You keep using this word, notable, but it does not apply to sourcing at all. Is the content it supports significant to the topic? Yes, undoubtedly. Does Grant verify the content? Yes. Is the content weighted appropriately (which is a question of its coverage in other sources, compared to this one)? Yes - other sources cover it precisely the same way. And that's the end of our questions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS allows for "Scholarly" sources but John Grant doesn't fit there (unless somebody can show he's a scholar), then allows for "News organizations" but John Grant doesn't fit there (unless someone can show he's reporting for a mainstream news organization), so all that's left is whether Grant's opinion of Watts is notable -- but in that case there would be news articles blaring "famous science fiction author denounces Watts". It's understandable that Mann jess (who added the Grant source to the Watts Up With That article on May 22) is willing to accept poor sources for "denialist" since there are few or none that aren't poor. Indeed the Grant insertion is just one of many recent contentious edits by Mann jess which have no consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to meet RS, with little room for doubt. And what are the objections? To "denialist"? Right.

Well then, it seems that those objecting to this source should take it up at WP:RS/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that Grant is not a RS is... novel, to say the least. RSN is certainly the place to go to have that discussion. It's worth noting that Grant is not being used, nor has it ever been used, to support labeling climate change denial. It is mostly being used to verify dates.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually it seems that those trying to add this source have the obligation to take it up at RS/N. And it's unfortunately not "novel" -- I think I've seen everything under the sun by now -- to read that when the article's notes quote Grant saying " "Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers", that's just to verify dates, that isn't mentioning climate change denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant uses the word "deniers". We are not using Grant to verify that label, or any other. In that specific instance, we are citing Grant to verify Monckton's relationship to WUWT, and their propogation of climategate.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as a book published by a mainstream publisher, the presumption is that its reasonably reliable. If you want to challenge it, you take it to RS/N. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Added query to RSN: Is the book Denying Science by John Grant (author) a RS? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problems in "Climate change opinion and activities"

There are apparent NPOV and unbalanced opinion problems throughout this section. Many negative critical commentators have been added, with no balancing positive opinions. Much of the article appears biased and slanted. For example, Watts recently rejected accusation that he is a CC "denier"; our article says that "he feels "climate change denial" does not accurately reflect his positions." Has he stopped beating his wife?

Opinion is presented as fact: WUWT is "among the most prominent climate change denial blogs" cited to 3 activist opinion-pieces. Sample: "a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis." The article is a BLP for Mr. Watts: WP:Coatrack? All opinions must be clearly identified as such. And not given Wikipedia's voice, as they have here. Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

In my opinion, this section presents a caricature of both Watts and his work, sourced almost exclusively to his critics. It needs balance restored, and a WP: Neutral Point of View.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is he known for anything other than climate change denial? As far as I can tell that's where the weight of the sources place him. It's impossible to "balance" an article on a member of the fringe. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The sources for "among the most prominent climate change denial blogs" are as follows:

• Dunlap, Riley; McCright, Aaron (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199566607.
• Farmer, Thomas G.; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231152558.
• Kirilenko, Andrei; Stepchenkova, Svetlana (2014). "Public microblogging on climate change: One year of Twitter worldwide". Global Environmental Change 26: 171, 172.

@Tillman: which (three) of those sources in your view is an "activist opinion-piece"? They all look rather like scholarly publications to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The three I mentioned are the cites to that statement, at Climate change blogging, first para. Read the cite quotes, see what you think.... The 4th there actually is a misfit for this POV allegation: "The most authoritative climate change skepticism web sites included Watts Up With That?..." --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that when a source says "the most authoritative climate change skepticism web site", that it contradicts the claim it is among the most prominent climate change denial websites. The two statements are not in conflict. While climate change denial and climate change skepticism can be different, there is absolutely overlap; a green apple and red apple are both apples, and this overlap is documented by sources. Obviously, the other 3 sources are not "activist opinion pieces".   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I changed your several pov tags to a single pov-check tag at the top of the page. I don't think that tag is necessary, but I also don't see the harm in keeping it around for a little while to stimulate discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Jess: You said "Obviously, the other 3 sources are not "activist opinion pieces." You might quibble re "activist", but they are certainly opinions, and must be properly identified as such, not presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Please carefully read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is pretty basic stuff, in one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. So it would seem worth your while to spend some time studying WP:NPOV, since you don't seem to agree that the article has NPOV problems. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tillman: I indicated the four sources currently used to support that statement. I don't understand your answer. Please indicate which of the four you mean, referring to the author surnames listed above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same article? Climate change blogging, first para., "It is among the most prominent climate change denial blogs." Current ref #'s 30,11,31,32. It would seem best to start with the cites and quote we are actually using to support the bit you quoted. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks -- so you thus think that Dunlap, Riley; McCright, Aaron (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, Farmer, Thomas G.; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media, and Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press are "activist opinion-pieces"?? I doubt others will agree. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See my reply to Jess, above, and please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning here would make everything any source says an "opinion". No, these are not just opinions we can write off. These are the highest quality sources we have, and they all agree. Your understanding of NPOV is incorrect.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read the policy? And this is a WP:BLP, so there's little tolerance for violations. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WUWT: claims the "human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming"

I tagged this awhile ago as not supported by the quotation from the cite given, Schneider & Nocke 2014:

"Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."

Editor Mann jess removed the tag earlier today, commenting "I don't see how the quote doesn't back up the claim."

Since there is no mention in the quote either of the human role or CO2, or even a link to this 2011 WUWT post, you need a different quote, or a different cite. Was the post even wrtiten by Watts? What about later posts, such as this "For the Record post by Watts, on May 25, 2015? Basic due diligence needed! And this article is his biography, not primarily about WUWT. Is this WP:CHERRYPICKING? A WP:Coatrack?

And, to use Schneider & Nocke, or any other obscure technical book, you need to provide some evidence that this is a notable work -- books usually aren't peer-reviewed. In this case, the senior author is a postdoc, so I doubt she had established much of a professional reputation at the time of publication. So, why should we consider this a notable work? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot to address...

1. No, we don't need to provide evidence sources are "a notable work" to use them.
2. Sources do not have to be peer reviewed. This isn't a medical article.
3. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, so when the source says "the sun, not...greenhouse gas emissions", there is indeed a mention of CO₂
4. Anthropogenic refers to the human role in climate change, so yes, the quote mentions a human role.
5. Since Watts' blog is a significant part of him as a topic, we need to discuss his blog in this article. Our summary doesn't need to be as long as the blog's article, but it should include a basic description of what it is and why it's significant. It is related to Watts because it is his blog, and sources discuss the topics together.
6. Yes, there is a link to the blog post in the source. Please actually check the source before saying things like this. Here's the post.
7. His later post doesn't dispute what we've written in the article, which is that his blog, WUWT, hosts information suggesting CO₂ is not a driving force of warming. The blog post above is just one example of that. "...modern warming gets misattributed to CO2", "...misattribute the resulting warming to fossil fuel burning.", "evidence that much of 20th century warming might be explained by solar activity was a thorn in the side of the newly powerful CO2 alarmists, who blamed recent warming on human burning of fossil fuels.", etc.
8. The claim we're making is supported by other sources too, but this one is clear enough to back up the statement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the prompt reply. As it turns out, the WUWT solar post you link was a guest post, not written by Watts. So, while it might be appropriate at WUWT, doesn't really belong here, in his biography. I'll remove it, once the discussion concludes. If you have an alternate source, please use it -- but be aware that I will rebut the current text with Watts "For the Record" statement, which I have just added to the lede. Probably better just to give his current position, imo.

You wrote, "No, we don't need to provide evidence sources are "a notable work" to use them."

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Weight. Yes, upon challenge, you need to demonstrate that this is a reliable and notable source. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're mistaken. You're also being inconsistent. Here, you've said content that applies to his blog isn't related to him so can't be included, and in the section below you've said he controls everything that's said in the blog so talking about the blog reflects on his views. In short, no, we're not going to remove important descriptions of WUWT in the section on WUWT just because you don't like it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but (as I noted above), this is Watts' biography. Most of the WUWT stuff should be there, with just a summary here. And this isn't written by Watts! --Pete Tillman ([[User talk:Tillman|talk

Watts denier rebuttal, again

• Jess: You've now reverted out the addition of Watt's rebuttal to the "Climate change denial" accusation twice: on 6-1-15, with no real discussion that I could find, just cryptic edit notes. Now you've reverted this naterial again, without even the courtesy of an edit summary: also see History.

This is unacceptable behavior. Please self-revert. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You've misread the diffs. Watts' response is still in two places, including the lead. The addition you made to the lead is unwarranted coverage, frankly, but I haven't touched it, because I'm waiting to review the lead and haven't been able to yet.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, I also did not "revert the addition of Watts' rebuttal" on June 1st. I moved it to the body, because the lead reflects the body, but you added content to the lead that we didn't mention anywhere else. Your edit today essentially reverted my edit from the 1st.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I misread the diffs Please accept my apologies for the errors and the dumb, false accusation. My bad.--Pete Tillman (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate Change Denialism vs. CC Denier

A couple of editors, here and at Talk:Watts Up With That, seem to be arguing that it's OK to call Watts's blog the "worlds leading climate change denial blog" (or some such), as if this avoids the BLP issue of calling Watts himself a climate change denier. Sorry, folks, this one fails the Giggle test: Watts founded WUWT, and he controls what material appears there. So, if WUWT is indeed the leading climate change denial blog, then Watts himself is a leading climate change denier . Thus the Mann quote (and the CC denialist assertion) fall under the WP:BLP rules. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That is logical nonsense. Watts of course has the power to stop CC denial at his blog, but he chooses not to exercise that power. That may be because he actively supports the position, it may be because he sympathises with it, but does not want to advocate it actively himself, or it could even be that he detests it, but thinks its useful to offer a forum to launder the dirt in public. Or he just is in the old Voltaire spirit. I personally suspect that support of climate change denial is part of his agenda, but that is based on other things than Mann's (and other's) opinion on his blog. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete, since your argument is that WUWT has no existence independent of Watts, should we merge WUWT into Watts's biography? I've long thought it might be a good idea to do that, and it sounds like you agree. If you're willing to put forth the merge request I'll support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SBHB, I just might do that. There are independent aspects, as Man jess points out at the current discussion. But at least it would get all of this stuff in one place, and having it all clearly subject to BLP rules might help with the current, um, stuff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@SBHB and @Pete, I would have proposed a total merge, but I expected others would balk so wrote the RFC for a split/merge portions instead. I'm also in favor of a full merge, leaving a redirect at WUWT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

opposes consensus, is skeptical, and leading climate change denial blog

Regarding this edit, I'm fine with the goal, but I have two concerns. Using this particular quote from Watts hints at their being "two sides to the debate", which I think gives the impression of a false balance. Just outright saying it is a climate skeptic website, or climate change denial website, or is opposed to the scientific consensus on climate change, all sidestep that issue. I think we may be able to find a better quote, or a better paraphrase. My second concern is that we're basically saying the same thing 3 times: The blog is opposed to the scientific consensus, presents climate change skepticism material, and is the leading climate change denial blog. I haven't touched the lead yet, because I want to flesh out the body first and then work on summarizing, but I think we can find a good way to combine these ideas into one reasonable summary. Anyway, I left it alone for now, I just shortened a bit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The big issue for me is that this is the article about the man, and Watts Up With That? is the article about the website. Really, this article should be pretty much stripped of most of the website related stuff.

That said,Re Jess First concern, usually when people refer to "two sides of the debate" the discussion is between opposing views of climate science. The issue here is opposing views on how to characterize a man (Watts). The fact of the matter is that there are two sides to the issue of how to characterize that man. Some RSs say "skeptic" and some RSs say "denier" and still other RSs (and me personally but that's besides the point) say say these words have ceased to have useful distinct meanings. Key though is that we're not presenting two views of climate science here. Rather, we're presenting two views of a man, or at least, that man's website. Thus, BLP policy is in play. The only NPOV way to approach that is to use Watts' self-description (skeptic) while noting alternate opinions from credible RSs (denier). If each and every RS explicitly equated the terms this would be a nonissue but that's not what's happening in the real world. (What's actually happening is that most RSs do not indicate whether the authors distinguish between the words, and of the remainder, most of those that do a credible job distinguishing the words say "denier".)

Re Jess' Other concern... you seem to argue that

skepticism = consensus_opposition = denial in all cases

The RSs have not congealed around that point of view, so based on the RSs, despite face we have said these three things we have not committed an atrocious redundancy. Quite the opposite. Watts claims to be the leading blog voice, and the best way to characterize his site is one of the main issues of significance in coverage about his site. If we don't report that in NPOV style, we're missing the story.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I find that anaylsis both thoughtful and helpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts and his blog are inexorably linked. I say this as someone who has read probably 100 sources on Watts within just this past week, including every last one cited in this article. In almost every source, Watts is mentioned alongside his blog, and vice-versa. Almost every notable thing Watts has ever done (besides newscasting) is tied to his blog, including the surface stations project, which began there. It's likely merging the articles would be useful (though I still have reservations about it I'd need to think over). Anyway...

The exact quote we're using is "the climate debate from the climate skeptic side", which implies two sides about the climate change debate, not two sides about Watts. That's my concern. I don't want to contextualize "his side" as a fringe position; instead, I want to just sidestep the "two sides" wording altogether.

It doesn't matter if "skepticism = consensus_opposition = denial" in all cases, it just matters in this case. Watts is each of those things, according to our sources. The article history is important. First we had nothing at all. Then we had "denial". Then we compromised on the skepticism vs denial thing and added "opposition and denial". Now we added skepticism too, so we have "opposition, skepticism and denial". I think we should trim back to the heart of the issue. The three labels may mean other things for other people, but for Watts, they mean roughly the same thing: he opposes the scientific consensus (and in the sense of "denial", he also does it in the face of overwhelming evidence).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"Climate skeptic" is a really unattractive phrase. What exactly is the object of the skepticism?? Not the "climate"; instead, the science about the climate. I don't think we are helping our readers understand anything by relaying this phrase as misused by Watts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jess, excellent clarification! Now that I see the nuance, I agree the quote I first selected injected a false sense of two sides of the debate. Happily, we already had a ref with a better self-description by Watts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no parity between the "two sides", and that is what is not being made clear.

"Climate skeptic" is an obfuscating term, because it imparts dual meaning, depending on the readers background knowledge. It would appear that Watts knows that. You'll note that he is careful not to explicitly state that he denies the consensus in his rebuttal. This is partially why his self-serving statements can't be presented in a context that would render them unduly self-serving.

It is a fact that there is a scientific consensus on AGW, and to reject that is climate denial. Scientific skepticism involves questioning a specific aspect of the supporting science in a rational manner, which leads to further investigation--as with the BEST study--which Watts rejects, the same with the solar effects, etc.

I think it is OK to include mention of Watts rebuttal, but it has to be contextualized in a manner so as not to obfuscate the differentiation and mislead the reader.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

U, see my reason for excluding the May 25 Watts post under the section "meatpuppetry" above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be careful about our use of the word "skeptic", as it can have several meanings and therefore be easily confused. The last paragraph of WP:RNPOV covers this sort of idea, and I think it's probably applicable here as well. We don't want to imply Watts engages in scientific skepticism, because none of our sources say he does. We also don't want to imply Watts is a philisophical skeptic who is open to new ideas and evidence, since only Watts describes himself that way. We can say how he self-describes, of course, but if our independent sources don't back up his self description, we should contextualize it as such. I think our sources do back up that he is a "climate change skeptic" (as well as promoting climate change denial), so indicating that is okay. We just need to be judicious about its use, knowing that the label could be misunderstood.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

He does engage in scientific skepticism, and it is really tiring to continually see statements that he does not. Regardless, if you and others believe that the terms are equal, then why have so many been fighting tooth and nail to make sure that he is called a "denier"? Arzel (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not the case, though it may have been in the past. Refer to the Ars Technica piece cited on this page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

His blog certainly hosts content by scientists that are skeptical. Judith Curry, former chair of Georgia Tech climate science, is often presented. Leif Svaalgard a respected Solar Physicist from Stanford maintains Watts' solar page data. Lindzen and Pielke are well respected scientists and present often. Christy and Spencer maintain the Satellite temperature record and are hosted. Certainly these credentialed scientists that have expressed skeptical views and published their own theories and data in peer reviewed journals would not be labeled "deniers" so "denialist blog" clearly misrepresents them when it is expressing their viewpoint or hosting their data. Those are just the active scientists that engage his blog. Watts' site has a number of reference pages that are simply data from various sources including ENSO, solar cycles, sea ice, etc. Mann's objection is political as is his book (and rightly so as it attempts to respond to political criticism). "denier" is too loose a label and too much of a pejorative to be thrown around without massive corroboration. That doesn't seem to be the case. The reaction to NOAA's recalibration as well as various other reactions to pause explaining theories such as stratospheric water vapor, trade winds and ENSO have shifted in the last five years or so. All scientists are more sceptical and less willing to accept versions that are novel. An AGU "conversation" with 6 climate scientists (3 from IPCC and 3 skeptical) in order to review the AGU statement about Climate change drew a pretty hard line that a few more years of the same temperature trend would call into question the basic model of the climate and/or its presumptions. They were clearly at their limit and these were scientists responsible for modeling and were section leaders for IPCC. They are moving towards those like Curry and Lindzen even if today they disagree. Curry and Lindzen are exactly the kinds of scientists hosted by Watts and engage him regularly and he seems to consult them often. That's "skeptical" not "denialist". That was not the case 15 years ago when even Al Gore's presentation was accepted without a second glance. --DHeyward (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You assert that the scientists who are publishing on WUWT "would not be labeled 'deniers'". Do you have any good sources which show that doing so is somehow problematic? All of these scientists, in fact, have been severely criticized by many climate scientists for their positions which align with the Wikipedia article on climate change denial. You further claim that Mann's objection is "political". Do you have good sources which show that this is so? The best sources I see identify Mann as a preeminent climate scientist fully capable of distinguishing between claims which are in line with the scientific consensus on climate change and those claims which dispute or deny this consensus. You claim that "all scientists are more sceptical...." Do you have a source for this claim? The sources I've seen seem to indicate the opposite -- that most scientists are not more inclined towards the positions of Watts and company. Do you have a source which distinguishes between "sceptical" and "denialist" as you do in your penultimate sentence? In particular, do you have sources which clearly identify the positions of Curry and Lindzen as explicitly not being "denialist"? jps (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is a classic example of Confirmation Bias. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC - Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog "Watts Up With That?"

RFC question

Should discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog, i.e., Watts Up With That?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes, as proposer Extensive debate and characterization of Watts' blog on this page about the individual person named "Anthony Watts" overlooks fact that many other people write posts at this guy's blog. True, Watts has control over which guest columns appear and which don't. Nonetheless, I feel we would be best served by stripping extensive discussion and characterization of the blog from this article about the man, and moving all of that to the article about the blog.

NUTSHELL - I do NOT suggest deleting anything, just consolidating the blog issues at the blog article. I will finish formatting this with appropriate templates w/in 24 hrs but not right now.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• YES, per proposer. I've already suggested this, somewhere upthread in the Wall of Text. Summarize WUWT briefly here, move the rest to the blog. But don't think you can avoid WP:BLP over there.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you feel compelled to add a vague threat ("don't think you can avoid WP:BLP over there")? After all, no one should expect to violate any of our policies anywhere, so going out of your way to make such a remark seems somehwat battle-ish. You've my permission to delete this comment if you choose to redact the relevant part of your own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see [ Climate_Change_Denialism_vs._CC_Denier (which I see you've found already). --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes move the blog and climate views to the other articles. Then we only have to remove "denier" from the blog page as we can avoid it here. --DHeyward (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "denier" appears in neither lead, both quite properly refer to the climate change denial which Watts supports in his blog and also in other publications. We can improve the coverage of this issue, whether the coverage in this article is WP:SUMMARY style or alternatively the articles are merged as proposed below. . . dave souza, talk 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• No The blog and the climate denialism promoted thereon are the basis of Watts'notability; accordingly, the section belongs in the BLP.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Question NAEG, could you clarify how much content you would expect to be left on this page if this were to be agreed upon? --JBL (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be the next thing we argue about, assuming we have consensus there is an unfortunate redundancy between the two. There are several places we could draw the line. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify the intent of my question: I tend to agree with Ubikwit that Anthony Watts is mostly notable because WUWT is notable. This cuts against removing too much WUWT-related material from the biography. On the other hand, there's some obvious trimming that would probably improve this article (e.g., the paragraph about blog awards). So I suppose my point is that my support for this proposal depends rather much on where the line is drawn. Perhaps we can put me down as supporting a moderate trimming and moving of WUWT material. --JBL (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• No Any mention of Watts in reliable sources is almost always paired with mention of his blog. The rare exceptions are now defunct websites briefly touching on his old meteorology career. Without his blog, Watts isn't notable, and we of course should expect that most of his article will discuss his primary claim to notability. Since Watts Up With That has been fully protected while this article was undergoing extensive revisions, our coverage of the blog may be better here than at its own article. That can be rectified once the protection expires by copying and expanding this coverage (no deletions from here necessary). I may be in favor of merging the articles, but if they aren't merged, our standard practice is to summarize the more extensive coverage of Watts Up With That in a section here, and it seems that's what we're doing now. Also note, all content on WUWT (in this article) is related to Watts due to his direct involvement, and each of our sources references him, so it's all relevant even aside from it being his blog.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Mann Jess, what about the paragraph on blog awards, for example? --JBL (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The awards might not belong in this article, but that's a content decision that doesn't require an RfC (or perhaps even a discussion). Keep in mind what we're removing: they, along with the criticism, discuss the broad reception of his blog (a project started by and closely tied to Watts). I think we could do a better job of summarizing that reception than detailing every criticism and every internet-voting award from 8 years ago. Yes, we should be summarizing the parent article, not going into excruciating detail, but we should still detail more here than we typically would due to the close relationship between Watts and his blog. So, I might support trimming some things individually, but the overarching theme of removing WUWT content from this bio is not one I support in general.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Watts is mentioned often outside the website, and he is certainly more notable that 95% of all climate scientists. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Observation: your rationale does not appear to be related to your vote. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If he was not notable then surely you and your friends would not be here worrying about him on a continual basis. The actions of the AGW crowd on WP is pretty good empirical evidence of his notability. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Shorter: What does this have to do with the question under discussion in the RfC?

Longer: I have been pleasantly surprised to see the RfC discussion splitting opinions up in ways that do not correlate perfectly with views about Watts. It is certainly more enlightening than most of the rest of the discussions happening on this page. It would be nice if you, too, could engage in the RfC. So far, I can see no connection whatsoever between what you've written here and the question under discussion. (In particular, there is exactly no one disputing whether Watts is notable.)

--JBL (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The website is certainly notable today by itself. Watts is notable by himself as well. There may have been a time when the two were not necessarily independently notable, but that is no longer the case today. Arzel (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This RFC is not about the notability of Watts nor WUWT. All of your comments appear to be pure non sequiturs. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In another thread, some of us were kicking around maybe doing a full merge. I don't know what Arzel had in mind, but in any case, what he said is an argument against full merge. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make the connection. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be worth considering merging the articles about Watts and WUWT -- which, ims, is what we used to have. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"ims"? --JBL (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add: "if memory serves"? --JBL (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd support merging the articles if we can keep all the significant content. My concern is that some content may no longer fit. If we merge WUWT to here, we'd have to cut out significant coverage of WUWT's activities not involving Watts (i.e. posts from Monckton). If we merge into WUWT, we'd need to demonstrate a connection between the Surface Stations Project and WUWT (only 1 source I know of connects the two, others mention both as independent projects), or else create Surface Stations Project and be left with two articles again. Rather than figure all that out now, I think our best bet is to flesh out both articles, then see where there's overlap and combine if necessary. Just my opinion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also see this discussion with Boris, upthread. Hmmm, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I think two parallel discussions is a waste of effort. News and Events' proposal has merit. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: the RfC is confusing, because it doesn't indicate how much of the material should be moved to the other article. It's hard to imagine that our article here should contain nothing at all on the blog -- as others have noted, this is a significant part of Watts's own notability. So if that's what is intended, then of course the answer to the question as posed has to be no. But I think this will be a hard RfC to close -- because there are likely different assumptions by different editors about exactly what is being proposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, this gets to the same thing I was saying in my first comment above. But I thought NaEG's response was helpful: first we can agree that some amount of trim/move should happen, then we can discuss exactly where to draw the line. Only one person has supported the (self-evidently ridiculous) idea that Watts' blog should be totally expunged from this page, and most people who have expressed a view supporting a more moderate trimming. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The question is malformed. Obviously the discussion about XX should go into the article about XX, whatever the XX, including the aforementioned blog. So, yes, discussion about the blog should be on the blog's article (assuming there is one). Watts' article should have a brief, wp:Summary style reference to it. Alternatively, I have not looked much into it, yet it looks like this is close to a one-event BLP, and the articles are not that big, so merging would also be a possible move. - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Merge to a single article. What should that article be? Watts has some minor notability beyond WUWT, but WUWT clearly is Watts's blog, so the remaining article should be the one on Watts with WUWT as a section therein. I know that wasn't the question but that's the answer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbcomm?

With edit comments about Arbcomm, it might be worth reminding people about the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others for those who missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, also see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#A_Quest_For_Knowledge, now wending its way towards closure. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputing labels in "climate change opinion"

I added a sentence to the "Climate change opinion" section some time ago, but reviewing the section now, it doesn't really have a place there. Unfortunately, when I removed it, I was reverted. The sentence in question says that Watts disputes the "climate change denial" label. However, there is no discussion in that section about climate change denial. Additionally, it's sourced to Watts' blog, which gives us no indication of the significance of the view. The edit summary of the revert failed to address my rationale for removing it, so I guess we'll have to discuss it in depth here. Why does this content belong in that section?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The material is directly on point. It is the subject's dispute of the accusation of "denying" climate change. It is his opinion on climate change, he is reliable for his opinion. What should be in the "Climate change opinion" section of a biography article but the subject's opinion? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts has lots of opinions. I could source all kinds of irrelevant opinions, but to present them in the article, they should be shown to be relevant to the topic and significant. I get that Watts disputes the label, and that might be appropriate to discuss when we discuss the label. It doesn't make any sense to discuss this dispute when we're not discussing the label. I also tried to find discussion of this in reliable secondary sources, but didn't turn up much, which indicates to me that the opinion might not be particularly significant to independent sources. I'm not opposed to including the content (I'm the one that wrote it and moved it, after all...), but I'd like to see those problems addressed.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant? His opinion on climate change would, I think, be revelant in his biography in the section labelled "climate change opinion"...unless I am missing something. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is "I am not a climate change denier" an opinion about climate change? I rather would have called it a view about terminology. (That is, after all, what the arguments here are about: there's no question that Watts's views are at odds with the mainstream view of climatologists, the question that has been the source of so much angst is what words to use to describe this fact.) --JBL (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that "I am not a climate change denier" is a relevant opinion in a section on the subject's opinion on climate change in his biography. How is it not? This is a biography article about a specific individual. This is not a science article about the science. It is clearly relevant to include the published opinion of the subject regarding himself in the area that he is apparently most known for. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't considered JBL's point, but he's right. "Climate change denial isn't the right label" is about terminology, not opinions. We could certainly discuss any underlying opinions that aren't consistent with the label, but I don't know of sourcing which discusses them. What are they? Let's figure out how to add them, instead of just asserting they exist according to Watts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The source currently used is the 2012 PBS interview, in which Watts presents his view that temperature data is biased by those who "want to change policy. They want to apply taxes", calls himself "a pragmatic skeptic" about global warming and accuses "some of the scientists who are the leaders in the issue" of having become "tools on the issue". He says "we have some global warming, it’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years", but introduces doubt if this is to an extent due to thermometer siting. That position was time-dependent: in 2009 he asserted that "errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature", insinuating that there was no real rise. Hence we need to show the timing of any of his remarks, and need secondary sources showing the majority scientific view of his opinions: climate change denial is a significant and well sourced description. Clarification is needed in our text of how Watts promotes this denial. . dave souza, talk 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Graph

Housekeeping note added by NAEG --- the graph & caption under discussion is this one reverted by Arzel (change my link for me if there's a better one please) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The graph added by Jess is highly inappropriate. This is a BLP not a place to promote your own personal research. I have removed the graph as a violation of NPOV, BLP, and Original Research (in presentation here). Arzel (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The graphs (plural) are inappropriate and unhelpful in this biography article. At the very least undue... tending towards coatrack. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Personal research"? The graphs weren't made by me, the data wasn't compiled by me, and the sources weren't written by me. What part of it is personal research? I carefully picked images that very directly addressed the content being discussed in each section. How is that "unhelpful"?   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Arzel is obviously doing the usual wiki thing of "I don't like it, therefore I will write down a random collection of policy acronyms and hope something sticks," in a particularly silly and inept way. And I enjoy on a personal level the tweaking of Watts by the inclusion of graphs. But, I think I agree with Capitalismojo's comments -- these are pretty clearly undue in this biographical article. --JBL (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@JBL We don't have to include images, but they can be helpful in conveying ideas we're already discussing. For instance, when we write about the relative impact of solar irradiance and CO₂, a graph like the one to the right can be helpful. Conveying that information in text is difficult, and an added image can really do a lot. Similarly, our section devoted to discussing the Berkeley Earth study could probably benefit from an image showing their results. I picked one which combines their results with NOAA and others, since we discuss them as well. I'm open to suggestions on what images could be a better choice, but I don't honestly see how it could be considered undue weight to provide an image to visually display our existing coverage of the very same data. We're already discussing the data... the graphs just show it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In every article about an alchemist, it is not necessary to include figures of scientific data by spectrography and particle physics. It is enough just to say in the text that alchemy is discredited and out-of-step with scientific consensus. --JBL (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly true. But if the article said "Alchemists claim that scientific studies show X, but this specific scientific paper released data in 2013 showing !X", and we had a graph visually representing the data from that specific paper, wouldn't it be useful to include one of those graphs? We have a whole section devoted to the BEST study, and we have several graphs in commons showing their results. I get where you're coming from... this graph wouldn't be appropriate or necessary; we just need to say "the scientific consensus is X", not graph it. But I don't see how that applies to this particular case where we're discussing specific data and have a graph for that data.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The only unambiguous problem with the graph & caption was the word "overwhelmingly", which appears to be WP:Editorializing. Otherwise, the graphs are not fatally defective. However, on a subjective level, I don't think they belong in a biographical article. Yes, WP:FRINGE requires us to contrast Watts' non-mainstream views to the mainstream view. In my view, text is all we need. Any illustrations should be more directly related to Watts himself. That said, if we start using illustrations showing Watts' views, then this image would become important again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the input. I don't know that I agree, but it looks like I'm alone in that view. I'll put some more thought into it and see if we get more input. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards

In the biography articles about novelists we list the awards won for their writing. In the bios of publishers we list the awards they garnered. In the biography articles about journalists we list awards they have won for their writing. In the biography articles about bloggers I suggest we not remove the awards won from the biographies. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of difficulty squaring this with your comment in the RfC. Watts did not personally win these awards, his blog did. The paragraph in question (and the following one) do not mention Watts by name at all. If this paragraph can't be removed here, what information about the blog can be? --JBL (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm confused. You !voted above that we should migrate content from the WUWT section out of this article. I moved all the content out that didn't discuss Anthony Watts explicitly by name, which appears to be what you !voted for. As I discussed above, I'm relatively divided on whether the awards belong here, but emerging consensus above is not so divided... almost everyone seems to think they should go.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear. This is the biography of a writer/publisher. I suggest that we treat the biography as all other such articles, that would include listing awards. Should the articles be combined the awards would still be listed. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea that the publisher/editor of a work does not win the award, the work does is odd. Pulitzers are awarded to the institution that publishes it and are also (invariably) listed at the writer's biography pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The bloggies etc. are of course self-awarded due to enthusiastic use of internet voting by website readers: not a good comparison with the Pulitzers, and puffery which shouldn't be given undue weight in a bio. . . dave souza, talk 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dave, and if it is included, then it should be contextualized as Dave mentions. For that matter, sending the troops of readers to this page is similar and might be incorporated, as might various peer reviewed research papers on the central spot WUWT plays in the climate skeptic/denial blogosphere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-awarded? That's not what the refs say. Even the Guardian doesn't go that far, and they go pretty far. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I took it as a rhetorical turn of phrase, and think we mention the bloggies award, but to keep from giving it undue weight we also contextualize the bloggies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Existence of a global warming controversy

When page protection expired earlier today, I made an edit and only then realized it was moments after PP expired. Pure coincidence. I probably would not have touched anything for a few days if I had paid attention.

Anyway....

Some article text caught my eye and I struck some out as follows...

Watts established Watts Up With That? (WUWT) in 2006. The blog is focused on the global warming controversy, and presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming.

I struck that text for two reasons. First, assuming there is a global warming controversy the text redundant with the phrase I left in, "presents material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change" etc etc Second, if you actually go to global warming controversy you learn that it is a phenomena that exists in popular media and psyche.... there's really no genuine controversy that its warming, or that it's us causing it. Thus, the struck out phrase POVishly presumes and declares in wikivoice that there is controversy about global warming It's POV.

In addition, it's flat out wrong. Watts' blog does NOT report on the phenomena of this public media/audience perception of controversy contextualized against the scientific backdrop. Rather the RSs say the blog is promoting that perception.

Capitalismo restored the struck text with the edit summary saying in relevant part {tq|"this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better."

QUESTION Do you agree with Capitalismo's reasoning, when contrasted with the RS that supports this sentence? Capitalismo - "this formulation seems to fit the RS descriptions better" The actual RS - "Despite the well-known facts under discussion, the original graph, based on a single outdated study published in 1991, continues to reappear again and again in climate skeptical media, trying to prove that the sun, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, is causing global warming. The original curve appears, for example, on Anthony Watts' climate skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" in an article posted in 2011."

Seems to me Watts is fomenting the global warming controversy over points considered settled by the American Academy of Science We should not assert Watts presents meaningful info about the phenomena of this perceived controversy in wikivoice because that's POV and SOAP and PROMO inconsistent with the RS. And besides, its redundant and therefore extraneous and repetitive and says the same thing over and ..... ha? ha?? Nevermind.

Capitalismo, please self revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You convinced me as to redundancy. I will self revert. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BRD lives! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! Someone else has edited in the meantime. I could not self revert. Check the changes to see if it works for you. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Vague non supported attribution doesn't cure redundancy, so I took care of it per your comments above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This outcome is preferable in my view :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reflist for this thread

References

Labeling the mainstream view as "critics"

Lately, there has been an effort to describe mainstream sources, such as our most academic sources, as simply "critics" of Watts. For example, this edit. While it is of course true that these sources are critical of Watts and his blog, they are only critical insofar as the mainstream academic view is critical, and we should not reduce the mainstream view to just some personal dispute. "Watts believes X, but critics of Watts say Y" is a poor summary; we should say "Watts believes X. Y" or "...the scientific consensus is Y". I saw this approach used on Mann earlier ("Mann just has a vendetta"), and then Dunlap ("Dunlap is just another of Watts' critics"), and now Farmer/Cook too. If we need to attribute, then attribute, but if a view represents the mainstream, then it's not "just a critic".   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, good points and that's an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 17:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

• Watts is primarily known for his blog WUWT. Notice "(blogger)" is in the title of the article. The opening sentence is supposed to cover what the subject is known for. He isn't quite as known for being a meteorologist, or for Surface Stations. Placing emphasis on those two in the first sentence is unbalanced.
• We could include Watts' self-identification as "skeptic", however this would need to be placed into context since scholarly sources have commented that Watts is not practicing scientific skepticism. Diving into those details does not seem appropriate for the lead, so it seems cleaner and easier to leave it out.
• Since the lead should summarize the article, I added a sentence about the Heartland Institute.

Manul ~ talk 07:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't yet gotten to the lead, but that looks like an improvement.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Watts is known as skeptic and the blogger is known as skeptic according to the majority of reliable sources. You put in -- without attribution -- a smear that Watts runs a climate change denial blog. You also added a "ties to the Heartland Institute" sentence, but there's no evidence that Heartland forms a significant part of Watts's life or his blog's funding, so putting that in the lead is just more smear. So I removed your change per WP:BLP, and (unsurprisingly) Mann jess reverted me after 11 minutes. Mann jess has succeeded in getting A Quest For Knowledge topic-banned from this article for opposing a similar addition, so I won't be surprised if there's reluctance to oppose this, but one must try. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)