Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

weblog awards

Firs part of thread is transported from User talk:Marknutley. Apologies, I really should have posted here to begin with. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, why did you revert cited information here? Also, I assume your reference to me as a "sock" was simple carelessness rather than a serious accusation... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No i believe it was a sock, my rational was in the edit summary. It was wrong and not NPOV mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley was probably referring to the edit that immediately preceded yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes i was, sorry boris if you thought i was calling you a sock mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How can it be "wrong" if it's cited to a reliable source? There are many other sources available for the same information, including a Master's Thesis from a major American university. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It`s wrong because the weblogs awards polls more votes than any other online poll. It is wrong becuase it is not bloody conservative (why must you people always label stuff conservative) it was wrong because it was not written in a NPOV and it was a sock which did it mark nutley (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are multiple reliable sources that refer to the blog as "conservative." I'm curious as to why you object to that. Do you think "conservative" is a pejorative term? I certainly don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You`ve moved it to the wrong article boris [1] It was Watts article this happened on mark nutley (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Multi-tasking isn't all it's cracked up to be. Are we there yet? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This is in response to the revert discussion at MarkNutley's talk page. First, I'm not a sock (and yes, I know what one is). I tried to clarify the statement because I originally thought the page was referring to The Weblog Awards (Bloggies). The Bloggies are much more well known than The Weblog Awards (Wizbang) and I was attempting to clarify the distinction since other people would likewise make the same mistake. The Wired source cited specifically calls the Wizbang awards "the right-wing response to the Bloggies" and is cited bye the Wizbang awards page itself as evidence of notability. While the entirety of my statement might not be appropriate there should be some distinction made so that the page doesn't simply say "the Weblog Awards". Sailsbystars (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So do you guys enjoy BLP violations then? Neither ref provided mentions Watts of his blog. You are engaging in wp:synth and wp:or on a BLP, would you care to stop now? mark nutley (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is my new version acceptable? Also, I don't appreciate your immediate accusations of bad faith, rather than constructively discussing the content.Sailsbystars (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sailsbystars: Unfortunately, you've stepped into a battleground. Assumptions of bad faith are par for the course around here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No the new version is not an improvement over the old. And i believe you are a sock of Ratel, he had a habit of labling everyone conservative as well. mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, WP:SPI is thataway.→ You're perfectly within your rights to open an investigation, but idle speculation is deeply unhelpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done Boris mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some bold merges

I merged two articles here. See what you think?

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt you put this article back to were it was before you messed all three up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.54 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think less article merging is needed, and more linking between articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

I was thinking that the WUWT section on surface stations may be unduly weighted and misplaced. What do you all think?

I tagged this section that way. I hope that's okay. If not, feel free to revert.

ScienceApologist (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for now per GS/CC enforcement. Please discuss your concerns and obtain a consensus before adding tags to CC articles. What is it you think is given undue weight, and how would you propose to remedy it?Minor4th 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the meta-discussion is unduly weighted with respect to WUWT. In particular, I think that the two comments left in that section are probably better suited for inclusion at surfacestations, if anywhere. But the comments themselves seem a bit throwaway and devoid of content. I'm not really sure what the intention was of having them in the first place. Thus the tag to draw people's attention to it to see if they could explain it. I'm not exactly sure why we are including the opinions of people who aren't professionals with respect to the topic of surfacestations comment on the science relating to that subject. Shouldn't we let scientists do that? Or is there another rationale for including those opinions that I'm not seeing? ScienceApologist (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Watts and the Surface Stations project conducted an audit of most of the stations in the US, and brought to light a significant quality control problem that "scientists" hadn't found up till then. These quality control problems don't take phd-level education to understand. This was a significant activity. I oppose the tagging.Slowjoe17 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"broadcast meteorologist", with a link that redirects to Meteorology#Meteorologists

This seems to be wrong. Here is how the link target defines "meteorologist":

"Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology. [...] Meteorologists are best-known for forecasting the weather. Many radio and television weather forecasters are professional meteorologists, while others are merely reporters with no formal meteorological training."

Other than the fact that he calls himself a "TV meteorologist" and others often use the same or similar terms of the form "X meteorologist" in relation to him, we have no indication that this definition applies. See here, for example, for a job description of a "TV meteorologist":

"There are many ways to become a television meteorologist. First, and probably most common, is by going to a college or university where you can obtain a meteorology or atmospheric science degree. [...] Second, some students major in journalism in college then become weathercasters later. A student may be interested in journalism and news reporting and be called to 'fill in' for a meteorologist. Some may reconsider their career and then may take meteorology courses to be a weathercaster. Thirdly, a few people have been trained as meteorologists in the military. The military offers study similar to that received in accredited colleges for meteorology. Lastly, sometimes it is possible to be a weathercaster coming from a totally unrelated field of study. The news director may find someone that relates well with people and hire them." [2]

Others have wondered about this. He is not shy when talking about himself on the "About" page of his blog [3], but he does not mention any academic background. Reproducible research by SourceWatch [4] has shown that while he does hold the discontinued AMS Seal of Approval, which did not require an academic degree [5], he does not have either of the two current AMS certifications which do require such a degree. [6] A blogger claims that he asked Watts' secretary directly but was denied the information. [7]

Given the contentious climate change environment, it would be highly unusual for Watts not to mention his relevant degrees if he held any. We can have no certainty, but the weight of available evidence is such that we must be extremely careful about any and all formulations that imply that he does hold such a degree.

I am going to remove the misleading link, but I don't think that's enough. I propose switching the language from "broadcast meteorologist" to "weather presenter". Obviously, if another formulation is even more neutral and agnostic about his education that would be preferable. Hans Adler 10:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I also did some digging and asked my friend who is a broadcast meteorologist what this is all about. Apparently "broadcast meteorologist" IS a protected term. I just happen to live in large cities my whole life where they only hire television personalities with the Broadcast Meteorology degrees to report the weather. If they didn't have such a degree, they would be called "weather reporter". Fascinating stuff. I've come around to your side, Hans, but I think the term we should use is "weather reporter" since that's what's normally used in the US and that's where he's from. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that calls him that? Fred Pearce calls him a "radio meteorologist". We have to go with the sources say. Cla68 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. This source calls him a meteorologist too. Now I don't know what to do. It reminds me of dietician vs. nutritionist. I think we need a content specialist to help. I'll ask my friend for sources as to the proper use of these terms. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems we really need more information about these terms. Some questions:

• How exactly is "broadcast meteorologist" protected? On a federal or state level? Is an academic degree in a relevant subject required, or does equivalent experience also count, like for the AMS Seal of Approval?
• Are the terms "television meteorologist" and/or "radio meteorologist" similarly protected? They may well not be.

If it comes out that the term "television meteorologist" is reserved for people with a meteorology degree, then I would have no problem with that simply based on Watts publicly calling himself that. On the other hand, if "broadcast meteorologist" is preserved in this way and "television meteorologist" is not, then that would be another reason to be very sceptical. Hans Adler 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: ScienceApologist, could your friend have been confusing "broadcast meteorologist" with Certified Broadcast Meteorologist? Hans Adler 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to report that very thing, Hans. She corrected herself just now and you are correct. Here's a good article on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found some very interesting information here as well. Not sure how reliable that is (where does it come from???), but it could provide valuable pointers. Hans Adler 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We should using the terms used by reliable sources, not our own original research or what our friends think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am getting tired of hearing this silly argument. There seems to be an epidemic going around. Rephrasing is not, and has never been, original research. This is a project to write a free encyclopedia, not a project to produce a massive copyright violation by gluing together half-understood pieces from various sources. Hans Adler 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU, HANS! I've been trying to get that across to people for a long, long time. This area, for some reason, has driven people into brain-dead-itude with regards to such elementary concepts as "synonyms" and "paraphrasing". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think if you spent a bit more time in uncontentious areas you would soon learn that exactly the same brain-dead-itude infests even the most harmless and uncontroversial pages. Mathematics is relatively free from this nonsense, but only because we have a big and very homogeneous WikiProject, consisting of people trained in rational thinking and in realising when they are wrong. Hans Adler 17:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SA, my only experience of talking to you is in the "sceptic vs denier" discussion above. Synonyms are well understood. And, non-neutral POV-pushing synonyms are also understood. Please take a moment to appreciate that it is important to be neutral in your choice of synonyms. Slowjoe17 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources that refer to Watts as a meteorologist, and he's been introduced on radio and TV as such as well. (Beck Interview, Mar 3 2008 for just one such example). The touchstone on Wikipedia is verifiability, not our own conception of truth. Further, Watts has spoken about his surface stations project as an outgrowth of a meteorology project he undertook in college on Stevenson Screens. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Watts himself really doesn't help to clear up the confusion. From his book [8]: "Anthony Watts is a 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. He got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and at KHSL-TV in Chico, California. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies broadcast graphics systems to hundreds of cable television, television, and radio stations nationwide. ItWorks supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S." Pretty long, but no word about his education, and it sounds as if he even avoided to use the term "broadcast meteorologist".

Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. If we can verify that he is a meteorologist then we say so, because it's obviously relevant. If we find there is too much doubt because the term is often abused, then we make sure to use language that leaves the question open. But we can't simply take ambiguous language from one context and move it to a different context (an encyclopedia, which readers expect to use language scrupulously), and pretend that this doesn't change connotations. Hans Adler 15:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be on a fishing expedition here. Source after source calls him a meteorologist. You keep advancing without evidence the notion that the term itself is "confusing". False logic. Whether or not his degree is in meteorology doesn't even matter. Do you have any idea how many people identified as climatologists on Wikipedia don't have a degree in climatology? Are you going to say Gavin Schmidt can't be called a climatologist, because his degree is in mathematics? This whole line of reasoning is absurd. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "Source after source"? You have shown us 0 (zero) of these sources. First of all, we must be absolutely careful about our terms here:

• A weather reporter is someone who talks about the weather on radio or TV and typically has a working knowledge of meteorology which they use to prepare the reports and turn them into appealing language. The typical career starts with (S) studying meteorology (with a degree possibly in a related science) and then learning journalism more or less on the job, or (J) studying journalism and then learning meteorology more or less on the job.
• A broadcast meteorologist (or radio/television meteorologist) is a weather reporter. Etymologically and in actual use this term carries the connotation of a weather reporter of type (S), but it is often still applied to those of type (J). (After all, who knows into which category a particular reporter falls? Normally it's not important.)
• A meteorologist is a scientist concerned with weather studies. In a broadcasting context and by people who are ignorant about the distinction, the term is also used as a convenient short form for broadcast meteorologist.

You claim that there are "many sources that refer to Watts as a meteorologist". This may be, but all sources I have ever seen refer to him as a "broadcast meteorologist", "radio meteorologist" or "television meteorologist". If you have better sources and want them used, you must provide more information than just a vague claim that they exist. Hans Adler 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Next point. I "keep advancing without evidence the notion that the term itself is 'confusing'"? Certainly not. There is nothing confusing about the term "meteorologist". It means different things to different people and in different situations, that's all. I am sure I never claimed that it's a confusing term. Consider the following examples:

1. So much for the news. Now let's hear what our meteorologist has to say.
2. I'm a meteorologist.
3. Meteorologists at Stanford University say that recent discoveries will make weather reports much more reliable in the future.

1 is clearly about a weather reporter who may or may not have started their career as a scientist. It's not clear what 2 is. 3 is obviously talking about scientists. When someone plays an expert on climate science in the general media and publicly contradicts climate researchers, then they are setting up a context in which "meteorologist" will be understood as "scientist who researches the weather". This expectation of the word's meaning is increased if the term appears in an encyclopedia, since encyclopedias tend to use language scrupulously and the use of "meteorologist" for weather reporter is etymologically problematic. This expectation of the word's meaning is even increased further if the word is presented as "broadcast meteorologist". All taken together, if an encyclopedia claims in this way that a person is a broadcast meteorologist, then it amounts to the claim that the person is a weather reporter of type (S). We do not make such claims without reliable sources clearly supporting it, especially not if the person is a living person.

Now if this person happens to be a weather reporter, they will often be referred to as a "broadcast meteorologist" or even just as a "meteorologist", because not all reliable sources care about the differences. Therefore sources calling him a variation of "broadcast meteorologist" don't help, and sources plainly calling him a "meteorologist" only help if there is some indication that the source is using language in the same careful way that we must use it. The best source would be one giving details about his scientific background.

The question whether he has a scientific background or not is highly relevant because humans have tendency to run off in one direction and not notice when they are wrong. This also happens to scientists, but in a formal scientific education we are wrong all the time and learn what it's like and that one doesn't lose face for admitting it. When someone forcefully maintains a minority position against a large number of experts, this is highly relevant.

Finally, what I said is confusing is the sourcing situation w.r.t. Watts' (lack of?) scientific education. I was assuming without proof that you are right, and contrasting that with the fact that on many occasions Watts has talked about his qualifications without making any scientific background explicit, and that a blogger claims that Watts has denied him information about his degree. If I simply assume that you were wrong, at least until you put the sources on the table, then the situation immediately ceases to be confusing. It's amazing that you attacked me for the word with which I indicated trust in what you said. You have punished me for this trust, and now it's gone. Hans Adler 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP has added a reliable source (Daily Telegraph) calling him an "American meteorologist and climate sceptic". [9] I find that single source barely enough to characterise him as a "broadcast meteorologist". But given the contrary evidence, the fact that most sources don't call him that, and that he doesn't call himself that, the change to "meteorologist" does not seem appropriate to me, so I am reverting that. Hans Adler 19:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC) PS: It's also not a good idea to remove the key information that he regularly appeared in broadcast media from the first sentence. Hans Adler 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, can you list the reliable-source contrary evidence please? I don't understand the problem. Slowjoe17 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you even reading my posts before you reply to them? I gave a source in my initial entry (Beck Interview: [10]). Your own source above calls him a meteorologist. Watt's own site calls him a meteorologist. Here's a print news story calling him a meteorologist: [11]. Townhall.com calls him a meteorologist: [12]. Front Page Magazine calls him a meteorologist: [13]. Here are even more sources: [14] [15]

As for the notion that a "broadcast meteorologist" is somehow a beast wholly unrelated to a meteorologist, that's simply puerile. They're simply a specific type of meteorologist; a distinction that the entire world grasps instantly from basic rules of grammar, even if they didn't already know what one was. A broadcast meteorologist is a meteorologist who works in the broadcast industry. How can such a simple, basic term possibly ever be "confusing" to anyone? It's like implying a broadcast journalist is somehow not a journalist. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed "Beck Interview, Mar 3 2008" because initially I didn't understand this (did he give an interview in a beck? to someone called Beck? is there a newspaper or programme of that name?), and later I didn't re-read your earlier post. I take back the number zero above. (It's outdated now anyway.) The source is good. The IP has also added a pointer to an issue of Scientific American. I can't verify that but I am prepared to trust that this is correct, and presumably it's an excellent source for the purpose. No further questions about that.

The notion that one needs to distinguish between weather reporters and scientists qualified to speak about global warming is obviously not puerile at all, I would rather reserve that characterisation for the idea that just because someone is good at presenting the weather based on the prepared data they get, they are also good at predicting the climate.

In my second post above I have quoted from a piece that describes how to become a "television meteorologist". It's the second path that is relevant here. (I am glad that I am not the only one who misses something in someone else's post...)

Your last sentence is a bit surprising, so short after you have accused me of "faulty logic" with no evidence. A more adequate comparison would have been "It's like implying a weather reporter is somehow not a journalist." But even that is not an entirely fair comparison because the term meteorologist carries a much stronger connotation of a relevant academic degree and years of formal training than the term journalist. Hans Adler 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you're still confusing a meteorologist with a research meteorologist. Most people with a degree in meteorology don't do research -- almost all of them, in fact, unless they get an advanced degree. Let's say it again. A meteorologist is a meteorologist is a meteorologist. A broadcast meteorologist is a specialized type, just as is a research meteorologist.

We have a multitude of reliable sources calling Watts a meteorologist. We have zero to validate your theory that a broadcast meteorologist is not also a meteorologist. I think the case is closed at this point. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not me who is confusing "meteorologists" with "research meteorologists". The word's connotations depend on context, and here the context is an encyclopedia. The fact that it is linked, as "meteorologist", makes this worse because the link is a redirect to meteorology, which defines a meteorologist as follows:

Meteorologists are scientists who study meteorology.

Maybe it's that article that should be fixed. But the claim that Anthony Watts is a "scientist who studies meteorology" is barely covered by what the sources actually say. I am not saying it's not covered, but it requires interpretation. Hans Adler 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While adding another source, the IP has removed the word "broadcast" again. As a result, there is no hint in the lead that Watts had (has?) regular appearances on radio and tv. I don't think that's appropriate. Moreover, the lead is now giving the impression that Watts is a meteorologist of the kind that publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The easiest way to fix both problems if of course by reinstating the word "broadcast". I did this [16], but self-reverted after realising that this article is under 1RR and that under strict rules this would count as my second revert. Hans Adler 20:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again. The vast majority of all meteorologists have only four-year degrees and thus do not publish peer-reviewed research...except possibly when assisting on a Ph.D. directed project. We've asked you many times to support your theory that the world regularly confuses a meteorologist with "someone who regularly publishes peer reviewed research" and you haven't done so. Even worse is the fact that I'm pretty sure I remember Anthony telling me that he *has* published at least one paper during his undergraduate work. I can't find an online reference, but here's one that fairly clearly points out his college work was in meteorology: [17] Fell Gleaming^talk 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. We all have to work with incomplete information. (That holds even for BLP subjects themselves.) Perhaps you can appreciate that if you know him personally your information is obviously more complete than mine. I understand your impatience better now. Hans Adler 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

break

Be careful with the Beck link above (Beck Interview: [9]) (glennbeck dot com/content/articles/article/196/6727/). When I tried to close the page, my cpu usage spiked and the page refused to close. When I then unplugged the internet connection, the cpu usage went to 100% for perhaps 30 seconds or so. Once things settled down, 47 new (mostly empty) browser windows had been opened. I had to reboot the system to clean it out. Q Science (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I had no such problem (Firefox under Windows XP), but I am using various security measures. Hans Adler 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with Chrome here either. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unmerge?

An IP is attempting to remove the contributions from User:ScienceApologist in regards to the merge [18]. I think that there needs to be a discussion of whether to throw out the baby with the bathwater, since as far as I know, no one has objected to the actual content of those edits. Furthermore, as evidenced by the exploding length of the Arbcomm and ANI discussions, some consensus should be reached on merge vs un-merge before such a drastic edit is undertaken. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no agreeing to mergeing so it should go back to the origanal state right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.45.189.230 (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The redirects certainly should have been reverted (and were). However, per my comment above, there is no evidence that the additions to this article were bad ones. Also, the IP reverter did not merely undo User:ScienceApologist's edits, they restored to an even earlier version that included misleading language. Hence why there needs to be a discussion before reverting. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo...

-- courtesy of AW himself, from (I presume) his recent Australian tour. Thanks, Anthony! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/scientific-americans-interview-with-dr-richard-muller/

Add Richard A. Muller's "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American and response Scientific American’s interview with Dr. Richard Muller; posted on May 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts. 99.43.138.160 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the article are reference to skeptics Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit) (and Watts Up With That?), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Will there be Internet access once this issue isn't current? 99.119.130.14 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

GOP’s only scientists at ‘Scopes’ climate hearing are Richard Muller and John Christy. Go figure! from Thinkprogress.org by Joe Romm on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm (see John Christy) ... and Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument from Good (magazine). Richard Muller's STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This style from Richard A. Muller: *Statement to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the United States House of Representatives, see United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology March 31, 2011. 99.190.80.91 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Education?

What education has Watts had? Which schools, which universities, what qualifications, that sort of thing. To me, the article makes Watts look like an uneducated person trying to pass himself off as educated, so if he has qualifications, listing them would correct that impression. --Theresonator (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We would love to, but he is singularly unwilling to share such qualifications, if they exist 108.11.132.83 (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He attended Purdue University but there have multiple attempts to negatively distort this simple fact, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/watts-me-worry/content?oid=602867 - I do not see the big deal or the need to negatively spin a simple piece of information.--JournalScholar (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a fact. Facts should be backed by verifiable sources, i.e. University records or degrees. All we have above is his statement on the matter.

Btw, the name of the University is Purdue, not 'Perdue'. Belsavis (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The source that says he attended Purdue is verifiable. I've looked and have so far been unable to find a source saying anything more about his attendance.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he graduated from Purdue, the registrar replied to an enquiry acknowledging that he attended for 5 years (!), but not confirming that he graduated with a degree. I'm not sure how that could be reflected in the page without it looking like a suggestion about his lack of credentials, however.Ninahexan (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So says sourcewatch which is not a reliable source. I've been unable to verify this from a reliable source.--JournalScholar (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you been able to verify that he does have a degree from a RS? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does that page say he has a degree?--JournalScholar (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does it say he hasn't? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What reliable source says he hasn't?--JournalScholar (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merry-go-round? I fail to see the point of your question. We don't say he has a degree, and we don't say he doesn't have a degree. So we don't need a source for either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Then don't ask pointless questions. If I found a reliable source saying anything other than he attended Purdue I would have updated the page.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure to have 3 typos in this sentence, but I do find it curious that a Scholar misspells Purdue. Maybe you can keep in mind the famous Limerick about the young man from Purdue (whose Limericks stopped at line two). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I make spelling mistakes all the time and am certainly not concerned about them on a wikipedia talk page. I find it interesting that you are the biggest contributor and defender to William Connolley's BLP who was reprimanded for his unethical edits to climate change skeptics BLPs. Now of course you are here on Mr. Watts BLP to make sure it is as unbiased as possible I am sure.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

JournalScholar, please make yourself familiar with WP:NPA policy and stop attacking the reputation of other editors. Comment on improvements to the article, not on editors. You should also recognise that WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as articles, spreading unsourced accusations of unethical behaviour can get you topic banned. . . dave souza, talk 21:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with my source, http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 --JournalScholar (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The correct link is http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409 (no trailing dashes). And the fact that you consider that piece of obviously worthless piece of propaganda as "your source" is somewhere between scary and sad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is verifiable by his edit history and I have witnessed it personally.--JournalScholar (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And the moon is made of green cheese. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

His edit history does not lie.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you believe the edit history, then you know that Solomon does, or, at best, is severely mistaken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe Solomon is correct and it is verifiable.--JournalScholar (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, if someone is advancing conclusions in a scientific field then their education and credentials are quite important. If I were to make claims relating to cancer treatments, yet not mention that my PhD was in geology, you can see how that might be relevant for the appraisal of my claims. If I had no degree at all then that information should be communicated, allowing the reader to judge how relevant that might be. In my opinion it is not enough for the page to mention that Watts attended a university, it should specifically state what qualifications and degrees he has attained. If it is a matter of him not having attained a university degree then it should specifically be reflected on the page, since his claims are within scientific fields. What is wrong with the page stating that he attended a university but has not confirmed whether a degree was awarded?Ninahexan (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia it does not matter what you believe is relevant but what can be verified from a reliable source. Otherwise that would violate WP:NOR. All that can be stated is what is verifiable not what is unknown. Trust me, if there was a reliable source stating he did not have a degree it would have been listed here a long, long time ago by all the "unbiased" editors here. I've personally researched extensively and so far have found nothing one way or the other. Mentioning he attended a university is verifiable and part of his educational background. Have no fear, when a reliable source is found stating if he obtained a degree or not it will be added.--JournalScholar (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, how is it not appropriate to state that he attended Purdue but that there is no verifiable record of him having attained a degree? Isn't that actually what you have been stating? Yet you think it is not appropriate to mention the second half of the statement? Why? Attending a university is not the same as graduating with a degree, and that should be made explicit on the page, even more so because he has been directly asked and has not answered. It should state two facts: he attended Purdue, but there is no verification that he attained a degree. The latter is not an unsubstantiated claim, since it explicitly references the lack of substantiation either way. It also allows the reader more information to decrease a reliance on their assumptions about what attending a university means in terms of relevant credentials and training.Ninahexan (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not verifiable that there are "no verifiable record of him having attained a degree". A record can exist even if you have not found it. If this was allowed you could say anything you wanted by wording it this way. I cannot verify one way or the other anything more than is already stated. The page does not say he obtained a degree all it says is he stated that he attended a university. What reliable source do you have stating that he was directly asked and did not answer? The second part of your "facts" is not verifiable and therefore not considered a "fact". It is unsubstantiated because you do not have a reliable source to support it. You have not been able to verify if he obtained a degree or not by referencing a reliable source, that does not mean it does not exist. The problem is you are not providing them with verifiable information but your beliefs. You really need to believe me on this but if it existed someone would have added it already.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, it is not verifiable that there is not a verifiable record? You are saying that there may be a verifiable record of him having attained a degree, but that we have not established that it does or does not exist? Or is it that there may be verifiable evidence that he did not attain a degree? That is aptly described as a "lack of verifiable record" for having attained a degree, and should follow the fact that he attended a university, since a logical inference that readers might make is that this entails the attainment of a degree. Clarifying that there is no record of the latter merely removes the assumptions readers might make on insufficient information. The relevance of education and credentials in fields where people advance theories and conclusions of a scientific nature is pretty obvious. If this page is to reflect the diligence of contributing editors it should include as much information as possible without bogging it down with trivialities. Credentials, education and training are directly relevant to this individual's notability, I am at a loss as to undersstand why this is the subject of debate.Ninahexan (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)