Talk:Steven E. Koonin

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Jeffry Klugor"

Of what possible relevance are the insults of lawyer-journalist Jeffrey Kluger to Koonin's "Views on climate science?" The addition of that material seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous attack on a living person.

The paragraph begins by saying that "Jeffry[sic] Klugor[sic] in Time called Koonin's piece disingenuous if not dishonest." Then the paragraph accuses Koonin of "simply used the old debating trick of setting up a strawman to knock down by misconstruing what climate scientists mean when they say the climate debate is 'settled.'..."

Then some other editor apparently stepped in to defend Koonin, writing, "However, Klugor[sic] misquotes Koonin in an attempt to discredit his comments..."

I don't think any of that belongs in this article. Koonin's views on climatology are notable. But the fact that someone (whose name neither Wikipedia editor could spell) disagrees with those views and criticized him for them, and the fact that other people think that criticism is unfair, are not notable.

Note that Wikipedia's article on Kluger does not include criticism of him, such as the fact that the MRC's Paul Bremmer called Kluger's views on climate science "absurd."

Let's just delete the whole irrelevant paragraph about Kluger and his attack on Koonin. NCdave (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, or at the very least reduce it to a single line. MikeR613 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

One sided

there is no crirtcism included in this article it is ONE SIDED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The article now includes criticism. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

… which now makes it truly one sided because no positive reviews of Unsettled are mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Point taken. The article now includes support for Unsettled. And you are free to add more. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If all scientists who examine this guy's beliefs shit on him, that's the way it is. Including the opinions of other deniers is unnecessary; of course they agree with him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize it's that simple: anyone who agrees with Koonin and Unsettled is a denier and should be deplatformed. Holman W. Jenkins Jr. wrote a detailed piece in the WSJ, and of course that alone condemns the author to the ninth circle of Hell. There's a long history of "settled science" which had disastrous consequences. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, claiming that the science of climate change is not settled enough to do anything about it is exactly what climate change denial is about. So, yes, anybody who agrees with a denier that denying is a good idea, is a denier.

"Deplatforming" has nothing to do with it, and "circles of hell" is overdramatic too. This is about false balance. It is about reliable and unreliable sources, about science on one hand and an anti-science filter bubble on the other.

There's a long history Proponents of pseudosience (like climate change denial) do that all the time - they talk about other cases where the outsider was right and pretend that the case in question is the same. It's called Galileo gambit. They do that because they have no good reasons for defending the case in question itself. If they did, they would have been able to convince the mainstream.

The deniers lost the scientific debate, and all they have left is lies and propaganda and fallacies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to attack people who are smarter than you. Go back to Twitter 70.107.192.191 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect you are not talking to me. Anyway, this is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

reorganization, NPOV

I've edited to rework the climate change material. I've removed some self-promoting and aggrieved language. I've tried to organize the material in a sensible way, using more subheadings. I've tried to clarify the scientific qualifications of some of the commentators.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The article listed a bunch of commentators by describing their positions, e.g., that they had a certain endowed chair at a certain university, or were affiliated with a certain think tank. This actually made the article hard to read and evaluate, because there was no indication as to whether the person had an academic degree or what their field was. I've edited to make the style more uniform, indicating in each case what the person's area of expertise is and sometimes giving a brief statement of their education or affiliation with a certain think tank.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) The material about Koonin's suppoerters contained some less notable material: (1) material from a political columnist with no scientific qualifications, and (2) a description and quote of Koonin's aggrieved defense of himself on blogs and web sites. I've deleted this stuff.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Fringe?

1) Does Koonin fall under WP:FRINGE? 2) Is he a climate change denier? 3) Should his rebuttals be included in this article?

1. AFAICS the reviews of his work emphasize his scientific credentials. None of the cited criticism labels him fringe. Many agree that there is uncertainty in climate science.
2. None of the cited reviews call him a climate change denier; one suggests that Koonin is drawing on works of others whom the reviewer, Pierrehumbert, calls climate skeptics; he doesn't call Koonin a skeptic.
3. If a writer has attracted wide criticism, and that criticism is reported at length in his article, omitting the writer's rebuttal seems unbalanced.

Lastly, the removal from the article of positive third party reviews is exactly what Koonin is accused of, cherry picking.-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course he falls under fringe, since he vigorously opposes the consensus among scientists in a field he is not an expert on. He claims that a conflict between science and ideologically-based pseudoscience is a political question with his red-team-blue-team framing. It can superficially seem that way because the Republican party has turned into the Seriously Deranged Party, propagating all sorts of ideas at odds with reality, starting with Reagan and getting worse ever since, but Wikipedia takes the side of science. Read WP:FRINGE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB.

He certainly meets criteria named in our article climate change denial, which you should also read. If reliable sources call him a denier, we call him that. Scientific American [1] says, a crank who’s only taken seriously by far-right disinformation peddlers hungry for anything they can use to score political points. He’s just another denier trying to sell a book, but it is an opinion column.

"The writer" can always self-publish something he calls a "rebuttal". See WP:MANDY. Unless reliable secondary sources have picked up on it, we cannot use it. Read WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY.

Using reliable sources and not using unreliable ones is not cherry-picking. Read WP:RS and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, self-published, WP:UNDUE (relevant climatologists already take in consideration natural cycles, etc. It's not surprising that the rebuttal was not accepted by a third party). Wikipedia is not to promote anti-consensus discourse. WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF may be relevant but it's also for non-self-serving, basic uncontroversial information. —PaleoNeonate – 10:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think Michael Bednarek is raising reasonable concerns. Also, which sources label Koonin as a "climate change denier"? This is mentioned in the lead but the body says nothing about it. As used this qualifies as a contentious claim so it needs to be well supported if it's going to be in the lead. Also, note this appears to be newly added only on 12 Nov [2]. If his reply to critics was carried by the WSJ we should mention it and link to it without covering any specific details. The length of the reply was too long but we shouldn't ignore that the reply happened. Springee (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I could not see any of those "reasonable concerns", and you did not point at any specifically. Which are they?

Yes, "denier" should probably be sourced or removed, although it is obviously true.

The WSJ is an unreliable source when it comes to climate change. WP:MANDY again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ is a major news source. Also, per ABOUTSELF linking to a reply is reasonable. If "denier" is problematic, why did you add it? Springee (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Major news source does not equal reliable source on scientific subjects. And in this case, it is a highly unreliable one. They regularly publish disinformation on climate change.

I did not "add it", I replaced the word "skeptic", which is a euphemism for "denier", by it. Not much difference, but of course, the wikilawyers will fight it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Cal Tech

THis guy was at Cal Tech etc. and some completely unknown(?) Wikipedia guy thinks he can diss his scientic reputation out of hand?--2001:9E8:564D:3900:3950:9A32:59A8:596F (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It's because true believers of climate change have adopted it as a religion, even though Koonin rightly points out that none of the models that allegedly show temperatures going up actually work. 96.231.98.31 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You do not decide that. Reliable sources decide that. And they disagree with you. Stop using this page as a forum for your pseudoscientific beliefs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Who appointed you? ‘Hob Gadling’. Are you honestly sure you are 100% impartial? Have a jolly good think now. No fibbing. You are completely impartial, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.239.188 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)