Talk:Thomas R. Karl

Updated to include credible sources

Respectfully one's opinion about the frequency of Daily Mail citations on Wikipedia is not a relevant decision point for removing my contributions. This particular article by Daily Mail is supported by cited sources and even directly quotes the lead scientist who criticized Karl. You have presented no evidence that the Daily Mail is incredible or that this article does not upholding standards for journalistic integrity. Further, this article has since been picked up by other media outlets.

Further still, whatever your concerns, as a policy we should error on providing supported information rather than deleting/withholding it. The details I have provided are supported and use objective, non-conclusory language. Wikipedia readers therefore may access these source along with other sources to form their own informed conclusions. --ProfSmarty (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Several scientists have argued and proven that this a ridiculous misrepresentation of science. One even said it is “so wrong it’s hard to know where to start” [1]. So this is not and cannot be reliable information and therefore cannot be used. Andol (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please use only credible sources

I just reverted the recent edits (these). Neither the daily Mail nor Marc Morano nor Climate depot are reliable sources which can be cited in Wikipedia. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is cited millions and millions of times on the Wikipedia project as is The Guardian. Including on this page involving climate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I find the Daily Mail cited two times in the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Well, maybe one could write that some newspaper magazines are repeatingly writing nonsense regarding climate change and then use the Daily Mail as an excellent example for this. But the way it was written and cited in this article here led the reader to the belief that the claims that Thomas Karl manipulated in his work could be correct. This is not the case. --Hg6996 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe one could write that some academic journals and other assorted science periodicals are repeating same obviously bought and paid for pseudo science nonsense regarding global warming, sorry climate change and then use the Wikipedia project as a means to suppress any other POV as is the case on numerous Wikipedia entries including this one. But the way it stands the Wikipedia project is now as much a chronicle of epic fail socio economic policy as much as anything else, the notion climate neutrality not even existing so no one is really expecting any sort of change here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a new flurry of allegations, so if better sources emerge we can consider whether coverages is appropriate. On Sunday 5 February a number of things happened: "World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data" by the notorious David Rose appeared in The Mail on Sunday, and was promptly answered by scientists including Victor Venema and Zeke Hausfather who pointed out various flaws, including Rose misrepresenting two datasets by failing to use a common baseline. Both VV and Zeke are experts who have published in the topic area. On the same day, Lamar Smith's U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology issued a press release with statements by himself and a couple of other Republican members, outlining similar claims to Rose, and praising an alleged 'whistle blower' John Bates who had recently retired from NOAA. In response to the Mail's allegations, Peter Thorne who had worked on the datasets at NOAA made several points, noting that John Bates was not involved in any aspect of the work. In The Guardian, John Abraham outlined the issues, and Eric Davidson at the AGU issued an interim statement. Interesting to see if this has legs: so far, Gavin Schmidt tweets, "Hilarious screw up by @DavidRoseUK and #FailOnSunday" . . . dave souza, talk 11:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Johnson, Scott K. (6 February 2017). "Article names "whistleblower" who told Congress that NOAA manipulated data". Ars Technica. Retrieved 6 February 2017. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) . dave souza, talk 18:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I undid it again. Please stop adding fringe denial propaganda by yellow press. User:Dave Souza has already explained why this is grossly wrong. Andol (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, scientists have debunked the claims made by the Daily Mail [2]. Andol (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)