Just for ref...
>GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005
> >Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal >variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record >of the past 130 years > "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation...."
Grant committees at Harvard and other universities are about as likely to fund research suggesting that global warming is caused by anything other than humans as they are to vote Republican. It is not surprising that Willie Soon sought funding elsewhere.
Hypothetical speculation that the Bush admin would fund critics just shows a lot about the person making the comment. This whole wikipedia is just a leftist slanted op-war. The same guys who bring us Google bombing and Daily Kos, and the like.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone else pointed out to me the polar bear section is confusing. In particular, the article appears to suggest the paper didn't necessarily challenge the view that they were threatened but simply suggested there were other factors which were the primary reason they were threatened. If so, this doesn't seem a good reason to delist them (regardless of whether it's global warming, human-bear interactions, being scared of Sarah Palin or whatever, if they are threatened they are threatened surely?). The ref just links to the main page and while I found a direct ref somewhere else, it no longer works. The polar bear article just says "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that the listing was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available, a view rejected by polar bear experts" which makes more sense then this article but the ref doesn't work either. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything from soon recently and a google scholar search didn't turn up anything recent apart from [1], which is distinctly minor William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be misquoting the source, when it says Von Storch resigned in protest after the paper. The source says, after the paper, Storch wanted procedural changes to the PR process that the publisher was unwilling to make, so he resigned, which is quite a different thing altogether. Does someone have a source to back up this claim before I delete it?
It seems clear the Goodall resignation was over the paper's publication, so that part doesn't seem to be under dispute. FellGleaming ( talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming ( talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming ( talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, this discussion has been open here for 3 days and you haven't participated. The source says that Von Storch resigned, but not over publication of the paper, but rather the publisher's refusal to grant Storch additional authority after the paper was published -- a very different matter. Please discuss here; rather than reverting. FellGleaming ( talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
“ | I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board.
Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him. |
” |
FellGleaming ( talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Your source says he resigned to the a) a conflict with the publisher over changing the review process, and b) because he felt other CR editors used "different scales" for different papers. Your synopsis is substantially different from this. FellGleaming ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
A non-peer reviewed opinion in Realclimate is not a reliable source for rebutting controversial scientific statements. To quote KDP: "A self-published source used to refute a peer-reviewed paper?" Does anyone have a valid, peer-reviewed paper as a source to rebut this? FellGleaming ( talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, there's a serious undue weight issue, when you don't go into any details about the paper's scientific claims...but devote an entire paragraph to claims disputing its conclusions. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.
I will repeat myself. The thing that made him famous is a totally discredited paper. Now I know the climate change denial literature continually brings this study up as if it is still valid but it has been utterly discredited in serious scientific literature and the fact that it was published at all lead to resignations. This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact and not pander to the continual ignorance of this fact in the global warming denial literature and low level journalism. Polargeo ( talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) "This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact...". That sounds like a tacit admission you're using the article for a COATRACK. Nothing takes precedence over BLP violations, period. FellGleaming ( talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Anchorage Daily News source for "Funding and review of Palin-touted study criticized" does not work, and I cannot find it on their site. Does anyone have a RS to back this one up? FellGleaming ( talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Whats the rationale for removing this? Such a section is standard for WP biographies. FellGleaming ( talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I carefully picked through several edits that had removed sources etc rather than reverting and yet this has been undone by one edit from User:FellGleaming which is effectively a revert [4]. Please restore the article to the situation it was in. You have tried to change a long standing article to your own satisfaction and this has been challenged by two editors who have both previously edited the article. You should not force your edits through when discussion is still going on and there is no consensus for your sweeping changes. Polargeo ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Turns out the Science (journal) paper completely backs up the RC sourced statement anyway. Can't get a much better source than that to show the consequence of the inaccuracy in Willie Soon's paper. The science paper of Osborn and Briffa references the Soon study and outlines where it was incorrect and how they have come to a different conclusion. Polargeo ( talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This site raises a number of flags from the WP:RS guidelines. It is subtitled "Liberal Intelligence", and openly and brazenly admits to advocacy. It's mission statement reads, in part:
“ | "The American Prospect will strengthen the capacity of activists, engaged citizens, and public officials to pursue new policies and new possibilities for social justice.
The magazine's founding purpose was to demonstrate that progressive ideas could animate a majority politics; to restore to intellectual and political respectability the case for social investment; to energize civic democracy and give voice to the disenfranchised; and to counteract the growing influence of conservative media. Across two decades, the Prospect has served as a vital link between ideas and political activism." |
” |
In short, it is a collection of op-ed pieces, and not a valid source for a BLP.
Err, your first diff is not "to his own website", it's to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works website. Secondly, potentially libelous material has to meet a higher standard, as per BLP policy.
Repeating the question: do you support removal of the Harvard Crimson sourced material? You raised it as potentially non-reliable. FellGleaming ( talk) 14:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
To the larger question, yes it is the "wrong sort of journalism". It is self-admittedly not neutral and unbiased. It is opinion, and not viable for a BLP. I have no problem with American Prospect sources when they're not in a BLP making potentially libelous statements, but in this case, it's a violation. Please read the BLP policy I linked above. You cannot impugn a living person's reputation with opinion. If the statement is true, then it will be in a RS; why not help me find it? FellGleaming ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
See this source:
The site is clearly not a RS for a BLP. The letter, however, purports to have been originally published in a RS. If someone can find that source, please use it to support this, otherwise the claim will have to go. FellGleaming ( talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As a non:RS - please explain what you mean. I'm getting the impression that you understand the concept very well. Guettarda ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I ask one more time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming ( talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The polar bears stuff looks very dodgy, as is JSA's stuff. Anyway, both your links say it is unpublished William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The addition of Soon's comment about an expert (Amstrup) adjusting his models to get the correct outcome and sourced from an unpublished draft version of a manuscript intended for the non-science journal "Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." is just disgusting. Your quest for good BLP sourcing has lost all credibility by your additions. You are presenting Soon publications from a non-science journal which directly criticise the integrity of a scientist who has published in a peer reviewed science journal. i will remove this instantly per our BLP policies. Damn it I even have sympathy for Soon's view in this particular case but you just cannot do that. Polargeo ( talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "to persons named" in an article. Further, legal precedent on libelous torts in this case is clear; responsibility ends at the server boundary. Legally, the only exception to this case is when a celebrity or public figure is described in such a way that from that text alone, their identity can be determined, even without actual use of their name. If you doubt this, I'd be happy to post a clarification request to the BLP NB if you wish.
Did you have a reply about my proposal to trim the section? Fell Gleaming( talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Further, this is not just a random opinion, it is a peer reviewed paper, published in an academic journal specifically being used to refute a damaging accusation against him. Either the accusation needs to go, or papers he published rebutting it need to be mentioned. 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Fellgleaming in this edit is repeating accusations made by WSoon and his coauthors (from a "draft" of a paper that has not been published in a scientific journal) which accuses a scientist of massaging his data in a peer reviewed scientific paper. I would not usually undo edits in the middle of a content dispute but I feel that this is so far against our policies that I had to undo it and I request other editors to come in with further opinions. Polargeo ( talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have evidence I misrepresented the source, present it. Otherwise retract the claim. Fell Gleaming( talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The article text didn't say the paper was being read either. It said the paper's conclusions were being presented. This is correct, so what is your objection? Fell Gleaming( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
This source [20] has twice been reverted out by WMC without any justification. I am restoring it and suggest WMC contribute to discussion here, rather than edit warring. Fell Gleaming talk 13:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to edit this article, but someone should summarize the content of this newspaper article. Zero talk 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel the entire issue of funding should be put into a separate section, and that this should be consistent with the way funding of other researchers is treated. The way the article is written, especially the mention of funding, comes across as a biased, attack piece; almost libelous. It makes me very suspicious of the main editors and makes me want to know more about Willie Soon. (i.e. the editor's intentions may have back-fired.) 24.218.193.62 ( talk) 14:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, it does read like a hit piece with no mention of really any accomplishments that make him notable, he also got funding from NASA and MIT according to the Guardian article, why aren't those listed? The whole article reads like this: 1 line what Soon did, many lines rebuttal by other random people then another many lines selective editing by Wikipedia editors that aren't related to what Soon did (funding). Theblog ( talk) 20:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Arthur's version: " Greenpeace reports that documents they obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act show... [funding details]"
Original version: "Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show ... [funding details]"
Source article (Guardian) "Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that... [funding details]"
The stronger wording in the Guardian article than in Arthur's watered-down version ios closer to the original version. I can't see a justification for Arthur's edit, the Guardian is making a stronger claim than "Greenpeace says..."
I'm reverting again. The original wording is practically the same as the source, Arthur's version is distinctly different. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Of reference interest from Greenpeace; CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal ? 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Polar Bear Debate Section is not notable, he posted a point in a point/counterpoint issue which got minimal outside press. This is supposed to be an article about Willie Soon, not about some obscure article, lets delete the section. Theblog ( talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html -- 98.171.173.90 ( talk) 20:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
→I added something on this. I didn't mention some of the likely more heated aspects: the "deliverables" description he used in emails, or that his own salary comes out of the funding he raises. The article mentions that he only works part-time; is that something we want to mention in intro? (That's an earnest question, not a rhetorical one.) Crust ( talk) 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
On the same general topic, Goldenberg, Suzanne (21 February 2015).
"Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry". the Guardian. Retrieved 22 February 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Not sure if this adds much to the NYT and Boston Globe, but worth considering. . .
dave souza,
talk
14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Tollefson, J. (2015). "Documents spur investigation of climate sceptic". Nature.
doi:
10.1038/nature.2015.16972. looks useful, also Malakoff, David (19 February 2015).
"Climate skeptic's fossil fuel funding puts spotlight on journal conflict policies". AAAS ScienceNow: News. Retrieved 23 February 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) covers the story from another angle. . .
dave souza,
talk
20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The article states he is an aerospace engineer. His blurb at the Smithsonian website says he is an astrophysicist. Other sources used in the article ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) also state he's an astrophysicist. Further, his doctoral advisor, Joseph Kunc, is a Professor of Astronautics, Aerospace Engineering, Physics and Astronomy ( [34]) in the astronautical engineering program at USC (not the aeronautical engineering program). 32.218.35.110 ( talk) 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Soon is 100% an aerospace engineer, see https://astronautics.usc.edu/about/history/ and http://phdtree.org/scholar/kunc-joseph-a-2/ and http://phdtree.org/pdf/24740895-nonequilibrium-kinetics-in-high-temperature-gases/ and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pofb/2/11/10.1063/1.859352 and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/95/8/10.1063/1.461622 Please note order of authorship and affiliation Kunc (Physics) Soon (Aerospace Engineering) Willard Anthony Watts ( talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Soon NOW plays the part of an 'astrophysicist' just like Monckton plays the part of a 'climate scientist' and Watts plays the part of a 'meterologist' they all play at something that they have no formal completed degree training in their current positions. None of those people have a degree in any way-shape-manner-form to the parts that they are NOW playing. Willard Anthony Watts ( talk) 18:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia: "Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist", but he is "BA (Oxon); PhD (London), both in mathematics". From first comment, #31 links to The New York Times, #32 to Reuters and #33 to The Guardian: all of them, "Soon, an astrophysicist". Oscar0084 ( talk) 10:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The goal here is not to play the find-a-source-that-says-X game. The goal is to accurately reflect the best available sources. The best available sources—the most recent, and the highest quality, and those which directly address Soon's professional title—state unequivocally that he's not an astrophysicist ( New York Times 2/21/2015, NPR 2/24/2015, etc). It is possible to find older sources of varying qualities which refer to Soon, in passing, as an "astrophysicist". But I think that any serious attempt to reflect reality would start with the more recent, high-quality sources which directly refute this title.
I think it's ridiculous for you to insist on including Category:Astrophysicists when the New York Times literally wrote, just a few days ago, that "Soon is not an astrophysicist". But if that's how you want to go on record (and double down), then be my guest. I'd be violated some of my most deeply held principles if I continued this discussion under these terms. MastCell Talk 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So it doesn't appear that Dr. Soon could reasonably be described as (presently) an aeronautical engineer. Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Soon's arguments are generally dismissed by climate scientists as unsound, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation." The two articles used as a reference do not make a case for claiming what the response of "climate scientists" are. This is poorly worded in trying to attest to the general response of an ill-defined group of people.
I would suggest changing this to stating what portions of Soon's arguments are "unsound" Something like, the recent temperature changes are far larger than what can be justified by solar variations. This sounds more like an opinion disguised as a statement of fact. Make it a statement of fact.
Recall, that this is a living person and libel can be considered a problem. Would ayone really want to try justifying a claim as to what climate scientists would generally dismiss?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I'm affiliated with Harvard, so I really shouldn't be playing brand-name defense. Could somebody please decide whether Jeff Neal's statement in the Guardian, this Crimson article,and the NYT quote "...has never been employed by Harvard" are sufficient evidence to remove the unsourced "Harvard University staff" category? FourViolas ( talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
We have these opinion pieces used in the article:
The "Bribe" piece is borderline slander and is clearly inappropriate for a BLP. I've removed it.
I question the use of the "Motherboard" piece here. This opinion piece, which is mostly about Christopher Monckton, is overtly partisan, and we normally steer clear of such axe-grinding sources for BLPs. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's noteworthy that this appear to be a "manufactured controversy" from the results of Greenpeace's successful FOIA request to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Soon's employer. Per the Nature article, and
this posting by William M. Brigg's, a co-author, it appears that Kert Davies, the Greenpeace employee who obtained the documents, wrote to Science Journal Bulletin, which published Monckton, Soon et al. 2015, "Why models run hot", insisting that Soon’s past funding sources constitute a conflict of interest. All four authors have declared that they wrote the paper on their own time and received no compensation. Per Nature, Davies describes Soon as “basically offering himself up as a spokesperson on climate denial”. Monckton rejected the allegations by Davies as “manifestly untruthful and malevolent”.
Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote here that "undisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing." and gives an example of Joe Romm, Amory Lovins and others failing to disclose COI in a 2010 Environmental Research Letters paper. Pielke wrote that "COI disclosure is a good idea", but that it should not be "used as a selectively applied political bludgeon," as Pielke thinks is happening in the Soon brouhaha, which is largely recycled from the Soon and Baliunas controversy of 2003, and the later controversy over his industrial funding.
Pielke also wrote that, in his case, "The incessant attacks and smears are effective ... I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic..." And Soon was quoted in the Boston Globe article: “Stop politicizing science!’’ he said. “Just stop!’’
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
In terms of the controversy, I see little reason to use sensationalist tabloid websites such as vice.com as sources when this issue has already been covered by standard journalistic entities such as the Boston Globe. 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is something I don't get at all. I don't really expect an answer, though. But I'll ask anyways.
If the range of IPCC projections includes as something like a lower bound of 1 to 1.5 degrees of warming or so for the 2000-2100 period, with around 3 to 3.5 degrees being viewed as the more likely outcome, than why the hell does taking that viewpoint, with a Dr. X saying "I think what will actually happen is something like 1.5 to 1 or say degrees of warming", mean that the Dr. X is some kind of dangerous climate change denialist and that they're a theologically evil person?
You have a rainbow of various simulations from different teams in different countries using different assumptions doing complex modeling, and the overall variance is pretty wide, from like 1 degrees of warming (a pretty unlikely, overly conservative estimate) all the way up to 5 degrees of warming or more (again, a totally unlikely and silly alarmist prediction). And around 3 degrees or so is something like the top of the bell curve, so to speak. Why exactly is advocating a viewpoint from the smaller side of the bell curve make you a bad person that eats kittens, a terrible environment hating skeptic, and so on, when you're still agreeing with, well, everything in terms of the actual science? You just find that the more likely outcome is on the left side of the bell curve rather than the right. Yet... why? Why does that assign the mark of Cain on you? 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 12:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Since we're discussing blog posts by topic experts, Carbon Brief quotes several, Jan P. Perlwitz has discussed the paper in Dr Jan Perlwitz on Monckton et al. (2015) - Google Docs and a blog post, Arthur Smith blogs about The Monckton equation, and Joanna Haigh covers problems with the paper at Climate at Imperial-Insights from staff and students at Imperial working in climate related areas.. With climate models, simpler isn’t necessarily better. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Soon could very well be wrong, and given the way in which the model itself is specified and the assumptions made his predictions appear at least superficially to be really flawed, but does anyone else think that using Google Docs, blogspot.co.uk, and such websites as sources for a biographical page is a pretty bad idea? What ever happened to the notion of quality control in terms of reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that the Smithsonian Institute and Southern Power had signed a nondisclosure agreement for their research contracts, and thus it appears that Soon & the CfA couldn't, by contract, disclose the source of their funding from Southern. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told the New York Times last week that the provision in Southern’s funding agreement prohibiting disclosure “was a mistake.” Sources: What Does A Conflict Of Interest In Climate Science Look Like?, Daily Caller, 2-27-2015. New York Times followup story, FEB. 25, 2015
Folks, this is why we have the WP:Not News rule. It looks to me that Justin Gillis of the Times didn't do his homework. I'll tag this as a current event, but think we need to drastically trim it down & await developments. Particularly as this is a WP:BLP, and it appears that Greenpeace activists and others are using gullible reporters in what appears to be a character assassination campaign. See, for instance, this official Greenpeace document, which is remarkable, -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the lede bit calling out a specific number of papers, because later developments make the number unclear. At least one journal in the Greenpeace list had no COI policy then, and Smithsonian's contract with some of Soon's funders appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources. Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I linked this page, Willie Soon hosted by Heartland Institute a few minutes ago. It includes Soon's biography, CV and publications, plus links to articles and editorials about the 2015 controversy. Stephan Schulz promptly reverted, commenting "unreliable source, undulyself-serving."
This seems like a reasonable and useful add to me, and also hosts this Statement by Dr. Willie Soon, posted 03/02/15, his comments on the current controversy, which we definitely need to add (but I'm pressed for time today). Stephan, what specifically don't you like re the page you reverted -- other than that Heartand put it up? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I read about Dr. Soon recently (in connection with the current controversy over funding) and wanted to find out more about him. So naturally I came to wikipeda. It seems apparent that as it is now written this article has an axe to grind (with references of course), but that it doesn't reflect the man.
I took the time to find his published works in google scholar where I found 59 cites of works he (co)authored. It is apparent that, 1. The topics of his publications seemed to change on or about 2000 from being related to astrophysics to climate connected with solar radiation, 2. That in at least one pre 2000 paper I read some of the funding came from sources that the current controversy seems to be acting like he was hiding (and yet there was no controversy in 1995 over this), 3. That he has written on a topic that it would seem he is not an expert (mercury in the atmosphere) [1], 4. That he tends to frequently collaborate with others and in particular with Baliunas, Sallie L., Dmitry Sokoloff, David R. Legates, Armstrong, J. Scott. Some of these collaborations go back to pre-2000 astrophysical topic days.
A reader would want to know the influence these co-workers had on his writings, perhaps more so than where his funding came from. A reader would also want to know what happened on or about 2000 that made him change from primarily astrophysical topics to climate. How other stars have sunspot cycles similar to the sun is not an entirely uniteresting fact to know this man worked to understand. [2]
Kellnerp ( talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
From: [1]
Dr. Soon has now released this statement in response to the attacks on him.
"In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.
166.137.248.75 ( talk) 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
We need some commentary on Congressman Grijalva's demand letter (etc.) and responses to it. I'll start collecting RS's here:
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
As both Arhur Rubin and I have pointed out, this is a problematic phrase. It appears to be a formulation of the various activist groups criticizing Soon (and other "climate deniers"), forex at Pollluter Watch, Desmog Blog, Sourcewatch etc. etc. The term was picked up verbatim by MSM stories we cte from the NY Tines, WaPo, Guardian & others.
It's undefined and self-contradicting. Soon's major donors include an electric utility, a charity, and an anonymous donor group. I've tagged the term (again), this time for NPOV, since it seems to be sourced to activists, but re-used by reputable newspapers. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we are allowing Greenpeace & allies to speak with Wikipedia's voice, which is most definitely against policy. Yes, the NY Times says"fossil fuels interests", but there's good evidence that they ( and others) have been practicing sloppy journalism in Soon's case. See, for example, Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 21, 2015). "Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry", The Guardian. Now, there's a neutral article headline....
It's unequivocal that Greenpeace has been campaigning against Soon (and Baliunas) since at least 2003. I'm leaving on a business trip, so don;t have time to document all this now, but it's all there in RSs. So, yes, it's a serious NPOV problem. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, has Soon's work been translated into, for instance, Chinese? ixo ( talk) 05:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Willie Soon. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Willie Soon. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the infobox states Soon's nationality is "American Malaysian". Should it be "Malaysian American"? Because the article states that he was born in Malaysia, and now resides in USA, and I believe the usual practice is to list the origin first, then "American". See Malaysian Americans where it describes "Americans of Malaysian ancestry". -- TheBlueWizard ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Just for ref...
>GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L16712, doi:10.1029/2005GL023429, 2005
> >Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal >variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record >of the past 130 years > "This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation...."
Grant committees at Harvard and other universities are about as likely to fund research suggesting that global warming is caused by anything other than humans as they are to vote Republican. It is not surprising that Willie Soon sought funding elsewhere.
Hypothetical speculation that the Bush admin would fund critics just shows a lot about the person making the comment. This whole wikipedia is just a leftist slanted op-war. The same guys who bring us Google bombing and Daily Kos, and the like.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone else pointed out to me the polar bear section is confusing. In particular, the article appears to suggest the paper didn't necessarily challenge the view that they were threatened but simply suggested there were other factors which were the primary reason they were threatened. If so, this doesn't seem a good reason to delist them (regardless of whether it's global warming, human-bear interactions, being scared of Sarah Palin or whatever, if they are threatened they are threatened surely?). The ref just links to the main page and while I found a direct ref somewhere else, it no longer works. The polar bear article just says "Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that the listing was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available, a view rejected by polar bear experts" which makes more sense then this article but the ref doesn't work either. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything from soon recently and a google scholar search didn't turn up anything recent apart from [1], which is distinctly minor William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The article seems to be misquoting the source, when it says Von Storch resigned in protest after the paper. The source says, after the paper, Storch wanted procedural changes to the PR process that the publisher was unwilling to make, so he resigned, which is quite a different thing altogether. Does someone have a source to back up this claim before I delete it?
It seems clear the Goodall resignation was over the paper's publication, so that part doesn't seem to be under dispute. FellGleaming ( talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming ( talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming ( talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, this discussion has been open here for 3 days and you haven't participated. The source says that Von Storch resigned, but not over publication of the paper, but rather the publisher's refusal to grant Storch additional authority after the paper was published -- a very different matter. Please discuss here; rather than reverting. FellGleaming ( talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
“ | I wanted the editorial by Hans von Storch to be published, but with a green light from the Editorial Board.
Hence I asked Hans not to rush the editorial, to consult with the Editorial Board and to publish a revised version. Hans did not like this and decided to resign only a few days after I had appointed him. |
” |
FellGleaming ( talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Your source says he resigned to the a) a conflict with the publisher over changing the review process, and b) because he felt other CR editors used "different scales" for different papers. Your synopsis is substantially different from this. FellGleaming ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
A non-peer reviewed opinion in Realclimate is not a reliable source for rebutting controversial scientific statements. To quote KDP: "A self-published source used to refute a peer-reviewed paper?" Does anyone have a valid, peer-reviewed paper as a source to rebut this? FellGleaming ( talk) 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, there's a serious undue weight issue, when you don't go into any details about the paper's scientific claims...but devote an entire paragraph to claims disputing its conclusions. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.
I will repeat myself. The thing that made him famous is a totally discredited paper. Now I know the climate change denial literature continually brings this study up as if it is still valid but it has been utterly discredited in serious scientific literature and the fact that it was published at all lead to resignations. This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact and not pander to the continual ignorance of this fact in the global warming denial literature and low level journalism. Polargeo ( talk) 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) "This article, BLP or not, should accurately reflect that fact...". That sounds like a tacit admission you're using the article for a COATRACK. Nothing takes precedence over BLP violations, period. FellGleaming ( talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Anchorage Daily News source for "Funding and review of Palin-touted study criticized" does not work, and I cannot find it on their site. Does anyone have a RS to back this one up? FellGleaming ( talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Whats the rationale for removing this? Such a section is standard for WP biographies. FellGleaming ( talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I carefully picked through several edits that had removed sources etc rather than reverting and yet this has been undone by one edit from User:FellGleaming which is effectively a revert [4]. Please restore the article to the situation it was in. You have tried to change a long standing article to your own satisfaction and this has been challenged by two editors who have both previously edited the article. You should not force your edits through when discussion is still going on and there is no consensus for your sweeping changes. Polargeo ( talk) 15:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Turns out the Science (journal) paper completely backs up the RC sourced statement anyway. Can't get a much better source than that to show the consequence of the inaccuracy in Willie Soon's paper. The science paper of Osborn and Briffa references the Soon study and outlines where it was incorrect and how they have come to a different conclusion. Polargeo ( talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This site raises a number of flags from the WP:RS guidelines. It is subtitled "Liberal Intelligence", and openly and brazenly admits to advocacy. It's mission statement reads, in part:
“ | "The American Prospect will strengthen the capacity of activists, engaged citizens, and public officials to pursue new policies and new possibilities for social justice.
The magazine's founding purpose was to demonstrate that progressive ideas could animate a majority politics; to restore to intellectual and political respectability the case for social investment; to energize civic democracy and give voice to the disenfranchised; and to counteract the growing influence of conservative media. Across two decades, the Prospect has served as a vital link between ideas and political activism." |
” |
In short, it is a collection of op-ed pieces, and not a valid source for a BLP.
Err, your first diff is not "to his own website", it's to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works website. Secondly, potentially libelous material has to meet a higher standard, as per BLP policy.
Repeating the question: do you support removal of the Harvard Crimson sourced material? You raised it as potentially non-reliable. FellGleaming ( talk) 14:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
To the larger question, yes it is the "wrong sort of journalism". It is self-admittedly not neutral and unbiased. It is opinion, and not viable for a BLP. I have no problem with American Prospect sources when they're not in a BLP making potentially libelous statements, but in this case, it's a violation. Please read the BLP policy I linked above. You cannot impugn a living person's reputation with opinion. If the statement is true, then it will be in a RS; why not help me find it? FellGleaming ( talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
See this source:
The site is clearly not a RS for a BLP. The letter, however, purports to have been originally published in a RS. If someone can find that source, please use it to support this, otherwise the claim will have to go. FellGleaming ( talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
As a non:RS - please explain what you mean. I'm getting the impression that you understand the concept very well. Guettarda ( talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I ask one more time. If this material is reliable, why do you not want to source it from a RS? Ultimately, it makes for a much stronger case for the material you're trying to present. FellGleaming ( talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The polar bears stuff looks very dodgy, as is JSA's stuff. Anyway, both your links say it is unpublished William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The addition of Soon's comment about an expert (Amstrup) adjusting his models to get the correct outcome and sourced from an unpublished draft version of a manuscript intended for the non-science journal "Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences." is just disgusting. Your quest for good BLP sourcing has lost all credibility by your additions. You are presenting Soon publications from a non-science journal which directly criticise the integrity of a scientist who has published in a peer reviewed science journal. i will remove this instantly per our BLP policies. Damn it I even have sympathy for Soon's view in this particular case but you just cannot do that. Polargeo ( talk) 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "to persons named" in an article. Further, legal precedent on libelous torts in this case is clear; responsibility ends at the server boundary. Legally, the only exception to this case is when a celebrity or public figure is described in such a way that from that text alone, their identity can be determined, even without actual use of their name. If you doubt this, I'd be happy to post a clarification request to the BLP NB if you wish.
Did you have a reply about my proposal to trim the section? Fell Gleaming( talk) 08:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Further, this is not just a random opinion, it is a peer reviewed paper, published in an academic journal specifically being used to refute a damaging accusation against him. Either the accusation needs to go, or papers he published rebutting it need to be mentioned. 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Fellgleaming in this edit is repeating accusations made by WSoon and his coauthors (from a "draft" of a paper that has not been published in a scientific journal) which accuses a scientist of massaging his data in a peer reviewed scientific paper. I would not usually undo edits in the middle of a content dispute but I feel that this is so far against our policies that I had to undo it and I request other editors to come in with further opinions. Polargeo ( talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have evidence I misrepresented the source, present it. Otherwise retract the claim. Fell Gleaming( talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The article text didn't say the paper was being read either. It said the paper's conclusions were being presented. This is correct, so what is your objection? Fell Gleaming( talk) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
This source [20] has twice been reverted out by WMC without any justification. I am restoring it and suggest WMC contribute to discussion here, rather than edit warring. Fell Gleaming talk 13:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to edit this article, but someone should summarize the content of this newspaper article. Zero talk 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel the entire issue of funding should be put into a separate section, and that this should be consistent with the way funding of other researchers is treated. The way the article is written, especially the mention of funding, comes across as a biased, attack piece; almost libelous. It makes me very suspicious of the main editors and makes me want to know more about Willie Soon. (i.e. the editor's intentions may have back-fired.) 24.218.193.62 ( talk) 14:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, it does read like a hit piece with no mention of really any accomplishments that make him notable, he also got funding from NASA and MIT according to the Guardian article, why aren't those listed? The whole article reads like this: 1 line what Soon did, many lines rebuttal by other random people then another many lines selective editing by Wikipedia editors that aren't related to what Soon did (funding). Theblog ( talk) 20:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Arthur's version: " Greenpeace reports that documents they obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act show... [funding details]"
Original version: "Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show ... [funding details]"
Source article (Guardian) "Documents provided to Greenpeace by the Smithsonian under the US Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) show that... [funding details]"
The stronger wording in the Guardian article than in Arthur's watered-down version ios closer to the original version. I can't see a justification for Arthur's edit, the Guardian is making a stronger claim than "Greenpeace says..."
I'm reverting again. The original wording is practically the same as the source, Arthur's version is distinctly different. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Of reference interest from Greenpeace; CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal ? 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Polar Bear Debate Section is not notable, he posted a point in a point/counterpoint issue which got minimal outside press. This is supposed to be an article about Willie Soon, not about some obscure article, lets delete the section. Theblog ( talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html -- 98.171.173.90 ( talk) 20:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
→I added something on this. I didn't mention some of the likely more heated aspects: the "deliverables" description he used in emails, or that his own salary comes out of the funding he raises. The article mentions that he only works part-time; is that something we want to mention in intro? (That's an earnest question, not a rhetorical one.) Crust ( talk) 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
On the same general topic, Goldenberg, Suzanne (21 February 2015).
"Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry". the Guardian. Retrieved 22 February 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Not sure if this adds much to the NYT and Boston Globe, but worth considering. . .
dave souza,
talk
14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Tollefson, J. (2015). "Documents spur investigation of climate sceptic". Nature.
doi:
10.1038/nature.2015.16972. looks useful, also Malakoff, David (19 February 2015).
"Climate skeptic's fossil fuel funding puts spotlight on journal conflict policies". AAAS ScienceNow: News. Retrieved 23 February 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) covers the story from another angle. . .
dave souza,
talk
20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The article states he is an aerospace engineer. His blurb at the Smithsonian website says he is an astrophysicist. Other sources used in the article ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) also state he's an astrophysicist. Further, his doctoral advisor, Joseph Kunc, is a Professor of Astronautics, Aerospace Engineering, Physics and Astronomy ( [34]) in the astronautical engineering program at USC (not the aeronautical engineering program). 32.218.35.110 ( talk) 05:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Soon is 100% an aerospace engineer, see https://astronautics.usc.edu/about/history/ and http://phdtree.org/scholar/kunc-joseph-a-2/ and http://phdtree.org/pdf/24740895-nonequilibrium-kinetics-in-high-temperature-gases/ and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pofb/2/11/10.1063/1.859352 and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/95/8/10.1063/1.461622 Please note order of authorship and affiliation Kunc (Physics) Soon (Aerospace Engineering) Willard Anthony Watts ( talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Soon NOW plays the part of an 'astrophysicist' just like Monckton plays the part of a 'climate scientist' and Watts plays the part of a 'meterologist' they all play at something that they have no formal completed degree training in their current positions. None of those people have a degree in any way-shape-manner-form to the parts that they are NOW playing. Willard Anthony Watts ( talk) 18:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia: "Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist", but he is "BA (Oxon); PhD (London), both in mathematics". From first comment, #31 links to The New York Times, #32 to Reuters and #33 to The Guardian: all of them, "Soon, an astrophysicist". Oscar0084 ( talk) 10:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The goal here is not to play the find-a-source-that-says-X game. The goal is to accurately reflect the best available sources. The best available sources—the most recent, and the highest quality, and those which directly address Soon's professional title—state unequivocally that he's not an astrophysicist ( New York Times 2/21/2015, NPR 2/24/2015, etc). It is possible to find older sources of varying qualities which refer to Soon, in passing, as an "astrophysicist". But I think that any serious attempt to reflect reality would start with the more recent, high-quality sources which directly refute this title.
I think it's ridiculous for you to insist on including Category:Astrophysicists when the New York Times literally wrote, just a few days ago, that "Soon is not an astrophysicist". But if that's how you want to go on record (and double down), then be my guest. I'd be violated some of my most deeply held principles if I continued this discussion under these terms. MastCell Talk 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So it doesn't appear that Dr. Soon could reasonably be described as (presently) an aeronautical engineer. Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
"Soon's arguments are generally dismissed by climate scientists as unsound, but he is frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation." The two articles used as a reference do not make a case for claiming what the response of "climate scientists" are. This is poorly worded in trying to attest to the general response of an ill-defined group of people.
I would suggest changing this to stating what portions of Soon's arguments are "unsound" Something like, the recent temperature changes are far larger than what can be justified by solar variations. This sounds more like an opinion disguised as a statement of fact. Make it a statement of fact.
Recall, that this is a living person and libel can be considered a problem. Would ayone really want to try justifying a claim as to what climate scientists would generally dismiss?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.150.76 ( talk) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I'm affiliated with Harvard, so I really shouldn't be playing brand-name defense. Could somebody please decide whether Jeff Neal's statement in the Guardian, this Crimson article,and the NYT quote "...has never been employed by Harvard" are sufficient evidence to remove the unsourced "Harvard University staff" category? FourViolas ( talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
We have these opinion pieces used in the article:
The "Bribe" piece is borderline slander and is clearly inappropriate for a BLP. I've removed it.
I question the use of the "Motherboard" piece here. This opinion piece, which is mostly about Christopher Monckton, is overtly partisan, and we normally steer clear of such axe-grinding sources for BLPs. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's noteworthy that this appear to be a "manufactured controversy" from the results of Greenpeace's successful FOIA request to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), Soon's employer. Per the Nature article, and
this posting by William M. Brigg's, a co-author, it appears that Kert Davies, the Greenpeace employee who obtained the documents, wrote to Science Journal Bulletin, which published Monckton, Soon et al. 2015, "Why models run hot", insisting that Soon’s past funding sources constitute a conflict of interest. All four authors have declared that they wrote the paper on their own time and received no compensation. Per Nature, Davies describes Soon as “basically offering himself up as a spokesperson on climate denial”. Monckton rejected the allegations by Davies as “manifestly untruthful and malevolent”.
Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote here that "undisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing." and gives an example of Joe Romm, Amory Lovins and others failing to disclose COI in a 2010 Environmental Research Letters paper. Pielke wrote that "COI disclosure is a good idea", but that it should not be "used as a selectively applied political bludgeon," as Pielke thinks is happening in the Soon brouhaha, which is largely recycled from the Soon and Baliunas controversy of 2003, and the later controversy over his industrial funding.
Pielke also wrote that, in his case, "The incessant attacks and smears are effective ... I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic..." And Soon was quoted in the Boston Globe article: “Stop politicizing science!’’ he said. “Just stop!’’
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
In terms of the controversy, I see little reason to use sensationalist tabloid websites such as vice.com as sources when this issue has already been covered by standard journalistic entities such as the Boston Globe. 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is something I don't get at all. I don't really expect an answer, though. But I'll ask anyways.
If the range of IPCC projections includes as something like a lower bound of 1 to 1.5 degrees of warming or so for the 2000-2100 period, with around 3 to 3.5 degrees being viewed as the more likely outcome, than why the hell does taking that viewpoint, with a Dr. X saying "I think what will actually happen is something like 1.5 to 1 or say degrees of warming", mean that the Dr. X is some kind of dangerous climate change denialist and that they're a theologically evil person?
You have a rainbow of various simulations from different teams in different countries using different assumptions doing complex modeling, and the overall variance is pretty wide, from like 1 degrees of warming (a pretty unlikely, overly conservative estimate) all the way up to 5 degrees of warming or more (again, a totally unlikely and silly alarmist prediction). And around 3 degrees or so is something like the top of the bell curve, so to speak. Why exactly is advocating a viewpoint from the smaller side of the bell curve make you a bad person that eats kittens, a terrible environment hating skeptic, and so on, when you're still agreeing with, well, everything in terms of the actual science? You just find that the more likely outcome is on the left side of the bell curve rather than the right. Yet... why? Why does that assign the mark of Cain on you? 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 12:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Since we're discussing blog posts by topic experts, Carbon Brief quotes several, Jan P. Perlwitz has discussed the paper in Dr Jan Perlwitz on Monckton et al. (2015) - Google Docs and a blog post, Arthur Smith blogs about The Monckton equation, and Joanna Haigh covers problems with the paper at Climate at Imperial-Insights from staff and students at Imperial working in climate related areas.. With climate models, simpler isn’t necessarily better. . . dave souza, talk 10:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Soon could very well be wrong, and given the way in which the model itself is specified and the assumptions made his predictions appear at least superficially to be really flawed, but does anyone else think that using Google Docs, blogspot.co.uk, and such websites as sources for a biographical page is a pretty bad idea? What ever happened to the notion of quality control in terms of reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.209.55 ( talk) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It turns out that the Smithsonian Institute and Southern Power had signed a nondisclosure agreement for their research contracts, and thus it appears that Soon & the CfA couldn't, by contract, disclose the source of their funding from Southern. Charles Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told the New York Times last week that the provision in Southern’s funding agreement prohibiting disclosure “was a mistake.” Sources: What Does A Conflict Of Interest In Climate Science Look Like?, Daily Caller, 2-27-2015. New York Times followup story, FEB. 25, 2015
Folks, this is why we have the WP:Not News rule. It looks to me that Justin Gillis of the Times didn't do his homework. I'll tag this as a current event, but think we need to drastically trim it down & await developments. Particularly as this is a WP:BLP, and it appears that Greenpeace activists and others are using gullible reporters in what appears to be a character assassination campaign. See, for instance, this official Greenpeace document, which is remarkable, -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the lede bit calling out a specific number of papers, because later developments make the number unclear. At least one journal in the Greenpeace list had no COI policy then, and Smithsonian's contract with some of Soon's funders appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources. Pete Tillman ( talk) 06:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I linked this page, Willie Soon hosted by Heartland Institute a few minutes ago. It includes Soon's biography, CV and publications, plus links to articles and editorials about the 2015 controversy. Stephan Schulz promptly reverted, commenting "unreliable source, undulyself-serving."
This seems like a reasonable and useful add to me, and also hosts this Statement by Dr. Willie Soon, posted 03/02/15, his comments on the current controversy, which we definitely need to add (but I'm pressed for time today). Stephan, what specifically don't you like re the page you reverted -- other than that Heartand put it up? -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I read about Dr. Soon recently (in connection with the current controversy over funding) and wanted to find out more about him. So naturally I came to wikipeda. It seems apparent that as it is now written this article has an axe to grind (with references of course), but that it doesn't reflect the man.
I took the time to find his published works in google scholar where I found 59 cites of works he (co)authored. It is apparent that, 1. The topics of his publications seemed to change on or about 2000 from being related to astrophysics to climate connected with solar radiation, 2. That in at least one pre 2000 paper I read some of the funding came from sources that the current controversy seems to be acting like he was hiding (and yet there was no controversy in 1995 over this), 3. That he has written on a topic that it would seem he is not an expert (mercury in the atmosphere) [1], 4. That he tends to frequently collaborate with others and in particular with Baliunas, Sallie L., Dmitry Sokoloff, David R. Legates, Armstrong, J. Scott. Some of these collaborations go back to pre-2000 astrophysical topic days.
A reader would want to know the influence these co-workers had on his writings, perhaps more so than where his funding came from. A reader would also want to know what happened on or about 2000 that made him change from primarily astrophysical topics to climate. How other stars have sunspot cycles similar to the sun is not an entirely uniteresting fact to know this man worked to understand. [2]
Kellnerp ( talk) 02:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
From: [1]
Dr. Soon has now released this statement in response to the attacks on him.
"In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.
166.137.248.75 ( talk) 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
We need some commentary on Congressman Grijalva's demand letter (etc.) and responses to it. I'll start collecting RS's here:
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
As both Arhur Rubin and I have pointed out, this is a problematic phrase. It appears to be a formulation of the various activist groups criticizing Soon (and other "climate deniers"), forex at Pollluter Watch, Desmog Blog, Sourcewatch etc. etc. The term was picked up verbatim by MSM stories we cte from the NY Tines, WaPo, Guardian & others.
It's undefined and self-contradicting. Soon's major donors include an electric utility, a charity, and an anonymous donor group. I've tagged the term (again), this time for NPOV, since it seems to be sourced to activists, but re-used by reputable newspapers. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we are allowing Greenpeace & allies to speak with Wikipedia's voice, which is most definitely against policy. Yes, the NY Times says"fossil fuels interests", but there's good evidence that they ( and others) have been practicing sloppy journalism in Soon's case. See, for example, Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 21, 2015). "Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry", The Guardian. Now, there's a neutral article headline....
It's unequivocal that Greenpeace has been campaigning against Soon (and Baliunas) since at least 2003. I'm leaving on a business trip, so don;t have time to document all this now, but it's all there in RSs. So, yes, it's a serious NPOV problem. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, has Soon's work been translated into, for instance, Chinese? ixo ( talk) 05:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Willie Soon. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Willie Soon. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the infobox states Soon's nationality is "American Malaysian". Should it be "Malaysian American"? Because the article states that he was born in Malaysia, and now resides in USA, and I believe the usual practice is to list the origin first, then "American". See Malaysian Americans where it describes "Americans of Malaysian ancestry". -- TheBlueWizard ( talk) 04:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)