Talk:Robert Watson (chemist): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Next editor: new section |
|||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::::Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
::::Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text; it is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: ''Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth'' doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is ''This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars.'' which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::: Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text; it is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: ''Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth'' doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is ''This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars.'' which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
Regardless of factual accuracy, it's clearly WP:SYN to attempt to debunk statements from one source with "facts" from another source. And since it doesn't appear that anyone here wants to explain ''why'' it's factually dubious, I believe the issue is that Mars' atmosphere is so sparse, that even if it's mostly CO2, it's still a very small amount in absolute terms. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Next editor == |
== Next editor == |
||
Revision as of 21:04, 16 July 2010
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Environment: Climate change Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Why is 'advocacy' in quotes? - Molinari 20:41 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Restoration of well-cited material removed without comment
I restored well-sourced material regarding a Climategate debate that was removed without comment, moved into correct section and replaced one questionable source with a better source. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- You restored junk. Are you really taking responsibility for that edit? And this has little or nothing to do with the CRU stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it for fairly obvious reasons before realising there had been a post here. If anyone seriously contests the removal then I'll justify it further. Verbal chat 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- First, two of the references are to scientifically reliable sources. Are you really claiming that NASA doesn't know that Mars' limited atmosphere is 95% CO2? Or that a professor of chemistry at Oxford, writing is a college textbook is not scientifically reliable? Or is it the opinion of Watson that is objectionable? The material is his bio, and the "Climategate" tag is the title in the source, not what I think about it. The material covered his opinion, as publicly reported and was not negative. In addition, WP:UNDUE is specious argument, as it showed his opinion and then provided balancing information from NASA and an Oxford scientist. The material was balanced, as required by the standard. And the only "obvious" reason that I can see for reverting the material was a desire to keep the term "Climategate" out of the public view. BTW, it would appear to me that WMC has a WP:COI in any article mentioning that term, as some of the e-mails involved in Climategate were to or from him. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text; it is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars. which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- First, two of the references are to scientifically reliable sources. Are you really claiming that NASA doesn't know that Mars' limited atmosphere is 95% CO2? Or that a professor of chemistry at Oxford, writing is a college textbook is not scientifically reliable? Or is it the opinion of Watson that is objectionable? The material is his bio, and the "Climategate" tag is the title in the source, not what I think about it. The material covered his opinion, as publicly reported and was not negative. In addition, WP:UNDUE is specious argument, as it showed his opinion and then provided balancing information from NASA and an Oxford scientist. The material was balanced, as required by the standard. And the only "obvious" reason that I can see for reverting the material was a desire to keep the term "Climategate" out of the public view. BTW, it would appear to me that WMC has a WP:COI in any article mentioning that term, as some of the e-mails involved in Climategate were to or from him. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it for fairly obvious reasons before realising there had been a post here. If anyone seriously contests the removal then I'll justify it further. Verbal chat 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of factual accuracy, it's clearly WP:SYN to attempt to debunk statements from one source with "facts" from another source. And since it doesn't appear that anyone here wants to explain why it's factually dubious, I believe the issue is that Mars' atmosphere is so sparse, that even if it's mostly CO2, it's still a very small amount in absolute terms. ATren (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Next editor
Next editor to insert the defmatory text is going right to AIV - not ANI, AIV. It's vandalism - if you don't understand why, don't reinsert it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)