This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Bueller 007 made this edit changing PhD in "ecology" to degree in "forestry", and removing the information that Mr Moore was directed by "forest ecologist" Hamish Kimmins. So far the provided evidence indicates that the name of the UBC faculty was forestry. Mr Moore says the degree was "Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1972", and testified at a US senate hearing that prior to that he was a "PhD student in ecology". As RSs for "ecology" I see Vancouver Province and National Post. Policy says poorly sourced additions (i.e. "forestry") are to be reverted immediately, but also says I shouldn't re-insert a claim that was removed on good-faith BLP grounds (i.e. "ecology") without seeking consensus. So I seek consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Are PHd's not named? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we've started playing with words here. It seems that it's verifiable that UBC has awarded PhD degrees in ecology to candidates in the Faculty of Forestry. Leaving for the moment the question of whether those candidates included Moore, is that much at least agreed?
But before we discuss this particular degree, I hope everyone will read at least the title pages of his thesis [6] and preferably at least skim its contents. Because, there are some equally strange claims above about it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me but both thesis do not say "degree in ecology" in fact the only subject that seems to be mentioned (in brackets) is forestry. I think there is not enough evidence to say he has a degree in anything, just that he has a degree. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
A possible compromise could be "a PhD in Ecology from the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia". But that's a mouthful. feminist ( talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems agreed that Moore claims that his PhD is in Ecology, and that primary sources are sufficient for this to be included in the article... sourced of course. It seems possible that we have other sources that dispute this, and possibly (if they're notable, and without giving undue weight to his critics... the article is about him, not them) that they should be included too.
But the removal of the link to one of his PhD advisors seems quite impossible to justify. Andrewa ( talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Hamish Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology seems relevant to Moore's claims to being an ecologist, and particularly to the relevance of his degree to Ecology. Shouldn't it be in the article? Andrewa ( talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Per Safrolic, I have removed the tortured prose that I introduced. With all respect to Peter Gulutzan, who removed it and then put it back in pending improvement, I really don't think we need it even if its accuracy is improved. Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
According to http://www.afoa.org/bios/bio_jq.htm his personal resume claims he has a Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974. A Google of "Institute of Resource Ecology" British Columbia -Moore gives me 4,540 ghits, the first few all look relevant.
We don't currently have an article at Institute of Resource Ecology, or even on resource ecology itself. Outline of ecology doesn't mention resource ecology (but it does forest ecology and links to it). Interesting. Andrewa ( talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him. [11]
I missed that. It seems to be a good argument to me. If Greenpeace could falsify that claim in court, surely they would do so? Now that's wp:OR and doesn't belong in the article, but it might help to clarify what the true position is. Andrewa ( talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not. Irrelevant. Universities are strange things. When I attended Macquarie University they only offered first degrees in "Arts"... you could study Chemistry or Geology there and (unlike some other Universities) you could have no "Arts" courses in your degree, but its formal name (see below) was still Arts.
there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree (my emphasis)... Perhaps not (see above), but there are several related primary sources that say it is a PhD in Ecology, and (so far) no reliable secondary source that says it is not. It may have many names. Things do. That's why we have redirects. Andrewa ( talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Nothing actionable
|
---|
I managed to just ignore most of the obviously pointed language, which was no more than I expected (one way or another0, but I can't bring myself to pass by something as ridiculous as "noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[53] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website". He works for a corporation that is involved in logging. Perhaps even logging of rainforests at times. But please point me to the case where he "advocated for the felling of tropical rainforests". The insinuation here is "this guy publically says we should just chop all the rainforests down!" This is exactly the kind of sensationalist BS it sounds like he was distancing himself from. I doubt he ever said anything in favor of logging rainforests. If he did, he was more likely denying that all logging in rainforests in inherently an evil, horrible thing. That is not the same as "advoating the felling of rainforests". It's like someone saying "to be honest, there have been benefitcial results from warfare", to have hit pieces printed up immediately accusing them of "advocating war" and saying "he likes war and wants to start another". They are NOT the same thing. Next, advocating planting genetically engineered crops is not a sin. Perhaps Greenpeace and their ilk consider it to be horrible, but a GREAT many people, most of whom are NOT "paid advocates" see no harm and a great deal of good in geneticaly engineered food, and consider Greanpeaces campaign against them to be about as reasonable and helpful as antivaxxers in general. Many very smart people consider GMO crops to be a promising boon to mankind. It is not an "accusation" to say that a person adovates GMOs, although the way this is phrased it certainly sounds like one. Last. "expressing positive views on logging" is also not a shameful sin. Like the last, most REALISTIC people, moderate people, those who aren't utter fanatics, consider logging a completly legitimate form of agricuture. There are certainly groups of people who hear "Rape of the Forest" when they hear the word "logging", but others take into account the fact that trees are a renewable crop, and paper is a very useful, biodegradable and renewable substance. Logging is NOT an evil thing. Poor logging practices are certainly considered generally harmful, but logging in itself is widely considered a positive thing. When done scientfically to mitigate harm, it is a neccesary adjunct to human life. "Accusing" someone of "expressing positive views on logging" is like "accusing" someone of expressing positive views on farming. Farming also has the potential to cause a great deal of harm, but most people aren't foolish enough to try for banning farming. Again, this is exactly the unreasonable and emotionally-tinged side of "environmentalism" that he was complaining about when he left, as far as I can tell. Only a Greenpeace person would "accuse" someone of "saying postive things about logging". I mean, hasn't he realized that all right-minded people have dismissed logging as an evil corporate scheme to rape nature and Kill The Animals? Ban Paper Products! It's the onlhy solution! Which reminds me; I see above the debate about whether he is an "environmentalist". I was not aware that "environmentalist" had such a narrow definition, and that to qualify one had to agree with Greenpeace consensus on so many points. Who is the arbitratior of what "real" environmentalists are allowed to advocate for? How many points are you allowed to disagree on before your credentials as an true Environmentalist are stripped away? As far as *I* am concerened, a person who is an "environmentalist" is one who is concerned with the environment, and how it may be effected. There is no set definiton of what makes you a "true" environmentalist. A person could be convinced that cutting down 75% of the worlds forests, and paving over vast sections of coastline would be beneficial for the environment. He would still be an 'environmentalist", he would just be one who happens to disagree with most other environmentalists. It is a supreme egotism to declare for yourself that only people who think *thus* are TRUE environmentalists; obviously, WE are RIGHT and we are envirnomentalists, and therefore anyone who disagrees with our analysis is NOT an environmentalist. That's what comes of wearing your description as a badge of honor. Somewhat how people who are left of center desribe themselves as 'Liberals"....nbecause of course no one else could have liberal ideals. You can can him a "mistaken environmentalist", but you cannot claim it's some exclussive club that is only open to people who advocate for the Status Quo of nature. That's not what "environmentalist" means. You might call that "Environmental Conservatism". Moore could describe himself as a "environmental Progressive". Although his ideas would appear about as misguided and repellant to Environmental Conservatives as most "Progressive" ideas seem to Conservatives. I guess most Conservatives see most "Progressive" policies about as sure to cause disaster as Moore's ideas on the environment are. Personally, I don't think it pays to reject all he says. Nulcear energy IS a legitimate clean energy alternative, even if Greenpeace dislikes it. Logging companies are actually one of the biggest conservators and stewards of forestland today. Who else has such a stock in protecting forests? And who's to say that global warming ISN'T potentially beneficial. Greenpeace wrigns their hands and says "but Scienence says it will kill off many species! And harm human societies!" It wouldn't be the first time many species have died off. I am of the opionion that nature can take car of herself, and wouldn't be much phased. Change in the environment would stimulate a new shift in the development of species, and life would go on. It has happened. Might it hurt human society? Sure. THAT'S why people are really against it, and because they are scared of the idea of the world changing. But I don't see how being negative as far as humans is concerned means that global warming cannot be a overall positive. I think he's speaking in the bigger picture. Even if it doesn't hurt humsns he is not the only person to point out the potential benefits from global warming. "Scientific consensus" still leaves many, many people who disagree, and they aren't all morons or in the pay of Evil Corporations. Anyway, now I've gone off on a rant. I mostly just wanted to point out how ridiculous those statements were, and point out how many similar ones there are in the article. People haven't learned to just let the facts do the talking, they seem to find it impossible to resist editorialising and making sure that the readers draw the "right" conclusions (theirs) from the article. Idumea47b ( talk) 05:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that the original title of this section was Rubbish, and has now been changed to POV on environmentalism. This is in general not a good thing IMO, but I'm not suggesting changing it back, just wanting to note this so future edit summaries will make sense. Andrewa ( talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of hatting it or similar myself, but couldn't (and still can't) find quite the right approach. Whether or not you agree with Idumea47b (or Moore), some of what they say is relevant to improving the article IMO. This (as fixed) is as good an approach as any I can come up with. We can (and I well may) take up any relevant points below. The collapse is not ideal, nor is the comment (which is not mine of course) that there's Nothing actionable. But neither was leaving the longish and mainly off-topic post as it was. Andrewa ( talk) 21:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
During the collapsed discussion above, two editors (Idumea47b and I) have objected about the sentence beginning "In 2007 the Guardian reported". So far I know that: (a) the words "against the theory that mankind was causing global warming" poorly reflect what the Guardian writer said (the word "theory" replaced "idea" at some time but it doesn't matter); (b) "advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops" was a direct quote (except for two letters) so removal of the quote/unquote signal was unjustified -- violating WP:PARAPHRASE is trivial because it has essay status but MOS:QUOTE = "recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words" is a guideline that should have been followed; (c) in fact it appears to be a misquote of a misquote, since Mr Moore says says he wrote the Royal Society that "there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend...". So WP:RS ("To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted") was violated, with a result that is not true. Do Nightscream or other editors wish to defend the sentence? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates.... It is common to simply delete ... comments or discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article."Off-topic" here is relative to this:
The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. If Andrewa decides to write something that is substantive or on-topic, you can be sure I won't touch it.
[Moore] wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global warmingand it's not really clear to me why you think this doesn't support
his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, except for the erroneous "for" instead of "to". But I don't see that it matters much either way: it's not a great source and the whole section suffers from "here is this thing he wrote" (which both supporters and detractors tend to like, but which makes for not much of encyclopedic value).
Does anyone object to me creating a new subsection of this section, to raise and discuss any relevant points made in the original post? Andrewa ( talk) 17:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to go through the article and find the places where it simply refutes his arguments, and delete those because I think they're irrelevant. We don't need to be reminded that climate change is real when discussing that he thinks it isn't. If this is improper editing, feel free to revert my changed before we discuss them (I won't tag that as edit warring or whatever), as I am not entirely confidant this is the right move. Toad02 ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I actually think that the section global climate change denial lacks proper repudiations of his arguments. We agree that that is a fringe position, and it has these objections in the lead, but they are missing for the more complete section of his beliefs. I personally don't have any sources of the same quality as in the lead, so I don't think I can make this edit correctly. Toad02 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted my edit. I agree that it violates WP:BLP. If Safrolic wants to fix it (which I would love), he can see the edits I made in history. Toad02 ( talk) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Bueller 007 made this edit changing PhD in "ecology" to degree in "forestry", and removing the information that Mr Moore was directed by "forest ecologist" Hamish Kimmins. So far the provided evidence indicates that the name of the UBC faculty was forestry. Mr Moore says the degree was "Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1972", and testified at a US senate hearing that prior to that he was a "PhD student in ecology". As RSs for "ecology" I see Vancouver Province and National Post. Policy says poorly sourced additions (i.e. "forestry") are to be reverted immediately, but also says I shouldn't re-insert a claim that was removed on good-faith BLP grounds (i.e. "ecology") without seeking consensus. So I seek consensus. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Are PHd's not named? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we've started playing with words here. It seems that it's verifiable that UBC has awarded PhD degrees in ecology to candidates in the Faculty of Forestry. Leaving for the moment the question of whether those candidates included Moore, is that much at least agreed?
But before we discuss this particular degree, I hope everyone will read at least the title pages of his thesis [6] and preferably at least skim its contents. Because, there are some equally strange claims above about it. Andrewa ( talk) 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgive me but both thesis do not say "degree in ecology" in fact the only subject that seems to be mentioned (in brackets) is forestry. I think there is not enough evidence to say he has a degree in anything, just that he has a degree. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
A possible compromise could be "a PhD in Ecology from the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia". But that's a mouthful. feminist ( talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems agreed that Moore claims that his PhD is in Ecology, and that primary sources are sufficient for this to be included in the article... sourced of course. It seems possible that we have other sources that dispute this, and possibly (if they're notable, and without giving undue weight to his critics... the article is about him, not them) that they should be included too.
But the removal of the link to one of his PhD advisors seems quite impossible to justify. Andrewa ( talk) 01:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Hamish Kimmins is an expert in forest ecology seems relevant to Moore's claims to being an ecologist, and particularly to the relevance of his degree to Ecology. Shouldn't it be in the article? Andrewa ( talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Per Safrolic, I have removed the tortured prose that I introduced. With all respect to Peter Gulutzan, who removed it and then put it back in pending improvement, I really don't think we need it even if its accuracy is improved. Comments? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
According to http://www.afoa.org/bios/bio_jq.htm his personal resume claims he has a Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974. A Google of "Institute of Resource Ecology" British Columbia -Moore gives me 4,540 ghits, the first few all look relevant.
We don't currently have an article at Institute of Resource Ecology, or even on resource ecology itself. Outline of ecology doesn't mention resource ecology (but it does forest ecology and links to it). Interesting. Andrewa ( talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The reason I regard it as significant is that the Americans say you could go to prison for five years if you lie to their Senate, so the claim that Mr Moore lied would imply that he was rather bold, especially considering how many people were around at the time who could have exposed him. [11]
I missed that. It seems to be a good argument to me. If Greenpeace could falsify that claim in court, surely they would do so? Now that's wp:OR and doesn't belong in the article, but it might help to clarify what the true position is. Andrewa ( talk) 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
it is a simple fact that UBC **DOES NOT OFFER A PHD IN ECOLOGY**. Other universities do, but UBC does not. Irrelevant. Universities are strange things. When I attended Macquarie University they only offered first degrees in "Arts"... you could study Chemistry or Geology there and (unlike some other Universities) you could have no "Arts" courses in your degree, but its formal name (see below) was still Arts.
there is zero evidence that this is the formal name of Moore's degree (my emphasis)... Perhaps not (see above), but there are several related primary sources that say it is a PhD in Ecology, and (so far) no reliable secondary source that says it is not. It may have many names. Things do. That's why we have redirects. Andrewa ( talk) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Nothing actionable
|
---|
I managed to just ignore most of the obviously pointed language, which was no more than I expected (one way or another0, but I can't bring myself to pass by something as ridiculous as "noting his advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops.[53] He has expressed his positive views of logging on the Greenspirit website". He works for a corporation that is involved in logging. Perhaps even logging of rainforests at times. But please point me to the case where he "advocated for the felling of tropical rainforests". The insinuation here is "this guy publically says we should just chop all the rainforests down!" This is exactly the kind of sensationalist BS it sounds like he was distancing himself from. I doubt he ever said anything in favor of logging rainforests. If he did, he was more likely denying that all logging in rainforests in inherently an evil, horrible thing. That is not the same as "advoating the felling of rainforests". It's like someone saying "to be honest, there have been benefitcial results from warfare", to have hit pieces printed up immediately accusing them of "advocating war" and saying "he likes war and wants to start another". They are NOT the same thing. Next, advocating planting genetically engineered crops is not a sin. Perhaps Greenpeace and their ilk consider it to be horrible, but a GREAT many people, most of whom are NOT "paid advocates" see no harm and a great deal of good in geneticaly engineered food, and consider Greanpeaces campaign against them to be about as reasonable and helpful as antivaxxers in general. Many very smart people consider GMO crops to be a promising boon to mankind. It is not an "accusation" to say that a person adovates GMOs, although the way this is phrased it certainly sounds like one. Last. "expressing positive views on logging" is also not a shameful sin. Like the last, most REALISTIC people, moderate people, those who aren't utter fanatics, consider logging a completly legitimate form of agricuture. There are certainly groups of people who hear "Rape of the Forest" when they hear the word "logging", but others take into account the fact that trees are a renewable crop, and paper is a very useful, biodegradable and renewable substance. Logging is NOT an evil thing. Poor logging practices are certainly considered generally harmful, but logging in itself is widely considered a positive thing. When done scientfically to mitigate harm, it is a neccesary adjunct to human life. "Accusing" someone of "expressing positive views on logging" is like "accusing" someone of expressing positive views on farming. Farming also has the potential to cause a great deal of harm, but most people aren't foolish enough to try for banning farming. Again, this is exactly the unreasonable and emotionally-tinged side of "environmentalism" that he was complaining about when he left, as far as I can tell. Only a Greenpeace person would "accuse" someone of "saying postive things about logging". I mean, hasn't he realized that all right-minded people have dismissed logging as an evil corporate scheme to rape nature and Kill The Animals? Ban Paper Products! It's the onlhy solution! Which reminds me; I see above the debate about whether he is an "environmentalist". I was not aware that "environmentalist" had such a narrow definition, and that to qualify one had to agree with Greenpeace consensus on so many points. Who is the arbitratior of what "real" environmentalists are allowed to advocate for? How many points are you allowed to disagree on before your credentials as an true Environmentalist are stripped away? As far as *I* am concerened, a person who is an "environmentalist" is one who is concerned with the environment, and how it may be effected. There is no set definiton of what makes you a "true" environmentalist. A person could be convinced that cutting down 75% of the worlds forests, and paving over vast sections of coastline would be beneficial for the environment. He would still be an 'environmentalist", he would just be one who happens to disagree with most other environmentalists. It is a supreme egotism to declare for yourself that only people who think *thus* are TRUE environmentalists; obviously, WE are RIGHT and we are envirnomentalists, and therefore anyone who disagrees with our analysis is NOT an environmentalist. That's what comes of wearing your description as a badge of honor. Somewhat how people who are left of center desribe themselves as 'Liberals"....nbecause of course no one else could have liberal ideals. You can can him a "mistaken environmentalist", but you cannot claim it's some exclussive club that is only open to people who advocate for the Status Quo of nature. That's not what "environmentalist" means. You might call that "Environmental Conservatism". Moore could describe himself as a "environmental Progressive". Although his ideas would appear about as misguided and repellant to Environmental Conservatives as most "Progressive" ideas seem to Conservatives. I guess most Conservatives see most "Progressive" policies about as sure to cause disaster as Moore's ideas on the environment are. Personally, I don't think it pays to reject all he says. Nulcear energy IS a legitimate clean energy alternative, even if Greenpeace dislikes it. Logging companies are actually one of the biggest conservators and stewards of forestland today. Who else has such a stock in protecting forests? And who's to say that global warming ISN'T potentially beneficial. Greenpeace wrigns their hands and says "but Scienence says it will kill off many species! And harm human societies!" It wouldn't be the first time many species have died off. I am of the opionion that nature can take car of herself, and wouldn't be much phased. Change in the environment would stimulate a new shift in the development of species, and life would go on. It has happened. Might it hurt human society? Sure. THAT'S why people are really against it, and because they are scared of the idea of the world changing. But I don't see how being negative as far as humans is concerned means that global warming cannot be a overall positive. I think he's speaking in the bigger picture. Even if it doesn't hurt humsns he is not the only person to point out the potential benefits from global warming. "Scientific consensus" still leaves many, many people who disagree, and they aren't all morons or in the pay of Evil Corporations. Anyway, now I've gone off on a rant. I mostly just wanted to point out how ridiculous those statements were, and point out how many similar ones there are in the article. People haven't learned to just let the facts do the talking, they seem to find it impossible to resist editorialising and making sure that the readers draw the "right" conclusions (theirs) from the article. Idumea47b ( talk) 05:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Just noting that the original title of this section was Rubbish, and has now been changed to POV on environmentalism. This is in general not a good thing IMO, but I'm not suggesting changing it back, just wanting to note this so future edit summaries will make sense. Andrewa ( talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of hatting it or similar myself, but couldn't (and still can't) find quite the right approach. Whether or not you agree with Idumea47b (or Moore), some of what they say is relevant to improving the article IMO. This (as fixed) is as good an approach as any I can come up with. We can (and I well may) take up any relevant points below. The collapse is not ideal, nor is the comment (which is not mine of course) that there's Nothing actionable. But neither was leaving the longish and mainly off-topic post as it was. Andrewa ( talk) 21:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC) |
During the collapsed discussion above, two editors (Idumea47b and I) have objected about the sentence beginning "In 2007 the Guardian reported". So far I know that: (a) the words "against the theory that mankind was causing global warming" poorly reflect what the Guardian writer said (the word "theory" replaced "idea" at some time but it doesn't matter); (b) "advocacy for the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops" was a direct quote (except for two letters) so removal of the quote/unquote signal was unjustified -- violating WP:PARAPHRASE is trivial because it has essay status but MOS:QUOTE = "recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words" is a guideline that should have been followed; (c) in fact it appears to be a misquote of a misquote, since Mr Moore says says he wrote the Royal Society that "there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend...". So WP:RS ("To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted") was violated, with a result that is not true. Do Nightscream or other editors wish to defend the sentence? Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates.... It is common to simply delete ... comments or discussion clearly about the article subject itself instead of its treatment in the article."Off-topic" here is relative to this:
The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article. If Andrewa decides to write something that is substantive or on-topic, you can be sure I won't touch it.
[Moore] wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global warmingand it's not really clear to me why you think this doesn't support
his writings for the Royal Society arguing against the theory that mankind was causing global warming, except for the erroneous "for" instead of "to". But I don't see that it matters much either way: it's not a great source and the whole section suffers from "here is this thing he wrote" (which both supporters and detractors tend to like, but which makes for not much of encyclopedic value).
Does anyone object to me creating a new subsection of this section, to raise and discuss any relevant points made in the original post? Andrewa ( talk) 17:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to go through the article and find the places where it simply refutes his arguments, and delete those because I think they're irrelevant. We don't need to be reminded that climate change is real when discussing that he thinks it isn't. If this is improper editing, feel free to revert my changed before we discuss them (I won't tag that as edit warring or whatever), as I am not entirely confidant this is the right move. Toad02 ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I actually think that the section global climate change denial lacks proper repudiations of his arguments. We agree that that is a fringe position, and it has these objections in the lead, but they are missing for the more complete section of his beliefs. I personally don't have any sources of the same quality as in the lead, so I don't think I can make this edit correctly. Toad02 ( talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted my edit. I agree that it violates WP:BLP. If Safrolic wants to fix it (which I would love), he can see the edits I made in history. Toad02 ( talk) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)