This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
HidariMigi made another change to the lead, to say McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial", which is nearly the same as what's in Jess's October 27 2015 change = "authored works promoting climate change denial", which was disputed in the earlier talk page discussion (mostly between Jess and S Philbrick) and removed. So I hereby ping S Philbrick and Jess ( Ashaeria also participated but is now blocked).I believe that, as was true before, it's poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP, and re-insertion without consensus is not allowed. But I've delayed reverting in case there are other comments. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 02:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Going through HidariMigi's claims in order:
"McKitrick disbelieves in the very concept of a scientific consensus -- and calls studies citing "97%" agreement a "con" or a fabrication". There's no evidence that he said there's no such thing as a concept, the first supplied link isn't to something said by McKitrick, the second is to "the studies" and not what McKitrick called some studies, the third doesn't contain the word "fabrication".
"McKitrick claimed at the 2011 Beijing Forum ... (Hint: He was wrong)". McKitrick mentions troposphere in the tropics as of 2011, and HidariMigi says that was refuted by a blog that mentions troposphere in subtropics in 2014.
"In a 2014 article "'Climate Change Denier' Dismisses Label": So if he thinks denier is a bad label and failed to say climate change is a "major catastrophe", HidariMigi thinks it's okay to call him a denier? I prefer the standard set by Jimbo Wales: "Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent." (
here).
"In the same paper, he acknowledges his position is contrary to the mainstream": Actually in the linked article he says "how mainstream alarmism has become". The only way that we can use that as evidence is if we say that alarmism and mainstream are the same thing.
"However, in an article for the pro-business Frasier Institute": (sic, actually it's the Fraser Institute): the linked article says "Over the past century, despite the observed warming, there is no upward trend in the frequency of storms" etc. Er, thanks for pointing to a paper where McKitrick says of course there's been warming.
"McKitrick lauds himself as "an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues.": No, the linked item says "Professor McKitrick is widely-cited in Canada and around the world as an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues."
"I have added a citation to the American Behavioral Scientist Journal article identifying Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick's book Taken By Storm amongst "Climate Change Denial Books".": Dunlap + Jacques say "The present study extends our earlier work by examining books espousing climate change denial per se published through 2010, including some examined in the prior study since they represent examples of environmental skepticism." -- I can't read this without concluding that they think denial and skepticism are synonyms. In any case the McKitrick book is just an item in a long list without any backup or explanation, so I'd give more weight to reviewers who used whole sentences (
[1]).
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we're done. There is no consensus for re-inserting "denial". On the other hand, there is no consensus that HidariMigi's edits were obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. Unless others have seriously different impressions about this discussion, we can end it. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Good god. HidariMigi, don't you have better things to do in your Real Life? Give this a break, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis made two edits on August 31 ( here and here) removing some references to McKitrick's work. I believe that the references were appropriate and seek consensus to restore the material. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Parejkoj, after re-inserting that Mr McKitrick has authored works "opposing climate science", added a cite to a blog (but one thing at a time) and to SourceWatch, edit summary = "Add refs about McKitrick's climate change denial". I believe this is bad because: (1) SourceWatch's help page says "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." So WP:UGC. (2) The end of the Sourcewatch article says "Wikipedia also has an article on Ross McKitrick. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL." So WP:CIRCULAR. (3) It doesn't directly support the wording. So WP:V. I remind that WP:BLP is a policy so essays don't override it and Parejkoj needs consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Please see my reply below. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
@ Peter Gulutzan:, @ Parejkoj: I arrived here from WP:3O ( [permanent link). I will first state my recommendation; then I will provide the reasons why.
I recommend the following:
To explain the reasons for my opinion, I provide the following observations about the questioned sources, in order of how Peter Gulutzan described them.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals. Self-published blogs are to be
distinguished from newsblogs. WP:BLP affirms this:
Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.This source is a newsblog, not a self-published blog, and it has editorial control over its posts (submissions must be made to the Communications Team and aren't posted directly to the site). We are therefore past that hurdle. The next question is whether the authors are professionals. Peter Gulutzan correctly identified the authorship of Madeleine Rubenstein. However, on scientific publications the "principal author" is generally the one who is listed first, who in this case is Mary-Elena Carr, a
biological oceanographer and Affiliate of the Columbia Climate Center, where she was previously the Associate Director. The next co-author is Kate Brash, and NPR reports that she has been
the assistant director of the Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I also notice that she's a co-author of Climate Change: A Reference Handbook published by ABC-CLIO, a press for academic reference books. The third co-author before Rubenstein is Robert Anderson, who has a
Ph.D. in chemical oceanographyand
is an Ewing-Lamont Research Professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. The authors of the article are professionals with credentials for the science they're writing about. "Who Said What?" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.
senior editor at TIME magazine for climate, science, and space coverage. The author is a professional. The publication venue is The Narwhal, an online nonprofit magazine with an editorial team. "Leading UK Skeptic Group Promotes Koch-funded Canadian Climate Denier" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.
Finally, in the course of double checking these sources and verifying claims, I discovered that for what it's worth, an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the academic press SAGE straightforwardly includes Taken by Storm, the book McKitrick co-authored with Christopher Essex, in an appendix titled Books Espousing Climate Change Denial
:
To conclude, that Ross McKitrick has denied climate change is supported by reliable sources. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
climate change, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
HidariMigi made another change to the lead, to say McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial", which is nearly the same as what's in Jess's October 27 2015 change = "authored works promoting climate change denial", which was disputed in the earlier talk page discussion (mostly between Jess and S Philbrick) and removed. So I hereby ping S Philbrick and Jess ( Ashaeria also participated but is now blocked).I believe that, as was true before, it's poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP, and re-insertion without consensus is not allowed. But I've delayed reverting in case there are other comments. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 02:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Going through HidariMigi's claims in order:
"McKitrick disbelieves in the very concept of a scientific consensus -- and calls studies citing "97%" agreement a "con" or a fabrication". There's no evidence that he said there's no such thing as a concept, the first supplied link isn't to something said by McKitrick, the second is to "the studies" and not what McKitrick called some studies, the third doesn't contain the word "fabrication".
"McKitrick claimed at the 2011 Beijing Forum ... (Hint: He was wrong)". McKitrick mentions troposphere in the tropics as of 2011, and HidariMigi says that was refuted by a blog that mentions troposphere in subtropics in 2014.
"In a 2014 article "'Climate Change Denier' Dismisses Label": So if he thinks denier is a bad label and failed to say climate change is a "major catastrophe", HidariMigi thinks it's okay to call him a denier? I prefer the standard set by Jimbo Wales: "Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent." (
here).
"In the same paper, he acknowledges his position is contrary to the mainstream": Actually in the linked article he says "how mainstream alarmism has become". The only way that we can use that as evidence is if we say that alarmism and mainstream are the same thing.
"However, in an article for the pro-business Frasier Institute": (sic, actually it's the Fraser Institute): the linked article says "Over the past century, despite the observed warming, there is no upward trend in the frequency of storms" etc. Er, thanks for pointing to a paper where McKitrick says of course there's been warming.
"McKitrick lauds himself as "an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues.": No, the linked item says "Professor McKitrick is widely-cited in Canada and around the world as an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues."
"I have added a citation to the American Behavioral Scientist Journal article identifying Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick's book Taken By Storm amongst "Climate Change Denial Books".": Dunlap + Jacques say "The present study extends our earlier work by examining books espousing climate change denial per se published through 2010, including some examined in the prior study since they represent examples of environmental skepticism." -- I can't read this without concluding that they think denial and skepticism are synonyms. In any case the McKitrick book is just an item in a long list without any backup or explanation, so I'd give more weight to reviewers who used whole sentences (
[1]).
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we're done. There is no consensus for re-inserting "denial". On the other hand, there is no consensus that HidariMigi's edits were obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. Unless others have seriously different impressions about this discussion, we can end it. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Good god. HidariMigi, don't you have better things to do in your Real Life? Give this a break, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis made two edits on August 31 ( here and here) removing some references to McKitrick's work. I believe that the references were appropriate and seek consensus to restore the material. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Parejkoj, after re-inserting that Mr McKitrick has authored works "opposing climate science", added a cite to a blog (but one thing at a time) and to SourceWatch, edit summary = "Add refs about McKitrick's climate change denial". I believe this is bad because: (1) SourceWatch's help page says "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." So WP:UGC. (2) The end of the Sourcewatch article says "Wikipedia also has an article on Ross McKitrick. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL." So WP:CIRCULAR. (3) It doesn't directly support the wording. So WP:V. I remind that WP:BLP is a policy so essays don't override it and Parejkoj needs consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Please see my reply below. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
@ Peter Gulutzan:, @ Parejkoj: I arrived here from WP:3O ( [permanent link). I will first state my recommendation; then I will provide the reasons why.
I recommend the following:
To explain the reasons for my opinion, I provide the following observations about the questioned sources, in order of how Peter Gulutzan described them.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals. Self-published blogs are to be
distinguished from newsblogs. WP:BLP affirms this:
Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.This source is a newsblog, not a self-published blog, and it has editorial control over its posts (submissions must be made to the Communications Team and aren't posted directly to the site). We are therefore past that hurdle. The next question is whether the authors are professionals. Peter Gulutzan correctly identified the authorship of Madeleine Rubenstein. However, on scientific publications the "principal author" is generally the one who is listed first, who in this case is Mary-Elena Carr, a
biological oceanographer and Affiliate of the Columbia Climate Center, where she was previously the Associate Director. The next co-author is Kate Brash, and NPR reports that she has been
the assistant director of the Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I also notice that she's a co-author of Climate Change: A Reference Handbook published by ABC-CLIO, a press for academic reference books. The third co-author before Rubenstein is Robert Anderson, who has a
Ph.D. in chemical oceanographyand
is an Ewing-Lamont Research Professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. The authors of the article are professionals with credentials for the science they're writing about. "Who Said What?" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.
senior editor at TIME magazine for climate, science, and space coverage. The author is a professional. The publication venue is The Narwhal, an online nonprofit magazine with an editorial team. "Leading UK Skeptic Group Promotes Koch-funded Canadian Climate Denier" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.
Finally, in the course of double checking these sources and verifying claims, I discovered that for what it's worth, an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the academic press SAGE straightforwardly includes Taken by Storm, the book McKitrick co-authored with Christopher Essex, in an appendix titled Books Espousing Climate Change Denial
:
To conclude, that Ross McKitrick has denied climate change is supported by reliable sources. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)