Talk:Roy Spencer (scientist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

rv cut-n-paste

From here William M. Connolley 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Research

The "research" sections need context. As it stands now, there just quotes from various blogs. We need secondary sources that explain the value of each section. We66er (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Research

This sentence is ambiguous: "Roy Spencer is also included in a film that argues against <the theory of man-made global warming called "The Great Global Warming Swindle."> "

I think what is meant is "Roy Spencer is also included in a film ("The Great Global Warming Swindle.") that argues against <the theory of man-made global warming" " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.23.74 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading lede

Our article currently states that "Spencer rejects the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming,[1]" -- which is sort-of true but misleading. As the article goes on to explain, (and the cite says) Spencer believes that "most climate change – including “global warming” – in the last 100 years or more has been caused by natural changes in low cloud cover, which in turn have been caused by natural, chaotic fluctuations in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere-ocean system..."

I've reworded this sentence to more accurately reflect Spencer's belief, and added a second cite.

This sentence continues "...and also rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.[2]," which is also a bit misleading. Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and I've revised the lede to include that. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How come Spencer is proponent of intelligent design ? I read the article in the notes, and found only "belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith", which is not an endorsement of intelligent design. "Belief" in something begs the question: "why, because it's absurd?" ... science is the opposite of belief. The whole article is about not dogmatising science, which should always be open to challenges, and not an endorsement for belief in intelligent design.Emil Perhinschi 17:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilper (talk • contribs)

Well, in that case you've exchanged something misleading with something that is misleading. Spencer has rejected the scientific consensus, long before he came up with any sort of explanation (clouds or the like). You took the reference as a source for specifics instead of as it was used, as a generic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, you've lost me here. Whatever his history, Spencer has proposed an alternative explanation for GW, and published same in peer-reviewed journals. This isn't the same as baldly stating that he "rejects the scientific consensus..." Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but he hasn't "proposed an alternative explanation", that would require theory. He has published papers showing data that might be interpreted this way. (hint: they are only for the tropics, observation only and within a short timeframe). His papers doesn't propose an alternative explanation either - they state that this might be indicative that Lindzen's iris effect is real. Spencer has rejected the scientific consensus long before this. This is an "explanation of the day" - not the rationale for his scepticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your change of the sentence is also wrong (and a synthesis), since none of the two blog postings by Spencer support that he thinks that low clouds are the reason. In fact he only states that this "might" be the reason. If you read the two posts again you will find that its PDO changes that he attributes this for, and that he is only speaking about the last 10 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"As readers of my blog know, I believe that most climate change – including “global warming” – in the last 100 years or more has been caused by natural changes in low cloud cover, which in turn have been caused by natural, chaotic fluctuations in global circulation patterns in the atmosphere-ocean system. The leading candidate for this, in my opinion, is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation…possibly augmented by more frequent El Nino activity in the last 30 years." -- Roy Spencer, [1]

That's a lot to stick in the lede, but it's laid out in some detail (albeit still a bit confusingly) in the article. You're certainly welcome to tweak the intro -- but my impression is that Spencer thinks the low clouds might be the key. As you say, this isn't a really a theory, but a working hypothesis with some empirical support. Maybe the article needs a bit more re that -- I still plan more cleanup of the article, especially the "Climate Change Research" section, which appears to have been written by a non-native speaker. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not an explanatory hypothesis at all. It's very much like saying "Global warming is caused by the temperature getting warmer." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Spencer's work is more interesting than I had previously thought, especially the satellite-observation stuff -- the tool that may work around the age-old limitations on surface weather-observation stations. I was put off by his intelligent-design beliefs, but he's done (& is doing) some interesting science. I'd rather have more data than more theories... Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The lede change wasn't an improvement, as people have said. Spencer has done some interesting work, though it was multiply flawed - the sat t rec page will tell you about it, I hope William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the 'Lede' is very good except for the undocumented statement saying, "The currently-dominant scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming." In light of Climate_gate, this sentence needs references per Wikipedia policy. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This, # Roy Spencer Profile on DeSmogBlog, seems to point to a wrong link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.70.112 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Scientific opinion

In the lead, would you accept a change of the piped text from "scientific consensus" to "scientific position" to avoid the obvious confusion? --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In the GW section, why do your feel that pointing to the scientific opinion article should be preferred over the consensus article? I don't have a strong opinion, I just want to know why. Alternatively, would you accept either removing the wikilink or consider including both? --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and can we please avoid the redirects? Please direct the link to a non-redirected page. --GoRight (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting this pending further discussion. Scientific consensus seems to be the correct term here. --TS 14:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I've changed it to point to the consensus article then. Please don't be disruptive by reverting to a redirected page again. --GoRight (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I know how attractive it is to use the BLPs of climate skeptics as coatracks for associating them with all sorts of fringe views, but without clear evidence that Spencer is somehow notable for his views on intelligent design, it has no place in the lede. Some remarks in a speech half a decade ago, and a link to a kook creationist site are not enough support for claims of this sort. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re "The Evolution Crisis", I can't quite make out this source. It claims to be "a book", but its never been published. It appears to be just a fringe website that has appropriated some names of scientists without their knowledge or consent. I don't see that Spencer has knowingly contributed anything to this site. It certainly doesn't pass the 'smell test' for a RS. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, you'd better tell Amazon that they're selling a book that has never been published. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I did this search [2] and it didn't come up. I guess it exists after all. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you allege that [3] doesn't anywhere in [4], or are you trying to say something else? Hipocrite (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

More cloud-cover work

Spencer continues to work on this, and has posted some interesting model-runs (and ruminations) at, e.g.. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/millennial-climate-cycles-driven-by-random-cloud-variations/ The comments on this post are worth reading as well.

Spencer's work is discussed at David Stockwell's blog, who points out that a tiny deviation from random walk behavior could cause the variations Spencer's "toy model" (and maybe the real world???) gives.

Spencer apparently has a formal paper in preparation re this, so this is a heads-up rather than an immediate addition. Still, interesting stuff. Happy reading-- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As an aside I've noticed the tendency for contrarian scientists to refer to themselves as "Dr." on their own websites ("Dr. Roy Spencer," "contact Dr. Stockwell," etc). Nothing nefarious; it's just a little unusual in this field. BTW what's Stockwell's (excuse me, Dr. Stockwell's) area of expertise? As a second aside, Spencer's hypothesis and Lindzen's "infrared iris" appear to be mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Stockwell's an ecologist, sadly. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside I've noticed the tendency for alarmist scientists to refer to everyone else as holocaust Deniers

[User:SunSpot|SunSpot]] (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As, it is to be hoped, an ultimate end to the asides go to David Suzuki's website(s) and you will see his surname repeatedly festooned with the title 'Dr.' He is the Canadian Poster Child for global warming, as promulgated through several television and video documentary productions, or now more popularly, climate change, which I understand the recent wording modification since it covers all bases. -I remember the articles in the 70’s warning us of the coming ice age and the attendant environmentalists’ angst due to the impending climatic armageddon. Apparently there has been data surfacing again recently that the trend could also be toward global cooling, which, of course, is still bad. -So as best can be surmised by the scientists seeking U.N. approval or popular acclaim in the mainstream "unbiased" media community, the climate is changing and is our (humanity’s) entire fault or at least a significant portion thereof. I say that about the human caused global warming cautionary scientific community to illustrate the old saw “Follow the money.” Most people are instantly dismissive of a scientist in the employ of a tobacco company or a chemical company that manufactures pesticides, surmising a motive of personal gain, when they “produce” findings that contravene those already held in consensus by the greater scientific community. The same can be said of those who seem to hold the majority view in that they see "value" in the sponsors or endorsers of their research, even if it is possibly influenced by a preconceived political agenda. Everyone generally likes to please the boss. -An open mind is frequently 'dafty'. --Lejeau99.249.113.233 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

CFP

I can't remember if we're pretending that the Canada Free Press is anything but drivel. If it is an RS, then http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25804 may be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointless destruction

I've reverted this pointless destruction by MN [5]. There is no OR there; see the sat temp record page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

His contrarian views on AGW

Dr. Spencer disagrees with what science journalists call the "mainstream" of scientific thought on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). He complains that critical views, such as his, are being marginalized.

• RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.

Ironically, after I added a critical comment by Spencer at Climatology, it was deleted by User:Vsmith with the edit comment one guys blog? less than 3 hours later.

Is Roy Spencer the only a notable, qualified scientist who criticizes the IPCC, or is there a campaign at Wikipedia to pretend that IPCC criticism within the scientific community is too scarce to merit any mention? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to improve this article, or to complain against great wrongs done by other editors? Come on Ed, you should know better than to use talk pages for soapboxing. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a proposal to improve this article. The thing he complains about, actually happened on Wikipedia (yesterday is an example). His statement is relevant to his work, and to other articles, such as the IPCC.

Specificallly, we should add his criticisms to an article on Criticism of the IPCC, which should not just be a section of IPCC but a spin-out article ... since there are so many of them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your talking points have nothing to do with "improving" this article. Discussion of what needs to be done with other articles should be on the talk pages of those articles and complaints regarding other editors don't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my last comment? My suggestion for improving the article is to mention some more of Spencer's criticism of the IPCC and of the way climate science has been reported in the media and in scientific journals. Specifically, the cherry-picking of studies favoring AGW theory and the marginalization of scientist (like Spencer) who disagree with AGW theory. Stop ignoring the fact that I am focusing on the article, or I'll have to bring this matter to dispute resolution. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I am sympathetic to your viewpoint, but please, don't start throwing around threats like that. Vsmith simply suggested you raise these points on the talk page of the article you are proposing to change, namely Talk:Criticism of the IPCC. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, but's it's never a "threat" for a contributor to respond to personal attacks by proposing to report the attacker (see blaming the victim).

Anyway, thank you for clarifying that some of what I wrote above applies to a related article; meanwhile, I still feel that the present article merits some attention to Spencer's criticism of the IPCC. That is my specific suggestion for improving this article. I hope other contributors will respond to this suggestion; if not, I'll wait a few days and just go ahead as discussed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly did the personal attack occur? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spencer & Braswell 2011

This newly-published paper "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in earth’s radiant energy balance" is getting a fair bit of attention in the media & blogosphere. There's a decent commentary here, and a good discussion in progress at Judith Curry's blog.

I don't have time to add this, and it's one of a number of papers on Spencer's cloud-feedback hypothesis. Interesting but inconclusive, a work-in-progress. Happy reading, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another opinion, from Salon: This week in global-warming denial-Why is a questionable study from a controversial researcher overshadowing actual science? salon.com, Jul 29, 2011.--87.178.121.135 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolfgang Wagner has resigned over the publication of this paper http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574 - He writes "Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published." http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Contributor1970 (talk)Contributor1970 —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

It seems odd that all he can say is some vague reference to "various internet discussion fora". That would not be acceptable to use here in WP. In fact unless he had a better reason that comment cannot be used in WP.

Does William "Danny" Blaswell work with Roy Spencer and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville?

Does William "Danny" Blaswell work with Roy Spencer and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville? Christy is on Talk:Richard A. Muller, saw this on Talk:Global warming. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Spencer & Braswell 2011 (continued)

I've added Spencer's rebuttal, and a comment by Roger Pielke, Sr. Both are from blogs and acceptable as expert opinions, but it would be better to replace these with 3rd-party cites when those become available. But for NPOV, I thought it important to promptly balance Editor Wagner's criticisms of S&B. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep WP:VALID in mind. I don't clam expertise in this field here, but be aware that it's not always correct to "promptly balance" criticisms.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes NPOV requires a neutral point of view not finding a contradiction of any statement. I've removed the Roger Pielke per WP:WEIGHT as there is an example here of someone approving - [6] and a list of approvals and disapprovals will only make a mess.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can fairly remove Pielke's support, and retain the criticisms by Trenberth & others: see WP:NPOV. Comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree with John Nielsen-Gammon, that criticism should be attached to any comment about any article in Remote Sensing throughout Wikipedia. It seems WP:UNDUE in this article. (I also agree with Pete's comment above.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My view on what should and should not be included about Spencers work in general is as follows:

1. We should include reference to any rebuttal or confirmation published in peer review.
2. We should not include general support or criticism sourced from blogs.
3. We should not include support or criticism of peoples support or criticism of Spencer - ie the article should remain focused on Spencer.
4. It may be appropriate to offer specific support or criticism from outside peer review in the case where a study is new as in SB11.

Any thoughts?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is getting so contentious in the outside world -- for example, Trenberth et al's Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer's science and Pielke Sr.'s Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer By Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick (etc etc.) -- that it might be better to pare this section back to a stub, and await developments. I don't think we can possibly give an encyclopedic treatment of a controversy that is still unfolding. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an important aspect of what is happening in the debate over Global Warming. Dessler has now published a rebuttal, we should reflect it's content as best we can. Here is Dessler's rebuttal (preliminary version without graphics) [7] and Spencer's paper is here [8]. Finally here [9] is Dessler's original paper from 2010 which SB11 criticised. I'll try to sum up the differences for the article as soon as I get time. The papers make interesting reading BTW.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Spencer & Dessler are corresponding, and Dessler says he will be making some changes to his "in-press" manuscript -- see quote here, in Updates. So best to wait until Dessler's paper is actually published. From my (outsider's) view, their viewpoints don't appear that far apart -- and these are very noisy data! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, (reading between the lines) I'm not sure that they are all that close (though closer) but Spencer is trying to spin it that way. I read Spencer's response on his blog - the important difference between them is establishing what the heat capacity of the near surface oceans is. Because we know the ocean temperature, given the right heat capacity we can calculate the total energy into/out of the near surface ocean (and atmosphere, but it's heat capacity is comparatively tiny). We know the radiative energy in/out at the top of the atmosphere from the radiative flux from satellite data. So can subtract one from the other to find the amount of heat transported from the deep oceans. The problem is establishing the heat capacity. Spencer did so by assuming all the heat was from radiative flux and then worked out the heat capacity and surprisingly that heat capacity suggested that most or all the short term temperature changes were accounted for by radiative flux. In doing so Spencer arrived at a mixing depth of about 25m - ie a very simple model is to say that the top x meters of water warm uniformly and not at all below. Subsequently, on his blog Spencer used a value of 100m instead (apparently following Dessler but I can only find that in his correspondence not the paper) but this time rather than treating the 100m as all being at the same temperature he uses data on the actual energy content, which is (in itself) good but not the same as using a 100m depth at uniform temperature because in reality heat added to the surface will be spread out over time and be concentrated at the top but extend down below any depth that would represent it in the simple uniform heat model. Another change he makes is to use 3 month data rather than the monthly data which is also available. Why? The longer the timescale the greater the depth that needs to be considered because the heat has time to mix to further down. I suspect, Dessler is changing tack and using measured ocean heat but will, most likely, reach much the same conclusions. I notice that WUWT have pulled there copy of Desslaer's paper - Ive fixed the link above. I know this is a bit WP:NAF as none of this can currently go in the article however I hope you'll forgive as I think a bit of background might help understanding (and I'll invoke WP:IAR for once). I'll adjust the text of the article to show that Desslar's paper is not yet released.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think there's far too much detail in the article on Dessler's draft rebuttal paper. Batter to state that it exists, and perhaps a line or two of argument, and wait for actual publication to flesh it out, I think. We should also have a line or so of Spencer's reply, for fairness & NPOV. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Given the Wagner resignation (a very unusual event) it would seem odd to stay silent on what the perceived problems with the content of Spencer's paper were. I agree that it's not ideal that it's based on a paper still in review (Spencer most likely being one of the reviewers) but it's certainly a step up from blogs. Given that this is the bio of a scientist I think coverage of his work is essential to the article. I hope to expand on Spencer's earlier work as I have time. I have some sympathy with the idea that we might include Spencer's reaction to Desler's rebuttal but there is the problem of the only source being a blog and no one is likely to publish a paper rebutting Spencer's blog.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Wagner resignation is unusual! I suppose we can revise when Dessler's paper is actually published. I do think we need Spencer's reply -- this is his bio, after all, and he's certainly a RS for his own opinion.

Here are two RS's we may want to incorporate. I say "we" but mean "You or someone else", as I'm completely swamped for the foreseeable future (sigh).

• Yale Climate Forum, nice summary: [10]
• Science magazine account: [11]
• Wagner apology to Trenberth, oped by Trenberth et al: [12]. A very odd and snarky op-ed, and the apology is weird too. Maybe just a FYI for here. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've tagged the SB11 section as having its neutrality disputed. I've re-read it and can't see anything that seems inacurate or unreasonable. I also read the sources you found but don't see anything to add to that section.? As mentioned above I've also read Spencer's blog post on Dessler 2011 but even setting aside any problems with using his blog as a source I don't see much that we can reasonable (and accurately) add to the article (I don't think a pic of Clint Eastwood would add much!). Like you I don't have a great deal of time for editing right now but if you've gat any ideas on how we could cover Spencer's response I'd be happy to discuss it.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem here, _this is supposed_ to be a bio, not a forum to debate the ins and outs of the whole climate issue. This article should only cite his papers and briefly what they are about as coverage of his work. Otherwise we have to do and do the same job on a page about Dessler and Wagner and anyone else who ever published citing S or B or who was cited by them. It will never end. This is getting well beyond what can be justified as a bio.

The Wagner issue was very interesting in itself and could be the basis of another article about the political pressures being applied in this field but again is not part of Spencer's bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

Are we going to include material cited to blogs in this article? WP:BLOGS does allow

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Which would potentially include Spencer and others. However it also states:

"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Which definitely applies to Spencer's blog.

My opinion is that we should avoid blogs as sources altogether unless there is a very compelling reason to do otherwise.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So Spencer's blog should not be used "as third-party sources about living people" . It does not say it should not be used. I don't see the point of this comment. In view of your first point drroyspencer.com is an acceptable source according to WP:BLOGS With respect, your opinion that we should avoid blogs altogether would not seem to over-ride WP:BLOGS . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the bit in the lede about his global warming skepticism is all cited to his blog. You could argue that the rules say that his bio shouldn't be thus cited, but I think that would be disingenuous because 1. it's stating what he claims (and really his blog should be a valid source for that) and 2. he obviously does believe that global warming isn't man made (much) and isn't anything to worry about. However, per WP:FRINGE his fringe views should be balanced esp in the lede. Problem is it's hard to find citations from non-blog sources that put his blog espoused views into context. Probably talking to myself but, any thought?

Spencer is fringe; his work has been severely criticised, including on technical grounds. His own website should not be used for any scientific statements, only for content regarding his own views about himself and what he's doing. To be honest, no scientist's own blog should be used for scientific statements, as there is no editorial oversight. It just applies all the more so to someone like Spencer.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If Spencer is "fringe", why do you suppose he has a job as a research climatologist at UAH? Is UAH fringe too. Are all the journals that Spencer has published in fringe?

Please, the "Fringe" business is largely used as a pejorative by activist, pro-CAGW editors here. You don't really fall in that category, and Spencer is, emphatically, NOT FRINGE.

I'll grant that some of his political and religious views are eccentric, but that's not why he is notable here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Spencer's views on global warming are very, very, much in the minority amongst climate scientists, and as such for me qualify for WP:Fringe. He's also had some of his work taken apart on technical and professional grounds (the 2011 paper - published in an obscure, only vaguely climate-related journal - is a case in point) The thing is, we really shouldn't need to use his own website for views if he's well accepted.

I don't see anything in policy that necessitates that a person's employer must also be considered a fringe organisation for a researcher to be considered fringe - what policy are you referring to when you suggest that Spencer cannot be Fringe because UAH isn't?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Fringe"Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." But there is the whole point , this is NOT an article about climate it's a bio. Spencer is the subject , how can his work be "fringe" in his own bio? You are clearly showing your own bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you were sourcing it to make scientific statements, not statements about his own opinions. The former need to be oversighted in peer review, including, where relevant, the general reception by the scientific community.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, _I_ am not making scientific statements. Spencer is. Stating his position on a major issue does not seem unreasonable in a bio. That does not make it yet another battleground for a lengthy AGW edit war. This is not the place to debate the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed

Broken link: Roy Spencer, John Christy, and Phillip Gentry, May 4, 2004, University of Alabama at Huntsville press release, "New climate study finds 'global warming' by subtracting cooling that wasn't there," 2004 UAH press release; archived version: ([13] (accessed Feb. 9, 2011): "Over the past 13 years they have made several corrections to their dataset as different problems have been identified. The satellite sensors, which have been in service since late November 1978, show a long-term lower atmosphere global warming trend of about 0.08 C (0.14 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade in the past 25 years."

User VsevolodKrolikov just blanket reverted five changes under the vague justification of "seems to be try to ..." . That is not acceptable. If you have a specific criticism discuss it and make sure all changes get a valid and relevant reason (other than you don't agree/like it). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you make a large number of little (some entirely unnecessary) changes and in among them sprinkle some rather more controversial ones, then you make it more difficult for people to edit out the controversial ones. Perhaps you could explain your changes here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No I make if very easy for people to decide which they wish to change or challenge (or even improve) by making separate, changes with a clear reason for each one. You would do well to do the same.

In line with comments I posted above and the edit summary , "Dessler vindicating Dessler" is inappropriate on a Spencer bio. This is not a climate debate forum, it's a bio. A brief statement of Spencer's position , a summary of his publications is enough. He has a site to present his arguments in full, here is not the place to debate them.

Other quick changes corrected some inaccurate over-simplifications suggesting he says everything is clouds. He does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that a page about someone should not include criticisms of his work, that's simply wrong. It is also important that such pages do not become WP:COATRACKs for furthering that person's claims regarding an area of human knowledge, particularly if that person is controversial - which Spencer certainly is. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, the 'Dessler vindicates Dessler' that I removed was WP:COATRACK criticism gamit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the whole SB2011 para down to a summary of the paper and the link to D 2011 rebuttal. Far to much climate debating going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

IP removing material about the 2011 paper

This editor is trying to remove information that is critical of Roy Spencer even though it is reliable sourced. Spencer's notability is due to his celebrity status as a climate scientist who challenges scientific consensus on a politically important topic. Omitting such material amounts to censorship, as far as I can see. That an editor of a journal resigns because of what Spencer did and how his journal handled it, is clearly due information. Covered by the BBC, guardian, ABC in Australia, Science magazine etc. The IP appears to be edit-warring given that three editors disagree with his changes yet still he tries to force them through. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That an editor resigns was indeed a very unusual event. If there were serious scientific issues with the paper the editor would have stayed in place and ensured the paper was withdrawn. That he was not able to do that and chose to make a very public political stance instead could well have it's place in a broader article about the political pressures in publishing in this field. It was not a significant event in Spencer's life and does not warrant comment in his bio. Maybe you could start a bio on Warren a slip it in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That there are more global warming zealots playing gatekeeper on WP than objective editors has been known for a long. It is one of the serious quality problems of WP.

Now if you would like to review the changes you will see that all my changes have been clear and well commented and entries here on discuss. You and two others here have come straight in here with blanket reverts with not the slightest edit summary at times and at best hand wavy "seems to be trying to..." rather than any legitimate WP policy reason for change.

Having failed to reply and discuss you now try the old "I'll get a quick edit in then insist we discuss afterwards " in the hope that makes you look more reasonable. It does not , it makes your declaration on you own talk page about good and stable pages look rather silly and underlines your edit warring strategy that you came in with.

Your removal of a ref link to a paper right next to where a section that is about the paper introduces the paper is laughable. You are clearly trying to obscure the link (which are very discrete already) by burying it deeper in the text. Your political bias stands out a mile. You are trying even the tiniest trick to reduce the visibility in the hope that fewer people will have the opportunity to click on the link to his paper.

Now please stop your childish games and make sensible , well reasoned changes so this article becomes what it is supposed to be, a bio, not yet another forum on the whole climate debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 December 2011

Could you please sign your comments using ~~~~, or at least indent consistently, so that Signbot doesn't get confused. In the time it took me to fix your mess here, you made your fourth revert on the article in less than 24 hours. I was going to enter into actual discussion on the merits of your edit, but now I will go to WP:AN/EW first to report this violation of WP:3RR. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was your 5th revert in 24 hours and should have resulted in an immediate block, but the edit warring noticeboard seems to be deserted today. Hans Adler 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Very clever. You finally decide to make a comment on discuss. But not to discuss anything ("I was going to but now I won't" I'll try to get you blocked instead) . A number of stupid edits and reverts like moving link refs way from what they are refering to or blanket reverts with a empty edit summary have made a lot of work here.

I have consistently split any changes I have done into separate changes to facilitate discussion. If someone is playing edit baiting rather than trying to resolve issues and improve that article that will up the edit count. You will also notice that two of the reverts I did yesterday were self cancelling , I had to remove update you did to Desslers paper in order to revert another earlier edit. I duly replaced what you had done on Dessler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The resigning was highly unusual and was widely commented upon in the media. We do not and should not second-guess what the resigning means, but it is certainly highly significant for the subject's career. (Possible explanations include some mild form of blackmail making a retraction impossible or the paper itself being just within reasonable bounds and thus not retractable, whereas the paper plus the authors' public comments brought the journal into disrepute.) As the climax of the controversy over the paper, it definitely belongs into the article. Hans Adler 01:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the resignation was a highly unusual way to contest a paper that he was not able to contest on technical grounds. Go start an article on that somewhere and explain to everyone how has blackmailed in to not retracting the paper LOL.

As far a Spencer goes he has not had a paper retracted , it remains in the literature and will be judged on it's merits rather than PR stunts, as it should be. It is not a major event in his life that someone resigned. This is yet more WP:COATRACK criticism gambit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.123.232.186 (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Frequency of editor resignations

Some anonymous person wrote, That an editor resigns was indeed a very unusual event. Is there an Editor resignation article that catalogs such supposedly rare occurrences? AFAIK resignation is the usual way to protest a policy decision by one's superiors in government, business, or academia.

But what is being protested here? A breakdown in peer review, or was it just that Wagner was upset that a peer reviewed scientific paper challenged the AGW theory?

We need a link to the (unusual?) resignation episode. Which reminds me: I've seen a couple of other cases where a contrarian paper passes peer review, and then afterwards the editor resigns (both in the highly contentious field of ID or GW, the two most politicized arenas in modern science). --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your memory is playing tricks on you.The only two cases I can think of are the Climate Research (journal) case, where Chris de Freitas sneaked in a bad article by Soon and Baliunas, The publisher brought in Hans von Storch as new editor in chief, but then did not allow him to publish a critical editorial. As a result, von Stoch (and half the editorial board) resigned. De Freitas stayed. The ID case is the Sternberg peer review controversy. As I understand it, Sternbergs tenure as editor was up anyways, so he did not resign. I don't think we can draw a valid conclusion from three very different cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Climate deniers vs. Climate Nazis

interesting that the Anti-Defamation League responded so strongly to Spencer's (ill-chosen, imo) monicker, while remaining silent on the Climate -change denier = Holocaust denier issue. Lots of commentary along these lines in the blogosphere. I'll post a reaction if/when one surfaces in a BLP-grade RS. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a debate between 'Warmers' and 'Deniers' ?

I added a comment about Dr Roy Spencer in another Wikipedia article: Talk:Global_warming_controversy#Add_more_recent_info_please where someone asked for more current information. To quote myself, I added: "Today his mainpage highlights "Global Precipitation Mission ready for launch today" (February 27th, 2014) Check it out! [14]" — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)