Talk:Naomi Oreskes

Interview

Would this interview from youtube qualify for the external links section? I think it's interesting if nothing else, but not sure what the policy is on such videos.

How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes: part 1, part 2, part 3.

— Apis (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, Youtube video's are generally discouraged, the chance of copyright violation is too high. Might make an addition to the external links, if you can find an official release of the videos. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this briefly. How to Boil A Frog presents Naomi Oreskes on Youtube was posted by a user howtoboilafrog. This user has also posted a great many (if not all) of the videos featured at howtoboilafrog.com, and that site's catalog of free online videos includes this multi-part Naomi Oreskes interview. This youtube user has been posting these videos for quite a while. Does this user represent whoever's running howtoboilafrog.com? Good question. Suffice it to say that you can watch these Naomi Oreske interviews on howtoboilafrog.com and on youtube as submitted by a user howtoboilafrog, and it's been that way for a while. That's no absolute guarantee that there's been no copyright infringement. However, I think it's safe to assume in this case that if there's any infringement, it's the fault of whoever's running howtoboilafrog.com and/or whoever submitted the video to them. I don't see how Wikipedia itself would be liable. (Then again, IANAL.) I'd suggest linking directly to the howtoboilafrog.com page for the interviews, but their ridiculous approach to organizing the site makes it impossible to guarantee landing at the right point. The YouTube links are more accurate. Yakushima (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out, How to Boil a Frog has an article on wikipedia! :D Maybe (since, as Yakushima point out, it appears to be their own videos put onto youtube by themselves) it could be added like this: "Interview by How to Boil a Frog with Naomi Oreskes: part 1, part 2, part 3." or something like that?
– Apis (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, How to Boil a Frog is a Wikipedia article, even though it's of questionable notability. (I find only one very brief press notice [1] when I search Google News Archive. But let somebody else take that up.) The thing that bothers me is that copyright (and freedom to link to the videos) can only be argued for circumstantially, with a lot of plausibility but no explicit statements that I can see. It's annoying, but look how sloppy the site itself is, maybe it's just sloppiness that they don't make the obvious utterly explicit. The videos end with one credit: www.howtoboilafrog.com. The interview subjects are identified initially by name and title. The videos start with "How to Boil a Frog Presents:" That's IT. Yakushima (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Richard Lindzen

We have "Oreskes responded to some criticisms, including those from Richard Lindzen, with an editorial in The Washington Post.[5]". However, when I go to the WaPo op-ed cited, Richard Lindzen is (fragmentarily) quoted to the effect that the consensus is a "religious belief" (only that phrase is in quotes). Moreover, it's not clear in the op-ed where Oreskes might have been responding directly to anything Lindzen said about Oreskes. When I tried to find where Lindzen had said "religious belief", every mention seems to trace back to a speech made at the National Press Club in 2004. I haven't found a complete transcript of this speech. However, here's where he does say "religious belief" in the speech quotes I can find:

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief."[2]

From this and other comments quoted, I don't think Lindzen meant that the scientific consensus (in the sense where unanimity is not required) is "religious belief". Rather, I think the "you" he invokes is anyone outside the relevant investigations who accepts the theory of anthropogenic global warming on the statement that all scientists support it. This "you" is someone accepting one statement ("all scientists") on faith, then a line of questionable reasoning (that if there's no scientific dissent, it's got to be true) as if it were iron-clad.

I'm no fan of Lindzen - far from it. However (especially considering he's from MIT tech culture) I'd venture that he said "treating it as a matter of religious belief" where a more careful mainstream commentator might have said "taking it on faith". (One can, after all, be a climate change denier but also an agnostic or atheist.) "Religious" in this likely sense is evident in debate over the relative merits of a programmer's text editor that originated at MIT, EMACS, and has become notable enough for at least one Wikipedia mention.

In view of the ambiguities, why not just omit mention of Lindzen in that sentence? It leaves you with an admittedly rather abrupt and opaque "Oreskes responded to some criticisms with an editorial in The Washington Post.[5]". And it's still a one-sentence paragraph (shudder). But I don't know what else to suggest. Yakushima (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind removing it. Lindzen does not seem to criticize the study Naomi made, rather the value of such a study and the value of a consensus among scientists (if I understand him correctly). Also, if the dates are correct, it would seem Lindzens speech was made before Naomis essay was published? (possibly he was aware of it going to be published and made a speech to address the subject before the essay went into print?) So given the information I have seen, it appears as though Naomi is the one criticizing Lindzen?
– Apis (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's gone now, but I think I see what happened here. Maybe somebody linked her 2004-12-26 "Undeniable Global Warming" WaPo op-ed thinking it was identical (virtually or word-for-word) to her LA Times piece (reproduced here at CommonDreams.org). In the LAT piece, she goes a little more head-to-head with Richard Lindzen's WSJ op-ed mentioning Oreskes Science essay and Benny Peiser's analysis and comments on it. I'd consider putting this mention back into the article, but ... I'd prefer to see this sort of thing in other articles covering anthropogenic global warning controversies, or perhaps in the Wikipedia bio for Benny Peiser, or (as I believe someone here has already suggested) in an article specifically about the Peiser-Oreskes controversy. The Peiser-Oreskes controversy is fascinating, a case study in how words get twisted. For example, I've seen it claimed that Oreskes erred in searching on "global climate change" instead of "climate change". But did she? Not all climate change is global. Far from it. I believe Roger A. Pielke (Sr., not Jr.) has argued that local and regional climate change is currently a much bigger human catastrophe and probably always will be. And for all I know, most papers that turn up on searches of "climate change" address local changes. So maybe Oreskes was not only making her survey of abstracts more manageable, but was also making it more precisely targeted. I seen where somebody claims Science published a related erratum, but all that says for sure is that "global" was left out of the article's description of the search, not that Oreskes' methodology was in error. (To be fair, the distortions aren't all on one side. In the LAT piece, Oreskes says that Lindzen said that Lindzen's op-ed "claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted." A close look at Lindzen's op-ed reveals that he said only that "A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure ....", not that he had published in any formal way.) This controversy is a little more notable than simple Google News Archive searches might make it appear, because where Oreskes writes public opinion pieces, she doesn't always mention Peiser by name. The LAT piece is one (OK, maybe the only) case in point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes as Notable Science Historian, Anyone?

[I just now noticed the warning to limit discussion to improvement of the article. The following is partly an expression of frustration about the article being locked down even for comments not directly related to the Oreskes-Peiser controversy. However, I think what I say here is within scope as "discussion of the article", since it covers material that's an obvious candidate for inclusion in the article, and also discusses where inclusion might lead in future controversies. Correct me if I'm wrong.] Yakushima (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this page has gotten locked down over climate change controversies, because I think there is much of note about Oreskes as a science historian. At the same time, however, I don't think we can entirely avoid brushes with climate change controversy even in discussing her career as an historian of geology.

I've unprotected it. It can re-prot if there are problems again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Continental Drift Rejected, Not Just Neglected?

One of Oreskes' books, Rejection of Continental Drift, tells the story of that older controversy and its resolution. This book (I read about 20 pages of it on Amazon) and a paper that I think roughly summarizes the book's case came as a surprise to me. Invoking continental drift as one of (supposedly) many vindicated theories too long consigned to the outer darkness by irrationally hostile mainstream scientists -- this was one of my favorite variations on the Galileo gambit. I'd long since signed up for the narrative that continental drift had just taken a long time to get the causal mechanism right, a long time to get validation through measurements.

Well, it turns out Alfred Wegener's continental drift wasn't just neglected by almost all American geologists for lack of mechanism and slam-dunk data, but rather (Oreskes argues) sternly rejected by all but a tiny minority, if not actually beaten savagely and left for dead. It gained more of a footing in European geology, but still held only a minority position there.

... and for Partly Political Reasons?

Oreskes' thesis in Rejection of Continental Drift is quite startling: if I read her right, she basically says that even if you could have taken late-60s data and causal-mechanism theory (plate tectonics) back in time to the original continental drift controversy, American geologists, at least, would still have rejected it. Standards for scientific validity have changed that much, she claims. She even says that part of the reason for rejecting continental drift was ideological: among other things, it was almost an overarching Theory of Everything Geological, therefore it was "autocratic"; it didn't fit the more American style pluralism in geography, of entertaining multiple hypotheses. Acceptance of it would have ruled out most other hypotheses, including the favored one of the time. I'm not sure I agree. Then again, I'm still in shock, and I'm not a geologist, nor an historian of science, and I haven't gotten a chance to take a close look at her primary sources.

How that Qualifies Her to Comment on Global Warming Dissidence

From even a cursory review of one of Oreskes' research preoccupations, I'd say it's hard to ignore the relevance of her background to the climate change debate. Among science historians, Oreskes seems to be an authority on theories of how the fringe can "come in from the cold," after a long period in deep freeze -- at least, in the very rare cases where that happens. And that certainly qualifies her to comment on whether climate change dissidents have much chance of eventual vindication. (Not saying it makes her absolutely right, mind you, just that it establishes her bona fides.)

Her Own Politics Could Make Her a Perpetual Target

That Oreskes invokes American ideological concepts in her theories of continental drift's rejection makes her recent involvement in climate change debate doubly interesting but also doubly problematic. Her own leanings on government policy don't seem to have entered into any debates so far, but could come up in the future.

It's not hard to see political polarization in the climate change debate. With the exception of a few figures pretty far to the left on the U.S. political spectrum, such as Andrew Cockburn, rejection of anthropogenic climate change correlates strongly with conservative tendencies. From a brief viewing of the Oreskes videos linked elsewhere on this talk page, I'd say Oreskes isn't shy about her politics. She attributes much of the resistance to certain post-Cold War environmental and public health measures to the personal need of some scientists who "fought" the Cold War to find a new enemy, an enemy with an arguably statist character, to replace the more obviously statist enemy that fell with the Berlin Wall. And in that, there's a dim echo of continental drift rejection on the grounds of its supposed "autocracy" (though the shoe is decidedly on the other foot in balance-of-consensus terms).

---

Woah- speaking of bias... one would think we'd care about scientific fact, not about the source, unless that source is horrifically biased. So, look at the facts which the 'conservatives' bring up. Look at those facts on their own, and then see if they have merit. Don't merely discredit them because they're 'all from conservative sources'. - Pop6 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Permanent Controversy?

I think any more complete Wikipedia biography of Oreskes as a researcher will not be entirely free of political controversy, or at least the potential for it. Climate change obviously has far greater policy consequences than whether or not continents are creeping towards or away from each other in barely measurable increments. I'm still boggling that American geologists could ever have rejected continental drift in part because there was something "un-American" in the way it would end theoretical pluralism in their field; that's practically metaphysical reasoning. Can Oreskes actually be right about that? Very noteworthy even if her case is merely plausible, but not proven. I believe many Americans want to reject anthropogenic climate change until it's absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt, because they don't want to be taxed or in any way hindered for externalizing environmental costs that might still prove to be non-existent. Well, that's ultimately an ideological way of looking at it, isn't it? And from viewing video comments from Oreskes, she seems quite aware of that.

---

Notable mention of Ms. Oreskes in this article: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx - Pop6 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Galileo Gambit Yields to "Wegener Wedge"?

The irony here (yes, I know we're not supposed to say "ironically") is that something like Oreskes' style of argumentation about rejection of continental drift could eventually be turned against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. One could argue -- and many have -- that the theory is accepted because standards of what is acceptable science have changed - too much. I.e., that standards have swung past the reasonable point where a theory like continental drift could enter, to a point where science now admits of much looser, less substantiated, propositions with far more significant public policy implications. One could argue -- and maybe some already have, in this connection -- that American ideology also carries strains of unifying populist alarmism, not just live-and-let-live pluralism, and that this overarching proposition about climate is being pushed as populist alarmism.

In short, with continental drift being an exception to the Galileo Gambit rule, and with Oreskes being the authority on that exception, she might actually have handed climate change skeptics a framework from within which new and much more nuanced attacks could be launched, from unexpected angles and with compelling irony as a rhetorical support. They could say they are highlighting Oreskes as indulging in favoritism and hypocrisy, and that she has, in a way, made the argument for keeping global warming skepticism respectable, in case it's an example of what Oreskes herself observed about Wegener's theories of continental drift. All the more reason, I think, to enforce existing Wikipedia policy about POV and BLP here, and to keep a close eye on this article as it -- and news about the subject -- develops. Yakushima (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through this. But if there are other major works by Oreskes, then it would be good to mention them William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Al Gore's documentary

The name of the movie should be capitalized in this article. Sln3412 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Separate out GW article from biography?

I've been reading this discussion page with some interest after having heard about Solomon's article. His article is obviously very biased, but the discussion certainly gave me some pause. There are some potentially concerning questions about how some of the edits are being made - revisions seem to come quickly and with only cursory explanations. Regardless, I wonder whether there is sufficient discussion and interest in separating out the article Oreskes wrote for Science from her actual biography. Yes, she is the author of several books and papers, but the Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change article may warrant a separate article on WP. That way we can discuss the various merits/flaws of the Science article, research methodology, and its conclusions independently of the BLP here. I don't know if there is sufficient information about the publication to warrant a separate WP article.

Just a thought. Bdevoe (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad PR for Wikipedia

This was posted by an IP[3] over at Commons, but seems to belong here:

• Lawrence Solomon: Wikipropaganda, National Review Online, July 08, 2008.
  

If it's true, no good PR for Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what we're witnessing is someone with a pretty big soapbox making an issue of not being able to provide original research. One of the things I mentioned in my post above was that some of the edits that were reverted were not communicated well. I think we need to be careful about what counts as a 'reliable source', something that comes up constantly and the definition of which is still more of a black art than a science. That, plus a misunderstanding about how Wiki works oftentimes leads to a lot of negativity. Solomon has a big soapbox, though, and that does give his words more weight than, say, mine.

That being said, when I came to this article (having read Solomon's article) I expected to be outraged. Instead, I saw Wiki working the way it should be, albeit with some boilerplate revert descriptions. Solomon's inability to grok how editing Wiki works is not the fault of the people here. We can (and should) certainly be better about being more understanding of new editors. But, if he has concerns about the point of view of a particular article, there are tags to that effect that can draw attention to those articles. I agree that the general tendency of Wiki is to lean left. In general, the concept that ideas are free is not a conservative view.

I don't see this as necessarily 'bad PR' overall - I think it's just reinforcing the perception of Solomon's readers about the left-leaning liberal bastion that is Wikipedia (note sarcasm). Writers compose for their audience; Solomon is no different. Bdevoe (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, actually. I just examined the edit history behind this. Petersen is using Twinkle, marking all reverts as minor edits, which is abusive, see WP:Minor edit. Solomon is obviously an inexperienced editor, and doesn't have a clear concept of sourcing requirements, but Petersen was maintaining unsourced and poorly sourced original research in the article. I would also take a look at WP:Requests for comment/GoRight, at my comment there and at the evidence page cited. Petersen has, as Solomon reports, been doing this in most of the global warming articles I examined. Always stopping short of 3RR violations. Solomon apparently didn't know to discuss this in Talk, though what I've seen of attempts to do so with the other articles was pretty fruitless with Petersen, but Petersen is not an inexperienced editor, and is simply edit warring to keep out content with no discussion other than potshots in reverting edit summaries. No discussion, no attempt to find consensus, to negotiate NPOV language, just reverts.

While it is correct that the "original research" involved in consulting with the horse's mouth is problematic, as a source for the article, it is very much relevant in a Talk discussion, and should have thrown up a big red flag that there was something amiss. "We have a reliable source," was Petersen's comment. No, this was not Wikipedia working the way it should work. The goal is an article that reflects consensus, not mere persistence in reversion! --Abd (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have examined the edit history of what Solomon refers to, providing diffs, at User:Abd/Solomon on Oreskes He's basically correct in the account, though there is something missing. His account has more reverts than the record shows. I would ordinarily dismiss that as him not checking the earliest record, but there is, I must say, another possibility. When I was starting to look at this article, I started reading Talk first. I looked up at the tabs and the article link was red. Sure enough, there was no article. It appears it had been deleted. But a few minutes later it was back. No log record that I could see. It's highly unlikely, but someone with direct database access could manage this, and remove revisions. I think any admin could do it but it would leave log records. It may remain a mystery, but .... I have never seen that happen except with an article that had been deleted while the Talk page remained.--Abd (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no deletions recorded for either the article or the talk page. It is possible to delete a page and restore only some of its revisions, as in cases where personal information is revealed and an admin wishes to undo that damage as much as possible, or, of course, some other nefarious purpose as described above. However, in the normal course of doing this, the remaining deleted edits would still be visible to administrators, and this is not the case here. It is possible, however, that navigating to the archive of the talk page would bring up some unusual-looking situations. The archive page is not connected to the article page in the same way as the "regular" talk page, because its name doesn't match. If you look at the archive page now, you'll see the article page's link is red, as is normal on archive pages. (None of this precludes any particular activity at the direct database level, of course, however unlikely that may be. I am not rendering an opinion on that here; merely providing information.)  Frank  |  talk  17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank. Looking at the Archive page is the probable certain explanation, once I thought about it some more. A developer could bypass the normal records, but ... given what I now realize, no need at all to go there now! --Abd (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the source which was cited in the version Petersen was reverting to, and see if it justifies the claim Petersen made about it. It doesn't, that was misrepresentation of source. Solomon was right. And, in fact, the way to show it would have been to refer to the source, Solomon didn't realize that, apparently. One problem may have been that the link was broken, something was wrong about how the reference was set up, I think. I found it by editing the file and extracting the link from the reference template.--Abd (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the source and it does justify what Petersen wrote. --TimLambert (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what was in the article:

---

Her conclusions were directly challenged by Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist who enumerated the figure of backing the consensus view at closer to only 30% [1]. However, Peiser’s letters to Science[2] on the subject were rejected by the editors, who stood by the integrity of the original paper. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search and had found 35 articles that supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action. It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, using different search terms and including articles which had not been peer reviewed, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had. Most readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, the only article which clearly contests the consensus position was published in the journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an oil industry publication which has no peer review system. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms.[2]

As such, the original article and its author appear to have been vindicated. Indeed, the now withdrawn criticisms serve as an example of what she refers to in her article as the media debate over climate change, which stands in contrast to the scientific consensus.

---

I have bolded what appears, on its face, to have been unsourced or inadequately sourced original research. Here we are focusing on the sentence in bold italic, which does have a reference, a primary source, a mail allegedly from Peiser. (To my knowledge, the authorship has neither been confirmed nor denied, and I really only mention this problem here because very strict sourcing requirements have been insisted upon by Petersen and others, but, here, reliability of source hasn't been established. The rest of my comment assumes that Peiser did write the letter.)

The implication in the sentence would be that the criticisms have been substantially withdrawn. That is not at all the overall thrust of the email. If the mail is accurate, Oreskes didn't publish details of her exact search criteria, and Peiser apparently used what he inferred from Oreskes' publication, this is speculation on this on my part, but it's consistent with the evidence, and my point here is that information about the search criteria has been selectively presented, synthesized from the source, by an editor. But to narrow this down. "Conceded" implies that he made some retreat, when the latter appears to me to be in the nature of a clarification. Here is what I would speculate is the source for the sentence, from the email, with Peiser in italics:

---

It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

---

Petersen's edit summary said, "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!." And then, "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant." So, my question, where is the reliable source for the claim that Petersen has "retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong." Please, no synthesis. That comment of Petersen's was not exactly what was in the article. But it is indeed what was implied by what was in the article. In other words, I'm anticipating the argument that what is in the article is a true and verifiable fact, parts of the criticism are "no longer being maintained" by Peiser, though the article went on in the next paragraph to equate this with "withdrawn," and to imply, from that, "vindication," and using Petersen's reaction and the conclusion drawn in the article text as evidence that the effect of the text was biased. Look, this was blatant POV text, and Solomon was right to challenge it. I'm not coming to any conclusion yet on the substance, i.e., should there be reference to all this in the article, though if the article is going to note Oreskes' publication and its significance, I'd say that notable criticism should likewise be shown, otherwise it would be imbalanced. It appears to me that the Peiser letter vigorously maintains the substance of the criticism; see, especially, the page that he references.

Petersen was maintaining, with three reverts (two in one day), POV text. I have not examined Solomon's replacement text in detail, so my comment should not be taken as an approval of it; but on the narrow point of Peiser's alleged retraction, Solomon was correct, and the alleged reliable source doesn't show that; it shows text that, by being selectively quoted, can be made to imply that. And this is misrepresentation of source, and I've seen this result in a topic ban by ArbComm when it was less clearly connected with a POV. Further, Solomon's edits addressed other POV aspects of the text in that section, and Petersen reverted it all. Three times. (By the way, Petersen was apparently unaware that Twinkle, which was being used for these reverts, marks edits as minor. That's because it's intended for use for vandalism, not for reverting good faith edits.)

On the other hand, perhaps I've missed something. TimLambert is certainly welcome to point it out, but, remember, distortion of source is considered a serious matter.--Abd (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The substance of Peiser's criticism of Oreskes was that 34 of her articles doubted the consensus, not zero as she wrote. Peiser told Media Watch that he had revised the number down to just one and withdrawn that part of the criticism. I think that "vindicated" is a reasonable description of what happened. And certainly Solomon's POV pushing was less acceptable than the version that Petersen reverted to. --TimLambert (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Core issue: that's an interpretation of the source, not what the source says. Quote the source and see if it supports that interpretation. I'd say it does not, but even if it did, unless the interpretation were so clear that it shouldn't be controversial, it couldn't be used, it would be synthesis, much less be the legitimate basis for an edit war. In fact, Tim's reply, above, can be torn to pieces by simple application of standard guidelines. Besides, it's wrong, not that this matters. Details matter. Further, I see both versions as POV pushing. And if either of those two editors had listened to the other side, we would have seen, not reverts, but attempts at compromise language. Tim has incorrectly identified the "substance" of the criticism. And a claim of "zero" is a remarkable claim, and would be refuted by a single counterexample. Was there only a single counterexample? That's not what Peiser says in that mail, I suspect that this was also synthesis, from other sources. Peiser's letter, quite clearly, doesn't retract the substance of his criticism; instead it maintains it, in spite of attempts to pull out isolated quotes that make it seem otherwise. Maybe we should go for an RfC on this, eh? --Abd (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC) "Vindicated" is hardly a reasonable description for:

"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 - 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts."

If we actually want to assert that this is a WP:RS then perhaps we should include this in the article as well? --GoRight (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vindicated is likewise not a reasonable description for these:

"Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view."

These are substantive claims regarding the accuracy of Oreskes' results. --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. However, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," GoRight. POV editors will argue vigorously for something being RS when it favors their position, and then they will turn on a dime if one points out that it favors an opposing position. And that's irrelevant. If the material belongs in the article on Oreskes, then we collectively so decide, and should work out how it is to be done, how it is to be represented. And what some may have argued in the past isn't relevant to that. I know that some see this as a battle for the future of the planet. But this is more like a court where decorum is required, even if the future of the planet hangs on its decisions. Being "right" can get you tossed out on your ear, and properly so, if you don't follow the rules of the court, which are designed to set aside prejudicial opinions. Don't be a POV editor. Be an editor with a POV which you use to inform you as to what may be important. You will, better than those with a different POV, detect imbalance with regard to that different POV as it clashes with your own. You are part of our bias detector, as they are as well. NPOV is a dialectical synthesis in the Hegelian sense, it isn't some particular point of view. The other "side" has more experience with Wikipedia than you, and includes some administrators, but some of them have been, actually, shockingly naive, even to the point of a foolish arrogance. I assure you, long-term Wikipedians will mostly not support what has been done here, nor would ArbComm. Given the possible damage to Wikipedia's reputation from this affir, it may indeed be appropriate to take this to the Committee, perhaps I'll raise the issue with Wiki-En-L, but one step at a time. An ArbComm proceeding might be necessary, but it is a royal pain for all involved.--Abd (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Its very very simple. Peiser's critique of Oreskes is a WP:SPS, it makes some very contentious claims about a person (Oreskes, science fraud), that has been published in a very notable and prestigious scientific journal, and has been very widely cited ([4]). And as has been established, it hasn't been mentioned sufficiently by 3rd party sources (see), to raise it to the notability level, where mentioning it in Oreskes biography is warrented. In fact the very fact that it was rejected by a very notable publisher, raises the bar for inclusion signifcantly. Peiser makes some rather astounding claims - that have been shot down in other WP:SPS's - but thats also irrelevant - since those also do not pass the bar.

I do not have time to answer the claims made here (i'm on vacation) - but i will point out that Abd's comment about previous discussions being irrelevant, is incorrect - there was discussions here already, and these set the basis for further discussion. (see previous discussions here and in the archives). While consensus can change (and must in some cases), it is not created in a void. Most of the points here have already been pointed out and discussed. As a sidenote - we have 1 (2) source(s) that say that Peiser retracted his critique this (and this where Peiser is quoted as saying that he's glad he wasn't published - since his study was flawed).

And frankly i find that the argumentation "I know that some see this as a battle for the future of the planet" is both uncivil, and presumptious about what other editors may or may not think. (in fact i doubt if anyone has that particular view). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never argued that the Peiser material should be in this article, I have not even addressed that. Kim, your position was not, however, in the hree repeated reverts you made, edit warring, that the material didn't belong there, rather it was that there was reliable source for what was said, in what you restored, about Peiser's criticism. The self-published material mentioned above is cited in the alleged RS. Before I examine the two alleged sources for Peiser's "retraction," I'd like to know: are those two sources you mention (media watch, BBC) reliable sources or not? If they aren't, then they can't be used. If they are, then all of what is in them can potentially be used. Which is it? Why waste time arguing about what isn't reliably sourced? Were you correct to re-insert this claim about Peiser, based on reliable source, or was it an error? I don't see how you can have it both ways. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The position that i took, was that of the consensus version at the time. As you can see in the discussions above - i did change my mind significantly. Originally i was of the opinion that Peiser had received sufficient 3rd party coverage for it to be mentioned in the biography here. The MediaWatch mail is a reliable source on Peiser's opinion, although MW itself may not be - i haven't looked into that. The BBC article is an opinion column, and as such may be dubious as a reliable source (same restrictions as usual for Op-Eds/Editorials), it would depend on the journalists reputation and expertise. Since we are on a WP:BLP page, it is extremely important to consider what is and what is not a reliable source, just as it it extremely important to consider the relative weight of the sources/opinions.

As for my reversions - i have explained them in detail both here on the talk page (and the archives) as well as in comments on Solomons blogs ([5],[6]). Yes, i believed at the time that the articles representation was correct. In retrospect i think the "vindicated" paragraph should have been removed. Quick rationales:

1. Science has not published a correction or retraction - and did not accept Peisers response => stood by the integrity. (its part of the journals policy to do so, if they do not)
2. Oreskes paper has never claimed unanimous support (read it) so Peisers unanimous argument is irrelevant.
3. Peiser's search criteria was wrong (objectively) and thus he didn't reproduce Oreskes result.
4. The AAAP article isn't peer-reviewed, and it is the only paper that Peiser could produce for MW.
5. Peiser did say that he doesn't uphold part of his critique anymore.

Since i'm travelling for a week - i wont be able to respond to any queries after this before next Sat/Sun/Monday. (not sure which). I suggest that you read up on the issue. And that you try to understand why Solomon was reverted - his insistence on knowing the truth, rather than explaining or referencing reliable sources for it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Peiser criticism - to make an edit break

OK, so let's see what happens if we pursue this. We are on the talk page, arguably the first place to discuss such topics, so as a GW skeptic I think that Peiser's criticisms of Oreskes' work are significantly under-represented here. We have an acknowledged WP:RS being used to justify the assertion that Peiser has retracted his criticism ... at least his narrow criticism of the "34 arbstracts". But as I have shown above he likewise makes other substantive claims which he has not retracted. Given the notoriety of the Oreskes piece it seems appropriate from a NPOV perspective to present it within the broader context for the reader. Peiser's criticisms provide just such a broader context.

So, how should we go about incorporating some of Peiser's other points from the source cited above? --GoRight (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See above. First question is, what sources do we have meeting WP:V? Let's list them and see if we can agree on what is reliable. By the way, Solomon's report of Peiser's comment, in his published editorial, is reliable source for that. Solomon's report in an edit summary was one thing, but in a published opinion piece, it's different. (Generally, I prefer to see "according to," when reporting notable opinion, but this could be in a footnote, particularly if there is no reason to doubt it. (I have no reason to doubt that Solomon contacted Peiser and that Peiser responded as described by Solomon.) Note that just because a source is reliable, technically, doesn't mean that everything from it is usable, but these are distinctions that we decide, typically, by editorial consensus. Accepting a source doesn't mean that anything from that source will be used, necessarily. It's simply a first step, even though usually we approach it the opposite way. Somebody inserts something, say it is sourced. Then the source is challenged or not. But there is already a kind of bias there, for an editor, seeing what is drawn from the source, may dislike the implications. So let's talk about sources, and what they might be used for. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that Solomon's opinion is notable is wrong - or at least lacks any significant backing. It is an Op-Ed and as such it is not a reliable source to anything other than Solomons opinion, and very much suspect on a WP:BLP page. As for Solomon's general reliability - he is not exactly known for his reliability on this subject, in his deniers series - at least 3 of those he profiled have had significant objections (Solanki, Weiss, Shaviv). And anyone with just a tad of insight into the climate change debate will object to several of his "deniers" (Von Storch, Tol, Wunch, Landsea). Thats a very large percentage of errors/misinterpretations in that series. Combine this with the red flags raised by his claims that WMC is the 2nd most important person ... And the errors with regards to User:tabletop (which persisted after he appologized - and have never gotten a retraction). You end up with a very suspect source.

On other sources - i suggest that people take a look at User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Temporary#Oreskes_notes where a lot of that work has already been done. Feel free to expand and discuss.

(unindent) I'm asserting that Lawrence Solomon is notable. If not, try AfDing the article, see how far you get!And the opinion of a notable person is generally notable. Petersen is confusing "reliable source" with "reliable person," and is also trying to establish or refute a source being "reliable source" by resorting to detailed argument on content. Further, as I noted, Petersen was relying on a source for this BLP which was nothing other than the opinion of Peiser, in an email. This is why I've suggested focusing on reliable source first, separately from the question of what is usable from those sources in this particular article. But, please, don't assert nonsense like Solomon isn't notable. But even if he were not notable, if an article or opinion piece (by a regular columnist, different from a letter to the editor) were published by a reliable source, i.e., a major edited newspaper, it's usable in general. Usable in this article is a separate question. As to the user page cited by Petersen, I'll take a look at it.--Abd (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm notable. Does that make all my opinions notable? For example, I think LS is a non-notable blogger who writes nonsense about wiki and about climate in general. I look forward to you adding it to his article. No? OK, then try re-writing the opinion of a notable person is generally notable in a way that makes sense William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll rewrite it. "The opinion of a notable person is generally notable when it relates to the person's notability. 'Notable' in this context means that, if WP:V can be satisfied, and, as an example, the person is notable as an expert in a field, there is a prima facie relevance of the opinion in that field. Here, though, Solomon isn't, I'll assume, an expert on, say, Oreskes. However, he is notable as a commentator (editorialist and author) in the global warming field. Thus, from this, his opinion might be usable. And, to be sure, there are additional, more stringent requirements, in the case of a biography of a living person. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. What I'm claiming here is that editorial opinions of Solomon, published by a responsible publisher (legally responsible, presumption that there is some editing involved), are possibly usable, that we may included them in a list of possible sources. Determining their actual usage is properly a separate matter; I'm simply arguing against a premature and categorical exclusion, which is quite odd, coming from Petersen, because Petersen insisted that Peiser's mail was reliable source, though there was no editing, it was similar to a letter to the editor. In fact, now, Solomon's publication of reference to his conversation with Peiser is usable if it's relevant. That is, the comment that Solomon's experience with Pesier wasn't relevant to anything is gone. Peiser, we have RS for, now, denied that he had retracted his criticism and, in fact, the source itself confirmed that, amply, and it was only selective quotation and interpretation that made the reverse seem to be true.--Abd (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Get that opinion published as an Op/Ed (not a letter to the Editor) in a major/national newspaper or a respected science journal and then, yes, we can consider including it. A WP:SPS and group blog like RealClimate is explicitly rejected per WP:BLP, however. --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Its not the notability of the person, or at least not the rather low bar that wiki puts as defined by surviving AFD. Its where your opinions are published. I'm glad to see you agreeing with me and disagreeing with Abd William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, I agree with GoRight. Connolley has seized on an accidental meaning of what I wrote, a meaning I didn't intend. I'm not asserting that any opinion by a notable person is therefore notable, the matter is far more complex than that. Great news! We all agree! The publication is the issue. Opinion expressed by Solomon in the National Post, or distributed from there, is notable because of how it was published, and, if you will reread what I wrote, I stated that the same condition would make it usable if it weren't Solomon, if it were someone we'd never heard of before. However, it's another step, a far more complex one, to claiming that it's usable in the article. Being published in the NP makes it satisfy WP:V, which is the fundamental issue.

(EC) I think I am actually agreeing with you both. To be acceptable the source has to meet multiple criteria, as you know, and these criteria are not mutually exclusive. So, notability is one factor and WP:RS is another. Having one's opinion published in any of the aforementioned ways, however, is good evidence that both criteria have been met. WP:RS are not just going to print the opinions of anybody, you have to be somewhat notable to begin with. --GoRight (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Naomi Oreskes/Sources

I'm creating this page as a compilation of sources for this article. It should be NPOV in its description of sources, but all reasonably relevant sources should be listed. Reference to any consensus developed here, or to arguments made here, may be made. I.e., for the purpose of this page, Wikipedia history is also a "reliable source" (not for the article!) The idea of this page is to avoid repetitive, useless controversy and repetition of arguments, but to examine debate over sources in one place in summary fashion, mostly with reference, in addition to outside sources, to discussion here. We should be able to agree, all good-faith editors of this article, on what is on that page. (Not necessarily as to what we use for the article!) Kim, would you copy your source notes to that page? If anything in those notes isn't proper for that page, it can be removed, but your notes will be a good start. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)