Talk:Harold Lewis

Regret

It seems regrettable that 80% of this chaps biog should be a regrettable letter that he wrote in old age. Is that really the only notable thing he has done? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A "regrettable letter"? I take it you say this because you think he was wrong for standing up against corruption? I think there are reasons to argue that that letter was a remarkably brave and significant accomplishment. 69.232.67.250 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Happily, I've found a reason to remove it - El Rego isn't an RS for this kind of thing. I've no doubt that it will appear in an RS sometime, but could whoever adds it back please consider being kind to this old chap and trying to tone some of the rant down a bit? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC, would you please give a reason why The Register isn't a reliable source, other than that you think so. Cite to RS/N, forex?, Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it regularly and reliably publishes rubbish? That is certainly so on climate change. Note that I'm not asserting that it is wrong in this case, only that it cannot be considered an RS in general William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Connelly, your vandalism of this page is one more strike against you. I look forward to your final expulsion from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.2.184 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Crap" means....stuff you disagree with? This is solipsism. It's not like there is any question that Lewis' resignation actually occurred. "Happily, I've found a reason to remove it" -- this an admission that you are engaged in Wikilawyering. The point of the sourcing rules is help create an aricle that provides useful information to the reader. Kauffner (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, "crap" is your word, not mine. My own view on sourcing is actually quite close to yours: I would like to use sources that are honest and accurate. But that doesn't fit with our rules, especially for BLPs: for example, blogs are forbidden, no matter how honest or accurate they may be William M. Connolley (talk)

Here is another source for the resignations letter, if sources are in doubt.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204880/Global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud-in-60-years-

The trouble with Wiki is that there are always administrators who use the encyclopaedia to promote theri own wold view, and attempt to repeatedly delete anything they disagree with. This has to stop. Arnatorim (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hal's resignation letter is published by him on the GWPF website: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Rons (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article is in desperate need of some real sources. For example, Lewis was active in the field of safety of nuclear power plants (which is about 1/3 of the article) is sourced to just an article he wrote. Were he an active chap, you could no doubt source loads of things with just as much plausibility: that he was active in ferromagnets, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're just being silly here. Two cites, both re power-plant safety. Get real, WMC. And add a bit, instead of carping. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You're failing to see your violation of SYN/OR here. All we know is that there were two papers about plant safety. There are lots of people who write two papers on a subject yet their bio should not pcik that area as being "active in". Admittedly Lewis seems to have a very low paper count, so a few in an area may be more sig for him. But that sounds like an argument for NN William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The disputed text could be worded as "Lewis resigned from the [APS] citing positions taken by scientists in the [global warming debate] as a reason [(ref the highest quality available source here, let it select the quotes / provide full links)]. But that is really the only notability here, other than that he has a faculty position someplace, chaired a committee once, and presented a piece at a symposium once. I'm not saying the guy wasn't hard-working or didn't have great accomplishments in his life - just that I'm not seeing any evidence of that in Wikipedia terms. AFD or a complete restart might be a better option. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; AFD looks like the right thing William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD? This guy was chairman the JASON Defense Advisory Group during the Vietnam War, when the group was quite influential. This group was considered the pinnacle of "the best and the brightest." Kauffner (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a possibility of AFD, but looking at WP:PROF he clearly passes criteria 3 and 6. The main reason for suggesting possible AfD is the only reason the article was created was because of a single recent news event. There's currently an ongoing discussion about how to deal with such events. [1] In this particular case though, it looks like this is not a WP:BLP1e subject, so long as we keep it as a biography and don't over-emphasize the recent resignation. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement, "In 2010, Lewis resigned in protest " should either link to his resignation letter, or provide a link to it in references. RobinsonUK (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It now links to the publication of the letter in Investor's Business Daily. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not too sure why there's a reference to an article by Melanie Philips of The Spectator. Surely that blurs the line between use of a MSM source and that of a blog? I'm sure it wouldn't be reasonable to reference James Dellingpole's coverage of this storyin The Telegraph, would it? Personally I would remove it as it adds nothing (over and above the transcript as referenced in Business Daily). RobinsonUK (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

... or rather that is to say, if it's considered ok to link to Philips article in the Spectator, then it should be considered ok to link to Dellingpole's in the Telegraph. RobinsonUK (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

None of these sources are really reliable. They all look like bloggy-things. Has *any* unimpeachable source covered this at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A philosophical point given you could say that of almost any mainstream media article on any subject you care to mention. I don't believe Wikipedia has got to grips with this issue yet and perhaps it never will. There is no such thing as an "unimpeachable" source, only those that we trust and those that we don't. For example, I would trust Dellingpole's editorialising on this subject, but not that of RealClimate. You on the other hand would take the contrary view. But anyway that isn't my point. My point is simply that linking to Philips' article is not optimal, because it doesn't contain the entire resignation letter and contains views and opinions on other subjects besides. If you're going to post MSM opinion, then Dellingpole's article is preferable in this case. RobinsonUK (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I meant. Delingpole's article is clearly a blog piece, so can't be used. MP's piece is *probably* a blog piece, but it isn't quite clear that it is. Even the ID one looks bloggy, but online versions of real-print objects don't always distinguish clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The blog issue seems to be generating some confusion. Formating, interactivity, and whether a source is labelled a "blog" are not reasons to reject it. The problem with blogs is with those that are self-published, and even these are acceptable if the author is a recognized authority. Phillips and Delingpole are both published on the sites of major media companies. See WP:SPS. Kauffner (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I've posted a query re using the Register story as a Reliable Source at RS/N. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Technological Risk

Lewis wrote a book called "Technological Risk" which is apparently well regarded by some folk. See [2]. We may not want to over-weight this article with Lewis's shifting views on GW but his opinion from 1992 (or 1990? Sources differ) makes something of a contrast with his current position:

"The GCMs in use nowadays do a pretty good job of calculating the effect of a potential doubling of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, but more research is truly needed... The details of the impending changes of climate are still beyond our grasp, though the broad outline is clear."

"All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business."

"Yet, despite the complexity, the bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases, mainly carbon dioxide, and that warming could conceivably approximate the climate at the time of the dinosaurs. It seems likely, but not certain, that sea level will rise accordingly, conceivably by several feet or more. We are doing this to ourselves."

I should point out that those are quotes other people have provided me. I can't verify that they are in context or even correct William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a review at [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that William, apparently it won the science writing award! Isonomia (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oral history

There is loads of exciting stuff in the Oral History link. E.g.:

Berkeley from 1948 to 1950. The loyalty oath controversy began in 1949 and simmered through 1950. I left at that time, having refused to sign the loyalty oath. I was in the end one of the 18 professors at Berkeley who fought it out all the way. During the first year at Princeton, we were involved in litigation against the Regents of the University, and eventually it worked its way through the California Supreme Court. We did win reinstatement — that sort of thing. That took a couple of years, and by then I was in no mood to go back. I had of course the option of going back, but I was in no mood to do that. I took a job at Bell Labs because I had begun to be interested in solid state physics. I stayed there for five years, I guess, and learned a great deal about solid state physics.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not got time to do anything with this, but this is what I got from your link [4] Note it only goes to 1986!

START His father was a salesman who immigrated to the US from Russia. Two brothers. Mother US born. Grew up in the Bronx, went to New York University in 1940. Got a double major in physics and math. Then went to Berkeley where he got his masters and left after one year in 1944 to join the navy.

In 1948 (After WWII) he went back to Berkeley and worked for Oppenheimer working on high energy physics (cosmic rays and elementary particles) and got his degree. He refused to sign the loyalty oath and left and then went to Princeton in 1950 to work for Bell labs where he researched looking for possible hall effect in superconducting materials. In 1956 he left to go to Wisconsin where he work on solid state physics and plasmas.In 1964 he left ...

Between 1963 and 1973 he directed the Quantum Institute. END

Sorry it's scrappy, if anyone would like to work it fine, but otherwise, I'll try to do more on this when I have time Isonomia (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Eworrall, 13 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following to the References section of Harold Lewis' biography page. http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Wikipedia's reputation will suffer if it is not kept up to date with current information. There is surely no doubt Harold Lewis wrote a letter of resignation, so a link to it, or copy of it, is completely relevant to his biography page. Eworrall (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And here is another reference to the resignation letter. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/204880/Global-warming-is-the-greatest-fraud-in-60-years- There is surely no doubt Harold Lewis wrote a letter of resignation, but there is great doubt as to the impartiality of Wiki. It appears to have been taken over by administrators with certain agendas, especially the GW agenda. Try posting any information that implies that wind power may be unreliable, and you will see what I mean. The reputation of Wiki can only sink into the gutter if these rogue administrators are left in charge. Arnatorim (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody needed to point out the fact that Wikipedia appears to have been taken over (long ago) by administrators with an agenda. This was apparent from the very beginning. On the same topic as Hal Lewis' letter, most "scientists" on Wikipedia suffer from the same cancer that's plagued true science for decades, namely that they seek to defend their position, rather than seek out truth. And if putting unreasonable demands for references and sources on those who disagree with them is the way they accomplish it, so be it. It's easy to find references supporting your point of view when the entire so-called "mainstream" media agrees with your positions. But just because a biased media holds a position does not mean it's true, nor does it mean that that media is the ONLY reliable source of information. You think the mainstream media is a reliable source and isn't POV? JournoList

On that note, why is there only a passing mention of the letter and a brief sentence describing his complaints? He has MUCH more depth in his letter of resignation than just his opposition to AGW. His entire letter was a scathing attack on the nature of the APS and most science organizations today, namely that they are ignoring evidence, stifling debate, refusing to acknowledge opposition, and instead simply seek to defend their own preconceptions about the universe. Barwick (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all clear that is an RS, and anyway it duplicates an existing ref William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ec w/ WMC Request denied. Your link is to an advocacy organization, which is not an acceptable reliable source. The same events are already sourced to a reliable source and the article has been well balanced to be biographical, rather than dominated by a single recent event that likely has no enduring notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per above to responses. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

copied from ANI:

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

checked byUser:Tiptoety

Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, these answers are not exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia! The fact that he has written a letter is not in dispute, nor is the fact that it is widely reported (can you find any other page on the guy because there are so many references to this letter). So what's this "request denied" ... can we be just a bit more courteous to what I see as a well meaning request to update the profile. I won't argue the specific link, but there clearly is a need to include more about the letter of resignation. However obviously it would not be appropriate to include the whole letter as requested, nor given the sparsity of information on other notable areas of his life, we would have to be careful not to give undue prominence to this one episode which may well be a pretty minor part of his life when we look back in a few years time. So I would say: "your request needs a bit of work before we can consider including it in the present article, but if you would like to assist us to improve this article so that we can do something about your helpful suggestion, please do help" Isonomia (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi isonomia. Yes, you are correct that we (and I) should have perhaps shown more courtesy. In fact, you will note when I trimmed the references to the letter, I left in the source originally suggested by the SPA. Two things however, can somewhat excuse my conduct. First, the edit request came shortly after the story broke, after we had just cleaned up the article to make it biographical and the tone of the SPA suggested they wanted to push a particular POV into the article. Secondly, at the time, no one had yet noted that Hal Lewis had recently joined GWPF, and thus it could be used as a self-published source. Thirdly, the article was the target of an off-wiki canvassing campaign at the time (which is why the TALK page is currently semi'd). Hindsight is 20/20. So could I have been more courteous? Yes, but I don't feel the magnitude of the offense is such that I owe an apology. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"scam" and "hoax"

It's clear from here that Lewis calls global warming a scam, not the APS position a scam as currently in the text. I can't find in either of the two cites where he says "hoax". -Atmoz (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct. As phrased, the line is not accurate and the word "hoax" was never used and "scam" refers to AGW, not the APS. He does accuse the APS of having been bought off by monied environmental interests and of being hostile to his input. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have rephrased it - see what you think. I think that two sentences are necessary to avoid the possibility of confusion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks reasonable to me. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

duplicate refs

References 9 and 10 of the current revision both link to Lewis's resignation letter. Should we prefer the one on his affiliate website or the one in investors business daily? Having both is redundant. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since sources are contentious here, maybe best just to leave both for now? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading quote

The article claims 'APS defended its global warming policy, stating that "APS judges the science to be quite clear"'. This is misleading because the scope of the APS judgement is on 3 specific claims, not on all the science. The full sentence as written by APS is "On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear".

The article is better phrased as 'APS defended its global warming policy, stating that "[On certain matters], APS judges the science to be quite clear".

Cadae (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear what the context is here. Lewis attacked the APS's own statements on the science, and the APS is responding about the same statements. --TS 03:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Lewis made the following points

Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

He disagrees with using the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, claiming that it should not be used in science

He collect the required number of signatures to form a Topical Group on Climate Science, yet the APS refused to allow the group's formation

So basically, he is criticizing the APS procedures and claims that the Global Warming statement was not open to review by the members. The APS response was nothing but misdirection, answering questions that were not in Lewis' "letter". Q Science (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Q Science is correct. The APS were attempting a straw-man argument in their response "On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear" and this has been further exaggerated by the misleading wording in the wikipedia article. The quote must be fixed. As it stands, it is both misleading and re-inforces the incorrect implication that Lewis was arguing about the 3 claims made by APS - a trap that TS fell into.

Cadae (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadae is right that the APS statement is more nuanced than the current quote suggests. I'm not sure that his suggested text is quite right, but there is room for edits along the line he is suggesting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How about just removing the quote? I think the sentence stands fine without it. Ray^Talk 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the arguments of Q Science, Cadae, and J.A. Jones. I don't think the quote is misleading nor do I think the APS is being particularly nuanced. We certainly cannot rely on the argument that the APS was "attempting a straw-man argument" because there exist people (including myself) who disagree with this assessment. Lewis, in his letter, is pretty adamant that he thinks that the APS should not be making declarative statements about any scientific questions. He uses the nuclear power controversy of the 1970s and 80s as an object-lesson in this fashion. It is my reading that this idea is what the APS is responding to when it is saying "On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear". I do not think it's referring to three specific claims. People who disagree with the APS are naturally going to view this quote as narrowly as possible, but my summary of the APS response would just be, "Lewis wants to dispute aspects of scientific fact that are simply no longer in dispute". This isn't the first time the APS has dealt with this kind of problem. Look at Julian Schwinger's resignation over cold fusion, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SA, my instincts were very much along the lines you suggest, but when I reread the statement I was surprised to find how limited it was. If I can quote:

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

* Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; * Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and * The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.

This seems to me that the APS's statement about the science being quite clear is limited to these three issues. But I may be over-interpreting? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with SA's summary of the APS response. APS says that "virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations" and Lewis is saying that those need to be openly discussed. In other words, he found over 200 members of the organization who agreed that discussion is appropriate, and the APS said no. (Actually, they simply ignored the request.) The APS response seems to imply that Lewis, and the 200 physicists that want to review this, are not "reputable". Thus, a better summary would be that the APS has resorted to name calling to silence dissenters.

BTW, I agree with Jonathan A Jones that the quote

"On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear"

most definitely applies to ONLY those 5 points. (I count 5 points in 3 bullets.) 2 of the 5 points don't appear to be disputed, but many scientists think that the other 3 are worthy of discussion. Q Science (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@J.A. Jones: I myself don't think the quote is all that useful (I am loath to use quotes at all in encyclopedias except where they are considered notable: quoting is a practice better left to reporting). However, the sense I get from reading the letter in entirety is that the APS was criticizing Lewis for ignoring issues related to basic facts and thus he is not a disputant of any matter. It's similar to the situation wherein the APS rejected the continued calls by creationist members of their body to accept their criticism of evolution: [5]. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Q Science: I'm in agreement with you that the APS does not accept Lewis' claim that there are issues of scientific merit worthy of discussion, and I also agree that they reject Lewis' claim to have found a quorum of interested physicists along those lines. However, I do not think we can say that the APS was saying that these physicists were not reputable because they did not accept Lewis' collection at all. This is a legalistic point, but it's one we absolutely must get correct especially because they state explicitly that they are convening a committee on the matter. We can say that the APS rejects the argumentation of Lewis, but we cannot say nor imply that they somehow engaged in name-calling or censorship any more than we would for their statements on cold fusion or creationism. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer a no-quote version to disputes over exactly what quotes to use (a recipe for OR and SYN in my experience), so I have removed them all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit about them specifically disputing the charges raised by Lewis in his resignation letter. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Compacted both sentences to read: In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned over the APS' global warming policy.[8][9] The APS disputed Lewis' accusations,[10] defending its policy.[11]DLH (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought your sentence a little bald, but on rereading the discussion, it looks better. How about "Lewis resigned in protest of the APS GWP"?

Thanks to all for an interesting, thorough -- and polite -- discussion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good work, and thanks all - the description of APS's response is no longer misleading. Cadae (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that APS violated its own Constitution "To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition" and clearly ignores that in it's response seems relevant if you are going to have a section on his resignation. How many WP readers would not resign under that kind of suppression? I couldn't help notice the stock inferrence in this talk page of a doddering old fool that those of a certain belief use to depict anyone they can't show in COI.Multiperspective (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Revkin's NY Times interview

I'm putting this in as an External link [6] for the moment, because it's something of a work-in-progress, and because I'm not sure how (or if) we should use it in the article. But it's interesting reading. As others have pointed out, Lewis's CC views are considerably more nuanced than you'd guess from the blog headlines. There are also some interesting comments re Lewis at Judith Curry's blog -- though nothing we could use here, since it's WP:SPS. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tillman, I read about this guy and was sadly disappointed by the lack of information in this entry. So I tried to find more to add, but as far as I can see almost everything about him on the internet relates to his resignation. Literally all I can find of any interest is that there is a guy called by the same name who wrote some books on anthropology or some such. I couldn't even find a CV on the university site. Does anyone know where you can find information? Isonomia (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oral History Transcript — Harold Lewis also has information about Lewis. Any history of the Vietnam War will mention JASON -- and Lewis was chairman at that time. He has also got an award for his book Technological Risk. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues

Added the following 1-2 word condensation of Lewis' six points against the APS: "and silencing debate, scientific integrity, ClimateGate, minority rejection, breach of Constitution, and scientific corruption". Lewis's statement is important in summarizing the essence of the global warming controversy.DLH (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that at the very least, from a stylistic viewpoint, that list mixes too many things - events and things that objectively exist (ClimateGate, the APS policy on climate change), Lewis' accusations against the APS and abstract ideas ("scientific integrity").

You should have made clear that "the Constitution" means the constitution of the APS. :) --Daggerstab (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Then propose: "and silencing debate, scientific integrity, ClimateGate, minority rejection, breach of APS' constitution, and scientific corruption"

These are ~ 2 word summaries of the topics of each of Lewis' 6 points.DLH (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To resign from APS is hardly notable by itself. There needs to be something about the content of his letter, since this is what made the resignation a news event. I have tried yet again to add an explanation of this to the article. I also think it is significant that he changed his position from believer to critic as a result of Climategate. The mainstream media's coverage of this issue has been so disdainful, at least on the rare occasions when they have lowered themselves to covering it at all. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For a FELLOW with 67 years membership to resign over society policy is a VERY big deal in an of itself in professional societies. Lewis is also deeply familiar ith uncertainty in technology - far beyond almost all climate scientists.DLH (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That statement, DLH, is not editorially useful since it is manifestly your opinion and not cited to any sources. See wP:NOR. I myself am guilty of making similar kinds of proclamations on article talkpages from time to time, but let's all try to stick to verifiable statements that are sourced to independent commentators rather than our opinions on the topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the purpose of citation 12? ^ Phillips, Melanie, "Decency fights back", Spectator, 13 October 2010. It is immediately after the quote from Lewis's resignation letter which is fact and does not need citation. This seems like a link to an opinion article to me for no good reason. Hmcst1 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source that shows that the resignation is notable, rather than just a primary source. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email)

And a broken link, 'Hal Lewis joins the GWPF' links to error 404. Could somebody tell me whether this was before or after the resignation from APS?Hmcst1 (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a concurrent event. Fixed the link now. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 12:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link Sailsbystars. Not sure as I agree with you or even understand about the Phillips cite. A citation should be supporting a fact. Notability is an editorial opinion . Whatever. The whole thing strikes me as rather sad. He clearly led a a very distinguished career but doesn't come to public prominence until , well , he resigns . IMHO there is an imbalance here, suggesting his resignation from the APS is a crowning achievement. Hmcst1 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

I see that my edits are meeting resistance from User:Jonathan A Jones. This article is new to me and I have not been privy to the background discussions. What I see above may involve more than meets the eye, so I request an update on exactly why my edits are being rejected:

• Edit summary: "Undid revision 720634121 by BullRangifer (talk) per previous discussions, needs to be explicitly supported by a reliable secondary source)"

It appears we already use content, with RS, which would back my edits:

In his open letter to the APS president, Lewis declared the "global warming scam" as "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

His membership in the GWPF is itself rather notable, as it's a small global warming denial group.

The pseudoscientific nature of global warming denial is already clearly described in other articles, so he's a pseudoscientist to boot.

What's the problem? Is this some form of whitewashing or protectionism, or is something else at stake here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

References

A quick initial comment: you might find it helpful to read the discussion at [7] on questions of this kind. There's consensus that this sort of statement requires explicit sourcing to reliable secondary sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan, what exact wording would a secondary source need to use for it to qualify as documentation that he was a climate change/global warming denier/skeptic? I ask because I need a falsifiable request from you. If your request isn't falsifiable, no amount of work I did would suffice. It would be a waste of time, even if I could produce hundreds of secondary sources. I would think that his own statements are clear enough that secondary confirmation would be unnecessary.

The situation would be similar to classifying someone like myself as an atheist (which I am). If I were notable (which I am not) and had publicly declared that "I am an atheist," your demand would require that my own declaration be ignored and secondary sources be used to place my biography in the atheist category. Now if there was some doubt about the matter, I could understand the need for some good secondary sources, but my own statement is so clear that such a need is obviated under the most basic rules of reason and logic.

So, is your demand a falsifiable one, and if so, what type of wording would be needed? Why aren't his own statements good enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly it's not a demand, it's simply a statement of current consensus which itself reflects Wikipedia core policies. Secondly the wording needed is clear: you need an explicit statement, something like "Harold Lewis is [or was depending on date] a climate change denier". There's still plenty of romm to argue about the reliability of the source and due weight, but that's the basic requirement.

There is some debate within the community as to whether an explicit statement by Harold Lewis himself (e.g., "I am a climate change denier") would suffice: personally I wouldn't have a problem with that though some editors would. The key thing is that it has to be explicit, and not rely on synthesis to reach the conclusion. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan, synthesis is not necessary or allowable. His statements are strong enough, but I did find a book reference that's pretty explicit:

• "With climate change, the situation is somewhat distinct. The scientific consensus that validates global warming is both real and robust,... Some prominent scientists remain skeptics. In 2010, for example, Harold Lewis ..." Science and Political Controversy: A Reference Handbook, By David E. Newton Ph.D.

Would that, together with his own statements, be good enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That source explicitly describes Lewis as a "skeptic" and it only requires trivial interpretation to see that it describes him as a "climate change skeptic". As far as I can see it doesn't describe him as a "climate change denier" or engaging in "climate change denial". You are then seeking to comibine this statement with other statements to reach a conclusion, and that's the essence of synthesis. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How would describing him as a climate change "skeptic" be synthesis? Besides, when it comes to this subject, skeptics and deniers are generally understood to be the same thing and placed in the same category. To use an analogy, they go to the same church, claim membership in the same denomination, adhere to the same catechism, worship the same pseudoscientific God, and oppose the same people (IOW they oppose the 97% of published climate scientists).

Is this really just a spat over the choice of "skeptic" vs. "denier"? I know that wikilawyering occurs in right wing articles, where the Koch brothers and their allies are very effectively protected. For some reason right wing editors are embarrassed to admit their allegiance and seek to protect their heroes from being identified as right wing. Not that they are all necessarily right wing, but are climate change deniers/skeptics similarly embarrassed to fly their flag? Do they need to be protected?

Isn't this just a spat over which synonym to use? We have a category which covers both Category:Climate change denial, yet you removed it. Now I complied with your request and found a secondary source, and I still meet resistance. What's really going on here? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no spat of any kind going on here: just an insistence that this article should obey WP:SYN, which is part of WP:NOR, which is one of the Wikipedia:Core content policies. That's hardly controversial. I have now added a new "See also" section which is explicitly supported by existing refs within the article. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We've both been here a long time. I started in about 2003 as an IP. We both know that this is a matter of interpreting policies, and neither of us wants to violate them. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. What is the unique interpretation of policy which prevents what should be obvious?

He clearly expressed a climate change skeptical position (regardless of the exact wording, that's what he did), and it's one of the strongest I've read. Why can't we take him at his word? In his own article, he is allowed, as a primary source, to state his position, and we are allowed to take him at his word. That should be good enough, but, to satisfy any editors who are on the fence, we also have a secondary source which classifies him as a climate change skeptic. Besides that we know that climate change skeptics/deniers claim him as one of their own. What more do we need? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing complex here, and I am mystified by your apparent insistence that there is. He clearly expressed a climate change skeptical position, which is why I have no objection to the original text, why I have recently added a link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and why I would have no objection whatsoever do you adding further description of him as a climate skeptic. What I do object to is your attempts to link him to "climate denial": there's a clear consensus that labelling of that kind requires explicit support from a reliable secondary source, and so far you have provided nothing of the kind. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah! So you're making a difference between "skeptic" and "denier". Where is this consensus that we make such a distinction? The category includes both, so regardless, we should be allowed to use that category. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This was all discussed in great detail at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Category:Climate Change deniers as I mentioned before. I see you took part in that discussion, so you should be familiar with the principal arguments and the outcome. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It was very confusing, with no clear outcome. It seems that some things are still up for interpretation. We still have an all-inclusive parent category which can be used for skeptics and/or deniers. Since this isn't a BLP, that simplifies it somewhat. (1) Applying "skeptic" to Lewis seems okay. Wouldn't you agree with that? (2) Is it the idea of applying a category what bothers you? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• All rather a coatrack, it's a disservice to Lewis's genuine achievements to put excessive focus on his late change of views on climate. I've made some changes to improve this, removing poor quality fringe sources. Work in progress. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work! I'm glad you used the Revkin source to document that he actually changed his position. You beat me to it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harold Lewis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014020254/http://aip.org/aip/writing/winsci.html to http://www.aip.org/aip/writing/winsci.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023202456/http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html to http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1687-professor-hal-lewis-joins-the-gwpf.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)