Talk:Richard Lindzen/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

the Lindzen gets refuted section...

Atmoz (talk | contribs) (26,743 bytes) (rv; response by scientists to Lindzen is appropriate for a biography on Lindzen).

Atmoz, yes, I suppose this is correct. But this is a response by random scientists to what exactly? Section is not well written and very biased. The quotes are taken out of context, I have no idea what it is really that they're responding to, and as far as Houghton is concerned, certainly cherry-picked. Houghton, is by and large very respectful towards Lindzen in all statements I've ever seen from him. S.H. Schneider is of course Schneider, and if we insist on including SHS's views, then it will be time to add Lindzen's rather more clever responses. Indeed, perhaps we want the embarrassing Lindzen et al vs Schneider et al debate on Global Cooling from the 70s added, where Schneider can very easily be made to look an idiot. Do you actually want that? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also what is this supposed to mean:

Lindzen's own evidence[32]to the Select Committee was criticised by IPCC author and climate scientist Gavin Schmidt.[35]

Let's get this straight, Lindzen is the more senior scientist here. I don't understand why we care that Gavin Schmidt has criticised Lindzen. Frankly, I doubt that Gavin really would want this stuff here. Again, if you insist on inclusion of this, then I will happily summarise the Intelligence Squared debate and add that. It's widely acknowledged that Lindzen's team defeated Schmidt's team in that debate. Schmidt has said somewhere that it was only because Lindzen was a better debater. I ask again, do we really want to turn this page into a debate? I don't. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete stuff simply because you don't like it. -Atmoz (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex may be right. Most of, if not all of, this section should be deleted due to a variety of problems. First off, I've removed the RealClimate criticism per WP:BLP, which states that blogs can never be used as sources about a living person unless the material is written by the subject of the article. This one isn't up for debate. Secondly, there is a synthesis problem in the first paragraph. Quoting Lindzen's numbers for climate sensitivity, then citing the IPCC directly, then comparing the estimates and drawing a conclusion is the definition of SYN. Thirdly, the only refs in the section right now are Lindzen's own paper, the IPCC report (which I presume doesn't mention him), and several links to Parliamentary minutes, which are primary sources that cannot be used to make interpretations and certainly don't give any WP:WEIGHT to this section. Pending a revision that fixes these issues and demonstrates that these criticisms have been reported on by secondary sources as required by WP:RS, I'm removing the section. Oren0 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but thats a basic misunderstanding about BLP. We are talking not about personal information here, but about professional critique. Such does not fall under BLP - i suggest a look through various archives in RS/N, where realclimate has previously come up on such subjects (BLP articles where it is the professional work being discussed) ..... and been confirmed, since it is an RS on that particular subject. --87.104.62.222 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you who has a basic misunderstanding of BLP. Any material that is about a living person and any material that appears on the Wikipedia page of a living person qualifies. What part of "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person" could I possibly be misunderstanding? RealClimate has been determined to be a reliable source on pages such as global warming or climate change controversy, but any determination that it can be used to make claims about a living person is wrong. Oren0 (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's published response to the Schneider attacks can be found in this book review here. He finishes with that lovely Schneider quote where Schneider suggests public dishonesty may in fact be a necessary part of the solution to the global warming problem. So if Schneider's attacks go in, then Lindzen's counter-attacks need to go in as well. Please people, let's just leave the controversy out altogether where it's not required. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Your misunderstanding lies in the "living person" part, here we are discussing the science/professional side of Lindzen.... the science part, none of which is BLP material. (ie. the "any material that appears" is incorrect, the "any material about" is correct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's estimation of climate sensitivity, and water vapor feedback are essential to Lindzen's argument on AGW, so using weight to remove such a section is strange.

As for the SYN... Schneider is the collecting reference for the first part, he connects the M&K with the IPCC, and does the comparison => No SYN (ie. all of it is directly coupled via one source). In the second part Houghton is the collecting reference, and again there is no SYN, since one source does do the connecting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of weight is to weigh things based on the amount of coverage they receive in secondary sources. There are currently zero secondary sources cited in this section, only primary ones. You just can't base a section entirely on primary sourcing, as anyone could choose any random quote from parliamentary minutes and write a section in an article on a myriad of topics. Is there any evidence that these parliamentary proceedings have been deemed relevant or noteworthy by any reliable source? Oren0 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original edit on the 'Views of other scientists' section. I'll try and address the criticisms raised by Oren0 and Alex.

Hi Oren0,

I'm sorry that you found the quality of my writing poor. I think the Wikipedia guidelines you refer to are meant to stop people adding defamatory material on biography pages. I don't think the material I added was defamatory of Lindzen. My intention was to provide a range of views on climate change that the article did not previously have. You argue that my edit was one-sided. In my opinion, I don't think this is fair. I would argue that Lindzen's views on climate change are in the minority, but the views of Schneider, Houghton and Schmidt represent mainstream scientific opinion. I don't agree with your view on the use of blogs or primary sources. I think a reasonable interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines is that they are there to discourage the citing of low-quality sources. I don't think this concern applies to the sources I citied. I disagree with your point about my edit suffering a synthesis problem. What I wrote about climate sensitivity was based on the reference I gave to Stephen Schneider's submission of evidence to the Australian Parliament.

Hi Alex,

Personally I thought my edit did accurately reflect Sir John's comments, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain where you think I went wrong. When you say that Richard Lindzen is a more senior scientist than Gavin Schmidt, I think this is a somewhat subjective assessment. To me, the issue of seniority isn't very important. What I think matters is Schmidt's expertise in this area, which makes him qualified to comment on Lindzen's interpretation of the science. I think your argument that Lindzen defeated Schmidt in the IQ-squared debate requires substantiation.Enescot (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Enescot, Lindzen is senior to Gavin Schmidt in a number of ways, he's older & thus further into his career; he's made a number of fundamental discoveries & contributions to the science that I don't think can be said of Schmidt (e.g. atmospheric tides, quasi-biennial oscillation); he's a professor at MIT whereas Schmidt hasn't achieved such a prestigious rank or position; he's published some 200 papers, book chapters, so on; he's won numerous awards & prizes & fellowships for his contributions. I don't think there's any subjectiveness in claiming he outranks Schmidt here. On Sir John, a number of problems. Firstly, these were off-the-cuff remarks made to try to dumb things down to non-scientists in the British House of Lords. Are you being fair to either Sir John OR Lindzen by giving them so much weight in this short article? Secondly, if you want to include them, you can't possibly justify denying Lindzen's right of reply here. He has replied to Sir John. The comment you have Sir John making here, "but in terms of global average temperature it is very large, and the impact on the world of that sort of increase, the impact in terms of climate extremes, in terms of heat waves and floods and droughts, is very large, and Lindzen does not know anything about that, does not talk about and does not appreciate what it is, because he likes talking in a negative way about global warming." Lindzen "does not know anything about that"?? That is a ridiculous statement, and I'm sure we have Sir John saying this here in the heat of the moment, not as something he would have written, or would want in print. On the IQ2 debate, well here is Gavin's apology for this. He writes, "The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I’ll link it here once it’s available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull." So Gavin is admitting here that he lost, and say that Lindzen's side were better debaters (alright, maybe he meant L's two colleagues were more entertaining, but it doesn't matter as the point is he concedes he lost the debate). Alex Harvey (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Lindzen is senior is neither here nor there. In science it is the results and research here and now that count, you cannot rest on your laurels. And as far as i can tell Schmidts citation index is higher than Lindzens. I'm sorry to say that you still haven't understood reliable sources, or NPOV/WEIGHT. The argument on "who is the better orator" is so far out, its impressive. Do you think that science is determined on who is the better at rhetorical equilibrist? Or who was the most entertaining? Face it: Lindzen's standpoint on the science is a fringe point, and a discussion of such must make that clear - sorry. Final comment: We do not speculate (as editors) on whether or not someone knows something - or what manner of rationale might lie behind their standpoints - what we must (per WP's rules) do, is reflect whatever is in secondary sources about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I do not understand where your comments are coming from but they are missing the points. Do you agree or disagree that Lindzen's replies deserve to be mentioned in this article? If Lindzen's views are fringe how is it that respectable journals (e.g. JGR) are still publishing his papers at this very moment? Are you saying that JGR publishes fringe theories? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe does not mean unscientific. It means that it is a very minor viewpoint as opposed to the mainstream. To be more specific: If 50 sources are calculating the climate sensitivity - Lindzen's would perhaps match the very lowest of these 50, which is significantly far away from the mean. And No. I do not believe that Lindzen's replies should be presented by himself (of course he would disagree), but if you can find a sufficiently reliable refutation from another scientist, it could be inserted according to weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, you're saying that in Lindzen's own biography page, you think it would be consistent with NPOV to hide the fact that Lindzen has responded to criticisms? That's what you just said, am I reading this right?

Meanwhile, your own stated view here that anyone who disagrees with the consensus (on climate sensitivity in this case) is a fringe theorist, by the way, most clearly betrays an extremist bias. If L was a fringe theorist, he would be isolated amongst scientists. Certainly, real fringe theorists are always isolated. He is most obviously not isolated on the climate sensitivity issue (cf. Christy, Spencer, Paltridge, Pielke, many smaller players, look at all L's present coauthors). Look at the 11-author Su et al. 2008 review paper above, and note that the authors thank Lindzen & Rondanelli for their input. Why would they spend so much time discussing this important matter with fringe theorists? Lindzen has a minority view, and it is likewise a minority view to write it off as "fringe" although that is certainly what some scientists want the public to believe. You need to recognise the fact, Kim, that yours is also an extreme view. In the interests of keeping WP neutral, you need to acknowledge that. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And no, on Lindzen's estimate matching the lowest of 50, that's not true either, unless you exclude the views of the real fringe theorists. I mean, Gerlich & Teuchner, Miskolczi, Nicol, and others who are real examples of fringe theorists on climate sensitivity, and have all argued in various ways that the sensitivity to CO2 increases is a nice round 0. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't grasped the difference between fringe and pseudo-science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Alex, my views are deeply embedded within the Scientific opinion on climate change (or the mainstream), sorry. And No, even though it is Lindzen's biography, it is not his soapbox. WP's biographical articles aren't written so that the subject is presented in the best light possible (or the other way around) - they are written so that the description in the article matches the weight of what is found secondary sources as close as possible. (btw. i'm truly sorry to tell you that of the persons you mention to support Lindzen's sensitivity estimate - Spencer is the only one agreeing (with Paltridge a possible). Both Pielke Sr., Christy are within the consensus for their estimations). When you look at publications on climate sensitivity Lindzen's views are fringe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"they are written so that the description in the article matches the weight of what is found secondary sources as close as possible" - I couldn't agree more, which is why I find your argument that a section with zero secondary sources carries any weight to be so perplexing. I'll ask again in case you missed it above: do we have any evidence that any reliable secondary source finds the parliamentary testimony referenced in this section noteworthy? If so, why aren't those sources cited in the article? If not, how is its inclusion justifiable? Oren0 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you have gone to great lengths to see the WP articles present the views of Christy & Pielke as though they are supporters of the consensus; this is of course just false and if I ever have time I'll get back to correct it. Christy is of course one of the co-authors on the (infamous?) Douglass et al. 2007 paper. It is utter nonsense to argue that Christy's estimations fall within consensus. Unless you mean the consensus wide enough to include 1 C? Ditto with Pielke. I just read WP:Fringe, and although the wording is unfortunately ambiguous enough that it can be spun to include your interpretation, it seems pretty clear that the intention is to filter out genuine fringe theorists like Von Daniken & Velikowsky, not views such as Lindzen's that are still being debated in the scientific journals. Yes, your views certainly are deeply embedded in the scientific opinion page, and just about every page on climate change in WP, no dispute on that one. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oren0, can you give some guidance here on what I need to find views of Lindzen's that can be given here in response? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Thanks for explaining about the IQ-squared debate.

Are you being fair to either Sir John OR Lindzen by giving them so much weight in this short article? Secondly, if you want to include them, you can't possibly justify denying Lindzen's right of reply here. He has replied to Sir John.

In my opinion, there's enough room in the article to have this debate on climate change. If you want to add Lindzen's replies to Houghton in the article, I wouldn't have any objection.

"but in terms of global average temperature it is very large, and the impact on the world of that sort of increase, the impact in terms of climate extremes, in terms of heat waves and floods and droughts, is very large, and Lindzen does not know anything about that, does not talk about and does not appreciate what it is, because he likes talking in a negative way about global warming." Lindzen "does not know anything about that"?? That is a ridiculous statement, and I'm sure we have Sir John saying this here in the heat of the moment, not as something he would have written, or would want in print.

I don't agree. I think it is reasonable to assume that Houghton's evidence to the Select Committee genuinely reflects his opinions on Lindzen.

Hi Enescot, I appreciate your intention to contribute to the article in good faith. But there is absolutely no way the statement I highlighted could reflect Houghton's true opinion. Lindzen is a world-renowned expert in atmospheric dynamics. He has written a standard textbook on the subject. To say that he does not know "anything" about the impact of climate extremes in terms of heat waves, floods & droughts is a patently absurd statement and cannot reflect Sir John's true opinion. It would be an overstatement to say that even I know "nothing" about them, and I am not an expert in any of this. It was obviously a heat-of-the-moment overstatement. There is not much point in speculating further as to what Sir John might have really meant.

I am not opposed to the article being expanded and if the statements are reliably sourced then sure some rebuttals as well might appear. But firstly, you'd need to actually read Lindzen himself on what he believes, rather than take say Schneider's or Schmidt's view of it as true, and then that would need to appear in the article. It makes no sense to be refuting Lindzen's views before providing exposition of what those views actually are. If you're interested, I could send you a copy of the Chou & Lindzen 2005 paper that provides the most recent statement from Lindzen on why he believes in a negative feedback whether or not his Iris hypothesis is true. I can be contacted at alexharv074 at gmail dot com. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I agree that explaining Lindzen's theories more fully would improve the article. Thanks for offering Lindzen and Chou's paper, but I have already read some of Lindzen's work, and in my opinion, his arguments aren't convincing. I certainly agree that Lindzen is an expert in the science, but I don't think he's an expert on the impacts, e.g., the impact of more droughts on human welfare. I think this is probably what Houghton was referring to.Enescot (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

Q: do we have any evidence that any reliable secondary source finds the parliamentary testimony referenced in this section noteworthy?

A: I don't have any evidence that secondary sources have used the primary source information I have citied.

Q:If not, how is its inclusion justifiable?

A: I think a lot of people who read this Wikipedia article on Richard Lindzen are probably interested in climate change. Most climate scientists don't accept Lindzen's theories, e.g., negative water vapour feedback, and I think this should be mentioned in the article.Enescot (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being blunt, Wikipedia articles aren't written based on what you or any other Wikipedian thinks our readers are interested in. I could, for example, take one obscure section in the IPCC assessment and write a whole article about it. I could quote the report and cite all of my facts correctly, and that article would still be deleted. Why? Because material on Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources; that's how we determine which of the millions of things discussed in primary sources are worthy of encyclopedic summary. Without evidence that secondary sources have taken notice of these parliamentary quotes, you just can't base an entire section on them. I suggest reading WP:PRIMARY. Oren0 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

I looked at Wikipedia guidelines you referred to and I don't see how they justify you deleting my edit. The guidelines say that secondary sources are preferred, but they don't restrict the use of primary sources.Enescot (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to justify inclusion on a page, material is presented according to the WP:WEIGHT it receives based on coverage in reliable secondary sources. No secondary sources = no weight = no inclusion. I understand that you believe the parliamentary quotes to be interesting but we need evidence that secondary sources have taken notice. Can you imagine what the Wikipedia page of any MP or Senator would look like if anyone could add anything they've ever said in a legislature to their article without having to demonstrate that it was important? Oren0 (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest the whole thing has just been overtaken by events. Lindzen has just published a new paper:

Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophysical Research Letters.

In this paper, Lindzen argues that a sensitivity of 0.5 C is implied in the ERBE data. Thus discussions of the guess he made of 0.2 C several years ago doesn't make much sense in the article any longer. I have an odd feeling that this paper is going to cause a bit of a stir. This is moving beyond Iris into a new argument I believe. It's also the first paper he's put himself down as lead author on since a rather technical, uncontroversial paper on convection in the tropics in 2003, and Iris in 2001. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If the article generates a stir, and if reliable sources report on that stir, I'll be first in line to add the info to this article. Oren0 (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Oren0,

I don't agree that Wikipedia guidelines restrict primary sources from being used without reference to a secondary source. For clarification, I'm referring to the Wikipedia guidelines below:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. Enescot (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

to Lauof Pinch

re: 07:14, 26 June 2009 William M. Connolley m (Reverted edits by Lauof Pinch to last version by Atmoz)

07:04, 26 June 2009 Lauof Pinch (→Industry links: The last part of this sentence was not relevant.)

I think most neutral readers agree that the whole industry links section should go (rather shouldn't have been added in the first place). It is slanderous, and fails WP:WEIGHT. It has been established that Lindzen was paid about $10,000 by the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s for something or other, probably something quite legitimate. No one serious seriously argues this is important in L's biography or intellectual history. Why not argue your case here? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He won't argue his case, because he is a known sock-puppeteer, one of the most presistant WP has ever seen - lookup user Scibaby. (hint: And he/she is most definitively not neutral ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will argue the case, the following line -

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.[26]

is inappropriate in a BLP because it is innuendo. The editor here has presumably attempted to insert guilt by association into Lindzen's history, i.e. it begins with a true statement (that Lindzen has been a member of these "think tanks"), adds in another set of (probably) true statements (that these "think tanks" have accepted money from ExxonMobil & Daimler Chrysler) in order to be suggestive to the casual, careless reader, that Lindzen himself has actually accepted money from ExxonMobil & Daimler Chrysler, for which no evidence is given (and I doubt any will ever be found, because I don't believe it's true). This sentence thus should be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is totally inappropriate to claim that someone's ideas are wrong just because the money comes from one source or another. My understanding is that people have ideas, then find funding sources that share those ideas. If the ideas are wrong, then prove it. But either way, quit attacking the person.

On the other hand, the "data" needs to remain simply because it is used so often. However, the spin needs to be made neutral. It should be clear that the ideas stand or fall on their own and that monetary connections are irrelevant. Perhaps it should be mentioned that ad hominum attacks like this are used only when the claims of a person can not be disproven and that, therefore, his claims are probably correct. Q Science (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but that raises the question, which part is "data" and which part is "spin"? The spin is the selection of facts chosen for the article, and their placement in this "Industry links" section. To remove the spin, I would say the only way this can be done is to move to the lead, and reword simply as "Lindzen has also been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute." The bit about ExxonMobil / Daimler Chrysler can appear in the articles for those institutes. This stuff is relevant only to those who want to impute a conflict of interest to Lindzen by innuendo. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. Let's see what happens. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the connections are irrelevant. Leave the factual info in and let people decide for themselves what they think.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian, let's not let people decide from themselves what they think. Instead, please see WP:PROVEIT. The burden of proof is on you, the editor restoring this negative material, to explain why it is important to mention in Lindzen's article some institute he is (or was?) a part of (for how long? what did he do? anything much? was it a guest speech? I don't know) took money from Exxon. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Per WP:RS the burden is already liftet. You may personally disagree with the Frontline article - but that is personal POV. Now the Frontline article directly connects Lindzen and the money statements, and thus it is not a synthesis, they also apparently consider it relevant to the biographies of the sceptics. There is also no red flags waving about this information, since it is mirrored quite a few other places, including at least one book. Can you explain to me very carefully why this information (despite adhering to all WP guidelines), must be excluded? (hint: the only thing i can see as an argument would be weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is clearly not about whether the source RS (agreed it is) but whether the material should be included. You know the WP policies better than most of us. Instead of reverting and leaving a hint, why not make an argument for WP:WEIGHT. Indeed, why not make the argument against WP:WEIGHT? I think I can do it, but I'm going to pause for a moment. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with weight, is that this really is one of the things that is talked about when talking about Lindzen, even to the extent, that sources just mention it, to dismiss the claims. You know that and i know that. Thus its highly relevant. We may both be of the opinion that Lindzen isn't motivated by being a money-grubber for industry (i certainly am of that conviction that for Lindzen (at least) it is non-sense), but we have to adhere to what sources state, and what the weight is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please get rid of the industry links section. It isn't relevant to the article. 203.217.41.253 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, the whole "Consulting fees and Funding sources of other organizations" section looks like a cheap attempt to smear and insinuate bias. I suppose if his opponents really want this in there, why not put it under a Controversies section or similar, and say Lindzen's opponents argue that his conclusions are biased because X; Lindzen responds Y? That would be more in keeping with other articles here, and would be less distracting from the rest of this piece, which otherwise is generally well-written. BK DC (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy sections are discouraged specifically because they are a magnet for POV. The reason for the "consulting fees and funding ..." is not an attempt to "smear and insinuate bias", but instead is reflecting that secondary reliable sources consider it important. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)