Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)/Archive 1

Vandalized?

This is my first time giving input to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what to do. I came across this Anthony Watts article and it appears that the secton on WeatherStations.org has been vandalized. It mentions Joseph Stalin, Deal or No Deal, Nuclear Weapons, and "my grandmother"!206.255.124.252 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it had been vandalized[1] this morning (UTC time). I've returned the article to a sane state. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a start

Watts and his work on SurfaceStations.org are being discussed on several articles related to global warming. I thought I would start this stub to help people get a better idea of who Anthony Watts is. He has deserved his own page for a while now. Please make it better. RonCram 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plasticup, very nicely done. Thank you.RonCram 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good. I think there should be a link to his blog at 'www.norcalblogs.com/watts/'; I also don't think a page for 'SurfaceStations.org' is really necessary. 72.47.71.160 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Okay, I added an External Link to his blog and SurfaceStations.org and unwikified SurfaceStations.org. RonCram 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the tags

The article currently reads:

Watts leads an all volunteer effort to document the quality of weather stations. The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA. The data is collected and displayed on the website for others to study. The collection of this metadata is considered very important by many scientists.

• Tag #1 -The website has the initial instructions and links to forms, etc here. [2] Roger A. Pielke has described what is required to adequately document and photograph a weather station and Pielke has strongly endorsed the work of SurfaceStations.org. [3] In fact, Pielke even allowed Watts to post a guest blog on ClimateScience.[4] If the instructions given by Watts were inadequate, Pielke would not be a supporter.
• Tag #2 -Scientists who have gone on the record supporting Watts effort include Roger A. Pielke, Stephen McIntyre, Lubos Motl and Warwick Hughes. But really, what scientist is going to say they do not want better data? Such an attitude would be completely unscientific. As the tags are unwarranted, I am removing them. RonCram 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron - The only scientist within climatology mentioned above is Pielke Sr. - Motl is the only other scientist, and he is string-theorist (about as far from climatology as you can get). McIntyre is an amateur (not that this necessarily is bad). Hughes is a "freelance earth scientist" whatever that means - whats his background? One relevant scientist doesn't make "Many" - even by a far cry.. (even 4 wouldn't be "many"). As far as i can see there is no collection except for pictures of metadata at Surfacestations.org - thats not all the metadata that is required by NOAA, and it's a far way from determining whether a surface station meets requirements or not. --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, not true. McIntyre has published in climate journals and so has Warwick Hughes. Do a search on google scholar before you make baseless claims. There are a number of other scientists who support Watts who post on ClimateAudit. I did not see a need to present a comprehensive list of all of the scientists who support Watts. Regarding your other point, you need to spend more time on SurfaceStations.org and on Pielke's blog. In addition to the photos, volunteers must complete a form that asks a variety of questions to determine if the station meets the requirements of the NOAA. I provided the links above. Please read them. RonCram 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing a paper (or a comment - as most of Hughes' are) in a scientific journal - doesn't make you a scientist. And yes - you will have to present a reliable source to your claim about "many" - otherwise its WP:OR. And you will have to document that it fullfills NOAA's requirements (which i very much doubt - having seen a random selection of filled out forms. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

the URL cited http://surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm doesn't have any quote from an expert in the field that this work meets the NOAA's requirements. And the URL doesn't have any of the forms that Ron mentioned. It would be useful if you could reference 1) exactly what the NOAA's requirements for monitoring stations are and 2) what the instructions on surfacestations.org are (without having to register for an account and wade through the site) and 3) some expert saying the instructions there fulfil the NOAA's requirements and 4) some expert saying whether or not the volunteers are doing what needs to be done to the standard required by the NOAA.

Regarding the use of the word "many", please read Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words, in particular:

Similarly, sentences like Many people think...—aside from leading to questions such as just how many is many—often implicitly endorse bandwagon fallacies, as their purpose is not to inform the reader about the fact that some people hold this opinion or other, but lend credibility to the statement that follows.

172.213.24.239 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is the definition of "scientist" that we use at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. You cannot change the definition willy-nilly. If four is not enough, how many scientists do I have to document to use the word "many"? Do you really want to see a list of names with a link to each? Do you really think that will make the article better? Also, the sentence says "The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA." It does not say that all of the data will necessarily be complete for each station, only that all of the instructions are there. RonCram 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing an experiment makes you a scientist, no formal training or publications needed. --Theblog 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Being a scientist requires you follow the Scientific method. Being called a scientist on Wikipedia would require that other experts acknowledge that you are one. Usually publication in peer-reviewed authoritative journals, or possession of formal training such as a doctorate, would be sufficient acknowledgement. 129.215.37.156 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidts thoughts

Tell me why Gavin Schmidt's self published views on Anthony Watts' project are in any way relevant? I'm sure there are some other unrelated bloggers that have said good things about Watts, why not get one of them? Or make an effort to respond to find Watts' response to Schmindts post at the very least. I suggest if you really think they are notable then on Gavin's page you make a new section "His thoughts on Anthony Watts' project" --Theblog (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read it, Gavin voiced his thoughts in a comment, talk about unnotable, and as presented before I removed it, it was improperly described.

Here is the quote:

Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

[Response: They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset which is already hugely oversampling the regional anomalies. - gavin]

Here is part of the line I removed

"Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt,"

Where is the reference to global warming in the comment he is responding to? Gavin does not criticise linking the surface stations.org project to global warming, because the guy never linked them. Gavin is not even responding to Watts directly, he's responding to some unknown blog commentator, again not noteworthy. Find some direct criticism from a non self published source and I say go to town. --Theblog (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, working at GISS, writing in a WP:SPS that is regarded as a WP:RS on climate science issues. He is directly involved in temperature reconstructions - and has been called as an expert on such subjects several times. His critique is both relevant and notable. And even more so, because all of the participants here are blog posters and the entire thing is blog-related. Pielke's comments are in a blog, McIntyre same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be followed to the letter. Schmidt is not even responding to what you are saying he is responding to. He is responding to a commenter making a entirely different point not regarding global warming. Do you think the Schmidt line is framed accurately? If you insist on violating WP:BLP then at least frame his self published quote to a random blog commentator correctly. --Theblog (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I do not believe your statement here that GS is 'directly involved in temperature reconstructions' is true -- do you have a reference? Unless you are talking about paleoclimate reconstructions, in which case that is an entirely separate issue. His area of expertise is modelling. That's what he's employed by NASA to do. The fact that he 'has been called as an expert on such subjects' is hardly relevant either. Who called him an expert? Do you mean in the media? What is relevant is the truth. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a further reference. And its apparently notable enough that both Anthony Watt's comments on it at his own blog[5], and on Climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your further reference has absolutely nothing to do with the original GS quote, its better left out. --Theblog (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, your reply from Watts does not address the comment quoted by GS, it addresses the other post, which is not mentioned directly in the article at all. --Theblog (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That GS is talking about the relation to GW is obvious. The entire point of this project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should let Anthony Watts speak for himself, I do not feel an unknown web commenter (or Mr. Connolley) speaks for Anthony Watts or his motives, and furthermore I don't feel GS's somewhat offtopic response to the unknown commentor's comment is notable. Additionally, GS's views have absolutely no bearing on Anthony Watts' views on global warming. If anything, report the "consensus" view in regards to Watts' views, maybe a line from AR4 on the topic of "localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment"- you can always cherry pick some guy who disagrees with anyone, this cherrypick of GS isn't even a particularly good one for reasons I listed above.--Theblog (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

William, Wikipedia is (or should be) about facts. The facts here are that Watts is taking photographs of weather stations around the world. If he is also making comments that follow from his skepticism on the AGW hypothesis, that's another matter entirely. It would belong down in the 'Views on global warming' section. In no way can this quote from GS be seriously, honestly considered serious, or relevant. If there is something in the peer-reviewed literature that formally responds to Watts' work then perhaps that would be relevant. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed

Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt, who commented in August 2007 "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset".

Watts writes: "The data will speak louder than any opinion I could ever utter. In the end, whether I’m right or wrong, the data will show the path and nature will be the final arbiter."

Gavin Schmidt is a single climate scientist. He is a GISS modeller, not an expert on the surface record. The views of a single scientist with no particular relationship to Watts or the subject matter just makes the article, frankly, sound amateurish & silly. The reader wants to know immediately, "So why is Gavin Schmidt important in the context of Watts or the surface record?" This leads the reader to confusion. If Gavin Schmidt was the President, this might be relevant. If this was an official position, e.g. of the IPCC, then it might be relevant. If it was even the official position statement of the RealClimate website, it would be moving in the direction of being relevant. Right now, it seems to be nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The same logic applies to the comments by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke. They are not experts on the surface record, and their views are just those of individual scientists. Stephen McIntyre is not the President, and Roger A. Pielke does not represent the official view of the IPCC. This leads the reader to confusion. The statement The project has been praised by Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke Sr., the latter having described the effort as "very important" is nothing more than a very weak excuse for introducing the bias of the editor. I have removed it. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Watts run his own company?

I'd have thought that his commercial stuff would be included in his page. TMLutas (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ToughStations

I'd love to see this rebuttal of Watts's work in the article: http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/09/toughstations.html 88.193.187.244 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be Watts's biography, not a discussion of the surface record. That would belong elsewhere. Probably in the 'global warming controversy' article.Alex Harvey (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meteorologist? Evidence?

I couldn't find any reference to Watts being a qualified meteorologist - it simply states it on the blog for the radio station that he works for. If there is none, he is simply a TV / radio weatherman and the article should be updated accordingly. MonoApe (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A TV weatherman can call himself a meteorologist as much as he wants, there is no protection of the title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the title infers professional qualification with a degree in a relevant discipline, similar to physicist or chemist or biologist. I can't call myself a chemist just because I dropped some Mentos in to a bottle of coke - and I can't call myself a meteorologist just because I read out the weather forecast on TV / radio. MonoApe (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He has the AMS Broadcast Seal,[6] though oddly he's footnoted as "retired." It would be useful to list his academic degrees. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've updated the article with that reference. MonoApe (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so he's a 'broadcast meteorologist'. That's the correct description for what he does/did and anything else would be inaccurate. There is no implication that a BM must have a degree in meteorology.Alex Harvey (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he is a 'broadcast meteorologist'? Who gave him this title? Himself? It seems to be the equivalent of calling the garbage man a refuse disposal technician. The current intro describes him as 'chief meteorologist', which he is not - other than as a label provided by the radio stations he reads the weather for. His only qualification appears to be a retired AMS Broadcast Seal holder, but no mention of that is made. His blog has been described as a "popular science blog" - popular in comparison to what? And it is very debatable whether someone with no scientific qualifications can be described as having a 'science' blog. It would be more accurate to state a 'climate-related blog'. I made these changes and they were immediately backed out by Atmoz and I see no justification in this talk page for that. The changes made to the intro appear to be an attempt to inflate and massage Watts' credentials. MonoApe (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The change in the lead was discussed in the section immediately following this one. -Atmoz (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And the intro does not reflect that discussion - as detailed in my comment above. Nor does it reflect referenced reality. It's also hyperbole - "popular science blog". Etc. Each of these are detailed in my comment above. MonoApe (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A 'broadcast meteorologist' is the correct word for someone who gets up on the TV set each night and tells us what the weather's going to be. If you don't already know this, that is not my fault. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology is "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting" - note the word scientific. Watts has no scientific qualifications - he just pretends to be a scientist on his blog. Calling Watts a 'meteorologist' is the same as me calling myself a chemist because I dropped a Mentos in a Coke bottle. The fact that one country on the planet has supposedly polluted and diminished the meaning of meteorologist to mean 'someone who reads the weather', is not reason enough to give the false impression here that Watts is anything other than what he is - a weather presenter. MonoApe (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Entire article is just crass character assassination

I want to fix this beginning with the first line, which is completely inappropriate for a biography in an encyclopaedia: If we're not sure whether he's really a trained meteorologist, we say nothing. If we know that he's a Retired Seal Holder, we say he's a Retired Seal Holder. If there's controversy, and no one can be bothered doing the actual research to resolve the matter, then it doesn't belong in the first line. Presenting this in the first line, apart from being bad style (i.e. controversy doesn't belong in the first line), suggests that Mr. Watts himself is somehow trying to deceive, to misrepresent himself as a PhD holding meteorologist, for which there is no evidence. Thus I wish to edit the first line:

Anthony Watts is the founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, devoted to documenting the quality of weather stations.[3] He is also a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio.

Any objections?Alex Harvey (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should explain why he is notable. If his claim to notability is being the founder of a website, this discussion should be continued at AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you may continue to the discussion at AfD in the meanwhile if you please. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not Watts is 'notable' enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Obviously, the SurfaceStations.org project is a project, not merely a 'website'. Websites don't go out & take photographs of weather stations all around the world. Obviously, the thounsands of posters at Watts's 'Watts Up With That' site testify to the fact that Watts is very famous, and that in my mind is sufficient to establish 'notability'. (Are members of the Royal Family 'notable'? If so why? Should their pages be deleted too?) It would also be reasonable enough to assume that anyone new to the 'climate change' debate is going to want to know, sooner or later, who Anthony Watts is. Ergo, there ought to be an article in Wikipedia so that they can learn. That is, I believe, why Wikipedia exists.Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he also has a company (something like graphics or web design), which should be mentioned as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC w/ B) If I thought the page should be deleted, I would have nominated it already. In my opinion, it's the combination of several things that make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I would suggest something like the following:

Anthony Watts is a meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio, a former television weather presenter, owner of a weather graphics company, and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project, a website devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations.

-Atmoz (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'owner of a weather company' is obviously going to raise the question 'well, what is the company?' and Kim D. Petersen has made it fairly clear above that he objects to the unproven 'meteorologist' designation. In the meantime, I may send Mr. Watts an email to see if we can resolve these issues.Alex Harvey (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the company (ItWorks) already is mentioned later in the article. I think a mention should go in the lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the first line again, roughly in line with Atmoz's suggestion above. I have used 'broadcast meteorologist' to describe his profession, which is the accurate term. There is no implication that he is a research meteorologist.Alex Harvey (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Some fairly minor changes to SurfaceStations section made

I have just removed the text "...where he posts pictures of particularly poorly sited stations" that followed the bit about him being a regular contributor at Steve McIntyre's blog. This text seems to trivialise both his contributions to SM's blog, and the SurfaceStations project. His contributions to SM's blog go much further than just posting pictures, and his SurfaceStations project is (again) is not just about photos. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed a quote that was out of context

The phrase 'and has said "you have to wonder if the whole house of cards isn't about to start falling down"' and the reference to The Nation Slams Global Warming was out of context, implying that this was his view of where his SurfaceStations.org project would lead. I checked the reference and found this wasn't the case at all. Instead this was just some blog post he made somewhere else, and concerned some incident with James Hansen. On its own, this quote doesn't add anything (this Wiki article already states that he's a GW skeptic). Thus it seemed most appropriate just to remove the quote and the reference. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the context. I rearranged things so it's clear that the quote was a more general comment on the science of global warming. Also regarding context, I moved the bit on expected results from surfacestations.org to the preceding section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for help from an autoconfirmed user

Could I request help from an autoconfirmed user to revert this article to revision 22:21, 2 April 2009 of Atmoz. Unfortunately I have a full-time job and can't devote every minute of life to protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. The article is now heavily biased again. It should also be changed back to 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)' or whatever it was before... Thanks guys. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I figured out how to do it myself. If editor MonoApe has issues with the article it should be discussed here. The only issue I can see documented in the revision history is that he has objected to is "broadcast meteorologist", which as was agreed above, is the correct term for someone who might be otherwise colloquially described as a "TV weather presenter" or a "TV weatherman" or the "news weather guy" or the "weather guy" or indeed anything else. On 'chief meteorologist' that is Watts's job title, fact, end of story. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see above there was also question about whether or not it is accurate to describe Watts's blog as 'popular'... I would have the fact that Watt's blog is 'popular' is self-evident and obvious, i.e. there are thousands of posters, too many comments for me to read, it was a winner of the noted award last year for its said popularity, gets more posts than any other blog, et cetera, et cetera. I am struggling to understand why anyone, regardless of their bias, would want to argue otherwise. If you're of the view that Watts is the Devil Himself, you may read 'popular' as 'the popular press', as euphemism for 'the gutter press', and still sleep soundly at night. For the rest of us, we can just read it as 'popular' because it obviously is. Okay? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for the hyperbole that you're so eager to inject. 'Popular' by what measure? 99.999% of the planet will not have heard of it. As way of comparison with a real scientist, PZ Myers, his blog is simply referred to as "...the science blog Pharyngula.". That's all that's needed. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. --MonoApe (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title

I have now renamed the page 'Anthony Watts (meteorologist)'. 'Weather presenter' is pejorative and doesn't really accurate describe what Anthony Watts is any longer in any case (i.e. he's famous now internationally for his blog). I can't think of anything other than 'meteorologist' that really works... hope that won't offend anyone. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with meteorologist is that people suppose that this is an education, and a degree. Watts doesn't have such. So it is misleading. Weather presenter on the other hand is accurate (and i find the pejorative argument strange - its what he is). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If people suppose what is not implied, that would be a problem for those people. Bill Gates is pretty good at IT, but he dropped out of Harvard. I have a degree, but I'm not rich. How does this all work? The obvious problem with "weather presenter" is that unlike "meteorologist", it is clearly wrong. I can say, living in Australia, I would never have heard of Mr. Watts if he is really notable as a weather presenter, since I have never seen/heard him present the weather, nor am I ever likely to. I suggest that you yourself, living in Denmark? would be in the same situation here. Evidently, he is notable not for presenting the weather, even if indeed he still does do this, but rather for the blog he has created, and perhaps more significantly, for SurfaceStations. I suppose we could have this discussion again once he has published in a journal of meteorology as to whether or not he is a meteorologist or a weather presenter or something else. For the moment, unfortunately, I don't have time to argue this point any futher. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm? Why is weather presenter clearly wrong? Meteorologist has a specific meaning to people, and it normally presumes a degree in meteorology (ie. academic). Watts is not a meteorologist by education or by any other means, except that in the US the title isn't protected and is therefore sometimes used to describe weather presenters.

That he runs a blog doesn't make him a meteorologist at all. Running a blog on physics or chemistry doesn't make you a physicist or chemist. The only claim to the title he has is was/is weather presenter (ie. broadcast meteorologist). Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For the article title, I prefer meteorologist. As far as I'm aware, the term weather presenter isn't used in the United States, and that's where Watts has worked. Even if he only presents the weather, he's still called a meteorologist, even if he has no formal training. Finally, I think he has had some formal training. Or at least he's picked up enough to get the seal from the AMS. And that's good enough for me. -Atmoz (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, weather presenter seems to be a british english thing. I'd go for broadcast meteorologist then. Meteorologist to me is an academic description. And from what i can see here its not just me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate (or weather) blogger makes more sense. Weather presenter is undoubtedly an attempt to slip a little "word knife" into him. Meteoroligist is a bit more than he deserves. Although in the US, that title often goes to news readers. Heck, look at all the airhead CBS vidiots that you liberals like (Curick and Dan Rather and the like). Do they really deserve to be called journalists? Unless you've gotten it done for a daily paper, you ain't shit in my book. But I segue. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As discussed above the term weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term, for someone who's primary job it is to present the weather on TV or radio which appears to be the case for Anthony Watts (see also [7] for example). Apparently this term is not used in the US, which means it's not suitable in the article per WP:ENGVAR but this doesn't make the term offensive. In any case, it appears Anthony Watts has moved beyond being a weather presenter into being a broadcast metrologist as evident by the AMS seal, albeit retired. Anyway back to the main issue, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses isn't that clear but it hints that it should be something someone are likely to search for and this agrees with other areas of wikipedia policy. Given that, and I would agree with Alex Harvey that his primary area if notability is his blogging, not his role as a weather present/broadcast metrologist, I would say Anthony Watts (blogger) is best. There's no need ot specify what type of blogger. Also I would emphasise that the primary purpose for the bracketed qualifier is to enable disambiguation and to a lesser extent to help with searching, it's not intended to convey a POV and should not be taken as such. It's not even seen that often. In other words, while there's nothing wrong with discussing the best disambigator, don't take it too seriously Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can roll with that. It's why he's here really if we're honest. No one put him on here because of the gig with the tertiary market TV station. It's all a part of the little slap wars that the girls at CA and RC have with each other. Meteorologist is the denialists trying to make him look like a scientist and weather presenter is the alarmists trying to use a little spin to put him down. Blogger is fairer and apter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where I explained weather presenter is a perfectly acceptable term in many countries outside the US? In any case perhaps you also want to consider David Brown (meteorologist) "Brown is one of few television weather presenters who is also a meteorologist" and Martin King (weather presenter) and Bob Johnson (weather forecaster) who is an experienced forecaster but is primarily known for "Weather presenting" or Tamati Coffey or Category:Weather presenters or [8] or [9] or [10] or [11] or even this US case [12]. It's quite clear in none of these cases, calling them weather presenters is intended or conveys any offense, nor to put them down or whatever. It's simply a neutral and acccurate description of their jobs and not slang or anything of that sort. Some weather presenters have additional qualifications or experience as evidenced in the articles I've shown and in those case mentioning it in the article would be fine, the trouble is, if Anthony Watts does have any, there is no information published in reliable secondary sources about it and apparently not even in self published source (i.e. Anthony Watts blog) about it. The only thing we do have is he apparently has a certified broadcast metrologist badge from the AMS but again that's apparently not published in any RSS or his blog so can't be mentioned in the article although under the conditions it's fine IMHO to still call him a broadcast metrologist as I mentioned above but it doesn't mean people should get overtly worked up about a term which if used to describe Anthony Watts were he not a noted global warming sceptic blogger wouldn't result in even a bat of an eyelash unless they're complaints about WP:Engvar as evidenced by the ample use of 'weather presenter' here and elsewhere with non controversial people. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Watts does not have "a certified broadcast meteorologist badge from the AMS". His only 'qualification' from the AMS is a retired Television Seal Holder. See my comment below for links. MonoApe (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I read it. Didn't change my suspicion on the action. Anyhow, (blogger) is fairer and apter, so kudos for your innovation. Make it so, please. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you have now intentionally broken every link on the internet that points to this page. (Some people call that vandalism.) On top of that, you are wrong. A quick look at common definitions shows that the term Meteorologist does not imply any degree at all.

Meteorologist - One who reports and forecasts weather conditions. (weather.weatherbug.com)

meteorologist - 1)a person who studies meteorology 2)a weather forecaster (en.wiktionary.org)

Contrary to what is written above, the term blogger is used on the Wikipedia Global Warming pages as a common ad hominem attack to attempt to discredit anyone the radicals disagree with. I know some of you just make up rules on the Global Warming pages, but what you have done here is totally unacceptable on a BLP page. And you only allowed 12 hours for discussion.

On top of that, Anthony Watts is not notable as a blogger, but for the significant problems he has documented in how the "instrumental surface temperature record" is obtained. I suggest finding one of his lectures on the internet and listening to it. He makes a lot of good points. You may not agree with his conclusions, but his data is compelling. Q Science (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why would all links be broken? Anthony Watts (weather presenter) Anthony Watts (meteorologist) still work. They just redirect. As for meteorologist perhaps you should look at this.

Well, until 13 June 2009, those links did not even exist. Any internet page that linked to this Wikipedia page before last Saturday will not be using either of those. That includes about 23 Wikipedia pages that you did not bother to fix. (Of course, many of these are talk pages or archives, but the links are still broken.) As for google.dk - that is where I got the second definition, third from the top. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As for blogger... First of all i'm not aware that it is an ad-hominem - but then i wasn't aware that weather presenter was viewed as such either, so i'm probably just a "radical" "vandal" and someone intent on "discredit"-ing Watts..... (*sigh* WP:AGF apparently lives a life in vain). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) feel free to remove this line if you've redacted/changed your comment

No, I think Watts is notorious for his denial of global warming. No one with a basic grasp of climate science is impressed that he has found a few weather stations in continental USA that are located near tarmac or A/C vents. It makes no difference to satellite measurements or records from Arctic stations or mountains of proxy data, etc. There is nothing compelling about "his data" - he simply reinterprets and distorts data from real scientists to suit his agenda of ACC denial. And, for that, his blog has received some attention - which is why some people want to call him a 'meteorologist' in order to bolster his credibility where he has none. MonoApe (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that no one knows that the satellite dataset indicates the temperature of the top one millimeter of the ocean. All temperature measurements over land are removed because they do not even come close to agreeing with the surface monitoring stations (because satellites measure the temperature of the surface and the "instrumental record" is about 4 feet above the surface inside an enclosure with specific thermal characteristics). This is why Anthony Watts reports weather stations on top of 6-story buildings as a problem. This is why placing electronics in the same enclosure as the new digital thermometers is a problem. There are standard siting requirements for weather stations and a large percent don't meet that standard. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're describing skin temperature. This is different than the satellite temperature "measurements" made by Christy and Spencer or Mears and Wentz. It's possible to calculate a skin temperature of the land, but you can't just compare naively it to measurements made 4 feet above the surface. Nor can it be naively compared to those temperature by C&S or M&W. Just as the skin temperatures of the ocean cannot be naively compared to that measured by buoys or buckets. Watts has not published his results in a refereed journal. He prefers to take pictures and post them on a website, and say there obviously must be a problem because it's next to a parking lot (or whatever). Until he publishes in a peer-reviewed journal, he has not contributed beyond that of a blogger. -Atmoz (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

'Weather presenter' is not a pejorative as some have assumed. It's common usage (in Britain, at least) for someone who presents weather on the TV / radio - and it describes exactly what Watts does. 'Meteorologist' suggests scientific qualification - Watts has none. Why has factual reference to him being a retired TV Seal Holder been removed? There seems to be an agenda from some to massage Watts' credentials in order to give him authority where none exists - e.g. calling him 'chief meteorologist' when, in fact, that's just the job title bestowed on him by the small radio station he works for. Referring to him as a 'meteorologist' will lead many to believe he has scientific qualification when, in fact, he has none. Meteorology has a clear definition - "the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting". The key word is scientific and Watts is not a scientist of any kind - he just plays one on the radio and on his blog. I see no justification for the changes that have been made from my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts_(blogger)&oldid=290526000 MonoApe (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This stuff about him being 'only a retired' AMS Seal Holder is really quite silly. Albert Einstein is not only retired, but he's dead too. Does that mean Wikipedia should denote him as 'scientist' any longer? Should the lead of Einstein's article include a qualification "dead scientist"? What happens when James Hansen retires. Will Wikipedia still call him a scientist, or should he then be labelled a 'retired scientist'?

Maybe these will help

1. From senate.gov 2006 - ... research led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts of SurfaceStations.org
2. From senate.gov 2008 - Meteorologist Anthony Watts details the ...
3. From heartland.org 2009 - ANTHONY WATTS, Climatologist, Author: "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"

• From The American Metorological Society: meteorologist — A person who is professionally employed in the study or practice of meteorology. It often refers to individuals who have completed the requirements for a college degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

Thus, there is no requirement of a degree.

• From Wikipedia - Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology.
• From Wikipedia - scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method

Again, no requirement for a degree.

Wikipedia rules only require that the data be verifiable from a reliable source. Unless you can find a reliable source that says that he is not a meteorologist, then the sources I have presented should stand. Q Science (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And since we are talking reliable sources - then only one that can be used in the above is the AMS one. Which indeed does state that a degree is inferred. (btw. i think you yourself know that your argument is thin, if you have to point out that the definition of scientist in wikipedia doesn't require education...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're attempting to use swift boater Marc Morano and Senator Inhofe (Rep. ExxonMobil) as supporting evidence? Not even close to credible sources. AMS is a credible source - and what do they say - "individuals who have completed the requirements for a college degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.". A degree. And that's what most people will assume when reading 'meteorologist' - that the person has professional, scientific qualifications. Watts has none. He's an unqualified weather man. I think this discussion has run its course - do we have any remaining dissent that allowing Watts to be described as a meteorologist is likely to give people a false impression of his qualifications? I propose that 'weather presenter' is fair, accurate and appropriate. MonoApe (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'meteorologist' would give the wrong impression of Watts. He is a meteorologist. The AMS has said he is. A degree is not a necessary condition. Here is how the AMS describes their seal of approval:

The [AMS] Seal [of approval] is awarded by the Society to broadcast meteorologists who meet established criteria for scientific competence and effective communication skills in their weather presentations. Among radio and television meteorologists, the Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction and a recognition of achievement in the communication of scientific information. To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must apply to the Society, offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work...

Sealholders are highly respected among their peers. Professional meteorologists have confidence that weather presentations made by sealholders will be technically sound and responsibly delivered. [Emphasis added]

AMS (.doc)

But I have no strong opinions on any of the options. -Atmoz (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is a bit misleading, since it talks about the revised seal of approval program, which was enacted in 2005 (before that it didn't contain the bolded "scientific competence" but was just about professionalism:

How do these two programs differ?

The main difference between the two programs is education and the exam. To apply for the CBM, applicants must hold a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology (or the equivalent) from an accredited college/university. Current AMS Sealholders (those that earned the Seal prior to January 1, 2005 ) are not required to meet this criteria. These Sealholders may qualify for the CBM designation if they pass the written exam. All CBM applicants must pass the written exam to earn the CBM designation.

[13]

So while its interesting that the AMS now has that requirement, it doesn't pertain to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of "meterologist" for a TV weather presenter is a USianism. That the AMS supports this is somewhat sad, in my opinion. But this is a world-wide encyclopedia. In this context "meterologist" is indeed misleading - for me, this is someone who has a degree in meterology, or a related science, and is working in the field. See WP:BIAS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that describing a citizen of the United States with a word that accurately describes them in the United States is bias. It is bias to call them weather presenters. -Atmoz (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, we should call Kim Jong-il "Dear Leader". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the only reliable source provided calls him that... -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with how a phrase is received in the USA - Wikipedia is a global website, remember? 'Weather presenter' is a plain and factual description of what he does. 'Meteorologist' will lead many people to assume Watts has professional training and qualifications when he doesn't.

Note that AMS gives him only the title of (retired) Television Seal Holder - not 'meteorologist'. Watts is not on the list of AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologists - http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm. He is not any kind of meteorologist.

My edit of a few weeks ago provides factual, referenced statements of job title, qualifications and status with AMS - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29&oldid=290526000 - I've seen no coherent argument why that edit should not be used, other than some editors from the USA assume 'weather presenter' is a pejorative, and it's been clearly established that it is not. There's no justification for honouring him with the title of 'meteorologist' - it's just an attempt by some to massage his credential to give him authority where he has none. --MonoApe (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I hereby disagree with MonoApe's assertions. It should be clear from the discussion above that his edit is controversial and lacks a clear consensus. Watts should be referred to in a manner consistent with how he is referenced in reliable media sources. I assert based on the analysis performed below that "weather presenter" is clearly NOT the preferred term in that respect. If MonoApe can establish that "weather presenter" is actually used more often than some form of "meteorologist" then he should present that evidence here for consideration. Otherwise he should accept the reality that his edit lacks consensus and stop introducing it. --GoRight (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, I acquiesce to your renaming of my thread (wrt basic point on rebuttals to BLP views)

It got threadjacked so hard that, that's what made sense. I did have an (I think) relevant point to this article and to others about not needing to juvinely argue against the BLP within his bio. And before anyone gets too upset, I think Watts is a buffoon. He makes the real skeptics look bad (of course a lot of my fellow skeptics make us look bad...sigh.) But my basic point was let's not feel the little kid need to disagree with the biography subject within his article. I mean I think Hitler was wrong too. But if the bio says, Hitler thought the Jews were evil, that's the content. That's what the dude thought. I don't need to add my own cobbled together argument on how the Jews aren't evil. Just in CASE someone comes along and agrees with Hitler. Or because it just chaps my a...lueta jonte allueta...to see that in print. At least quote someone else making the rebuttal. Although even that is persnickety. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP does matter, and you really shouldn't be calling people buffoons. I'm not really sure what thread you are referring to since the thread you've participated in is the one above. Are you Alex Harvey or something? In any case, if you are referring to [14] I agree it's removal was appropriate because the rebuttal was not reliable sourced. Nneither of the references appear to be a rebuttal of Anthony Watts' claims which is generally necessary in a BLP and heck from what I understand (from a quick read thorough of the sources) neither even say "even if anomalies were found in temperature stations in the USA, it would not alter the increasing temperatures recorded in the Arctic and globally." instead they simply appear to be discussions about the temperature increases observed globally and in the Artic, in other words it's a clear cut case of WP:OR (specifically WP:Syn. Having said that, I'm not convinced that Anthony Watts' claim/hope is notable/significant enough to be mentionedin the article if the only source for it is an op-ed Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 72.82.44.253 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am Alex Harvey and, no, I haven't been posting anonymously above... I agreed with Atmoz's comments above. Also someone described the current naming of the article "Anthony Watts (weather presenter)" aptly as a "word knife". My opinion again, for what it's worth... Alex Harvey (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"popularize...the controversy"

I also have issues with the phrase under views on global warming where it is stated that Watts's blog was created to "popularize...the controversy" of global warming. This is a bad wording, implying that his intention is to create controversy, and I am sure that he would deny that this has ever been his intention with the blog. Maybe people actually hold the view that he wants to "popularize...the controversy", but without supporting evidence given (e.g. a direct quote) this should be changed & evidence should be given. I also don't like the "house of cards" quote; I don't think it is a representative quote of Watts's views & thus belonging in a piece this short. It may be something he really said; I just don't think it most appropriate in a Wikipedia BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop the contro seems correctly to be unreferenced (and unreferencable), and thus should go - it is opinion and that has no place here, it is also completely wrong - since Wuwt didn't start as a GW blog, though it quickly became one. I agree on the "house of cards" which seems cherry-picked, and more representative of an editors opinion than of Watts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this for a rewrite of Views on Global Warming:

Watts is a well-known climate change skeptic. He has stated that he had once "been fully engaged in the belief that CO2 was ... the root cause of the global warming problem" but that he later changed his thinking after learning more about the science. Watts established a science blog "Watts Up With That?" that presents mostly skeptical climate change news and opinion.

I would also like to move views on global warming section ahead of surface stations section. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well-known" by what measure? Let's keep the evidence-free hyperbole out. MonoApe (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How do we measure "well known"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, probably insert some more appropriate adjective then. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It requires no adjective. And it's very debatable that he is a 'skeptic' any more than meteorologist - but that's a debate for another day. MonoApe (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move wars

QS moved this page as 2009-06-18T06:09:47 Q Science (talk | contribs | block) m (5,767 bytes) (moved Anthony Watts (blogger) to Anthony Watts (Meteorologist): To better describe the person, based on talk page). I don't see any consensus for the move, nor do I agree that "Met" describes him better, so I've moved it back. Certainly his claim to fame in the wide world is his blogging William M. Connolley (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his claim to fame is his book about problems with the National Weather Service’s network of temperature stations.

Before making the change, there was some discussion here and in the sections above were it was clearly stated that meteorologist is the correct term.

As for consensus, I decided to be bold. After all, the name change last weekend was a complete surprise without any consensus, and it broke all the links from outside wikipedia. I was just repairing the damage. (Well, I was trying to.) Q Science (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that "it was clearly stated in the section above" seems to glaze over that there wasn't consensus for it. Just stating something doesn't make it correct. Can we get alternatives instead? Meteorologist is out per several people (its an US'ism), blogger is asserted by you to be pejorative, weather presenter is asserted by others to be pejorative - Can we get some other alternatives then? Author? (although i rather doubt your assertion on his "claim to fame") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in no way responsible for links outside wikipedia. Indeed, the only time I've ever heard this come up before is discussions about moving the Main Page. Otherwise, moving pages is a normal part of wikipedia, and we don't give any consideration to links from outside. Besides that, the links aren't broken since there should still be a redirect. It is usually recommended to fix internal links in articles after a move, especially double redirects (although a bot should do it if you don't I believe) and there's general agreement not to move too often but that's about all the concern we give to 'broken links' `Nil Einne (talk)

I've no objection to boldness, as long as you haven't either. Just in case it flies, I don't suppose (global warming skeptic) would do? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am basically ok with it, but it appears from what I've read that Anthony has gone out of his way to avoid that phrase. He really seems more interested in how the data is collected than in Global Warming in general. (Of course, that could just be a way to avoid criticism since he openly associates with skeptics. Apparently, he also works with NOAA to improve data collection methods.) Q Science (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite preferring 'meteorologist' myself, I am also happy with 'blogger', as far as the disambig is concerned. There are more important things to argue about, and I believe Watts would share that view. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

I see I am more than a month late to the party here. WMC states "Certainly his claim to fame in the wide world is his blogging." I find that reasoning to be a bit thin. If we were to apply that same reasoning to someone like, for example only, James E. Hansen then we would have to have him listed as James E. Hansen (Incomplete and Inaccurate Computer Modeler), or more recently James E. Hansen (Global Warming Activist). Somehow I don't think you would agree with that in his case, so it seems a bit POV to insist on (blogger) here. We all know Watts is a Meteorologist by training and background, do we not? KDP states "Meteorologist is out per several people (its an US'ism)". And the policy against using a "US'ism" is where? Please point me to it so that I might familiarize myself with it. What term do they use to refer to said profession across the big pond?

KDP asked for some alternatives, I propose "Champion of the Truth"  :)

As a non-scientific, non-binding means of assessing how he is seen in the real world in mainstream media sources I ran a few queries on Google News with the following results:

• Results 1 - 10 of about 86 for "Anthony Watts" meteorologist. (0.09 seconds)
• Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "Anthony Watts" blogger. (0.09 seconds)
• Your search - "Anthony Watts" "weather presenter" - did not match any documents.
• Your search - "Anthony Watts" "Champion of the Truth" - did not match any documents.

Note that a quick skim of the results for "meteorologist" reveals no false positives (that I noticed, at least). A similar scan of the results for "blogger" revealed no false positives, but it also revealed that "meteorologist" was mentioned in 2 of the 5. So, unless and until someone comes up with a better way to assess how he is actually referred to in "the wide world", I assert that "meteorologist" is the preferred term by objective 3rd party reliable sources over "blogger" by a ratio of about 17 to 1. Hence "blogger" would seem to be WP:UNDUE in this case. Do you not agree? --GoRight (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment in Anthony Watts (blogger) #Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title above. The use of meteorologist for TV weatherman is a USianism. Also, typing "Anthony Watts" meteorologist into Google News gives me a grant total of 7 hits, 4 in Heartland Institute press releases, one in Prison Planet, and two in Right Side News. Only one is in an arguable reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Google News gives me a grant total of 7 hits" - Now try expanding the search to include "All Dates" instead of just the past month. Sorry for not making that clear. --GoRight (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that helps. But still, in the first 10 hits all but the Heartland Institute, one Fox News report, and what seems to be an email digest call him "TV meteorologist", "local weatherman", "TV and radio meteorologist", "KHSL meteorologist", not plain "meteorologist". That's 5 out of 10, and four of the others are not remotely WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please see my comment in Anthony Watts (blogger) #Meteorologist vs. Weather presenter in article title above." - Done. While I can certainly sympathize with your sensibilities on this topic, I think it appropriate that the main page be qualified using the term most frequently used in the MSM and the redirects adjusted accordingly (i.e. "(Meteorologist)" becomes the actual page and "(blogger)" becomes the redirect). You are indeed correct that this is an international encyclopedia, as is the Google News search so there should be parity between the two on that account. I am open to other methods of determining the proper weighting between these two alternatives but the Google News counts seem quite adequate to that task. If you feel that this determination deserves further research and a better methodology, please provide them. Sans that, I still maintain that "(blogger)" is WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All (as far as I can tell) reports on Watts are from US sources. He is quite non-notable elsewhere. So of course there is a systemic bias in Google News, a mere aggregator. But even in the US, MSM mention him rarely, and, at least as judged from the sample above, do not describe him simply as a "meteorologist". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here's an unqualified reference in the Sci/tech section of the BBC News: Solar storms spark light show ("Meteorologist Anthony Watts, based in Chico, California ..."). We could go exhaustively through these hits and weed out anything questionable, which would only serve to reduce the ratio from 17 to 1 to something less. How likely do you think it would be for such an effort to reduce the ratio to below 1 to 1? Personally I find it highly unlikely and wholly not worth the effort overall, but since the current disambiguation was (apparently) changed from the original "(Meteorologist)" to the WP:UNDUE version "(blogger)" without the benefit of ANY such analysis it would still seem appropriate to restore the original, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"So of course there is a systemic bias in Google News, a mere aggregator." - Actually, I think you have that backwards. As a "mere aggregator" it can have no such bias (other than to exclude foreign sources which we both know that it does not). So the view we are receiving IS the aggregate view of how he is ACTUALLY represented across the international media and it is on THAT view that WP:UNDUE should be applied, is it not? --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course as a mere aggregator it reflects the bias in the sampled media - which in nearly exclusively in the US, and not "across the international media", where he actually is barely mentioned at all (your 2001 BBC hit notwithstanding). See WP:BIAS. You are also falling into the trap of a wrong dichotomy. "Meteorologist" and "blogger" are not the only options - and from you sample, it looks like "TV meteorologist" (or equivalent) is a lot more frequent than plain meteorologist, especially in RS - but then, as I understand it, he is not working for TV anymore, so that would become "former TV meteorologist", which I think distinctly inferior to "blogger". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, your argument is self defeating. We are both fully aware that WP:UNDUE means that content is to be given appropriate weight in accordance with the proportion in which it actually appears in independent reliable sources. If Watts is barely mentioned in the international sources, as you claim, then how is it surprising at all that most of the references turned up in Google News are from US sources? This does not alter the WP:UNDUE nature of this problem at all, your claim that "he actually is barely mentioned at all" in international sources is actually reinforcing my position vis-a-vis the Google News statistics we are observing, not weakening it. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We're catering to an international audience, that is the reason for the problematic nature of the meteorologist part. If the audience had been US only, then no objection would have been raised. The basis is that TV weather presenters in the US are called meteorologists, some of these have (more or less) advanced degrees in meteorology, so it doesn't become an issue - This is not the case for Watts, he doesn't have such a background (or at least not one i've seen). I'm all good with any of these: "weatherman","weather presenter", "former TV meteorologist", "author", "blogger" (and probably others that haven't been presented yet) but not meteorologist, which contains (outside the US) a connotation of academic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

James Hansen doesn't need disambiguation so the point is somewhat moot, but in any case, James Hansen is primarily known as a scientist, not either of the things you mentioned which contrasts to Anthony Watts Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)

Analysis of the Google News search data:

OK, I took the time to slog through the Google News lists to pull out the least controversial view of the available data. I assert that at any point in time the Google News aggregator will provide a representative sampling of the available international news media, so if we limit ourselves to only sources directly picked up by that aggregator at the same point in time it should give us a reasonable view of the relative proportions of how Anthony Watts is being described in the international media.

Since SS seems to dislike the US sources, I have only included the sources which are arguably (a) mainstream media and (b) claim significant international (i.e. non-US in this context) readership. These results should be, necessarily, highly biased in SS's favor assuming that his assertions are correct. You are making the bald assertion that Google News is highly biased in favor of US media. I assume that if I completely ignore all US media in this list that the result should be suitably representative of international media? Or are you asserting that there is bias in their international sampling as well? If so, please provide some sort of evidence to that effect as the bald assertions are growing rather thin in the face of actual data.

The list of such sources which include only unqualified references to "meteorologist":

1. From BBC News: Solar storms spark light show ("Meteorologist Anthony Watts, based in Chico, California ...").
2. From the Australian: More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice ("US meteorologist Anthony Watts noticed ...").
3. From the Australian: Dire climate predictions reflect darkness of our mood ("Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who ...").
4. From the Canada Free Press: UN Climate Distractions ("meteorologist Anthony Watts").

The list of such sources which include unqualified references to "meteorologist" AND refer to him as a "blogger":

1. From the UK Telegraph: The world has never seen such freezing heat ("US meteorologist Anthony Watts") and ("readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit").
2. From the Jewish World Review: The killer frost for global warming ("Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist") and ("Watts and McIntyre, the bloggers").
3. From the Australian: [Not only breaking the news but smashing the tax rates] ("Watts Up With That blog, run by American meteorologist Anthony Watts ...").

The list of such sources which refer to him only as a "(blogger)":

1. From The Register (which claims UK readership): Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? ("Anthony Watts, who blogs at Watt's Up With That?").

The list of such sources which refer to him as a "weatherman" AND refer to him as a "blogger":

1. From the Jewish World Review: NASA-affiliated institute cools off global warming debate ("California weatherman Anthony Watts") and ("reads Watts' blog").

The list of such sources which refer to him as a "weather presenter", "broadcast meteorologist", "TV meteorologist", "former TV meteorologist", or "author":

The leads to the following ratios for international (i.e. non-US) references:

• Total unqualified references to "meteorologist": 7
• Total references to "blogger": 5
• Total references to "weatherman": 1
• Total references to "weather presenter": 0
• Total qualified references to "broadcast meteorologist", "TV meteorologist", "former TV meteorologist": 0
• Total references to "author": 0

I believe that this demonstrably and objectively establishes "(blogger)" as being WP:UNDUE and the unqualified term "meteorologist" as preferred even within the international media sources.

Again, if you have an alternative methodology which is clearly superior to the analysis here in making an objective assessment I am more than happy to consider it once it has been provided. Barring that I would ask that the appropriate moves and redirects be made to bring this into conformance with applicable policy.

Are there any remaining objections? If so, what are they and why should they take precedence over this issue of policy? --GoRight (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated based on a second pass audit of the raw data to account for the other possibilities. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of work, for something that is really irrelevant. The trouble here isn't undue weight or anything other. It is that meteorologist outside the US means something different. See my comment above, i have no trouble with most postfixes that have been proposed except for the meteorologist one, since it isn't accurate. And while most sources may be from the US, the audience that WP is presenting the information to, is international. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that he was a TV weatherman (USEng: "meteorologist") is not in question - that's what undue weight covers. But the word "meteorologist" has a different meaning in other parts of the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

@Both: Despite your protestations and claims regarding the meaning of words in the US and abroad, the simple fact of the matter is that the media around the world appears to use the term "meteorologist" more frequently than even "blogger" and if we are to respect both WP:V and WP:UNDUE the requested changes should be made. We should reference the man the way that objective third party sources reference him and in that regard "blogger" is WP:UNDUE. --GoRight (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned before, the "media around the world" gladly ignores Watts. Your analysis is interesting - I checked the Australian and Canadian sources, and oh my, all three are opinion pieces of the Anti-AGW lobby. As you know, an opinion piece is only a WP:RS for opinions of its author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well come up with an alternative, please. Personally i have a hard time understanding why its such a big issue - what is the big problem with "blogger", "author", "weather presenter" or "former TV meteorologist" (or even "entrepreneur" (for his company))? All are verifiable and every one of them avoid the ambiguity inherent in meteorologist. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But I don't want an alternative. I WANT to follow WP:UNDUE which is clearly one of your favorites. I WANT him to be referred to as he actually IS referred to by WP:RS around the globe in ALL of the major English speaking nations of the world - as a "meteorologist" above all the alternatives you have proposed thus far. Your personal preferences carry no weight on their own, please establish that some other description is used more often than "meteorologist" and I'll be happy to drop the point. If not I would AGAIN ask you to adhere to policy. --GoRight (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Part 3

color or colour - that's right, we are supposed to use the American spellings. How is this argument any different? Also, what countries use the word meteorologist? Europe? Really?

Meteorologe (German)

1. meteorologist
2. weather forecaster
3. weatherman
4. forecaster

Météorologiste (French)

1. meteorologist
2. weatherman

Google translate is great. Also notice that none of the definitions say that a degree is necessary. Q Science (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ENGVAR. No, we are no supposed to use American spellings (in general). Moreover, this is not a question of spelling, but a question of semantics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on that, since Anthony Watts is an American, meteorologist is definitely the correct descriptor. Thanks. Q Science (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did you miss that part about spelling vs. semantics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hereby claim WP:RETAIN and assert that this article has been developed using the American norms of speech and grammar. The Brits should keep their own linguistic oddities and foibles to their own articles, IMHO. In the US "meteorologist" is a preferred term for describing individuals such as Anthony Watts. In addition, given the argument that for the most part that peoples outside of the US do not know or care about who Anthony Watts even is all the more reason to stick with the American norms. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did you miss that part about spelling vs. semantics? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. The spirit of the policy is clear. Please leave the wikilawyering to the professionals!  :) :P --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has argued against using american english in this article so that line of argumentation is rather moot. Now please get back to addressing the issue, which is semantics. I've repeatedly asked for alternatives here, apparently it has been drowned out in all the spelling non-sense.

Now could we please get back on track? What alternatives are there, given that meteorologist is contentious and ambiguous? I've proposed "blogger", "weatherman" "weather presenter", "former TV meteorologist", "author" and "entrepreneur". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Watts btw describes himself as a "former television meteorologist"[15] which is one of the proposed alternatives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"I've repeatedly asked for alternatives here" - And established the relevant weight of none of them. The question before us is NOT whether other alternatives exist, they may well exist. Rather, the question is which of these alternatives actually HAS the greatest WP:WEIGHT?

I have repeatedly asked that we actually try to stick to policy here. I have provided a reasonable analysis to establish the unqualified reference to "meteorologist" as being the preferred alternative due to WP:WEIGHT using examples that explicitly exclude the US and specifically include the other major English speaking countries around the globe (i.e. specifically within the target communities that you are complaining about). That analysis runs counter to your other assertions regarding common usage of the word. Stop stonewalling and either provide some superior form of analysis to establish some alternative as actually HAVING a higher weight, or allow the requested changes to be made per the policy. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis, as mentioned above, does not contain a significant number of reliable sources and is hence worthless. Also note that your first analysis (including the US) on closer analysis showed a preponderance for qualifying the meteorologist with some form of broadcast, TV, radio, weatherman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Your analysis, as mentioned above, does not contain a significant number of reliable sources and is hence worthless." Then please provide a better one, otherwise this is the best we have, and as things stand now it is vastly superior to any provided by either KDP or yourself. "Also note that your first analysis (including the US) on closer analysis showed a preponderance for qualifying the meteorologist with some form of broadcast, TV, radio, weatherman." But of course we NOW need to include the US perspective on all this. Quite right. Somewhat expected, actually, I was wondering when it might turn back to this. Provide a comparably detailed level of analysis for the US sources and I will be happy to consider the over-all effect on the WP:WEIGHT of each. Personally I decline to take another round about the Mulberry bush. I have provided an analysis which clearly accounted for all of your stated objections so it seems rather disingenuous for you to throw those out and ask me to start over at the beginning again. Please provide your own counts to validate your bald assertion. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow us to disagree. And that would mean that we are stuck with "no consensus to change", and that the current postfix sticks... I don't think that this is what you are arguing for... is it? If we are going to reach some sort of compromise from this impasse it would seem that we need some alternatives on the table. I've given several. Including the "former television meteorologist" that Watts uses himself to describe his background. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Allow us to disagree." - Fine. [Self Removed] --GoRight (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The original change was made without discussion, let alone consensus. Therefore, your argument to keep the current descriptor because of "a lack of consensus" is without merit. Q Science (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"The original change was made without discussion, let alone consensus." - Absolutely. The posturing here seems to be one of WP:OWN for this page. Can KDP please establish, via some suitable authority, that in English speaking countries outside of the US that the term "meteorologist" implies an academic degree? So far we only have a bald assertion on that, and its use in the articles I have cited above seems to be at odds with that claim. While I assume good faith on on KDP's part, I fear he may be confused. --GoRight (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have demonstrated above that 2 European languages do not use the American word meteorologist in the way you suggest. Will someone please provide at least one usage from Europe where the term is used in the way you are suggesting? Q Science (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm? No. What you've done is to use Google translate, that then looks it up in a dictionary (english). Strangely enough i speak German, and Stephan is German. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Monoape

Monoape, I reverted some of your edits. This page is not the right place to be presenting refutations of Watts' views of the surface record. The quote provided was one-sided and didn't actually appear to say or add anything (to say yes the temperature has been rising rapidly is to beg the question, how rapidly?); NOAA has said some other more positive things about Watts' work. Lawrimore appeared to be referring to Steve McIntyre, not Watts. So that quote just isn't right here. I think we should wait until Watts's paper is actually published before we start arguing about it in Wikipedia. In any case, these arguments would belong in the surface record page, not Watts's bio page. I left your rewording of Lawrimore in because I agreed it was an improvement. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Harvey, the Dr. Lawrimore quote was definitely NOT referring to Watts' "independent group of meteorologists and weather buffs" but to the "bloggers" who keep arguing over which year was the hottest. KDP was wrong to put it back. Q Science (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This stuff belongs in the surface temperature record page, and of course, inclusion of it here will shortly turn this page into a duplicate discussion of the surface temperature record. I'll return later to start the ball rolling in that direction... duplication of discussions is preferrable to POV. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another MonoApe edit

MonoApe, you've added this text:

Watts still expects that the result of the SurfaceStations.org effort will be "to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO₂ but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

This is something that Watts said in 2007. Can you explain how you justify a wording "still" in 2009 based on a source dating 2007? Further, there is a phrase that "In any case, NOAA still sees the evidence for human-driven warming is robust." That statement is too ambiguous to have any meaning, and thus Watts would agree with it too (as would just about everyone). Thus it is not relevant.

Kim D. Petersen is obstructing my efforts to remove the text. Can I ask Kim also to explain his reasons for this? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"NOAA: Evidence for human warming remains robust"

William M. Connolley apparently supports this too.

William, since you apparently also view this MonoApe-added statement as an important new piece of the article, can you tell me what the relevance of NOAA's statement that "evidence of human warming remains robust" is to this article? Because I am not getting it. Maybe I am just of real low intelligence, but I'm struggling a bit here. The statement that A. Watts has made that is causing such offence is that some of the recent global warming may be a result of measurement error. We all understand the distinction between "some" and "all"? Assuming we do, then, there's some logic 101 I've picked up along the way: If Watts claimed that some warming may be measurement error, then a statement from NOAA that "evidence for human warming remains robust" is of no relevance to the Watts view, and therefore of no relevance to the article. We must really be writing for the lowest common denominator if we do not expect the readers of Wikipedia to see this. Do you not think that playing the readers as fools here is really not helping anyone? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I spelt that out far enough.

if "some" warming was caused by measurement error; then

some warming caused by measurement error; some warming caused by humans ==> evidence for human-caused warming remains robust

else

no warming caused by measurement error; some warming caused by humans ==> evidence for human-caused warming remains robust

fi

So here's a game, can anyone see why the statement "evidence for human-caused warming remains robust" is not relevant to the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, that is apologetics (ie. strong POV)... You know as well as i do that Watt's claim isn't that the measurement errors have an insubstantial effect on the record, his argument is that the whole thing must be suspect because of errors. And that is what the NOAA statement is about, it states quite flatly that such extrapolation is wrong.

Summary: Watt's whole argument hinges on saying that poor station location => temp record suspect, and thats what the NOAA statement is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, and how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said? Watts does not believe that all temperature rise is a result of measurement error. That is a completely false, and silly statement that you just made up on the spot. I invite you to either support it with evidence or retract it. Meanwhile, what is relevant to this actual article is that the article currently only goes as far as attributing to Watts a view that some and not all temperature increase might be the result of measurement error. Thus, the NOAA statement that has been added by MonoApe and defended by Kim D. Petersen & William M. Connolley is of no relevance. I ask again, why? Alex Harvey (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said" I know this because it is in his book. You didn't notice that Watts said "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century." in the introduction to his book? Hmmmm? Lets stop beating about the bush shall we? You know as well as i do that this is what Watts' whole argument is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

NOAA's statement is irrelevant. Hansen has made it clear that the US surface temperature represents only about 2% of what he computes for the globe. Thus, even if Watts finds very large errors, Hansen's proprietary "average temperature model" basically ignores the data anyway. Q Science (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On what A. Watts really believes, I would suggest that it is pretty close to what R.A. Pielke Sr. also believes, viz. that:

A conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21°C per decade (with the nighttime minimum temperature contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth's surface, the warm bias due to just this one effect explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming.

See here and Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652. Those who are in favour of having Watts bio page turned into a discussion of the reliability of the US surface temperature record should probably consider some other recent statements by Pielke that have explicitly defend Watts' work: here and here. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pielke today again defends Watts work, with some interesting stuff here.

I will report if NCDC refutes this personal attack against a well respected colleague [Watts] who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community. Stay tuned also for at least two peer reviewed papers which are quantitatively analyzing, using Anthony’s data, the impact of the poor sitings of the HCN sites on the long term surface temperature trends and anomalies.

These articles of Pielke's group, if published, should be usable in the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What Pielke says is not what Watts is saying - will you please stop doing original research here? (and why pick another "in the minority" scientist to claim that Watts is correct? (Sorry, but that is the reason that P.Sr. is in disagreement with almost every other scientist in the field, as seen from his blog)). You should use mainstream sources. Thanks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OT but... Pielke wants NCDC to respond to a youtube video? -Atmoz (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. Go figure. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Petersen's revert

Kim D. Petersen, again without addressing the issue of relevance as highlighted by both myself and Q Science, has reverted the edits without giving reasons. My edits clearly improved the article, and certainly there is no justification other than laziness for reverting them in toto. In any case, Petersen is (a) defending inclusion of an obvious factual error (the wording "still" is used in the article to imply that Watts is immuned to reason against 2009 developments but is based upon a 2007 source) and (b) fails to address the fact that a statement "evidence for human-warming remains robust" can not be used relevantly in an article that gives Watts's view as "some warming may be caused by measurement error". Kim: do one of the following: (1) apologise and restore my text; or (2) explain yourself; or (3) off we go to arbitration again. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not see some text that had been inserted above... Kim wrote:

(quoting me) "how do you know what Watts deeply believes when it is found to be in conflict with what he has actually said" I know this because it is in his book. You didn't notice that Watts said "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century." in the introduction to his book? Hmmmm? Lets stop beating about the bush shall we? You know as well as i do that this is what Watts' whole argument is.

Yes, I know exactly what his argument is about, and it's certainly not what you seem to be saying here, and I'll have to say I'm surprised indeed that you don't seem to get it; it's not exactly rocket science. Watts is arguing that the US temperature record is hugely unreliable. He is saying that the uncertainty in the data is far greater in magnitude than the change in temperature itself that it is said to measure and cannot therefore be used to establish a temperature increase as small as 0.7 C. You seem to be arguing that this means he believes there was therefore no temperature increase. This is completely fallacious reasoning. If his analysis of the uncertainty is correct, then he has drawn a perfectly valid conclusion: we know nothing at all about the temperature increase over the last century, only what we've got in the radiosonde data from 1950 and the satellite data from 1979. This would be, I suppose, why Pielke's group is checking it. But how on earth did you come to the belief that Watts doesn't believe there was a temperature rise in the first place? That would mean he denies the satellite data and the radiosonde data as well. You have absolutely no evidence or reason to suspect that his view diverges in any way whatsoever from his friend Pielke -- who he credits as helping him in the report. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats a rather long strawman argument here... I haven't argued that Watts' should be saying that there is no warming. (which makes your entire rant moot) - try rereading the above section again. (by the way: I've never been in arbitration with you - so that's a strawman as well). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have said above that Watts has argued for "insubstantial" warming (that is, indeed, the straw man that you have created to spill fruitless words over in this latest nonsense dispute). So let's not play more word games; whether you say "insubstantial" (the word you used in the revision history) or "negligible" or "extremely little" or "zero" warming (words that indeed you didn't use) it is neither here nor there; the point I have made holds equally in all cases. The fact is that Watts did not say anything at all about "insubstantial" warming; you have invented this. The article has Watts saying that "some" of the warming "may" be measurement error. The Heartland document provides nothing new in this regard.

On arbitration, I must have meant "escalation"? What is arbitration then? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read my comments again. You still have it wrong, instead you are raising even more strawmen. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

metacomment by Abd

When I was in my early twenties, wandering the streets of San Francisco, barefoot and carrying a guitar, there was a saying, promoted by the Family Dog. "May the Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind." Alex, that you don't know the difference between arbitration and escalation speaks volumes about how you haven't the foggiest idea what you are doing here. You have opinions on the subject and you are debating them. Back up. Learn about Wikipedia. Read the policies, that's a start, but there is no substitute for actual experience. Read arbitration cases. Yes, arbitration here means the Arbitration committee. Escalation means to go up a step in the dispute resolution ladder. Don't skip steps unless you have a very, very good reason. User RfC is generally the last step before ArbComm. Don't even think of it at this point. If you have a dispute with KDP discuss it with him. On his talk page or yours, as long as he permits it. Focus on finding agreement, or, failing that, to delineate specifically the disagreement, so that you can both present it to a third person for their opinion. That's the second step in DR. The process takes discussion down to a small group at first; sometimes it even goes into email, so that there aren't a bunch of people kibbitzing, which can distract and turn a possibly resolvable dispute into a factional one. Be willing to learn. KDP is a highly experienced editor, and he didn't reach that stage by being utterly unreasonable. Try it. Remember the wiki-epitath for so many editors: He was Right. Being Right, believing that one knows the Truth, is just about certain death here. Unless what you believe is the majority view, in which case you might survive for a while! Actually, being Right isn't quite the problem, it's believing that others are Wrong. That doesn't actually follow from being Right, because of the fallacy of the excluded middle. You may be Right from your POV, and the other Right from theirs; the trick is to see the matter from both POVs at once, which will give you .... depth perception. Stereo vision, and you will see that what seemed to him to be left of center and to you to be right of center is a product of your different positions. Both were correct, merely incomplete, and if you can add the depth term to the position data, you can both sign onto it. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked through the information as a neutral bystander, I think Watts' position can best be summed up, "Doesn't deny global warming, but questions severity and anthropogenic contributions." That said, I don't think the statement by the NOAA is really important and could be removed (though it's not imperative). The "still expects" for the other disputed line doesn't seem to fit either, as his study is 80 percent complete and the results so far appear to back up his claim. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason that NOAA's statement is included is that A) it directly relates to Watts' work B) it references Watts' work. ie. for instance the Q&A is a direct response to the station collecting, and claims that Watt has made. That it is such a response, is stated by Pielke and Watts - so it would be rather strange not to quote NOAA's response. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but wouldn't that quote be more for the SuperStations.org page, rather than Watt's page? Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably - except that its been merged into Watts bio. (neither was notable by themselves) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, what comments did I miss? Can you please state your argument clearly? I can find nothing but a breezily-added sequence of non sequiturs in the above. Now you are saying, "well, the NOAA statement is clearly about Anthony Watts's work." Fine, no disagreements there. I couldn't add hundreds of NOAA statements, if I have no regard for context, that are also about Watts's work. That doesn't mean they should be included. They need to be relevant. Alex Harvey 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, you seem to have agreed that the statement is not relevant and agree that Petersen is defending inclusion of a factual error for reasons best known to himself. You don't seem to regard the issue as urgent (and sure, given the extent of Wikipedia disinformation that is defended in other climate change pages it might be argued that this is not life and death, however...) can you not see that the text is being used, subtly, to promote the idea that Watts is a "denalist" who rejects the most basic parts of the climate change agreement, viz. that the world is warming? Alex Harvey 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. What exactly makes you claim that people are promoting that he is a "denialist"? Because we disagree with you? Its very simple: NOAA made a statement regarding Watts' book, Watts and Pielke replied. That means that its very relevant, since apparently both sides (NOAA v. Watts/Pielke) find it notable. You can hold the opinion that NOAA's statement is faulty as much as you want (that is apparently your POV), Watts/Pielke will agree with you - but that doesn't make it correct - since NOAA quite apparently disagrees. Sit down quietly and try to assume good faith, and stop making personal attacks... you've been asked to do so repeatedly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

@Kim If that's the case, then I see no problems. @Alex, you're not helping yourself when you start on "rants" about Wikipedia's "disinformation." Soxwon (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, if what is the case? Alex Harvey 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, where did I say that NOAA's analysis is faulty? Alex Harvey 02:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the above where you state that "defending inclusion of a factual error", since what i'm defending here is the inclusion of the NOAA statement, i'm inferring that you mean that NOAA is wrong (makes a factual error). If that is not the case, then please explain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I am putting a lot of effort into making myself clear here. Perhaps too much effort; maybe that's the problem and I've overwhelming with too much text. In any case, can you also make the effort to see what I have already said? The factual error as I have made clear above is that a 2007 source is being used to imply that Watts holds a particular view of the NOAA response, which was issued 6th July 2009. The words Watts gave in 2007 are presented in the article as if they are a response to the NOAA document. My rewording, which you reverted, fixed this problem. So why not just go into the article, and fix this up? I realise this would require a bit of work. I.e. someone would need to actually see if there is a WP:RS that gives Watts's view of the 6th July NOAA document. I am unaware of one. For this reason, I have suggested, I think very fairly & reasonably, that we just do not discuss either Watt's Heartland document OR the NOAA response to it until such time that there is discussion of it in the WP:RSes.

On the NOAA response; I don't have an opinion at all yet. Much of it seems reasonable. Alex Harvey 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, can you find anywhere to indicate that Watts should have changed his mind with regards to the statement that "some of the warming may be localized"? I've just read through his book (again), and that certainly seems to be exactly what he is still saying (Ch 7). The disagreement between Watts and NOAA is still the same: Watts says that because stations are poorly located the surface temp record is suspect, and NOAA is saying that the surface temp record is not computed that way (ie. that individual station errors do not propagate), and that Menne(2009)/Peterson(2006) show this, Pielke and Watts obviously disagree. As i said before both Pielke/Watts consider the NOAA statement relevant (as shown by their blogs) and NOAA obviously also does. And more importantly all of them consider it a response to Watts claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, the word "still" implies "in the present"; and that would be July 2009; don't you agree? You are using a 2007 source as evidence that Watts holds a point of view now in mid-2009. Have a look at this page, it might help: Anachronism. I am truly sorry that you are unable to see this. Alex Harvey 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2007 Watts launched the 'Surface Stations' project, whose mission is to create a publicly available database of photographs of weather stations, along with their metadata. The project relies on volunteers to gather the data. Watts stated that he expected the result of the SurfaceStations.org project would be to show that some of the recent global warming has been caused not by CO₂ increases, but from changes in the temperature-measurement environment.

Now that's what I had... Just can't understand why you'd be arguing on and on for insertion of the word "still". Alex Harvey 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I had also changed the quote to prose for the benefit of our readers. Alex Harvey 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex. You've nice and easily jumped the main question here: Do we have any indications that Watts doesn't hold this view 2 years later? No. And quite the opposite really. I've just reread his book (today even), and nothing in the book indicates that he has dropped this view, in fact as i stated in the above Chapter 7 states much the same thing. The quote is not an anacronism since its first of all not that old and it reflects Watts views today.

Please, instead of jumping up and down and complaining. Try finding some source/reference that actually supports your view (apparently?) that Watts should not stand behind that quote anymore. (since quite frankly i find the same sentiments all over his writings). The quote is chosen because its clear and concise.

Finally the NOAA Q&A is a direct response to his book, where (as i said above) the same sentiment is present. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I have not dodged the main issue because on the main issue, yes, I think the statement is indeed correct! Yes, of course: I also think that Watts "still" (yes!) holds that view. That is not the point. That is merely my opinion, and I can't support it. As it happens, it's your opinion too (we agree! woohoo!) but: "Opinions have no place in Wikipedia." Right? Are you assuming good faith here? My concern is that my correctly-written, properly-sourced text has been reverted in favour of text that is badly-written and poorly-sourced. That is my only concern. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We go by what is verifiable - the quote is verifiable, and nothing indicates that it is out of date or any any way or form doesn't reflect Watts current opinion (what btw. is the run-out date for quotes? a week? a year? 5 years?). There is nothing false or "factual(ly) error(neous)" about it. Especially since we both agree that it is an accurate reflection of Watts views. If on the other hand that we had indications that Watts has changed his mind, then things would look different (and i certainly would look at things differently), but we haven't and it doesn't. Now as for "badly written" - well i do not agree that the other was better written... (btw. if you want - you could look for a more recent quote that says the same thing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let the record show here that your opinion of Wikipedia policies is that 2007 sources may be used to establish that a person holds a particular opinion in 2009 despite the fact that significant developments have occurred in the meanwhile (i.e. 2007 was the beginning of Surfacestations; 2009 is at the end of it). It would seem to follow that anachronisms are therefore not ruled out by any Wikipedia policies. I doubt this is true, but I am afraid I don't know well enough to contradict you. The point is minor; I let it rest now. Let's see if I'm allowed to fix the grammatical errors. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)