Talk:Ian Plimer/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Business Interests

Currently Plimer's directorships are referenced to newspaper articles. Is it better to reference the directly to the company pages? Kefi Minerals and Ivanhoe Resources. For CBH Resources, it appears they have been delisted and that Plimer is no longer a director. I can't find an announcement of his resignation though. I also find that The Barrier Daily Truth, a publication of some renown I'm sure, still shows him as "CBH Resources’ Professor Ian Plimer". --Thepm (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Although third-party sources are generally preferred, I think there's no strong preference for a statement of fact such as this. Since CBH was bought out by a Japanese company and Plimer is no longer listed as a director, I think it's safe to drop CBH from the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It's always better to use news media as sources rather than changeable primary sources like company websites. If Plimer no longer holds a position, you change it from "is a director with company X" for instance to "was a director with company X"; it is not simply deleted from his bio. Afaik, he has recently taken on new corporate roles; these should be unearthed, if your intention is to improve the article. Percival Scion (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it better to use 'news media' or just better not to use primary sources? What if we use the relevant listing authority (eg ASX) as the source? The reason I ask is that news sources can be less than definitive who is and isn't a corporate officer, whereas the listing authority will be quite clear. I'll look into all of his current directorships while I'm at it. Unlikely to get anything on private companies, but it's easy enough to find any directorships of listed companies. I agree that for now, we should note him as a former director. If we end up with a long list of former directorships we might revisit the idea at that time. cheers --Thepm (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention of George Monbiot debate with Ian Plimer

We had consensus to remove the mention of Monbiot from the section on Heaven and Earth (albiet with PS's dissent). The remaining question is whether we mention Monbiot at all. I tend to side with Pete Tillman that the Monbiot business was fairly peripheral although I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I certainly would not agree that is "makes up a notable event in Plimer's life". At best I would think a passing mention would be sufficient. PS - can you suggest what you would like to see? --Thepm (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  • A quick scan of international news media shows that Plimer is notable for his book, his views on global warming, and his debate with Monbiot (which was mentioned in several major sources). Percival Scion (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would be careful about judging what people are notable for based on a quick scan of international media. On that basis you might decide that Michael Jackson is most famous for having children and being dead. Plimer's career has mainly been as a geologist, mining expert, popular scientist and skeptic (in the broader term - long before any of us were talking about greenhouse, warming or climate change). Later he became more widely known for his opposition to creationist teaching and his debate with Duane Gish (the 'Theory of Electricity'). After that he was notable for his court case with Allen Roberts. Then he got into some arguments with some climate scientists and then he appeared on wiki.
I did a quick googlefight which is the scientifically approved method of deciding most things. The Monbiot debate was much more recent and the subject of the debate remains quite topical, but "Plimer Gish" is still more common that "Plimer Monbiot". Having said that, as I mentioned above, I'm open to being convinced. Can you tell me what you'd like to see on the article? cheers --Thepm (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait -- Michael Jackson's dead? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
apparently.--Thepm (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You can just put back in what you took out, but under an appropriate subhead as Boris (I think) suggested. Percival Scion (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's badly worded. For one thing it says "no debate was held" and then says "They did eventually meet in debate". I'll have a go at writing a sentence or two. Can you see if you can find a reference to Plimer's challenge from an RS other than Monbiot himself? cheers --Thepm (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
[1] Percival Scion (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Heaven and Earth (Book) section in Plimer's BLP.

The fact remains that the debate with Monbiot was extensively covered in the media in Australia, so it is not insignificant and certainly makes up a notable event in Plimer's life. Period. As for "bestseller", that's a meaningless promotional word that needs to be qualified as to the source, if used. It certainly shouldn't be stated in wikipedia's voice, as if it's a fact. The sources claiming it are the publisher (no surprises there), and the conservative Australian press (again, not surprising). The ABC quote looks like lazy journalism, reading from supplied text. Why not attempt to find out actual sales figures from Nielsen, or some other source? I've read the book and it's well-nigh unreadable, so I'd be very surprised if it's truly popular. Unfortunately, the book industry treats sales information as proprietary, so any claims of "bestseller" is usually sourced to the publisher. The fact that the book was on the Australian Bookdata bestseller list for a short while, according to the publisher, is no huge feat .. but please note that some commentators are raising profound doubts about the claimed Bookdata statistics see here (this is a RS bec. the author is an expert in his field). Percival Scion (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (moved here by Thepm for continuity)

I think we all agree that the word "bestseller" is meaningless. I think it's really just a matter of whether the book was 'commercially successful' and if so whether we mention that in the summary on this page. The refs I supplied you were meant to be one for Plimer, one Against Plimer and one neutral. They all use the term "best-seller" and I thought that would be adequate reference for 'commercially successful'. I disagree that your source above is a reliable source. While the quoted bloggist may be an expert in some fields, I would not consider him an expert in book sales. He is also responding directly to ridicule of his own book's commercial success (or otherwise). --Thepm (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
As long as an RS calls it a "bestseller" that is all WP requires -- many books are listed in articles as "bestsellers" without all this quibbling. Collect (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sections for His Arguments

As Plimer is noted for his skepticism, there should be sections in this article addressing his criticisms and not just pointing out the fact that he is a skeptic... Just like Kant being known for a philosophy, gets a section on his philosophy. I suggest renaming putting both creationism and climate change views under Works and a summary of his arguments can be given in the intro (since criticism of climate change is his primary claim to fame) and in the overview of his works. Also suggest collapsing affiliation/business career and early life in career, into a Career section. Perhaps with subsections if necessary. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

International fame

In regard to the statement "He has been a staunch critic of creationism in Australia but it it is his critique of global warming science that has brought him international fame.", I tagged it as needing a citation as that last claim - that he achieved international fame as a result of his stance - seems a bit POV and overly strong. He did get a degree of international recognition, but whether or not that constitutes fame is a different matter. It was suggested that we use the Lateline debate with Monbiot as a source, [2], but that doesn't ascribe fame to Plimer, only to Monbiot. ("Monbiot is a renowned champion of climate science.") I think we'll need something a bit stronger to support the Plimer claim. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with international recognition. I have changed it and added a link more supportive of the claim.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Plimerite & Aust'n Humanist of 1995

I think it is worth noting Plimer's work as a skeptic fighting the creationists earlier, and also noting that :

- He has the mineral Plimerite - ZnFe4(PO4)3(OH)3 orthorhombic - named after him.
- Plimer was named ‘Australian Humanist of the Year’ in 1995.
- was president of the Australian Geoscience Council
- Plimer is the Patron of Lifeline (Broken Hill) & Patron of the Broken Hill Geocentre.
- Plimer is a regular communicator / populariser of science esp. geology and skepticism to the public via radio, print & TV.

Source : Page 4 ("About the Author") "Heaven & Earth", Connor Court, 2009. StevoR 124.182.226.16 (talk)

I will be sure to work this stuff in! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to work all that in, you should work this in too: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm -- 98.108.202.17 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Plimer's publications

Media articles discussing Plimer often say "..has published over 120 scientific papers.." or very similar, as here. This figure of > 120 has no foundation in fact: the ISI Web of Science lists 59 publications, and Elesevier's Scopus lists 68. Whilst either index can miss some things they are both close to comprehensive and it is inconceivable they could be out by a factor of two (in fact they can overstate by including conference abstracts and editorial content). Where are the other 60 or more publications? No list is ever given, anywhere. ISI give Plimer an H-index of 14 from 661 citations, and Scopus a post-1995 H index of 6. These figures are very low for a full professor of an Australian University. It is possible to see a basic summary of the Scopus data without paying for a subscription, or if you are on a university network connection you may instead be shown the full version: http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003490388. 122.107.167.14 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It can be quite hard to obtain a definitive citation for such a statement for any scientist. However, perhaps it would be a good idea to change the statement to include what you can verify with the databases that you list. Marketwatch of the Wall Street Journal shouldn't be a dubious source, but in this case what it states doesn't seem to measure up, so more information seems advisable. Stating that this is a low or high figure for a university professor is not, I think, something that can be done here. Some professors spend their life creating a definitive work, which in other disciplines it is usual to produce several small or multi-authored publications per year. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We do not "count articles" per WP:OR so using "many" seems the simplest solution. Couunting up to six, however, is simple, and should not need a citation. Collect (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Section headings

Tillman reverted my section headings edit stating that they are contentious and lack citation. Stating that something is contentious does not mean that it is contentious. The first section heading I edited had the utterly meaningless label "climate change skepticism" which can mean scientific skepticism or global warming denial or anything in between. It is an overloaded term with multiple meanings (sometimes considered to be pejorative) and a section heading should accurately represent the material in the section it heads. What is contentious about "rejection of climate science"? The second edit was to provide a new section heading for the second paragraph describing conspiracy theories under the "political influence" section. Since that paragraph is about conspiracy theories and not political influence, I added a new heading to accurately describe the paragraph. Finally, I do not understand why Tillman says these headings need citations. None of the other headings in the article, including the ones I replaced, have citations and I don't think it is customary to put citations on headings. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Substantive edits which are reverted need to follow WP:CONSENSUS. Some ,might find a heading of "Rejection of climate science" to be indicative of using Wikipedia's voice to indict a living person, thus the "skepticism" title is better. Secondly, the injection of "Conspiracy theories" into the middle of a section might also appear to be using Wikipedia's voice to label a person's positions as "conspiracy theories" which also is a problem in a WP:BLP compliant article. WP:NPOV bars Wikipedia's voice from being used to take positions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Masters, please study WP:BLP carefully before you do more editing of biographies. You are running a real risk of being blocked for violating ARBCOM sanctions, as you have already been warned, which you will find an endless hassle. Voice of experience here. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:IHaveAMastersDegree persistently ignores the dictionary meaning of skeptic and replaces it with a variety of words, sometimes pejorative, sometimes unsourced. I have complained on the Administrators Noticeboard which resulted in an "ARBCC notification" on IHaveAMasterDegree's talk page but he/she persists and is currently editing articles many times per day, (watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IHaveAMastersDegree). I am not engaging with him/her here, just warning about what's going on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like I'm being stalked. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions that you have likely observed, "skeptic" in the context of a scientific subject implies scientific skepticism but in the context of global warming it can alternatively imply global warming denial. There is an entire page called skepticism that goes way beyond the limited dictionary definition. If it is against the rules to edit multiple articles in a day, can someone please point me to that rule? I do not want to break any rules and will stop if I'm not supposed to. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Collect. I have read WP:CONSENSUS and it is my understanding that what we are now doing now is consistent with its guidance. I would argue that "rejection of climate science" is descriptive, whereas "climate change skepticism" can be interpreted as global warming denial which is pejorative. Can we mutually come up with a term that is descriptive, unambiguous, and *not* pejorative? Regarding the new heading, it was intended to create a new sub section. I didn't intend for it to appear inside a subsection so I must have done something wrong with formatting. Nevertheless, the topic it was supposed to be heading could not really be described as "political influence" so that paragraph needs a different heading. What do you suggest? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I will stop doing BLP edits until we get a determination on whether I've done something wrong. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
@ IHaveAMastersDegree, you've done nothing wrong, clearly some other editors hold differing views and this is a proper matter for talk page discussion. As a tactful non-judgmental option, I've changed the heading to Views on climate change. Plimer is clearly a credulous opponent of mainstream science rather than a climate change sceptic in terms of scientific skepticism. Using the phrase properly, Michael E. Mann is a climate change sceptic in exactly the way that Plimer isn't. So, best to avoid such confusion and be clear that Plimer promotes fringe views, as required by NPOV policy. . dave souza, talk 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I think your section rename is a good, NPOV choice. Thanks!
That said, please don't encourage Masters in his many BLP violations since he began editing. Perhaps he is now starting to actually study policy. He has made some constructive edits -- but also many that clearly were not. Best for 2014, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: IHaveAMastersDegree has now been blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Volcanoes and CO2

An article by a volcanologist at Live Science says that the most recent estimate of volcanic outgassing is 600 million tons/ year, a 6x increase over previous estimates. The author notes that actual data on this is scarce. So Plimer may have a point, though even the largest estimates of Volcanic CO2 are still far less than humans. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like speculation at this stage, doesn't mention Plimer and, as you say, even if true clearly doesn't affect the description in the article that a study found that humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average. If a new analysis published in Eos or equivalent makes it that humans release only 25x more than volcanoes, and a published source reports that in relation to Plimer, then we can review the coverage. . dave souza, talk 16:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Which has now occurred. Collect (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh no it hasn't! You added original research which appeared to misrepresent the study, I've reworded it in accordance with the cited source but this shows the issues with original research so I've now moved it here for discussion:
A 2015 study from The Earth Institute at Columbia University published in Geophysical Research Letters monitored submarine volcanoes and mapped ancient lava flows. It found that undersea volcanoes currently emit almost as much CO2 as land volcanoes, with pulses at certain times of the year, and that over the past 700,000 years there have been episodes of greater emissions which may have affected past climate swings. ref: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate: Strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons Science Daily February 5, 2015
This puts the current undersea contribution at around 88 million tonnes per annum, the 2011 study put the combined total from volcanoes at 130 to 440 million tonnes per annum so same ballpark, by my arithmetic. . . dave souza, talk 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No OR - I used what the source stated as best I could. Cheers. `Collect (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Obviously it doesn't belong here if it doesn't mention Plimer. It might belong in a discussion of volcanoes and CO2, but even then, we shouldn't be trying to interpret primary source literature. Wait for a secondary source (a review article of some sort) to put this stuff in context. Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We already include material saying that the volcanoes do not emit much CO2 -- when we get a newer source, it is intellectually dishonest to keep the old sources as though they have not been superseded. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent a source and use original research to draw incorrect conclusions. As discussed above, the new study shows similar levels to those considered in 2011, and the "amount of greenhouse gases exuded into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater is swamped by the amount people emit by burning fossil fuels".Lee, Jane J. (15 February 2015). "Seafloor Eruptions Triggered by Tides, Ice Ages". National Geographic. Retrieved 1 March 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link). For now, rather than revert your reinsertion of this study I've summarised this better source, but it still doesn't mention Plimer, so to avoid OR the 2015 study is better left out. . . dave souza, talk 23:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The wording I gave was directly based on the Science Daily report -- I trust you do not find that source "intellectually dishonest". And you are free to ignore the peer-reviewed study - and it does not say that Plimer was right, but ignoring a study does not erase that study, and I fear you think here that if we refuse to mention it, that it will cease to exist, which is an interesting view, indeed. Our best course is to use the study, and word its conclusions as accurately as possible, which is the intent of the policies involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
And its conclusions are that theoretically, undersea volcanoes may increase activity during low sea level periods and contribute to the end of ice ages, but that we are not in an ice age, sea levels are not low and undersea volcanoes are relatively quiet right now, contributing relatively little CO2 in comparison to human activities. I don't see how that contradicts anything currently stated in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is take a primary source (or, worse yet, a press release based on a primary source) and misinterpreting it. This is why editors shouldn't engage with primary literature - because the vast majority of editors don't have the background to put something like this in context. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither the Science Daily report, nor the original article in GRL mention Plimer. Biographies are not a place where we can build cases for or against theories based on our own interpretations of how sources apply to them. We should only mention sources that themselves address Plimer's claims. I believe that is what policy requires of us. (And for the record the GRL paper clearly dismisses a major role of undersea volcanoes in present climate change. It only suggests that there could have been past periods (timescales of thousands of years) when volcanoes were significant.) Zerotalk 13:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Creationism and climate change denial

"He has been an outspoken critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change."

Am I the only one who finds this sentence a bit unsightly? Plimer is pro-science regarding one subject (which, for a scientist, is only remarkable because he has written a lot about it) and anti-science regarding another (which, for a scientist, is remarkable and puts him in Category:Weirdo). The article is doing the splits in one sentence. I don't think those two properties should be grammatically joined in this way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashmoo added that sentence on 20 July 2015, and can perhaps try to defend it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I just did it that way for economy of language. Otherwise, you will need to write 'He is a critic of X. He is also a critic of Y.'. Although, I think having it in one sentence highlights that fact that he is a critic of both critics of the scientific consensus and the scientific consensus itself. Ashmoo (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That is right. Since I have no better suggestion, I guess I will just have to live with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Volcanoes and CO2

This article is about Dr Plimer, not about climate change. The section on Volcanoes and CO2 goes beyond saying "his views on the matter have been refuted" into something else. The line about the EPA is relevant as it refutes him, the others are original research or irrelevant. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not so: there are two Grauniad sources referring to Plimer, which are confirmed by the USGS statement that "the average global volcanic output is insignificant when compared to emissions from human activity". I'm less convinced by the inclusion of the Eos paper and Tolstoy's comment, so would like to see comments by others. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
fair enough. Shall we agree then that the last half of the paragraph, from "this was confirmed" to "ice ages", can be deleted?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Other scientists, such as Donald Prothero another geologist, have reviewed similar data to Ian Plimer and have reached different conclusions

Yet on Donald Prothero's page it does not say other scientists such as Plimer looked at the same data and reached a different conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because fringe claims need to be contextualised by mainstream science, but mainstream science doesn't need to be evaluated against the fringe. Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Plimer/Archive_7"