Talk:Judith Curry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article additions

As may be obvious, I had an article almost ready to post also. Some seams still show, but it's certainly time Curry had an article. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV?

MN has tagged this [1] but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Made an attempt. Didn't see the need for a separate section for "views on climate change". Thepm (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reinserted reliably sourced material which was removed. There was no blp violation here at all. Unless you think she did not say what she has said? mark nutley (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it could really be classified as a BLP violation, but it's irrelevant. MN - think about what point you're trying to clarify for the reader. I assume it's that she has taken some climate scientists to task over their approach. That point's made by the sentence; While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has written that Climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside". Labouring that point is just piling on (is there a wiki essay about piling on? There ought to be). Thepm (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no blp violation here, wmc self revert as you are in breach of your 1r parole. Thepm, it is highly notable that she has tried to talk to sceptics, and that she has posted on sceptic blogs. I will of course put this back if wmc refuses to self revert and continues to break his paroles mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN - bearing in mind that the point that she has been critical of climatologists has already been made, the deleted material can be summarised as follows;

1. She's critical of some of her colleagues

2. She's critical of the IPCC

3. She's critical of Climatologists

4. She posted on WUWT (ie directly engaged skeptics)

5. She's critical of scientists

I recommend against you putting it all back because right now, you don't have consensus to do that. On the other hand, I do think it's notable that she's directly engaged skeptics and a single sentence to illustrate that would probably be worthwhile. Thepm (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC had no consensus to remove it, berate him not me. Can you explain why you think it is not a notable event that she posts and discusses issues on sceptic blogs? It is notable. The removal of reliably sourced material without reason is against policy, and it is going back in, it is a notable event and should be properly recorded mark nutley (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is irrelevant for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no blp violation, self revert mark nutley (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence that makes the point that she supports engagement of skeptics. I think it's a separate point the the one in the previous sentence. Thepm (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And I've just realised that I didn't put an edit summary. Can I fix that? Thepm (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think you can change edit summaries, your best bet i to self revert and then revert again so you can put one in, what you have added is good, however i believe readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on, is there any reason this can`t also be added? mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on - really? Would they also like to know what she has for tea? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently she's a meat and potatoes kind of person, but really WMC, I don't think that's relevant for the article. MN - No, I don't think we need to be specific about the blogs. She's already published on two and I suspect there will be more. We don;t need them itemised. Thepm (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given she has posted on the three main sceptic sites i really do not see an issue with saying she posted her open letter on Climate Audit and on Watts Up With That, it is were she has posted that is the crux of the issue. I notice no objection to real climate being used in the article, why is that? mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Real climate isn't used in the article, is it? Thepm (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not as a ref sorry should have been clearer, it is an external link in General-interest articles on climate science and climate-change policy by Judith Curry mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't see it there either, although I can see Climate Audit. In any case, my view remains that there is no need to itemise the various blogs.

By the way, are you ok to take the tag off now? Thepm (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure take the pov tag off, i`ll do an rfc about the blog thing, thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Get someone to check it for neutrality before you post it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Curry's notability....

Curry's notability with the general public has arisen from her appearance in two MSM articles: the Revkin piece in the NYT in 11-09, and an interview in Discover magazine in 3-10. She has also made some more recent, provocative remarks at various climate-related sites online. While I understand the need for balance, it's a disservice to our readers to omit the main reason the general public would know who she is.

My own contribution to this, which vanished overnight, was:

Since the Climategate controversy developed in 2009, Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science, in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data. She has been especially critical of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"

To answer one possible objection, "Climategate" is what Curry herself calls the controversy: she defines it more broadly than our Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, to include the IPCC controversy, which she calls "corruption". --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, because Wikipedia isn't about the news of the day. If she's notable, it's for her scientific work, not for this stuff. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz and I had a discussion nearly a year ago Talk:Effects of global warming#Judith Curry and came to the conclusion that Judith Curry past the WP:PROF test. Atmoz said he would start an article up again properly some time but hadn't got around to it. I agree this recent tittle tattle is not something that has suddenly made her notable and should only form a very minor part of this article. Polargeo (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also a very notable moment in her life, and for her to be critical of the ipcc is very notable mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Curry's notability with the general public - ah, can you see the mistake you're making? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Prof. Curry would be notable on the basis of her academic achievements, she has described herself as a "middle-size fish" in the climate-science pond. If she were "just" an average academic, there wouldn't be any controversy over (or any great interest in) her wiki-biography. However, she has chosen to enter the discussion of public policy related to climate change. Her statements and comments have attracted national interest. While we're not a newspaper, her actions are unquestionably (and permanently) WP:Notable.

We are a resource for the general reader, who (ideally) will find here an encyclopedic summary of the notable and significant parts of the subject's life and career. As Mark Nutley notes, this is something of a watershed moment in her career. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC: first, Curry's venture into public-policy has already been written up in the NY Times and Discovery:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed" to be WP:Notable.

Second, your venture into mind-reading is presumptuous, offensive and borders on a WP:Personal attack. This is the second time you've tried this particular line of rhetoric on me. I didn't call you on it last time, but I am now. Please desist. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not reading your mind. I'm reading your edits. We are a resource for the general reader - yes, but not all articles are written from that point of view. Nor should Curry's biog be drowned by the excitement-of-the-moment, just because that excites some people William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tillman's proposed addition to the article, it is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and succinct. That makes it 3 to 2 for inclusion, Mark, Tillman, and Cla68 for, WMC and Guettarda against. In addition, I hear that someone may have broken a 1RR edit restriction in this article. Is this true? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, in response to some actions in this article, I've filed an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Reliably sourced"? A blog comment wouldn't be a reliable source in any article, let alone a BLP. Let alone when it's being used to attribute controversial opinions to a living person. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Cla68, am I correct in saying you support adding content to a biography of a living person that is sourced to a now deleted comment in a no-login comments section in a highly partisan blog, and that you believe such a source is "reliable?" Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, if her statement on Pielke's blog has been deleted, it can't be used. The other two sources look good though. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And if the comments weren't deleted, then they would be "reliable?" Just trying to figure out if someone posting in an unmoderated no-login comments section saying they are Judith Curry are reliable sources. If they are, man, have I got some Albert Einstein blog comments for you. Oh, and are you saying that www.qando.net is a reliable source? Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"The other two sources look good"? Did you read any of the sources before proclaiming them "good"? Per my analysis below, the two reliable sources are misrepresented. How the heck is any of it "it is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and succinct"? Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the third sentence of Tillman's proposal is worthless fails WP:V, right? Now the second sentence is also problematic. She has been especially critical of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is sourced to this interview in Discover.

• "Especially" is not supported by the source. She criticises certain aspects of the process, but to say that she has been "especially" critical just isn't in there. Nowhere in the interview is her critique compared with any of her colleagues. "Especially" is an editorial opinion and cannot stand.
• Saying "she has been critical of the IPCC" is misleading - she criticised certain aspects of the process. I don't recall her criticising the results of the report, not in that interview, and even if she did, her primary criticism was of the process. So that statement is misleading.
• Even saying "she has been critical of the IPCC process" is problematic, since her criticisms are of specifics. It's also utterly trivial. A 6000-person committee? I can imagine that there are more criticisms that members. That's the nature of committees. If we're going to say anything about that, we need to be specific. To say someone criticised something without specifying what it was they were criticising is to paint with so broad a brush that the statement is meaningless and misleading. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence, sourced to the Revkin article, has similar problems. Since the Climategate controversy developed in 2009, Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science, in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data.

• "since the...controversy developed" - not supported by the source. There's nothing in the source that says that she wasn't critical before. So that part cannot be attributed to the cited source. Looks like pure OR.
• "Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science" - looks OK
• "in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness"" - the word "sloppiness" is in quotes, but I can't find it anywhere in the article. Nor, for that matter, do I see the sentiment expressed. Quotes not present in source, sentiments not present in source.
• "ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data" - this, on the other hand, is a direct quote from Revkin, but it's presented without quotes, it's passed of as your own words. That's plagiarism.
• "in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data" - this is not a fair representation of the letter/article. The main thrust is "engage the skeptics, don't retreat to the ivory tower or circle the wagons". Part of it is made up, the other part is something she doesn't even mention in the letter (which is the main thrust of Revkin's article). Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Guettarda's response reminds me of why I don't do much of this sort of thing anymore. I'll write a more specific response later, when whatever bug I'm trying to fight off lets up. In essence, it's smoke & mirrors, and/or intimidation. Sigh.

In the meanwhile, those actually interested in what Curry has to say may wish to follow Keith Kloor's ongoing Curryfest. Might be as well to wait for MSM to pick up on this -- or for Kloor to write his article.

The "dead" link to Curry's remarks at Pielke Jr's site worked just a moment ago. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• How is it "intimidation" to ask that you fairly represent sources, don't invent quotes, don't pass off other people's words as your own, and don't use unverifed blog comments as reliable sources? What is your vision of Wikipedia where these sorts of things are allowed? Oh, wait, I think I know... Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Guettarda, if you're going to continually personalize this discussion, perhaps you should step off for awhile. I don't think it's helpful to reaching a compromise agreement on what we're going to include in the article on Curry's position on this topic. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've filed a Wikiquette alert about some of the discussion I've observed on this page. In the meantime we can get back to work on it. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Worthless" is a poorly chosen word. I was thinking "useless" as in "is no use to us". As for the rest - no, he personalised the issue, calling my dissection of his proposed changed "intimidation". It's not intimidation to carefully examine proposed text. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I propose leaving Tillman's second sentence as is and rephrasing the first, using the same source, as "In reponse to the 2009-2010 Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Curry wrote an essay urging, 'greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research.'" Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Curry's blog post is directly referenced in the NY Times article, so it's ok to link to it in a footnote in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not that I don't believe you, but where in the NY Times article does Curry's purported post dated April 16, 2010 on rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com appear in the NY Times article dated November 27, 2009? Use quotes. Or, if I got the article wrong, plese provide both a link to the correct article and quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I could be wrong on that. The Times article mentions her remarks on that blog, but if it's not referencing that specific post, then it can't be used. By the way, if you don't agree with Tillman's wording, could you propose your own text using the Times and the Discover sources? Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• No. I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you this again. You state "Curry's blog post is directly referenced in the NY Times article." This is apparently totally false. Why would you say something that is totally and completely 180 degrees removed from the truth - and that would require a violation of all of the laws of physics to be truthful. Where did you get your information from? Hipocrite (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Further, you now state "The Times article mentions her remarks on that blog" Please provide a quote from the times article that references "rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I got the blog wrong, her essays are apparently published on Climate Audit, Climateprogess, and her own blog. Thank you for kindly correcting me. So, links to those blogs, in this case, would be ok. Again, would you please post your own proposal for how to word a synopsis of what she's saying in the NY Times article, Discover interview, and in her essay posted on those blogs? Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how it needs substantial expansion beyond "She supports engagement with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change and the benefits of blog-led debate. She published an open letter on various blogs called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trustm" you could, perhaps also add "She has critiziced some other researches for what she perceives as a lack of transparency and an unwillingess to engage skeptics," but if you added that you'd have to remove the meaningless quote farms of "she has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside".[7] She also stated "We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda, ... Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?"" Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Although I often disagree with arguments of exclusion of material under WP:UNDUE, in this case I think they may have merit. This article is so short that it would be unbalanced if it contained mostly Curry's opinion on one or two topics like AGW skepticism and Climategate. I think the article needs to be expanded and then we can discuss adding her opinions on these two areas. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Cla68, WP:UNDUE (a/k/a WP:WEIGHT) is something to consider. The idea, elsewhere on this page, that we should somehow discount Curry's contributions to the public debating over the CRU emails controversy is baseless -- her notability is heavily dependent on it. Because of WP:WEIGHT, I'd expand the passage a bit from what's there now, because this aspect of her notability is more important than the article reflects. When the CRU emails first became public, Curry was one of the very first climate scientists from the mainstream AGW perspective to criticize the emailers (and perhaps the very first to do so in an extended way), and her comments were some of the most prominent criticisms from a climate scientist at that early stage. Our talk page and article had links to them (I put them there). Because she criticized the emailers' conduct from within the mainstream view, she appears to have been regarded with a lot more credibility by science journalists such as Andrew Revkin. Hipocrite, I wouldn't be too shy about quotes when we're talking about a controversy she's involved in. Quotes have a lot more credibility with readers, and they tend to be more accurate than our attempts at paraphrasing or describing a position (although they can be taken out of context and misused). Quotes can also preserve nuances and tone of voice, which may be critical in a BLP of someone involved in a controversy. We should be much more tolerant of quotes touching on controversies. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia publishes articles on recent controversies in which traditional encyclopedia "tone" isn't always appropriate (in good part because it tends to leave out quotes). What we're doing in covering recent controversies is more like journalism, where quotes are used more often. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, your argument is we need to use blogs as sources for quotes because it's VERY IMPORTANT RECENT INFORMATION, and for VERY IMPORTANT RECENT INFORMATION, we don't use an encyclopedic tone? No. Hipocrite (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, exaggerating the opinions of people who disagree with you and using the "caps lock" key. Interesting ways to make your points. Thanks for making it such a joy to try to have a calm, reasonable discussion with you about article content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have calm, reasonable discussions with people that want to use blogs to libel living persons, so sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point out the libel. Please point out where I wanted "to use blogs to libel living persons." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some refs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"By Judith Curry Wednesday, October 10, 2007; 6:55 PM" Bit old don`t you think? Perhaps her mind has changed since then. There are newer refs showing her support for AGW is`nt there? mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-3538 is a good summary of her current position William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya but that can`t be used can it. It is in a comment section on a blog mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's correct - it can't be used. However, since it's almost certainly true, we shouldn't make statements in this article that misrepresent Dr. Curry's views unless we are certain those statements are accurate - better to just leave them out, per WP:BLP - "We must get the article right." Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all but your first sentence. I'm not sure that is true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the Q an A on the collide a scape website useable? It is an interview with her, so is it reliable to use as a source? mark nutley (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this for the millionth time. STOP USING BLOGS AS SOURCES Hipocrite (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. This isn't a blog by some unknown *abot* Curry - this is a blog interview *with* Curry. It is her words. It is, I think, as reliable source for her opinions. And it contains a lot of very interesting material William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually i was just asking as Kloor is a professional journalist and it is an interview with Dr Curry. I am not talking about the comments, just the interview. I have also been advised to ask if a source can be used if i am unsure :-) mark nutley (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That we can possibly use a blog as a source does not mean that we should. Our best articles would not use a blog as a source. However, if you're going to again argue that we include some blog as a source because it's got very very important information, then at the very least have the dignity to propose the specific change on the talk page and seek consensus from people who typically disagree with you before adding it to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what she says there is markedly different from the Discover interview: (a) she has some concerns about the use of uncertainty in the IPCC report (mostly a comment on process, not "she has been especially critical of the IPCC", not "corruption!eleventyone!"), and (b) she hasn't gone over to the "it's all a hoax" side.

Hipocrite, would you please read WP:BLPSPS? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the policy that says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person." Yeah, right on it. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone trying to use blog comments. Hipocrite (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. Thanks so much for reminding me. Have you seen the passage next to the check mark at the top of the BLP page? The one where it says as a policy, BLP is something that editors should "normally follow"? And did you catch the link to "common sense" at that word "normally"? Did you happen to look at the blog's "About" page, where it says the author is an editor at Audubon Magazine. During the 2008-2009 academic year, I was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder. Would using a blog by an ex-Audobon editor and current journalism professor and past environmental journalism fellow who's interviewing and quoting the subject be a dangerous thing for Wikipedia to do here? If Curry took exception to what he reported, do you think she'd say so somewhere? Try to answer without exaggerating what I say and try to get that Caps Lock key fixed on your keyboard. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, you directed me to read a policy which said exactly what I was doing - IE, not including terrible sources. After I quoted the policy you asked me to read to you, you realized you never actually knew what the policy you were quoting at me said (since I quoted the very first words of the policy, and all), so you decided that, even though you were the one who said we should follow the policy, we should actually not follow the policy, because apparently somewhere in your brain you believe BLP is something that editors should only "normally" follow - IE, you think this is important enough to disregard policy. Beyond that, you decided that this was the moment to become incivil. If you were me and I were you, would you, at this point, disregard everything you said? Wait, don't answer that, I'm just disregarding everything you say. Hipocrite (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me take this opportunity to apologize to you for saying, I don't have calm, reasonable discussions with people that want to use blogs to libel living persons, so sorry. It was a terrible personal attack to say that about another Wikipedia editor without any reason to have said it. Oh, wait. That was you. You're really confusing me with this if-you-were-me-and-I-were-you concept. somewhere in your brain you believe BLP is something that editors should only "normally" follow -- is that only in my brain or is it also on the WP:BLP page? At the top, next to the check mark? Help me out here, my poor brain is just too addled to read properly. Yes, I had read WP:BLPSE too quickly, focusing on the fact that a blog on a newspaper website is generally fine and this one wasn't on a newspaper website. (Similar language in WP:RS was changed late last November, and that might have been what confused me. This blog would be fine for non-BLP material.) Your response is the only appropriate one: comment on my brain, make snide comments, say I'm being uncivil and announce that I'm just disregarding everything you say. Because, naturally, any time anyone gets something wrong in a discussion with you, they have shown themselves unworthy of you. There are at least two other editors in this discussion who also think the material is worth using. Perhaps this should be brought up at the BLP noticeboard. WP:BLPSPS violates common sense here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, bring this to any noticeboard you want. When you're soundly smacked down, will you drop it? Hipocrite (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiLinks inside of quotes?

Regarding this edit,[2] I thought there were was some rule against having WikiLinks inside of quotations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is, please feel free to fix it. Minor4th 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Minor4th 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific American

Interesting new article in Scientific American Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues [3]. Might be a useful source? Worth a look anyway. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JAJ. Interesting reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• This profile is starting to draw 3rd-party RS attention. I'll list same here, pending an add to the article:

• Reprint at Nature: [4], seems to be a straight copy of the SA profile.
• Mother Jones (blog?): Who's Afraid of the Climate Community? by Kevin Drum
• National Review: Judith Curry’s Heresy by Jonah Goldberg
• Grist: Judith Curry: On the quest to keep politics out of climate science, by David Roberts
• Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine: Handling the Heat, October 27, 2010

Collide-a-Scape on The Judith Curry Phenomenon

I've added this as an external link. For interested readers, there are some great exchanges between Curry & Gavin Schmidt, and a wonderful soundbite from Curry that (alas) we can't use here:

Unlike other people that I can think of, I don’t whine when I am getting attacked criticized or claim that they are in the pay of big oil or the enviro advocacy groups or whatever. I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point.

[Comment #41]

Heh. Gavin chimes in again just below this. Very entertaining reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining indeed. But not terribly suitable for this article (or, indeed, any article). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you unpack that a bit, please? See WP:EL, Links to be considered #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would start with the first three paragraphs of WP:EL and points 11 and 13 of Links normally to be avoided. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Use of this is becoming moot, as Curry is now writing directly about this at her own blog. Some of this should definitely be added to her bio. Interesting stuff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond Climategate"

Politics of climate science fuel talk, November 4, 2010, Journal and Courier, Lafayette, IN

"A panel of climate change experts attracted hundreds of people at Purdue University Thursday for a discussion about the complicated relationship among scientists, politicians and the media. It was standing room only..."

The event was titled "Beyond Climategate: What Role for Science and the Media in the Making of Climate Policy?" Panel: Judith Curry, Andrew Revkin, Roger Pielke Jr. and Elizabeth McNie.

It's been a year since the most recent citations relevant to the Judy Curry entry. Permit me to call attention to an article in the Daily Mail at... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html ...and add my comment that the DM article seems bent on trivializing a solemn subject of global importance with a she-said/he-said report. Perhaps Wikipedia should collect examples of how uncritical publications give individuals opportunities to grind axes, demeaning the labors of IPCC scientists and investigators. Just a suggestion. Paul Niquette (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Position statement by Curry in OpEd at The Australian

Posting a link to open copy, as the original is paywalled: Consensus distorts the climate picture, published in The Australian, September 21, 2013. Paywall at The Australian. Curry's blog post re the op-ed

Curry has become more outspoken in her contrarian views, in particular her increasingly sharp criticism of the IPCC. So this might be a good source to update her bio, as using SPS is often contentious.

Sample: She remarks critically of what she sees as "explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to carbon dioxide mitigation policies." And "IPCC’s estimates of the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing are too high, raising serious questions about the confidence we can place in the IPCC’s attribution of warming in the last quarter of the 20th century primarily to greenhouse gases, and also its projections of future warming."

Interesting reading. Has lots of her opponents knickers in twists.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wyatt & Curry 2013

A significant new publication: M.G. Wyatt and J.A. Curry, “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century”: Climate Dynamics, 2013. Full text; Curry's discussion at her blog

From the Ga. Tech press release:

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt, the paper’s lead author, said. Interesting paper. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Section title: Climate Change Controversy

This section title is vague and misleading. The section is about Curry's relationship with and attitude towards climate skeptics. The section is not about the climate change controversy which is not discussed. It is not even about controversial remarks that Curry has made regarding climate change and the scientific criticism she has received for her public statements and the her testimony before Congress. I've renamed the article twice and it has been reverted with one individual uncertain about the meaning of the word relationship. This word is appropriate and accurately describes the section. It is certainly much better than "climate change controversy" which falsely implies a) there is meaningful scientific controversy on the existence of climate change and b) that the section is about Curry's opinions on climate change which is just not true. I'm open to other alternatives if other people would like to suggest them but the status quo is unacceptable. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not keen on either title. You're right that this section is not about "climate change controversy", but it's about more than just relationships with skeptics. Indeed I find your statement that "[i]t is not even about controversial remarks that Curry has made regarding climate change and the scientific criticism she has received for her public statements and the her testimony before Congress" slightly odd given the first and last paragraphs which are pretty much about the remarks (though not the conseqeuent criticism).

How about just calling this section "Climate change"? That is the common factor of all the topics addressed in this section, whether her essay, her blog, or her congressional testimony. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, JAJ. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm the editor who reverted the renaming of the section because it didn't sound good and felt somewhat convoluted. I wouldn't have an issue with simply calling it Climate Change as Jonathan A Jones proposed though. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"State of the Climate Debate" presentation

"State of the Climate Debate", Judith Curry presentation at the National Press Club, Sept. 2014, includes slideshow (pdf) and video

Interesting presentation --this would be a good source for updating Prof. Curry's current views on the debate. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Judith Curry thinks climate scientists view her as their "biggest threat."

A woman in the eye of the political storm over climate change, Climate Wire, September 26, 2014

Good article. Some good stuff here for the bio. RS, too. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

CFAN

From User:HalMorris -- sorry, I'm quite a novice and don't get how "HalMorris (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)" works. Made some additions that were very quickly removed; wrote to a wikipedian I know:

I may be in a little bit of an editing battle, as an addition I made to an article was removed (by Peter Gulutzan, not one of the writers of the article) because it "Sounded like advertising". What sounded like advertising were quotes from a marketing web site that on close examination suggests a conflict of interest which I feel should be pointed out when discussing Prof. Curry.

As I wrote before, I added this text to the article on Judith Curry, a well published Climatologist whose work supports AGW, but who is virtually at war with her collegues, and runs a web site which is extremely deprecating to the Climate Science community.

From the talk page for the article "Judith Curry thinks climate scientists view her as their "biggest threat."

So I ran across this information by way of her twitter page (it is difficult to find just googling {"Judith Curry" company} and variations of that), and wrote, quoting from the marketing material:

She is also president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) whose "innovative OmniCast suite of weather and climate forecast products for the energy sector incorporates the latest research in weather and climate dynamics...". OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry for extended range, better-than-market weather forecasts to support energy trading, sales and marketing."

Estimation of size of company from http://www.zoominfo.com/c/Climate-Forecast-Applications-Network-LLC/346602014 $1 mil. - $5 mil.in Revenue / 10 - 20Employees

The key point: OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a

       major client in the petroleum industry

I reinserted a modified version:

She is also president, since 2006, of "Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)[2] whose major commercial software product. OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry."[3]

I would prefer to include more context to let CFAN speak for itself rather than making it so baldly accusatory through the absence of context.

I added a section heading: "CFAN". I never said your addition "sounded like advertising", what I actually said in my edit summary was: "Possibly interesting but source looks too much like advertising". The source, the specific page that you linked to, http://www.cfanclimate.com, is CFAN marketing material which doesn't mention Curry. Possibly if you linked instead to http://www.cfanclimate.com/contactus.php you would be indicating that a person named Judith Curry has links to CFAN, and possibly her Twitter account would be a valid source for a statement about herself (but follow the redirect at WP:TWITTER. OmniCast, however, looks irrelevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Judith Curry is president and founder of CFAN. For this, you go to http://www.cfanclimate.com/team.php (must click on "Leadership"). The company appears to have exactly one trademarked product, OmniCast, which came into existence at the same time the company was founded. http://www.cfanclimate.com/omnicast.php, and the brochure at http://www.cfanclimate.com/CORP/DOWNLOADS/CFAN_OC.pdf both state OmniCast was "developed by CFAN in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry". The first uses exactly that wording; the 2nd says the same with slight transposition. Twitter was mentioned only on the talk page not in the article. It only helped me relocate (I'd seen it before) the material that I clearly cited.

 There is more to say but I can't say more just now. HalMorris (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll return to this, but it will take a while to collect my thoughts, and try to propose a version that will be accepted. HalMorris (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fred Singer Emails

Undid deletion by Peter Gulutzan:

• The email exchange is significant and is cited in multiple news sources.
• The reason for the deletion was specious: this isn't an "every time" event.
• The exchange ties Curry directly to the set of climate-change denial network addressed in the book Merchants of Doubt and the film Merchants of Doubt (film), latter of which was the subject of the emails.

Dredmorbius (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted again and believe I have a right to do so indefinitely for a contentious BLP addition. However, it's possible that I've missed something in all the citations that you supply, so perhaps you can get this clarified: (a) what did Judith Curry actually DO?, (b) which of the citations do you really think is RS? Pplease answer seriously, we all know what sourcewatch is worth. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Curry has been upheld as independent and unbiased. Yet she's documented as being among those whose counsel were sought in an email exchange on how to go about legally suppressing a documentary on systematic disinformation on climate change. That calls her independence and credibility into serious question. The source is Singer, not SourceWatch, though they're hosting the evidence. Do you have any evidence disputing credibility of the emails? I'm also rather puzzled by your rationales -- first this is "every time somebody might have been sent an email", now you're invoking BLP. Case in point is verifiable and NPOV. It's also newsworthy, significant, and has a direct bearing on the subject's primary work and credibility as such. I find all the sources reliable. What's your evidence any one isn't? Dredmorbius (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable for Peter Gulutzan to request further discussion per WP:BRD. He is also quite right to invoke concerns arising from BLP: you have to have good sourcing before making claims about living people. So far the sources you have presented don't look very impressive to me. The Singer email is a WP:PRIMARY source at best, and the Glantz and Bagley sources seem to be blogs. The Goldenberg article is the best quality source, but it doesn't actually mention Judith Curry, so that doesn't help either. I'm not saying that there isn't a case that could be made, but so far you haven't made one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like a clear statement of what the issue for contention here is. The initial revert mentioned nothing of WP:BLP, nothing about sources, nothing about verifiability. I see some rapidly moving goalposts here. How about we fix those in the ground and determine what's sufficient documentation. I'm requesting Gulutzan specifically address that. I also contest his right to revert indefinitely: WP:BRD "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." (Emphasis in original.) See also Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Revert_restrictions Dredmorbius (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand what you think is going on here. You made an edit. Peter Gulutzan reverted it, as he has a right to do, with an informative edit summary. You reinserted it, and explained your actuons on the talk page. He re-removed it and explained his actions on the talk page. So far so good. Then you reinserted it, which was perhaps unwise, but no worse than that: it is customary, but not required, to return the article to the status quo ante until some clarity has been reached in the discussion. Peter Gulutzan chose not to revert it again, presumably to avoid starting an edit war; again, all very normal and proper. I, however, agree with him that the proposed edit is contentious, being in my opinion unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, and so I reverted it, and explained my actions on the talk page. My decision was entirely independent of his, and your phrase "rapidly moving goalposts" seems an odd description of the fact that two editors disagree with you in different ways.

What happens now is that we discuss for a bit. We attempt to identify issues that can be resolved, and alternative edits which might be more suitable, remembering to assume good faith throughout. That may resolve things, or it may not. Other editors may join the conversation, bringing their own views. If an impasse is reached then there are lots of sources of advice and third opinions from uninvolved editors. But we're nowhere near that stage yet: we just discuss for a bit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful for what I regard as a good summary of the dispute so far. Perhaps less helpfully, A Quest For Knowledge said that my two reversions were edit warring. (I replied on my talk page.) Although I think WP:BLPREMOVE would apply, I'm waiting for some sort of response that indicates what Ms Curry is alleged to have done, and indicates a willingness to discuss with reliable sources only. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit odd that A Quest For Knowledge put that warning on your page, but the content of the warning (as opposed to the location) is reasonable enough. Possibly AQFK put it on the wrong page by mistake? That's how it reads to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

AQFK has now confirmed this interpretation. For convenience I'm copying his comment here

Please don't attempt to edit-war very questionable, if not outright false, WP:BLP information into a Wikipedia article as you did here.[5][6] Continued edit-warring may lead to you being blocked from editing. Please begin an appropriate discussion on the article talkpage, referencing independent, third-party reliable sources.
— User:A Quest For Knowledge

Presumably the intended diffs were [7] and [8]. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The guardian is a reliable source. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/11/climate-sceptics-attempt-to-block-merchants-of-doubt-film They mention this scandal and use sourcewatch as a source. The guardian doesn't mention Curry as being one that was involved in the email exchange with Singer though. I don't think Curry would mind anyone knowing if she was, she shows on her own website that she things the Merchants of Doubt film is incorrect and that it is correct to doubt or be skeptical about climate science. http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/15/bankruptcy-of-the-merchants-of-doubt-meme/ she says

"Inside Climate News has the story: Leaked email reveals who’s who list of climate denialists: A network of pundits and scientists is consulted about stopping the release of “Merchants of Doubt”, a documentary that exposes their work. There is a list of 30 names (that were on the email list), including my name. Most of these people I’ve never heard of; a few I have contact with. The blurb describing me:"

Seems like it's a newsworthy topic but she just because Singer emailed someone it doesn't mean that that person is a bribed denier. Popish Plot (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian source doesn't mention Curry, so can't provide evidence that this is a notable fact about her. Nothing to see here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed in terms of this not being newsworthy but it might be later or this story might go away. Popish Plot (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Judith Curry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110629121419/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000%7Ctitle to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7043753.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000%7Ctitle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Article misrepresents Curry's views

She speaks of "... countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation ...". The article does not mention this and instead cherry-picks quotes to make her appear to be a climate skeptic or denialist. Keith McClary (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that all science is about skepticism. But wikipedia takes the position that climate science is settled and the postions of the IPCC are true and not challenged by anyone other than fringe people. Which is of course ridiculous but can be sourced in partisan media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, flat-earthers should be quoted extensively too. wikipedia takes the position that the shape of the earth is settled and the postions of the Geographical Society are true and not challenged by anyone other than fringe people. Which is of course ridiculous but can be sourced in partisan media (for a given value of "partisan").

Please do not use empty reasoning that can be applied - by replacing the terms as I did - to any arbitrary bullshit. Either use valid reasoning or be silent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Does Curry actually support the standard scientific opinion?

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the current wording of the article. It currently says: "While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change", with this reference: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&pagemode=print&_r=0
This presumably relies on the sentence from that nytimes blog which says: "She has no skepticism about a growing human influence on climate."
I've read quite a lot of Curry's blogs etc., and as far as I can tell she is normally extremely careful about what she says and what she allows journalists to write about what she thinks, so I imagine that is her wording. However believing in "a growing human influence on climate" is not actually quite the same thing as believing the current scientific opinion. In particular, in this, more recent interview: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html she says: "The most recent IPCC assessment report states: "Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.'" Personally I would say that means she questions the IPCC's confidence that greenhouse gases are the dominant factor in global warming. That is quite a big deal, because if greenhouse gases are not the dominant factor, then presumably warming will not be as great and efforts to control greenhouse gases are less important.
Note this does not actually contradict the statement in the nytimes article; if you believe that greenhouse gases have some contribution, then logically you believe there is a "growing human influence on climate".
In fact I've just found an even better source, which she cites as representative of her views on climate change on her website, i.e. her 2013 statement "STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES": http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curry-testimony-2013-il.pdf In that testimony she summarises evidence for and against the IPCC AR4; in evidence against she says: "Evidence against: • No significant increase in globally averaged temperature for the past 15 years. • Lack of a consistent and convincing attribution argument for the warming from 1910-1940 and the plateau from the 1940s to the 1970s. • Growing realization that multidecadal natural internal variability is of higher amplitude than previously accounted for in IPCC attribution analyses." This surely puts her in opposition with the standard analysis given in AR4 and AR5. She places much more emphasis on natural variability, and questions the standard explanations for the plateaus in the 40s to 70s and the last 15 years.
Is the current wording correct, therefore?
Disclaimer: this arises from a discussion here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming --Merlinme (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that didn't get a whole lot of response. Ok, let's try this a different way; would people be happy with the following text? Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but has questioned the IPCC's high confidence that they are the dominant factor. [9] In her 2013 testimony to the US Congress she questioned the IPCC's certainty that greenhouse gases have been the dominant factor in global warming, highlighting as evidence against the IPCC position the recent 15 year temperature plateau, doubts over whether aerosol cooling can fully account for the temperature plateau in the 1940s to 1970s, and greater multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used, and contrasts the IPCC's "best estimate" of about 3° C temperature rises with other research which supports warming of around 2°C.[10]

That's a more helpful question. Personally I think this article should be extremely cautious about attempting to assess whether or not Curry's position is consistent with the mainstream, as it is very hard to answer that questions without engaging in OR and SYNTH. It is, of course, possible to report what reliable sources have said on this question, which is broadly speaking the current approach: we report what is in essence Prof. Curry's self assessment of her own position as reported in a reliable source. However in many ways your proposed approach, which concentrates on what she has actually said while avoiding editorialising on what it "means", ois preferable. So in essence I'm broadly supportive of the approach, but I would like a little more information on precisely which text you are suggesting be replaced. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that is better, but how about "Curry may believe..." JD Lambert^(T|C) 10:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Curry believes" is correct, she seems pretty clear in that interview: "There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases..." Re: what text to replace, probably simplest just to give the whole section. How about:

Judith Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but has questioned the IPCC's high confidence that they are the dominant factor. [11] She has also argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[12]

In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[12]

In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc. to provide "a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[3]

Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[14] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate. In particular she questioned the IPCC's certainty that greenhouse gases have been the dominant factor in global warming, highlighting the recent 15 year temperature plateau, doubts over whether aerosol cooling can fully account for the temperature plateau in the 1940s to 1970s, and greater multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used.[15] --Merlinme (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

While "Curry believes" may be correct, why not simply state "Curry says" to leave out speculation about her beliefs. As for the last paragraph, it looks like she's setting up strawmen which could soon prove embarrassing for her. Thus "the IPCC's certainty" should be "the IPCC's statement that it was extremely likely", and I don't think anyone has proposed that "aerosol cooling can fully account" for the 15 year global warming hiatus: see that articles for various factors. . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely happy yet with the last sentence in my text, it's quite difficult to summarise her position in a sentence or two. She is an impressive master of fence-sitting! Basically she chooses to highlight things which would question the IPCC's position that greenhouse gas warming is dominant, but without ever explicitly stating that she herself questions whether greenhouse gas warming is dominant. If anyone else wants a go the relevant bit is page 7 of her testimony to the committee, "Summary evaluation".

I guess a second attempt might be: "In her testimony she lists six pieces of evidence for the IPCC's position that greenhouse gases are dominant in warming, including the long term surface temperature trend and decline in Arctic sea ice, and three pieces of evidence against, including the 15 year plateau in global temperature and higher amplitude multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used." --Merlinme (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's really a primary source for her views, is a secondary source available? Suggest anyway linking "the 15 year plateau in global surface temperature". Note that these are surface temps rising slowly, while deep ocean temps have been rising more rapidly. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For a secondary source there's this: [12] Is www.skepticalscience.com a reliable source? According to skepticalscience.com, Curry argues "that the 2014 IPCC report actually weakens scientists' confidence in human-caused global warming. Curry's evidence to support that assertion boiled down to arguing of a supposed 'lack of warming since 1998', discrepancies between models and observations during that time, a lower climate sensitivity range in the 2014 than the 2007 IPCC report, and the fact that Antarctic sea ice extent has increased." If skeptical science is not allowed, I still personally think it would be interesting to report that in her most recent testimony she asserted that the case for anthropogenic warming in the most recent IPCC report is weaker than in 2007, and that there is growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2. In fact her summary in that testimony is rather easier to describe briefly than her previous testimony, and seems much more explicitly "sceptical". The exact text is:

"Multiple lines of evidence presented in the IPCC AR5 WG1 report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is weaker than the previous assessment AR4 in 2007. Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." [13] --Merlinme (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

www.skepticalscience.com is not a reliable source; see WP:BLPSPS. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope I do this correctly - first Wiki-talk contribution. Hello I'm John, a PhD student in Mech E. I concur with OP: "While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change" is unfounded in source [17]. While I think I support the proposed modification by Merlinme, I principally believe the current text should be removed immediately until new content is submitted. As a BLP, the existing content is (IMO) a violation of Wikipedia policy. As there has been no participation here in over 2 years, I'm going to cut it out now. (Jalster2 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC))

Introductory summary of views on climate change not supported by the citation

The introduction characterizes her views on climate change as: 'Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster"[2] in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."[3]'

In [3], Prof. Curry states: ″Climate change can be categorized as a “wicked problem.”[1] Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem. Efforts to solve the wicked problem may reveal or create other problems."

Her statement doesn't refer to "projecting future climate trends" as is incorrectly inferred in the introduction but to the science of climate change in general. Also a "wicked problem" is a term of art in the scientific community describing a category of problems and is not of Curry's making as inferred. If it is used in the article it should be defined using the definition she provides. The same goes for "Uncertainty Monster" which is a cartoonish characterization of her position.18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)172.243.242.243 (talk)

I agree it is the wrong citation, but that's because the uncertainty monster is dead, apparently http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/judith-curry-vanquishes-her-uncertainty.html (don't have journal access right now). And "uncertainty monster" was always her coining: https://judithcurry.com/2010/09/22/the-uncertainty-monster/ Cartoonish or not, she is responsible for her creative misapprehensions. If anyone would like to add the direct links, wonderful. EdJ343 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Judith Curry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527091939/http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2008/NOAA_SAB_CWG_NCS_Review_Sep08_FINALtoNOAA.pdf to http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2008/NOAA_SAB_CWG_NCS_Review_Sep08_FINALtoNOAA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428011630/http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-hearing-policy-relevant-climate-issues-context to http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-environment-hearing-policy-relevant-climate-issues-context
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118235214/http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/politics_and_policy/1.2531584 to http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/politics_and_policy/1.2531584

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

GWPF not a reliable source

There's been a repeated attempt to add a paragraph saying that in 2017 the Global Warming Policy Foundation lobbying group published "Climate Models for the layman" by Curry. The GWPF isn't a reliable source, and having had a look this doesn't seem to have attracted any mainstream attention – if we're including this, it needs a reliable secondary source showing its significance, if any, so I'll remove it until such a source is put forward. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How about any of these?

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2017/02/23/climate-models-for-the-layman/ (Used a couple times beore [14]

Times-Call https://www.timescall.com/2019/12/21/carl-brady-climate-change-extremists-attack-those-who-challenge-them/ (Used 20 times before [15]

https://www.corbettreport.com/climate-models-for-the-layman-with-dr-judith-curry/

-- Yae4 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts: the discussion on that particular Times-Call article still applies from my perspective (eg, not admissible). I'm unfamiliar with the Corbett Report, but given Corbett's reporting on chemtrails, the New World Order, and the scary scary Council on Foreign Relations, I'm not super-convinced by its reliability. and anyway the article for deletion comments seem to imply a consensus against the source's notability. I don't know about the Arizona Daily Independent. Your search does show that it was used twice on WP, but (unfortunately) lots of poor sources have been used on WP. Will look into it later. We do need to be careful on a BLP. Thanks for the sources! Jlevi (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Arizona Daily Independent: 1) This seems like a pretty WP:POV source, so if used it seems like statements should be attributed. 2) I'm unsure whether a statement on this is WP:DUE. If it is significant, it should get coverage by more sources. So far, there seems to be a very small amount of coverage even in minor sources. Jlevi (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering the lead

First, I removed the following from the lead:

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the "Uncertainty Monster" in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a "wicked problem."

This sentence is sourced only to Curry's own website and paper, and it is not mentioned in the body. It might be worth looking for commentary in outside sources, but this particular phrase doesn't seem important enough or represented enough in the body to have a place in the lead.

I've restored it to the body of the article. I don't see any reference to her own website there. And even if it was self-published, which I'm not sure sworn testimony would be, WP:ABOUTSELF should allow it anyway. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If we decide to add this content, the body is certainly where it should be for the moment (though at some point it would be nice to add more detail on Curry's most important viewpoints to the lead). Thanks for putting it there rather than in the lead.

Regarding her own website, you're right. I think I was looking at a different citation in the lead.

Regarding the statements in general, I think that a lot of our back-and-forth has been over this kind of point. The central question is, "What kinds of WP:ABOUTSELF statements are worth including in an entry?" I agree that these statements pass the verifiability requirements if attributed, but that does not mean that the statements HAVE to be included. Not every detail that someone says about their own opinions is relevant for an article. They seem to be more specific examples and specific word choices of the much more general statements made in the non-primary, non-public, and reliable sources about how Curry is heterodox in her statements about climate change. So the question that is important to me is not whether it is allowed to be added (it certainly could be under self-attribution), but rather whether it adds something new and important to the article as a whole. The reason I keep going back to the question of secondary sources is because this helps determine what is important. I would probably refer to WP:DUE for a guideline as to what is important in this instance, though it is of course a little tricky for BLPs. Jlevi (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Second, more generally, I'm going to spend some time working on the lead. It seems like 1) the lead doesn't adequately capture the contents of the article, 2) the RS describes Curry as notably mostly for her outreach, which is not well-described in the lead, and 3) the lead seems too dependent on primary sources right now (Curry's own blog, a CV, the background section from her papers). (For further comments, consider looking at WP:BLPLEAD). Jlevi (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Draft:Climate_Forecast_Applications_Network started

Draft:Climate_Forecast_Applications_Network has been started, FYI. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Climate Models for the Layman"?

Around the time she was retiring (2017), Curry wrote "Climate models for the layman", and it got some attention. It's not any kind of libel. It's listed on her blog bio/about. She discussed it in interviews. Why is mentioning it or linking to it in the article being suppressed here? What can may be said about it?

A couple more: see list below. Note: thechronicle.com.au was Behind paywall, DDG excerpt: "The Corbettreport uploaded an interview with Dr. Curry titled "Climate Models for the Layman with Dr Judith Curry", if you're interested."

-- Yae4 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Updated -- Yae4 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Moved complete list to same location -- Yae4 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the articles. I would appreciate if you'd take a look at WP:RS and WP:BLP to learn why some things might not be included in an article, even if the statements aren't libelous. I understand that it can be frustrating to have edits reverted or removed. However, especially for a biography article, it's important to follow guidelines and avoid publishing things that are 1) untrue or 2) not given weight (WP:DUE) by sources. I agree that it would be nice to have some information on this at some point in the future if it becomes commented on in sources, and I'll take a look at those you've suggested. However, a number of these have been talked about already (the Carl Brady, Corbett Report) while others are blogs, and generally admissible (PowerLineBlog, Watts Up With That).

In light of this, would you mind picking out the strongest two or three sources from this list? For simple statements, you only really need one strong source. The Real Clear Politics source is generally supported, and the national review might be if it's not an editorial/opinion piece. Jlevi (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, Yes, sorry, I would mind. I'm not going to keep playing "bring me another rock." I've provided numerous articles from all over the place that talk about the report, and say a bunch of things. I've tried a couple times. Now it's time for some "collaboration." I'm waiting for the "experts" and admins who have patrolled this article to set the example and show the way. There's nothing wrong with Carl Brady as an author who says Curry wrote the report. He is frequently published in the otherwise reliable source. He is independent (retired) and not beholden to any point of view for his livelihood (AFAIK). Reliable source publishers do not usually continue publishing junk from an author (which is what you seem to be arguing). Show me one or three factual errors in his article?

And I will say this, although it may not be 97+% relevant to this article. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Myron_Ebell discussions show some of the same editors and admins who shoot down including even an acknowledgment of the existence of this report, with a bunch of sources talking about it, argue for including a criticism statement that has only a single source, for a brief statement. It obvious why. It has nothing to do with WP:DUE. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay! Do feel free to be WP:BOLD and use a source you feel is strong. I think I've made my points on the Brady, and it doesn't look like you have any new ones either, so I'd prefer to establish consensus from outside parties if you decide to go with that one. Again, I think the Real Clear Politics source is good, and it does look like it contains what you're looking for. Sorry if I've contributed to your frustration. Unfortunately, from my perspective it seems like there hasn't been much effort to find good sources, but I understand that it can be tough to sort out sources. Here's the chunk from that article that you might find useful:

 In her recent report, Climate Models for the Layman, Judith Curry says that global climate models (GCM) are running hot and predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Curry, a climate scientist and co-founder of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, says scientists frequently make ad hoc adjustments to climate models that often overestimate carbon dioxide's impact on warming.By tying rising carbon dioxide levels to a projected rise in temperatures, the models predict that temperatures will be much higher than they really are. Curry says in her report that current models for this century projected warming at about twice the rate of observed temperatures: The reason for the discrepancy between observations and model simulations in the early 21st century appears to be caused by a combination of inadequate simulations of natural internal variability and oversensitivity of the models to increasing carbon dioxide.

Looks like an interesting article. Cheers! Jlevi (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:RS/P, you might want to attribute statements from this report as having come from the National Review if you do use that source, actually. Looks like the article was reprinted by RCP in there. Jlevi (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Added Jlevi (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott Pruitt wasn't a "former EPA administrator" at the time so have trimmed that. He has consistently been a lobbyist and promoter of climate change denial, don't know if NR would be a suitable source for that. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Considered Scott Pruitt, "then EPA administrator" and "EPA administrator at the time". Either accurately presents what the source says in the first line: "It’s hard to overstate the significance of the recent comment by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt that there is disagreement about whether carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming." -- Yae4 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the new round of undos (most recently with this one). There is a conversation going on about whether the link to the GWPF PDF itself is reasonable. Right now Yae4 has reverted my undo in which I commented, "Not a good external link by WP:ELNO number one because the information is already mentioned in-article." User:Yae4 responds, "WP ELNO 1. This document DOES provide a unique resource for what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the PDF provides information that should be in the article. (Curry's explanation)."

However, I think my point remains strong. I think that disagreement may revolve on what important information is for an encyclopedic entry. I am interested in adding sources that provide new, unique information about Dr. Curry herself. In this case, the importance of the "Climate models for the layman" (CML) paper is already mentioned in the National Review source, and CML itself does not need to be linked. Indeed, no particular article has to be linked without cause. As best I can tell, it seems like Yae4 thinks that this link has some intrinsic value requiring it be added. I may be wrong. Could you elaborate on why you seem so insistent on adding this particular link? What information does it add to the article about Curry that can't be added in other sources? Jlevi (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not "the GWPF PDF." It is Curry's report's PDF; Curry is author of the document, and it is in archive.org. It presents Curry's views in Curry's words. It also has notes linking to Wikipedia (1) and (2) All_models_are_wrong, as well as several other sources that probably have useful information for this article, but is not yet included.

Compare and contrast this article with a (surface view of a) couple others. James_Hansen and Michael_E._Mann articles are 103,210 and 82,740 bytes respectively. Curry is 17,032 bytes (as I write this). Why is this article a factor of ~5 or 6 shorter? Just look at the article history. It seems editors are wiki-lawyering this article into saying she was another run of the mill climate scientist who tried to communicate with skeptics, which is grossly misleading. Shouldn't this article give some detail on what she herself says she says about climate science, particularly model predictions, with comparable level of details as other articles? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I think you make some reasonable points here. First, the comparison to the other articles. This is a sort of WP:OTHERTHINGS argument, which can be useful or not. In this case, I'm unsure whether it's useful. The Michael Mann article is actually a good example of what I would hope to do with a larger section on the details of Curry's perspectives (which I agree is underwritten). It is longer, but it is longer because there are a lot of reliable sources (the NYT, the Guardian, BBC). Almost every time an academic article is included, it is done in order to back up a general-purpose reliable source. Thus, I would be fine if you reference the article in a citation after the National Review article.

The James Hanson article implies either, 1) I'm wrong about how publications should be used, or 2) the article itself has problems. I am surprised in particular by the amount of original research done in the publications section. I think that that section of the article probably has a problem with it, and I'd be interested in hearing from others about it. The rest of the article, however, seems pretty well-sourced.

To summarize, I am actually unsure now about how best to use research articles. I had assumed they should be used sparingly, with preference for secondary reporting. However, I think I need to look more into the context of the James Hanson article and look at other examples. The Michael Mann article seems pretty much as I expected a well-developed wikipedia article to be. The fact that Judith Curry does not yet have that amount of text is testament to some extent to the fact that fewer (non-academic) sources seem to reference her, or at least that WP editors haven't integrated those mentions yet. If you find good non-academic sources that mention her work, I would be much more interested in including them. The National Review article is a (mostly) good example.

The legitimate problem for Curry is that, if publications ARE supposed to be used sparingly, then there has been relatively little coverage of a lot of her more detailed perspectives in reliable sources. I have a number of sources on backlog for addition to this article, but most of them do not go as far into detail as those on the Michael Mann article.

Finally, to you first point on the PDF: a WP:source has three contexts: the publisher, the creator, and the article itself. For the publisher, I recommend you look at the second page of the document, as well as the full archive.org link. The Internet Archive is not a publisher; you can archive any page you want. The writer, of course, is Curry. As for content, I don't really know what the significance of her citing Wikipedia is.

Anyway, you have given me some things to think about, and some details to check in on. Thanks for your expanded thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about this matter a little more. Thank your for your patience. I realize (I think) the difference between my perspective and yours, and I think you may right in some respects. I was viewing CML through the lens of a secondary source. I think you can probably see this in how I have critiqued its use. However, as you note, this this is not the only way to use it! I think I wasn't hearing you properly until I saw how the other two sources were using their materials, so I appreciate you providing that parallax. That is, all sources are primary for something, and this particular source is primary with reference to Curry's perspectives and outlook. Sorry for being dense about that.

However, I think that there is a fair bit of work that needs to going into properly integrating it. Right now, I don't have a good sense of how to properly integrate primary sources. In the two scientist articles to which you link, my instincts say that the Michael Mann article is far better than the James_Hansen with respect to primary source integration (to be specific, the use of Hansen's academic literature seems suspect to me as noted in my comments above), but I don't yet have the sense of why that is the case.

Do you agree that this article is a primary source for Curry? Do you think that this is an accurate assessment of at least one of our points of disagreement? Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The pdf is published by the GWPF, a think-tank promoting climate change denial – and it makes no mention of Pruitt. The primary source for it being by Curry would be the listing on her blog bio/about, or other comments by her. The National Review is also promoting a contrarian view, so this paragraph very much needs a mainstream assessment to meet WP:WEIGHT, which requires articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint to still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and ... not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yae4 objected about refusal to allow "mentioning [a Curry publication] or linking to it". It is not a "minority view" that the publication exists, so dave souza's complaint doesn't seem to have any relation to the objection. Yes, it should be mentioned, and at least some of the sources that Yae4 supplies look okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal of the PDF given where the article is at the moment. If it is indeed a primary source, then the WP:BLPPRIMARY suggestion applies: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." It is clearly not augmenting the National Review article in any meaningful fashion, given that it is just plopped in.

But @Dave souza: in terms of primary source status and usage: if this is indeed written by Curry, would it then be useful for augmenting statements about her perspective? As in, let us say that a reliable secondary source says, "Curry says stuff about topic X." In that case, could one look into a document written by curry (like an academic paper) or in which curry's words are recorded (like a transcript), and then say, "in ~this primary source~, Curry expands on 'topic X' by saying these additional clarifying details." Perhaps you could link to some policy or clarify? I'm legitimately somewhat unsure of how to use a writer's own writings.

Finally, something weird. I cannot actually find strong external verification that Curry wrote that. The only mention of the report I could find on Curry's website is on her About page, where she links not to the report, but rather to a Corbett Report video which does not itself link to the report (the Corbett Report bing, again, at best a poor source). Jlevi (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The report contains useful information to explain, obviously, climate models and their uncertainties, from Curry, an acknowledged subject matter expert, to Laymen. Although the report contains a disclaimer on "views expressed in the publications," it seems likely some of the esteemed Academic Advisory Council members, at least, would editorially review publications. This article is a biography so that plays a part, but obviously other similar articles contain MUCH more explanation of the person's views - political and scientific, and MANY more links to PDFs of the person's publications. Note Michael E. Mann (not Michael_Mann as you linked) is rated "Start," and James Hansen is rated "B," for what those ratings are worth as indicators, or to "tune" your intuition. Mann's article even links to f***book and g**gle docs, as well as to 5 "Grauniad" articles and 3 "selected editorials and opinion articles." The suppression here is obvious. Would it be better if the suppressed report were uploaded to g**gle docs? I think this article should have disputed neutrality and accuracy tags. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think some of the difference in opinion here centers not on the use of CML in general, but rather the nature of the specific edits done so far. It is true, as you say, that the report contains potentially useful information. However, I think that in almost all cases, CML has simply been added as an additional source to an existing, already-cited statement. This is not the suggested usage of primary sources. As noted above from WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source..." However, right here no such augmenting is happening. Rather, a primary source is being put in the article without any clarifying or additional information being used. I think other things could be said, but this in particular is the reason for avoiding this particular sort of edit from my perspective. Jlevi (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the concern regarding whether the report is actually written by Curry, are you serious? Don't you think there would be accusations found all over if GWPF were putting out reports fraudulently attributed to authors?! I'm just going to put the following links here for future reference. I'm doubtful about Climate Feedback as a "reliable" source, but when it comes to personal attacks, others seem OK with it. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Updated references -- Yae4 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I may have been unclear. It is pretty clear that this report is written by Curry. However, it was just surprising that it was not linked from the website. Having looked at a few of your links, I'm actually not seeing how they relate to CML; "Climate models for the layman" does not appear with Ctrl-F. Could you be more specific about what you're pointing out? Are you making a separate point? Jlevi (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about the nature of the edits being the issue. Let's see about augmenting using info' from the report. Sorry for the confusion about the links. If you watch the video or search for "Judith Curry" you'll see the connection to this article, but right, they are connected with "Climate Models for the Layman" only to the extent what is said is similar. As stated, they are "for future reference," but I neglected to start a new talk section. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good! They have pretty good biographical info, as well as details on her research perspectives. :) Jlevi (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Quoting Curry's "slow creep" statement

The article contained: In November 2018, Curry submitted for publication a report on sea level rise titled "Sea Level and Climate Change" in which she argues against the scientific community's consensus, presenting her case that sea level rise has been a "slow creep" over the last 150 years and has been unaffected by anthropocentric climate change. with a cite to Curry's publication that Yae4 had added on January 28. Jlevi removed the cite saying "primary reference adds no detail unavailable in the secondary source". I reverted, saying "WP:IRS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." And she is being quoted." Jlevi re-reverted, saying "Thanks for the caution, but that is a title of a minor work (MOS:QUOTETITLE), not a quote. The relevant citation is at the end of the paragraph". I suppose that Jlevi didn't read the whole sentence and realize that the later words in quotes -- "slow creep" -- are a quote of what Ms Curry wrote, and WP:IRS applies. I also notice that Ms Curry uses the word "anthropogenic" not "anthropocentric", this seems to be an interpretation that Jlevi added here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your concern. I now understand that your worry is more relevant than I initially thought. However, the reference remains unnecessary here. The specific reason for a primary source in the case of quotations is to avoid inaccurate misquoting, especially in the case of biased news outlets (as described in the section you reference). Given that this is from AP News, that concern does not seem so relevant. If you feel that Curry is being misrepresented in how this quote is presented, feel free to make that argument.

In any case, it might be reasonable to revise slightly to remove the quoted section. Jlevi (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of Layman and Climate Model explanations for them

This edit[16] and this edit[17] have recently twice removed Layman as a wikilink in the title of the publication being discussed in the article. Note Layman redirects to Laity. Providing clarity for the meaning of "Layman" in the title "Climate Models for the Layman" is as relevant as Climate Models and more relevant than Scott Pruitt or National Review, which are being left in the article as Layman is being deleted. (Note also the trailing quote mark is still missing) Of course I also feel there is no good reason to avoid linking to a copy of the actual PDF of the article which is available online. Continued deletion of both of these things is keeping a systematic bias that is preventing a clear and full encyclopedic explanation of Curry's views by Curry's own writings. The wikilink should be restored, and the link to the PDF of the actual article should be added. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You may be right on some of those issues, but that is absolutely no reason to add a simply irrelevant wikilink: that's just being WP:POINTy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for assistance at BLP here. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there are several different issues you're bringing up. I will restrict my comments here to the links. First, relevance is in part subjective. Given that so far only one editor seems interested in maintaining the links in the CML title, that in itself seems useful. Second, the WP:OVERLINK style guideline suggests asking the question, "Would this link help the reader better understand the article?" I would say these two do not. The link to Pruitt certainly does, since (by instinct as well as WP:UP) he falls under "Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers." The National Review link I'm less sure of. I think it helps the reader better understand a POV source, but one could question how important that is. What do you think these links help explain? Finally, in addition to relevance, we can think about style. Linking heavily in a quote is not recommended (WP:LWQ: "Be conservative when linking within quotations."). Though this is a title rather than a quote, it feels like a similar case. ALso on the style side, a climate model link already exists in the lead. Jlevi (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with every one of these points, and thanks for your removal of a few more extraneous links from the article. Unless I am missing something the main remaining issue seems to be whether we should link to Curry's report itself, and if so how. Personally I see no reason not to add a reference to the report itself directly after its first mention, but I haven't been following this discussion and so may be missing something. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We seem to mostly agree National Review is not very useful for understanding. We disagree completely on Climate model and Layman. To me, those serve to directly explain the essence of the paragraph, so they are the most relevant. Pruitt is also relevant, and I agree with keeping that one too. As for the lead link(s), that is where too many links appear, and are likely to be removed. Not in this paragraph. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Adding: Some admins were upset by where the PDF was posted, and what organization published it, would be my summary of the reason it is not currently linked. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that MOS:LWQ should apply here. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: I think the National Review is pretty useful. This is a case of a POV stance being wikilinked. We (including you) did this in several other places in this article, and I've seen this style on lots of articles. However, lots of mediocre practices exist on Wikipedia, so if you make a case for why it is unreasonable, I'd be happy to hear you out. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding @Jonathan A Jones:'s comment on the pdf link. There was a LOT of discussion regarding the pdf, so I'd be happy to summarize here. There were a few different arguments centered on it, and I'll restrict my comments to my own statements about why the PDF is not currently useful (though it might have a place in the future). The big thing is that the pdf was cited in several places without adding any information to the article. The reason this is important is because the PDF is a primary, WP:ABOUTSELF source regarding Curry. By WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." However, the citation here is not augmenting the discussion, but is just tacked on. Thus, if we aren't using the PDF to add any additional context to the article, I don't think it needs to be cited here. If the PDF were used to expand the article in a meaningful way, adding to the discussion in secondary sources, I might say something different.

A variety of other statements were made about the PDF, but that's where I land for now. It might have a place in the future, but it makes no meaningful addition now. We ought to be stringent in our use of primary sources in a BLP, so it probably shouldn't be added. At present, I think there's a general over-reliance on primary sources for this article, and I hope add more reliable secondary sources in the future. Jlevi (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the BLP issues (BLPs are where I do most of my editing) and I absolutely agree that we should be very careful about using this for sourcing about Curry, and never use it as sole sourcing for comments about others, but that doesn't rule out linking to it. The right way to use a link is just as we do in the first sentence of the "Publications" section where we reference two of her books to themselves. The purpose of such citations is (1) to establish that she wrote these pieces (which is not an unduly self-serving or exceptional claim), and (2) to identify precisely which piece we are talking about, which is particularly useful with internet sources. So just as we currently say "Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[14] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[15]" we should also say "in her 2017 report "Climate Models for the Layman," [XX]". Of course there's a possibility that more excitable editors will then go on to reuse the source for other less proper purposes, but we should tackle such misuse as and when it occurs rather than pre-emptively. And of cousre there's an entirely separate discussion of whether we should be referring to this report at all, but I don't touch on that here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! Could you point me to a FA- or G-rated article that uses that approach? (no worries if that's too work-intensive) Based on my reading of the BLP policy, it seems like a sort of "Maximum Parsimony Principle of Primary BLP Sourcing" is useful (i.e., only using primaries where it fills a gap in secondary sources or where it adds additional information to secondary sources). Based upon this, it seems like those two primary sources currently in the article are there more-so because a reliable secondary source doesn't yet include them.

At the same time, I may be misunderstanding what a primary source "augmenting" a secondary means in this context.

I suppose my main contention is that adding this citation doesn't add much to the article, and from my perspective it appears that some editors feel that it kind of deserves a place in the article (without it adding any new information). If it were used to add information, then I'd be happier. However, this relies on my interpretation of the proper use of primary sources, which you seem to disagree with. I think other editors have other issues with this source, too.

Thanks for your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the systemic bias tag (and updates?)

A few tags were added to the page this January, and I would like to make sure that the reasons they were added are made explicit so any problems can be addressed as quickly as possible.

What viewpoints from reliable sources are missing from this article? I believe that this tag was placed on the page during the discussion about a source that has now been added (the GWPF pdf), so if that is the only viewpoint that was missing, I suggest removing the tag.

Regarding updating, I am unsure what updates are necessary. I did a fairly thorough look into Curry-related articles from reliable sources, and (though some details are missing) I don't think that any major recent events or articles are missing. Is there anything in particular that folks feel needs adding here?

Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Her views of climate model uncertainties have not been expanded. She and a couple others' views etc. are covered in The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change 2nd Edition, 2019 (pp. ~196-200), and has not been included. To mention two. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Adding: See previous discussion, and note "uncertainty monster" publications and discussion have been completely removed. Also, web search: judith curry retire, and see if this article accurately presents sources on reasons for her retirement (no). The end of the 2nd paragraph of the lead particularly slants the article in a particular biased direction. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy with removing the tag: which doesn't mean that there isn't still improvement to be done, but rather that there's nothing terribly wrong. I agree that the end of the 2nd paragraph of the lead comes over as slanted, though it is formally completely accurate and does link to the full post for those who want more context. The "ucertainty monster" could probably be mentioned explicitly, with Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster as a good primary source and Hey CEOs, Have You Hugged the Uncertainty Monster Lately? as a possible secondary source (does anyone have access to the full text?). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! Since both of you describe bias as 1. at worst specific articles that could be considered for inclusion, and not broader section or 2. based upon what is currently in the article, rather than what is missing, then based on my reading of the 'viewpoints' tag, it is time to remove the notice.

Given that no statements were made about necessary updates, I will remove that as well. Jlevi (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't really think the specific language of 'Uncertainty Monster' need to be explicitly referenced. First, that specific term comes up rarely in reliable (nonprimary) sources. Second, the general idea of uncertainty being a big part of Curry's argument is already in the article in several places. I think the idea that it has not been included seems off, just looking at the current state of the article. I don't think it is necessary to use specific language to describe something already discussed rather extensively. Is there some reason to use that particular language? Jlevi (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The argument for including it is that it is central to her self-description of her position; the argument for excluding it is that it has only rarely been picked up by reliable secondary sources. It's a judgment call rather than a clear cut case, though I would ideally like to know what The Wall Street Journal article linked above says. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, Jlevi, you apparently misunderstood my comment. (1) I consider this article to still have a non NPOV slant. (2) By referring to a 2019 book by the American Meteorological Society, I meant the article should be updated to include this coverage. I would expect a good article to eventually include much more detail expanding what is meant, not just mentioning topics. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Forbes content

A few levels of issues with recent edits:

1. Reliability. Via WP:RSP, Forbes contributor content is generally considered unreliable, with little editorial oversight. Placement as an opinion piece (for one of the articles) adds to this problem. An exception is made for subject-matter experts. A broader conversation should occur to evaluate reliability based on this provision.

2. Weight. Mentioning that Curry has been quoted in an opinion piece is not in itself notable, in my opinion, and bears pretty much zero weight. In general, one person being cited in another work (especially minimally in another work) does not bear mention in an article.

3. Primary quotes. This article already has a helluva lot of primary content. The addition of more direct quotes is unlikely to add meaningfully to the article, especially given that direct quotes are already used to describe the exit from academia.

Thoughts?Jlevi (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There are several different issues here. Firstly Forbes contributor content is a reliable source for the statements of the authors, and so can be used for attributed statements, but not generally for statements in Wikipedia's own voice. Secondly Roger Pielke Jr. is an authority on the politics of climate change (he is not an authority on science aspects, although he is usually very carefully to explicitly base his work on sources such as the IPCC), and his views on the politics of Curry's treatment are potentially notable. However, thirdly, this is indeed a primary source (since we could only use it for Pielke's view of the situation, and not for the situation itself), and that argues against inclusion. On this one I'm easy either way. In the case of Robert L. Bradley Jr. I don't see any relevant expertise, so the situation is much simpler and it should just be left out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this edit removing Curry's Forbes quote also cited to her blog, the fact that she was quoted by Robert Bradley Jr. (CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research, adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation) merely shows usefulness to climate change denial. I've also removed her accusations against climate scientist relayed by the political scientist Roger A. Pielke Jr. – changing the citation from Forbes to DeSmogBlog doesn't change the reliability of what Pielke Jr. said in Forbes. DeSmogBlog does show useful mainstream context which wasn't reflected, but for that the same incident is covered more fully in the Judith Curry | DeSmog page. Strangely enough, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 285#DeSmog Blogs (aka desmog.uk, desmog.co.uk, dsmogblog.com), the question of its reliability was raised by Yae4 on 2 February 2020, with a somewhat mixed response. . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

DeSmog is not a reliable source for anything beyond statements about itself, and has no place whatsoever in a BLP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet it's still in many articles... Wonder why (rhetorically) it hasn't been removed like others have been[18]...Could it be no source is too bad if it supports one view, and no source is good enough if it supports another? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

An interesting (rhetorical) question! If you'd like to talk about those edits, I would be open to that discussion elsewhere. I see this is the difference between 'mixed' comments on reliability and a clear consensus. For here, stick to Curry. Jlevi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not entirely rhetorical: see WP:PARITY. There's not a clear consensus about its reliability, but I'll agree it shouldn't simply be widely used, especially on BLPs. There's an issue with fringe views getting publicity in questionable sources like Forbes, or sources which are probably reliable in other contexts such as the WSJ, and all articles have to take care over WP:FALSEBALANCE. . . dave souza, talk 10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

Jlevi wrote above, "3. Primary quotes. This article already has a helluva lot of primary content." which indicated a need for a tag. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

An important difference: the primary tag refers to WP:Verifiability, whereas the main problem with adding even more quotes is one of weight. Are there any claims sourced to primary sources that you feel require the use of non-primary sources for verifiability? Jlevi (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References in BLPs

WP:BLP is crystal clear:

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

As such it is entirely proper for me to remove unsupported contentious statements from the article. While I have most recently used a "failed verification" tag this in no way affects the above, and any editor can remove that sentence at any time.

Currently the sentence "her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular" is supported by a reference which says nothing about this. The nearest it gets to doing so is the statements "Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics" and "Her philosophy, then and now, is that if climate scientists would more readily acknowledge the uncertainties inherent in the issue, skeptics would more likely accept the well-established central tenets of global warming." To go from that to "her willingness to communicate with climate change deniers in particular" is pure WP:SYN, which has no place in a BLP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. If you think this isn't the same thing perhaps you can explain. jps (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with JAJ on this, but I also expect you could find the real original source was deleted, and could be found back in the history of this article. How does "started to engage with skeptics" become "known for emphasis on... with deniers? LOL. And, "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." -- Yae4 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Deniers and skeptics are synonymous. We've gone through this in some detail at this website and have come out the other side. Look at climate change skepticism. jps (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As if I haven't already? I prefer what looks like (hopefully) less, hmm, manipulated data, like Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates. As for the statements, I also feel "started to engage with" is significantly different than "known for emphasis on". -- Yae4 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you think has been "manipulated" here? I have no clue why you think paleoclimatology is relevant to this sentence. I also do not understand in the slightest your confusion about whether Curry is known for her engagement with deniers. She is simply known for this and the source indicates this rather clearly. jps (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to stray off topic. Reading the NPR article and Curry's linked essay on the credibility of climate science[19], I understand these to say she was starting to try to engage more with skeptics in the scientific community, on communication. NPR later says she started her blog to engage with outsiders. These are starts, not being known for. It is dated 2013. Maybe she is more known for communicating with general public now, but that's not what this source says to me. The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change (American Meteorological Society), a more reliable source than Wikipedia articles, has half a page on skeptic versus denier (p.24), and does not call them synonymous, but recognizes denier has been misapplied to skeptics. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Revkin article currently used in the article notes, "But she has split with many of her peers and frequently engages a certain batch of climate skeptics (most notably Stephen McIntyre)" (2009). For context, her blog was started in 2005/2006.

The Scientific American article (2010) notes, "Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board." This article also describes how she began engaging with skeptics in 2005/2006, though there isn't an short quote.

So this behaviour stretches at least four years.Jlevi (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wrong on this point. The Internet Archive indicates that her blog started in 2009 (though that's OR, and not really verification). I think this refers to the fact that she engaged on others' platforms prior to making her own blog. Jlevi (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect on her blog start. Both Internet archive and Curry's blog archive show her blog start in September 2010. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what any of us think. It only matters what the source says. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The source says exactly what we need it to say to source the sentence. Can you explain how it does not? jps (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that "Deniers and skeptics are synonymous" then you will have no objection to following the source and using "skeptics". If I were arguing to not follow the source then I would indeed have to justify my preferences, but all I am doing is arguing that we follow the source, as required for all artcles, and as emphatically required for WP:BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASTONISH. Wikipedia typically calls things by what they are most commonly called. Wikipedia doesn't condone the use of euphemisms. People who deny the reality of global warming or the facts associated with the scientific consensus surrounding it are called, for better or worse, "deniers" in the most reliable sources that we have on the subject which is why global warming skepticism redirects to where it does. This is essentially the editorial consensus on Wikipedia. If you don't like this status quo, you should go try to fix it out in the real world per WP:RGW. If you can move the needle out there, we will notice. In the meantime, it's not our place to engage in this kind of kowtowing to the contrarians. jps (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the importance of high quality sources, so I've added a more nuanced description sourced to the OUP and an academic journal. Oh, and we shouldn't present a modified version of her self-description in Wikipedia's voice. . . dave souza, talk 13:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks dave souza; at first glance I'm happy with that and with the sources used. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Dave souza. Re:"...willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics since 2009". It's a fine point but, where do you get 2009 from the cited NPR article? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Presumably from "She published that online." which clicks through to a 2009 Climate Audit article? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, so you're sourcing the blog article without adding it as a source? What's the reliability of that post and date, apparently posted by Stephen McIntyre, supposedly "sent in" by Curry? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything beyond guessing what Dave souza is doing, and I could of course be wrong. I wouldn't have added it on that basis myself but I don't object to it as I don't consider that statement "controversial". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR says "A few years later, an apparent hacker released a lot of private email conversations among climate scientists involved with the United Nations climate assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics." The hack was obviously in 2009, and that's confirmed by NPR saying she "wrote an essay on the credibility of climate science .. She published that online" linked to the Nov 22, 2009, blog page: regardless of the content of the blog, NPR clearly see her "engaging" starting then. She wasn't known for being out of the mainstream before that, so it clarifies when her contrarianism became evident. I've copyedited it to show that timing without inferring that's when she started blogging, it's not an essential point but think it's unfair to Curry to suggest she's been doing it forever. As she says on NPR, "We were being attacked by the anti-global-warming crowd as well as a large number of people in the hurricane community who thought this was natural variability." . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Better source suggested. Comments on reason for leaving Georgia?

Hi all! I removed a comment that was unsupported in the RS. The comment was as follows:

In December 2019 Carl Brady of Times-Call said Professor Curry resigned from Georgia Tech after being harassed by climate activists when she began to take issue with some of their assertions....

This claim contradicted by RS and comments from Curry's blog. The sources I've seen so far note "bias," but not "harassment." Further, from Dr. Curry's own blog:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

Harassment would certainly be important if there were discussion in the RS, but I don't yet see it, and I think the current source does not work sufficiently well for a BLP.

Please give me a shout if you feel I'm not giving this source a fair shake. Also, if there's a source that gives good context on Dr. Curry's decision to leave Georgia, that would be very useful. Thanks for the edit! Jlevi (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

​

"Harass" is used here differently than you interpret. We could use "badger" instead. This is the exact quote from the source:

 "Professor Curry was esteemed by the climate activists until she began to take issue with some of their more extreme assertions, then they turned on her, harassing and badgering her until she resigned from Georgia Tech." [20]

Why wouldn't Longmont_Times-Call be a reliable source? Sure, it's an opinion piece, but it's attributed as such.

Here is a similar quote from another source:

 "And for her public expression of honest doubts about the fine points of the scientific evidence and computer models the predictable thing happened: she was excoriated, in the most appalling ad hominem way, by the climatistas (Michael Mann in particular, which is ironic since the un-manly Mann is suing National Review and  Mark Steyn for defamation).[21]

That seems closer to a less reliable group blog, but it's saying something very similar, and is a secondary source.

Here is a quote from another source, which elsewhere also addresses the blog posts:

 She explained to Rose, “I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with skeptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead, I was tossed out of the tribe.” “Curry lost her place in the IPCC clique,” wrote Van Jensen in the Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine. Suddenly, “her opinions were called ‘unconstructive,’ full of ‘factual misstatements,’ and ‘completely at odds’ with her previous position on global warming.” By retiring from Georgia Tech, Curry can now pursue her research and writing independent and free from the political pressures within academia.[22]

-- Yae4 (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort to find other sources. I do think that my point stands, however. To your question, "Why wouldn't Longmont_Times-Call be a reliable source," I will point to the lead of WP:BLP:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

So, a source must be 1) "reliable" and 2) "published." By WP:SOURCE, we consider not only the publisher, but also the author and the work itself. Unfortunately, the author in this case is just a retired engineer from Frederick. Especially in the case of a BLP, one must use "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Though an opinion piece might be relevant if written by someone by someone with such "a reputation," this is clearly not the case here. Of course, this idea would still be usable if another sufficiently rigorous source were cited.

However, by WP:BLPSPS, we also clearly cannot accept the second source you suggest (Powerlineblog), since, as you note yourself, it is not "published."

Finally, we can consider The New American. If you search at the WP:RSN, you can see that almost every thread regarding this source comes to the conclusion that, as a media source from the John Birch Society, the source is not reliable except as they relate to the Society itself. There is a little back-and-forth, but especially for a BLP, we need a stronger source.

If you're interested in pushing this point into the article, I recommend looking at the sources already used here or rewriting considerably. I'm going to revert these edit one last time, and if you'd like to continue this discussion I'd like to suggest bringing it up on the talk page. Do you feel like the line, "Curry retired from her university position in 2017, citing the anti-skeptic bias as her reason for leaving academia" is not enough? In John Birch Society source, when it quotes Curry herself, this is basically what she's saying.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion. I look forward to your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Longmont Times Call author is perfectly fine, and I take issue with the characterization, "the author in this case is just a retired engineer." A retired engineer by definition is a person with experience and expertise in applying scientific principles, and therefore has some expertise, as is also confirmed by a major publication choosing to publish his writing. As for New American, the discussions were short and inconclusive, and it was not added to the RSPS list. The reality was there was considerable "CRAZY" controversy involved, and the previous statements do not accurately present that fact. In any case, there are other sources for the same facts, as just added. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Engineers do not apply scientific principles. They apply scientific knowledge. When engineers try to do science, they tend to fail miserably because engineers learn how to engineer, not how to do science. Henry M. Morris is the most blatant case. Here are more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Woo that's a broad generalization too, and Engineer says different. Yes, there are bad apples in every group... -- Yae4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapse side discussion on logic etc

Let me teach you a little of the basics of predicate logic. A reliable source on the subject of climatology is someone who has credentials that show he knows about the subject. All climatologists know about climatology. X is a climatologist. Therefore, X knows about climatology and is a reliable source. Some engineers know about climatology. Some engineers do not know about climatology. Y is an engineer. Therefore, we cannot know if Y knows about climatology and if Y is a reliable source. So, the fact that someone is an engineer does not tell us anything about whether he knows what he is talking about, unless he is talking about his branch of engineering. For that reason, "just a retired engineer" is a good reason for rejecting a source, and "a retired engineer by definition is a person with experience and expertise in applying scientific principles" is not a good reason aginst rejecting it. Or, shorter: One black swan refutes the claim that all swans are white. You were the one who used a broad generalization, and I refuted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC) This Straw_man discussion may be an indicator for accuracy of the third sentence in the article. [23] Engineer: "Engineering analysis involves the application of scientific analytic principles..." Instead of wasting time with Ad_hominem arguments, are there any false statements in the history and politics-related Times Call article? Or would that require a committee of tenured professors with history and politics PhD... -- Yae4 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Directly above, I explained to you why it was not ad hominem, but a refutation of your own argumentum ad verecundiam. As Jlevi said just below: "this does not lend him credibility". I herewith declare that I officially give up on explaining simple logic to you. It's pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC) ​ So, the "black swan" is an independent climatologist (Curry), who says model uncertainties are too high to believe model predictions. The "white swans" are most other climatologists, who are dependent on panic to support increasing funding to support their livelihoods. Then the existence of this one black swan refutes the claim that all climatologists support panic and should be believed. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Just above, I said I won't do this anymore with you. Stop preaching your denialist POV. That is not what Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I wasn't the one who presumed to start the lecturing about logic. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC) You used the wrong wikilink for lecture. It's very different from preaching. But this confusion of yours explains a lot of your behavior and opinions. EOD, this is not about improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC) I'm glad you noticed, because it was intentional, if subtle. You should also notice preaching is aka lecturing, by a preacher. I was refraining from explicit personal attacks of other editors, but since you will not refrain, and it fits well with the logic you preached above... I noticed you said you are "neither a historian of science nor a climatologist,"[24]. Nevertheless, I would invite you to stop (metaphorically) Stone throwing and preaching, and instead participate constructively in the current, low-activity, discussion on how to add information related to history of climate science, farther below. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC) This is not for the benefit of the PROFRINGE editor above, but for others reading this. The trick he used is called Equivocation: First equating "explaining" (what I did) with "lecturing", although the words have similar but not exactly the same meanings, then equating "lecture" with "preaching", although the words have similar but not exactly the same meanings, then inappropriately using the transitive property, which is only permitted with equivalence relations. "Similar" is not an equivalence relation. The result is the obviously wrong equation "explaining equals preaching". He will probably invent more easily refuted pseudo-reasoning as a response. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC) For the 4th or 5th time, "EOD, this is not about improving the article. --Hob Gadling" -- Yae4 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I appreciate the conversation that's happening, though I think it has strayed a little from what I meant when I tried to talk about why Carl Brady isn't admissible. I of course don't intent to denigrate engineers or the profession, or even Carl Brady in particular. I'm sure Brady is smart, and Brady might even know details on Judith Curry. However, going back to what is considered "reliable," my understanding is that must ask whether the author has a track record of accurate reporting. When I bring up the fact that Brady is an engineer, I'm referring not to intrinsic merit, but rather to the fact that this does not lend him credibility as a WP:SOURCE. It might or might not have been different if Brady had cited any sources himself, though I'm unsure about that. I have no problem adding statements from the article IF they are supported by a good source, but I argue that this source isn't a reliable one, and so the statements cannot be added to this article.

You ask whether there are any false statements in the article. However, I think a different question is more important: are there statements in the Brady article that are not supported by the reliable sources? There are two main pieces that I think are not supported in the RS: 1) The comments on "Climate models for the layman." 2) "In December 2019, Carl Brady of Times-Call said Professor Curry resigned from Georgia Tech after being "badgered"/harrassed by climate activists when she began to take issue with some of their assertions."

Regarding (1), I simply have not seen any discussion in the RS of this text. The comments may not be wrong, but as far as I can tell they're not yet WP:notable.

Regarding (2), this statement seems contradicted by the sources I've seen so far. The statement addresses the question, 'Why did Curry retire from Georgia Tech?' The difference between the Carl Brady article and the RS is the difference between 1) "harassment" and, 2) as you note, "the 'CRAZY' controversy involved." Though the Brady article argues for (1), I think that (2) is both distinct and more supported in both the RS and Curry's own words.

We right now have this statement in the article: "Curry retired from her university position in 2017, citing the anti-skeptic bias as her reason for leaving academia," which is supported by this sentence from the source, "At the same time, Curry maintains a blog in which she has criticized funding agencies and scientific journals for being politicized and biased against scientists who hold her beliefs, leading her to quit her tenured faculty job in 2017." This highlights a feeling about bias, and not one about harassment.

In Curry's own words, she says, " A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc."

Again, we see a statement about Curry's perception of bias in academia, rather than one of harassment or badgering.

Anyway, I hope the distinction is clear. If you could find support from reliable sources, I'd certainly be interested in seeing that. Looking forward to your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the CRAZINESS, etc. should be mentioned, but I'm done here for now, Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the discussion! Jlevi (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking the discussion from over on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Longmont_Times-Call_and_attributed_opinion_columns,_particularly_by_Carl_Brady,_at_Judith_Curry?. Jlevi (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Following up, the discussion, now archived, brought one other opinion, which supports inclusion, subject to whether Carl Brady is worthy of citing. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Skeptic vs denier label uses in Curry context

There has been some discussion of whether 'denier' or 'skeptic' is reasonable to describe both Dr. Curry herself and blogs/online platforms with which she has interacted. I decided to look through a variety of sources from a variety of years to see which they prefer.

Source	Year	Link	Term usage
NPR	2013	[25]	"Curry stepped into the middle of this and started engaging some of the skeptics."
Wired	2019	[26]	"Judith Curry, a scientist who left academia after embracing climate skepticism."
Wired	2015	[27]	Label not used regarding Curry. Skeptic label used regarding others.
NYT Dot Earth	2009	[28]	"But she has split with many of her peers and frequently engages a certain batch of climate skeptics (most notably Stephen McIntyre)."
The Intercept	2016	[29]	"a key argument of climate deniers, the notion that the global temperature rises have stalled." (not in reference to Curry or to Curry-adjacent blogs)
Nature	2010	[30]	"Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board."
Slate	2015	[31]	"As you’d expect, in the Senate hearing the Republican majority empaneled four deniers of various stripes (or at the very least “lukewarmers,” people who know the planet’s warming up but don’t think it’s all that big a deal, or may even be a net positive)."
Slate	2006	[32]	Doesn't label Curry specifically. Uses 'skeptic'
Politico	2015	[33]	Curry not labelled. 'Skeptic' label used.

Jlevi (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Imagine a world where for some reason, the press had decided that, for denoting groups of people, they always use the words those groups prefer. They say "freedom fighters" instead of "terrorists", "Pro-safe-vaccine advocates" instead of "anti-vaxxers", "fighters for truth about 9/11" instead of "9/11 conspiracy theorists", "history revisionists" instead of "holocaust deniers", and "climate change skeptics" instead of "climate change deniers".

Imagine another world where part of the press is against the president of a specific state, and they never call him by name or office, but always say "Incompetent Lying Boob", or short ILB. Another part only calls him OFL, "Our Fearless Leader". So, no press outlet would write, for example, "The President announced today that the borders are closed", but some would write, "The Incompetent Lying Boob announced today that the borders are closed", and the others would write, "Our Fearless Leader announced today that the borders are closed."

In both worlds, it is clear who they are talking about, but scientific sorces will use other words for the same people.

In those worlds,

1. should Wikipedia use the same monikers because that is the way the press said it, or
2. should it use the denotations that are used in science?

If 2, in what way is this world different?

In this world, there was a widespread rule within journalism that both sides should always be heard. Groups like climate change deniers used that rule for their own purpose to generate the impression in the populace that climate science had not found out yet whether there is any global warming at the moment, or whether it is anthropogenic, which was false then and is still false.

A few years ago, some press organs noticed that they were being used for the purpose of attacking science, and changed their policy accordingly. They also decided not to use the word "skeptic" for those people anymore. Not all press organs did that.

So, the question what to call the deniers in individual Wikipedia articles should not be left to whichever press organ happened to say something about someone and whichever terminology that press organ has decided to use.

Instead, it should be consistent thoughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not say the ILB did something on some day, just because that was the words the majority of the papers used. It should say "The President". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• According to this source (p. 24), published by American Meteorological Society, 2019, it is incorrect and improper to call Curry a "denier." They also say, "Any scientist worth her or his salt is a skeptic by nature." Also, Curry is mentioned/discussed (p. 197), and is not labeled (other than "coauthor"). Note: This is not a personal endorsement of everything in the book, or even that page. Aside: IMO, WP should be rigorous and define levels of "agreement" or "disagreement" with (the supposed) "consensus" and avoid the binary pro/con name calling in this area. In other areas, an admin recently changed every mention of "pro-life" to "anti-abortion." WP is taking political sides. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• There's nothing very complex or special here: we follow the sources. If the sources call her a skeptic, then we call her a skeptic. If the sources call her a denier, then we call her a denier. If the sources don't describe her position, then we don't describe her position. And the same applies to the people she talks to, whether named or unnamed. But the one thing we must never do is use sources that use the description "sceptic" to support the description "denier". It's simply irrelevant that other sources say "all sceptics are deniers" or words to that effect: using that would be WP:SYN. As stated there:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

This is really basic stuff, applicable to any article, but especially important in WP:BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I never meant Curry herself, only the circles she engages with.

We should at least not call anyone a skeptic in Wikipedia's voice, but attribute the word to the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why this discussion? The article doesn't say Curry is a denier. It does include the well sourced statement that she has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere – if you follow the link to climate change denial, you will find evidence of the development and misuse of the term "skepticism", and the decision by good sources to be clear about the topic. Spencer R. Weart discusses changing usage in "Global warming: How skepticism became denial", and as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry noted, "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry." . . dave souza, talk 08:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dave souza, very good point, which I think is being lost here. No, we are not calling her a denier. We are saying that she embraces deniers. Which is true. Calling a climate change denier, a denier, is not a BLP violation, but we should not (and do not) call her a denier, but we can and should identify that she engages with deniers, not skeptics, because denier is the title of our article. Guy (help!) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  You cannot source the statement that she engages with deniers to a source that quite explicitly (see the quote) says that she engages with skeptics. What you are doing is classic WP:SYN. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, Jonathan is right. It would be WP:SYN to write she engages with deniers unless we have a source saying exactly that.

  But neither should we write, in Wikipedia's voice, that she engages with skeptics, because of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. That was my main problem from the beginning: We should not use fringe euphemisms in Wikipedia's voice. Now that Jonathan A Jones has brought up WP:SYN, it is clearer to me how we can avoid both problems. We just have to use quotes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling, quotes round "skeptics" works for me Guy (help!) 12:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jonathan A Jones, is climate change skeptic a redirect to denial? Yes? OK, they are synonyms then. Calling them skeptics is a violation of NPOV. Guy (help!) 12:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  We've had this discusion before. Either "sceptic" and "denier" are synonyms, in which case there is no possible objection to following the source closely, or they are not synonyms, in which case it is imperative to follow the source. Like Hob Gadling I can see advantages in quotes, noting only the advice in MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which suggests that it would be better to quote a phrase rather than a single word. See also MOS:QUOTEPOV which is quite helpful on this point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Skeptic is a euphemism for denier.

What Curry is doing here is enabling the fossil fuel lobby's use of the tobacco industry playbook. You deny there's a problem until the problem becomes undeniable, then you move on to "well of course there's a problem, but look at all this scientific uncertainty and disagreement", and when at last it's demonstrated (as it clearly has been) that the uncertainty is motivated reasoning or bought and paid for by the industry, then you fall back to liberty arguments.

We are not a newspaper. We should not call denialism skepticism: that is to promote a false balance. This WaPo article describes very accurately what's going on here: deniers have lost the scientific argument so are trying to pretend that neutrality ios the average between the scientific consensus and denialist positions. It's not. The scientific consensus is neutrality. Science does not have an ideological position on climate change, it merely concludes, forem the observed data, that it exists, and that humans are the dominant cause. Guy (help!) 12:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

None of which alters the fact that what you are proposing to do is WP:SYN, and that SYN is forbidden under WP:NOR. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, think I see the argument. An old NPR interview (2013?) uses the misleading term "skeptics" a couple of times, and has been used to synthesise the claim that "she has shown willingness to communicate with climate change skeptics", when the NPR article is about her emphasising uncertainty and assisting those trying to prevent action on climate change. Which is more to the point in the context, so have edited it. If you want to claim this "willingness" is significant, it needs more than a passing mention taken out of context. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, I like your edit and would consider it an appropriate resolution to this matter. Guy (help!) 21:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding "denier" is good. Adding "emphasised" may be a MOS:ARTCON problem given that the article has "editorialize" and "publicize" elsewhere. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

More importantly, avoiding "skeptic" is very good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I also think that "emphasised" is a slightly odd choice, but I can live with it, and the rest of the edit is good and well supported by the source given. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the source again, I've changed "emphasised" to "concentrated on", and extended the quote from the source which continues "And she focuses on uncertainties and unknown unknowns far more than on the consensus of climate scientists, who say we know enough to be deeply worried. .... Her message that day on Capitol Hill was, in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions." . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, yeah, what if we improve efficiency and produce cleaner air FOR NOTHING? ;-) Guy (help!) 11:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Climate models for lawyers, and layman

Before Climate Models for the Layman was published, Climate models for lawyers was drafted, commented on by lots of blog commenters, and finalized. They appear nearly the same. Would this be worth incorporating into the (very long) last sentence in the lead, discussing publishing, reviews and blog?[34][35] -- Yae4 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

These are primary sources self-published by Curry, needs a reliable secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Using Dana Nuccitelli blog in a BLP

Wdford: Regarding this edit with edit summary "Added back as per discussion on talk, with proper context". You used Dana Nuccitelli's blog post. I was unaware that it was cited before (I don't see it on a March 31 version) and I don't see why you think there was agreement to use it. Mr Nuccitelli's blog posts are unacceptable in a BLP and do not qualify as wp:newsblog because they were done with no editorial supervision. This was established long ago on WP:BLPN. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that one. I have removed it. Wdford (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This specific case should be fine, actually. Nuccitelli is a published expert on the politics and scientific reflection of climate change, he has a decent h-index ([36]) and his most cited paper (>1300 citations) is specifically in this area, and his Guardian articles have been cited in peer-reviewed publications, so it's fine for attributed expert opinion, or for fact where he cites supporting sources. Guy (help!) 15:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with that point, but for this context you should realise it's not a blog post. Niccitelli has contributed in the past to Climate Consensus - the 97%, which was raised at BLPN, but Humans and volcanoes caused nearly all of global heating in past 140 years | Environment | The Guardian is a direct part of the newspaper's Climate Change coverage, not a blog. In his bio Nuccitelli is not shown as a blogger. So, on both counts, I've restored the reference. . . dave souza, talk 16:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, thanks Guy (help!) 17:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wdford: Dave souza is correct. I think citing Mr Nuccitelli's opinion is inappropriate but I should not have brought it up as a wp:blpsps matter, I apologize for suggesting you erred. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Its all good, I'm not fussed either way. We already had other sources in place for that particular fact. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster" reference

It's currently used as a reference for Curry's views on uncertainty, but in a slightly confusing way. It's not really a reference for that particular bit of article text (which is all taken directly from Lemonick). Really it's more of a footnote, a "see also" (Template:efn), rather than a reference in the way it's currently being used. It can't be used (directly) as a reference for a 2010 article, bearing in mind the paper is from 2011. Merlinme (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current location isn't right, but it's an important example of a statement of her position in an academic journal, albeit jointly with Peter Webster, and should go somewhere. It might perhaps be used to support "emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models" in the lead? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, evaluation? I am not sure that is appropriate givent he likelihood of motivated reasoning. Guy (help!) 23:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a pretty interesting paper and not the only one complaining about the way uncertainty was determined in the IPCC 4th report. It's noteworthy that the paper was published between the 4th and 5th IPCC reports and that the uncertainty for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity in the 5th report was actually larger than in the 4th. They also reference Merchants of Doubt and another paper by Oreskes. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that it was given a critical response by Gabriele Hegerl, Peter Stott, Susan Solomon and Francis Zwiers. Curry and Webster replied, haven't found evidence it had any impact on mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In terms of any influence on mainstream science, I count 64 citations for the original Curry and Webster paper. I haven't tried to go through the citations and see in what context the paper is cited. It might be 'as Curry and Webster pointed out, there are big problems with how uncertainty is handled'. Or it might be 'see also Curry/Webster, with response from Heger et al.' Or it might be 'as discussed in Curry and Webster, but other researchers have largely discounted their arguments, arguing IPCC approach was appropriate with minor revisions'.

In terms of response and counter response, they could potentially all be linked in the footnote. It is a footnote, after all. You can have as much explanation as is useful. Merlinme (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick skim through the more recent citations in the more reputable journals. This seems reasonably representative: "With the help of global climate models (GCMs), such a separation of anthropogenic contributions from natural signals is feasible from a technical point of view, but it has proven to be extremely difficult, if possible (e.g., Curry and Webster 2011; Huber and Knutti 2012)." From the introduction to "Statistical Structure of Intrinsic Climate Variability under Global Warming", Xiuhua Zhu et al, Journal of Climate 2016. [37] So it's not like the Curry and Webster paper has been withdrawn or anything, people are still citing it as worth discussing, even after the Hegerl reponse. Merlinme (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties resulted from discussions on 6-7 July 2010, and naturally enough they don't cite Curry and Webster (2011). The AR6 approved outline includes "Treatment and evaluation of uncertainty throughout the report", I've not found any revised guidance. . . dave souza, talk 11:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't realize the guidance was released 4 years prior to the AR5. In any case, this really isn't my area of expertise but it seems like Curry is taken seriously in the literature. This is a review that might be helpful. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I will note in passing that we have gone to great lengths to say that, in Curry's opinion more needs to be done about uncertainty, but that for the rebuttal of her 2011 paper, highlighted what they considered significant inaccuracies has become reported significant inaccuracies. This is despite the 2011 paper still being cited today, and despite Curry and Webster's rebuttal to the rebuttal. This is an actual debate in the scientific literature, I'm not sure you can argue "it's just one contrarian's opinion".

However, I'm not really in a position to judge how significant the inaccuracies were, or, for that matter, to judge whether Curry and Webster's reply actually disputed any or all of the alleged inaccuracies, (they seem to have focused more on the validity of the broad thrust of their argument), so I've let it stand for the time being.Merlinme (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

FIRE Arctic clouds experiment book

Is this actually a book? In the sense of one you can buy?

• FIRE Arctic clouds experiment. 2001., by Judith A. Curry

It doesn't have an ISBN, which makes me suspicious. I can find lots of papers etc. online about the FIRE experiments, I can't find anything substantial about a book. Merlinme (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Amazon claims to have [38] which looks similar? It seems to be a reprint of [39]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The Amazon book is clearly not the same, it's dated 2013 (although I suppose it might be a later paperback edition) and it's 58 pages. The googlebooks link claims 391 pages. I'll replace the googlebooks version with the Amazon one though, as I say, it's not clear to me whether you its possible to actually get hold of the 2001 book. Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just delete it to be honest. It looks like an internal report which is made available for public purchase as a book rather than a genuine text. And comparing the description on Amazon with the abstract of the paper, it's clearly very similar. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a corresponding report on the NTRS server at [40]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Do you want to do the honours? Merlinme (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

National Review source

I've now read the National Review source which there's a mini edit war over including, and for the record, I don't think it's a great source for including in the article. You might, I suppose, if you accepted it as reliable, use it to note that Curry supports the statement 'We don’t know how much of recent warming can be attributed to humans'. The disputed paragraph seems to do rather more than that, though. Merlinme (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess you refer to the National Review cite in this edit by Yae4 with an edit summary referring to "talk consensus". which was reverted by this edit by JzG/Guy with an edit summary saying "National Review is not a rs". JzG has used some of Yae4's earlier edits on Judith Curry as partial basis for a request for enforcement of sanctions against Yae4. I believe, after looking at comments about National Review above here in this page, that Yae4 was correct about talk consensus earlier, and that the reference with attribution was correct given the context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This article has a history of being pushed towards a fringe (climate change denialist friendly) POV. The best solution here is to use the best sources possible. Guy (help!) 21:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: The request for enforcement of sanctions was successful, Yae4 has received "an indefinite topic ban from climate change". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I was part of that discussion, and I'd be happy to weigh in. The source is certainly not RS for direct climate-related material. However, it seems reasonable for representation of Curry's viewpoints and comparison with the viewpoints of other significant figures (like Scott Pruitt). In short: science? No. Politics and individual viewpoints? Yes.

However, as I re-read the article, I see that the author is being pretty careful to avoid directly linking Curry and Pruitt. It's a little weird, given how much space the two are given in the article, but an explicit discussion of the relationship between the two isn't evident. It is carefully aligned to make a comparison implicit, but isn't stated outright. Given this, I would not suggest re-adding the statements on Pruitt. Jlevi (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The article quotes Ms Curry directly about Mr Pruitt: "If I am interpreting his statements correctly, I do not find anything to disagree with in what he said" etc. However, the Yae4 ban discussion (which has now been moved to the archives) makes me believe it would be safer to not support the edits that Yae4 made to this article, so I suggest that we can regard this thread as closed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)