Talk:William Happer

Reason magazine article

The article is from Reason Magazine which is an RS. I plan to remove the "unreliable" tag. Flegelpuss (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

William Happer very notable

The article is notable for several reasons any one of which by itself is sufficient for having a bio in Wikipedia. One, Happ was a director of the U.S. Department of Energy, which controls America's nuclear weapons technology and energy research. Two, he was involved in an (in)famous incident where he was fired from this position, allegedly because of his alleged ozone layer skepticism. Three, he is listed in the top ten among climate warming skeptics [1]. Therefore, I plan to remove the tag questioning notability. Flegelpuss (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Creeping Bias

I removed the item regarding Freeman Dyson being a "prominent climate skeptic". First of all, it's not true (I know Freeman personally). Second, it is the scientific equivalent of calling him a heretic. It is a very negative comment and should not be present without backing it up with documentation. Freeman is an extremely distinguished physicist, and to reduce him to "climate skeptic" in Happer's biography is inappropriate.

I agree that climate skeptic should be removed, but it should be replaced by "holds discredited views on climate science." This is no different from being a creationist or believer in the geocentric model of the solar system. At the very least, it should not that a specialist in optics has no scientific standing to advance a view on climate science. Latichever (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article should present a neutral POV. Happer is a respected scientist who has researched climatology, whether formally in an institution or afterward in an informal or formal sense. As a PhD in Physics, he is competent to understand and speak on climatology if he has taken the time to examine it...which he definitely has done. Up until the first undergraduate degree was offered in climate science, there was no such thing as a formal climatologist or climate scientist. A climatologist/climate scientist was a scientist in any field who studied an aspect of climatology/climate science. Therefore, Happer qualifies whether people agree with his position or not. Science should be neutral and open to a variety of opinions, particularly from respected scientists who are eminently qualified to discourse on a topic in question. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

He has "researched" climatology in the sense of googling what other ignorant people say about it, but that's about it.

As a PhD in Physics This betrays a massive ignorance of how science works. You can get a degree in a huge field like physics by understanding a relatively tiny part of it. Your WP:OR deduction "he has a PhD, he knows what he is talking about" does not fly, except in the face of the facts.

Also, read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Happer has published research papers in climate science as a co-author with other climate scientists, the most recent dated June 2024.

It seems that you have some ignorance of science, particularly of climatology. Since there were no degrees in climatology up until 2019, every "climatologist" has been a scientist with a degree in another field. The basis for the claim that a scientist is a climatologist or climate scientist is that they research in that field and publish in that field.

You have a misunderstanding of climatology if you think that climatologists are experts on every aspect of climate science. Very few are, if any. They are typically experts in one small aspect of climate science--like the physics of climate, for example.

Reuters has a list of the Top 1000 climatologists (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/climate-change-scientists-list/). Pick one, any of them. Look at their education. Not one will have a degree in climatology. The top person on the list is Keywan Riahi, whose credentials are that he holds PhD in Mechanical Engineering and Industrial Management.

A climatologist is a scientist who publishes in the field of climatology, period. Happer does, so he is a climatologist as well as a physicist.

The knowledge required to receive a degree in physics qualifies a scientist to understand most fields of science. Scientists aren't limited to a single field based upon their degrees or even the primary field in which they have worked. If they contribute to any field, especially in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then they are scientists in that field.

In Happer's case, he was so well-qualified in so many fields of science that he had oversight over the Department of Energy, in which he was responsible for understanding and directing funding to many scientific fields, including nuclear physics, materials science, environmental science, the human genome, and a lot more. Happer also is the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Nuclear and Radiological Issues and the chairman of the National Research Council’s standing committee on improvised explosive devices. The idea that a scientist is only relegated to a narrow field is out of touch with modern science.

Happer has published in well-respected peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences on the field of climate science (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Happer/research). Ergo, it would be incorrect to say he is not a climate scientist. The only reason to do so is to push an agenda. We need to maintain a neutral POV. Therefore, the article shouldn't specify that Happer is not a climatologist, particularly when he has contributed to the field in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences (whether or not his contributions match the mainstream thought on the topic or we even agree with them). JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no possible way in which putting your comments as responses to things that were written in 2013 is going to be productive; please review WP:NOTFORUM. --JBL (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Which specific Wikipedia:NOTFORUM item do you refer to? The comment made in 2013 is directly relevant to the recent edits that were made.

The talk page is for discussing how to improve an article. The date of a discussion is really irrelevant if the topic may be of interest to future editors, your opinion notwithstanding. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Update:

Resolved

 – The category was deleted. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Greenpeace "sting" BLP problem

This newly-added account is one-sided. Happer's account of the incident isn't given, and other commentators describe the "sting" as a Greenpeace political stunt. Also appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the account is one-sided. What various major news sources say, including Happer's account, should be given appropriate weight per WP:NPOV. It's available at http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/08/greenpeace-founder-reports-it-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/, which may be a RS for the purpose of reporting what Happer has said, and which is linked to from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/patrick-moore-reports-enemy-state-greenpeace-fbi/. I see no WP:NOTNEWS issue. --Elvey^(t•c) 01:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

On December 10 2015 User:Elvey changed a sentence in the lead "Happer is a vocal skeptic of certain statements regarding global warming." to "Happer is known for accepting covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming." (cite = a Guardian article) Later User:207.98.198.84 changed "skeptic" to "denialist". Even the Guardian doesn't say such things, so I restored the original sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "Happer is known for accepting covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming." is verifiable, using the Guardian source. I don't claim that the sentence is lifted from the Guardian; that would be plagiarism. Actually "Happer is known for agreeing to accept covert compensation from fossil fuel companies to make vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming." is better; he accepted the plan to compensate him covertly, but Greenpeace didn't actually send him the money. Some mention is clearly needed in the lede. --Elvey^(t•c) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Did he accept or request that he be compensated? No. Did he say his skeptic views were due to potential compensation? No. Does The Guardian say he's "known for" that? No. Is an accusation from Greenpeace such a defining characteristic that it belongs as a statement of fact in a BLP's lead? No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are straw men. Is he "known for agreeing to accept covert compensation from fossil fuel companies for making vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming?" Yes. The Guardian article DOES indicate that he's known for that. The Guardian article does NOT literally say he's "known for" that. What part of 'I don't claim that the sentence is lifted from the Guardian; that would be plagiarism.' do you not understand? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Which Guardian article is this? The only one linked in this biography does not indicate anything of the sort. It indicated that he did not take compensation for his work.

The Greenpeace sting did not establish that Happer ever accepted a fee for his work. On the contrary, it indicated that he specifically would not accept a fee for his work, but that the false business persons could donate the equivalent of his fee to support the CO2 Coalition. Nothing in the Guardian article indicates that Happer is known for "agreeing to accept covert compensation from fossil fuel companies for making vocal skeptic statements regarding global warming". I have been unable to find any evidence to support that claim, either in the Guardian article that was linked in the Wikipedia biography or anywhere else.

I have, however, found evidence that indicates that such a claim is false: "My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary." This was an explicit statement by Happer to the Greenpeace false business people, indicating that he doesn't take compensation for his work, because it is what he believes, not what he is being paid to produce.

I don't know why it is so difficult for some people to believe that there are plenty of people who do things because they are motivated by what they believe is the truth and what is good for humanity and the planet, rather than by greed. Whether we agree with Happer or not, we should fairly represent him in a neutral POV biography. He doesn't take money to write skeptical statements about global warming or climate change, end of story.

There are more than enough other references in the biography that are accurate and neutral to establish that his perspective on the climate is not the mainstream. We don't need to have anything that is not neutral or is not consistent with an encyclopedic entry in his biography. It is not supposed to be a biased article. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Happer Interview on Climate Change

I’m leaving this here on the Talk Page so that an editor without a conflict of interest can decide whether or not to include a reference to this in the article. My employer conducted a lengthy interview with Happer some time back and it’s a thorough piece that covers a lot of what Happer claims about the environment, CO2, and more. William Happer Interview. Of related interest may be the "Focused Civil Dialogue" (read: debate) between Happer and David Karoly, PhD., here: Karoly–Happer Dialogue on Global Warming. --BlogRodent (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlogRodent: - I would consider this a primary source, but I have added it as Happer has the right to respond to the operation. starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The links to those articles are broken. Do you have updated links for those? JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Quote about a cult

Btyner supported by Nomoskedasticity insists on adding this sentence: "In February 2017 Happer described climate scientists (without specifying any in particular) as “a glassy-eyed cult.”[29]" The cited source (the Guardian) says that Happer's actual words were: “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult [.] It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.” Thus (a) Happer didn't use the words "a glassy-eyed cult" so putting this in quotes as Happer's words is a mistake; (b) Happer didn't say he was talking about "climate scientists" he could as easily have been thinking about people who call their statements "science", but aren't scientists. I suggested "actually quoting Happer verbatim might be okay" though it's arguably not an important or defining quote. But a flat-out misquote is not okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you might want to contact the Guardian and ask for a correction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The accurate, longer quotation seems better to me than the somewhat-inaccurate, shorter quotation-version made by the Guardian (in my initial view, for what little that's worth). And the accurate quotation (in the first paragraph above) might be readily acceptable to all. (Also, the accurate quotation could be shortened significantly, with ellipsis marks of course.) Bo99 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC

I think you mean something like 'In February 2017 Happer said "There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult ... They're glassy-eyed and they chant."' Any objections? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, we have " Happer described climate scientists (without specifying any in particular) as “a glassy-eyed cult.” (cited to The Guardian, a hostile source). This doesn't seem to add anything to the article & could be construed as borderline pejorative. Propose striking the line. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

hi Peter Gulutzan, Yes, your shortened quotation above seems roughly ok, in my view, for what that's worth. But my preference would be, 'There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult[.] ... It will potentially harm the image of all science.' That's the first sentence plus the fourth sentence. The omission of the second and third sentences would be because the first sentence, about a cult, essentially subsumes the second sentence, about Hare Krishna, and also the third sentence, about chanting. Bo99 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Pete Tillman, striking would be the best action. But we're dealing with insistent editors (Btyner re-inserted without discussion when I reverted, and Nomoskedasticity supported Btyner's re-insertion). Bo99's suggested words are a compromise, and I'd like to show we're willing to compromise by accepting them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my re-insertion was merely an attempt to address the issue Peter raised in the edit summary: 'Happer wasn't clear about who "they" are'; I wasn't trying to make trouble and fully agree that we shouldn't misquote people. Peter's new version is an improvement. Btyner (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

---

I have changed so that the text is: Happer said "There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult ... It will potentially harm the image of all science." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

More encyclopedic, less inflammatory. Thank you , Pete Tillman (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Peter. Best, Btyner (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump adviser?

I've seen a couple of press reports mentioning Happer as a possible Climate science adviser to the new administration. Might be premature for our article, but provides a likely explanation for those seeking to include the "glassy-eyed" bit, above....--Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/405043-noted-climate-skeptic-to-advise-trump-on-emerging-technologies User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Sources?

The editor Joel Lewis has deleted a lot of stuff [[2]] from this article on the basis of lack of secondary sources. While I understand that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, according to Wiki rules material from primary sources should be deleted?

Thanks,

JS (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for calling attention to Joel B. Lewis's (JBL's) edits in the last week, which appear contentious to me. If we accepted JBL's edit summaries saying "no secondary source", then any statement that a BLP subject makes would be disallowed -- I don't see how WP:PRIMARY allows such an interpretation, and I don't know what else JBL could be referring to (the edit summaries don't explain) -- but please consider the rest of the edits too. JBL also removed a reference to an article by Happer "and 15 others", as if that too violates a supposed primary-source restriction. JBL also added a statement that the Wall Street Journal editorial page "is known for its denialism of climate science" with a cite to a journal that doesn't say that. JBL also removed a quote by Happer because a source was used to "support" quotes by Happer, without saying what policy that supposedly violates. JBL also replaced statements based on sympathetic or neutral sources with statements based on critical blogs, which I claim is not allowed according to WP:BLPSPS. And most recently, when an editor reverted a tiny part of JBL's edits, JBL simply re-reverted with a one-word edit summary to keep the contentious material in, which I claim is a WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE violation. According to WP:BLP poorly sourced and contentious edits should be removed immediately, but since JBL simply re-inserts I suppose we should see first whether there is a strong consensus to keep them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To make an obvious point: the previous version was written in a deeply and intentionally misleading way. Highlights of this were

(1) the use of a critical source for the purpose of verifying that Happer wrote something, without any mention of the fact that the source was a detailed evisceration of what he wrote, and

(2) the ridiculous sentence "Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique," which managed to avoid saying anything whatsoever about the nature of the critique.

Perhaps 90% of the text consisted of quotes from Happer with references that demonstrated that he said the quoted things. This is totally unacceptable, as it provides no evidence that the statements are noteworthy and fails to provide a context to evaluate the quotes. In this case, this is particularly problematic because essentially all of the quotes consisted of false, misleading, or fringe statements. (The couple not covered by the preceding sentence were equally shoddy work, but were added presumably to paint Happer in a negative light, rather than to promote his fringe position.)

The current version (after my edits) is still a piece of junk, and it needs someone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia articles to rewrite it in a halfway decent way. But it at least has the virtue that it does not repeatedly present false statements without reliable sourcing. Any move back towards the previous version would certainly be in the wrong direction.

Incidentally, someone should probably add to the lead that Happer is primarily notable for being a climate denialist (perhaps not in those words) -- somehow, despite the thousands of bytes of text that were devoted to this in the body, it has been overlooked in the lead. --JBL (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Separately, thank you Peter Gulutzan for directing this discussion here from your talk page -- I appreciate it. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like statements like "Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique," then you should delete such statements. As this page is about Happer, what he says on different topics is noteworthy and should not be deleted just because they come from primary sources. Thanks, JS (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this is completely wrong and incompatible with encyclopedic coverage of an individual. We should quote subjects of biographies exactly as much as their exact words are significant; and significance is judged by looking at secondary sources. In Happer's case, he is quoted in reliable secondary sources almost exclusively as part of debunkings, refutations, and rebuttals, and therefore any section based on proper sourcing must consist primarily of negative critical responses. --JBL (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Statements like "The current version (after my edits) is still a piece of junk, and it needs someone who cares about the quality of Wikipedia articles to rewrite it in a halfway decent way" are merely opinions. It is appropriate to quote the subject of an article. If you wish to add secondary sources judging what Happer said, then that is fine. Deleting what Happer said is censorship. JS (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting one way or another on the specifics of this particular case, I must point out that accusations of "censorship" are thrown around far too lightly at Wikipedia. Such accusations generally reflect more poorly on the accuser than the accused. See WP:AGF, as well as thought-terminating cliche. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked the mass deletions of Happer's statements and writings that are the subject of this thread?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanta Sen (talk • contribs)

Obviously it is acceptable in principle to quote Happer in the article. But you have completely failed to acknowledge that it is not acceptable to quote him in the previous style and format of the article before I improved it. Happer has no right to have his false statements presented uncritically in his biography, and if you think otherwise then you shouldn't edit BLPs. --JBL (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe instead of whining you could make a concrete suggestion of an edit, and then everyone can see how your comments are related improving the article. --JBL (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

JS: My concrete suggestion was "removal of edits by editor JBL". Do you have a different proposal? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Obviously it is your right to propose this, but there is 0 chance that there will be consensus for it once a wider collection of editors has weighed in, so I don't really see the point in suggesting it. --JBL (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus for the removal, I assume the article should be reverted to the original as long as it does not violate any Wiki rules. This is an article about Happer. I think it is highly appropriate to hear what the man has to say about different topics as published in RS. If he says something wrong, there can be secondary sources pointing that out. To deny him the opportunity to say what he believes is nothing other than censorship. JS (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"hear what the man has to say"?? That's quite silly -- he has said a great many things, and the way to know what we should include is to gauge the attention they have received in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do remain civil. "Silly" is not an adjective that I usually hear when my opinions are discussed. JS (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The previous version violates the "wiki-rules" WP:SOURCES ("Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") and WP:NPOV ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."). There is 0 chance that it or anything like it is going to be restored. Please try to be serious. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As the disagreement is about the use of primary sources, the relevant Wiki rules are the rules for primary sources [[3]]. JS (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

JS: though our concerns differ, we agree that JBL's edits of May 6-8 shouild be removed. But, to avoid making the issue "JBL's conduct", I suggest we frame it as: here is the earlier version (as of before JBL's first May 6 revert), here is the later version (as of after JBL's last May 8 revert), itemize each objection to the later version, and then WP:RFC. Alternatively: if you don't like the effort and heat, just say so and we'll let JBL have his way. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty remarkable that "how to make the section better" does not seem to be an interesting question to either of you! --JBL (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter Gulutzan:, as the book I am writing is only four years behind schedule, I certainly don't have time or energy for an RfC. My thought was that changes that JBL made should have consensus. If that is not so, we can add this article to the long list of article in Wiki in which the one with the most time on his/her hands "wins". Best, JS (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

Based on the article it seems Happer’s views on climate change and his role in the Trump administration have received considerable attention, yet neither is mentioned in the lead section. Would anyone mind if I added something? R2 (bleep) 21:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

His comparison of climate scientists with Nazis has been deleted as "trivial". I think it delineates his mindset pretty well. When you lack reasons for your position, smear the person. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems slanderous to take an unflattering quoted sentence out of context and place it in the lead. Think of the lead as a standalone [future] obituary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::1a (talk • contribs)

This absolutely belongs in the lede. It's such a stunningly ignorant and incendiary statement, covered by multiple RS, on the topic of climate science that it is absolutely lede-worthy for someone who's gonna lead a government panel reviewing climate science. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, his anti-climate, pro-CO2 views are important enough for the lede. starship.paint (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning his denial in general, definitely. One particular statement (which is repeated in the appropriate section), too trivial. Can we agree on that? — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::1a (talk • contribs)

Hmm, while his statement seems outrageous, perhaps it shouldn't be in the lede. I wouldn't say it's trivial, but maybe, it's more important to state that he thinks more CO2 is a good thing. starship.paint (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate to say Happer rejects the "scientific consensus", he does reject the existential threat climate change may pose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::1a (talk • contribs)

He also rejects the scientific consensus that humans are an important cause. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Comparing demonization of CO2 with "Jews under Hitler"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Based on my review of the disucssion here, I find a consensus here that the proposed sentence "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler" should not be present in the lede section of the article. Those opposing have mentioned our undue weight policy and guidelines on lead sections, in particular noting that this content is already present elsewhere in the article. Those in support have argued that the statement was so significant, and covered widely enough in sources that it belongs in the lede, but I did not find this argument compelling enough to overcome the opposition and close the RFC in that fashion. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the lede cover Happer's 2014 remarks that the "demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Happer is a prominent climate change denier who currently has a lot of influence within the Trump administration as a purported expert on climate science (despite having zero training in climate science). He is set to chair a government panel to review the evidence on climate change with the intent to challenge the consensus language in past government panels on climate change (per the NY Times[[4]]). The quote in question is so ignorant and incendiary that all RS that cover this man and his influence in the White House make mention of it, e.g. The New York Times[5], Associated Press[6], Reuters[7][8], CNBC[9], Bloomberg[10], CNN[11]... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's mentioned in the Views section where it belongs, but doesn't add any value to the lede which is meant to summarize the content. And his stance on climate change is summarized very clearly there. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:DUE. Specifically, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery" (emphasis added). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. It's fine in the more detailed sections below but is over the top for the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In the lead per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." (so should not concentrate on a particular event unless that event was instrumental in making the person notable), but include in the article (scandalous enough to be reported and notable), and keep the mention in the lead in relation to climate change (important as part of the general bio summary). —PaleoNeonate – 13:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Snoogans assessment. Failing to point out in the lead the ignorance and unsuitability of this person for that Trump appointed role would be reprehensible. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support as above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The sentence is a complete nonsequitur, with a quote that is not accompanied by anything that makes it encyclopedic. (The biggest problem with this article is that it is still (even after I did a massive trimming 2 years ago) full of sentences essentially of the form "X said Y".) Happer is a crank, and the article should say that (properly sourced, of course) instead of trying to hang him with his own words. --JBL (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The sentence should be there because it is shocking and makes a good job at conveying how strong Happer's views are on CO2 in particular and climate change in general. He's not a run-of-the-mill climate change denier who doesn't believe in climate change and doesn't think much about it, but is a powerful advocate for the opposite side of the "debate". If anything, the second paragraph of the lead should be expanded upon so it gives a more complete view of his active opposition to the scientific consensus. This isn't some random celebrity whose views on the matter are a mere curiosity, but, as stated above, a guy with serious influence within the current administration, whose ideas and positions are taken seriously by an alarming number of people. If we remove this paragraph, what we are left with is "He was dismissed from the Department of Energy in 1993 by the Clinton Administration after disagreements on the ozone hole and climate change" which doesn't really say anything. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• I could support keeping this if coverage of the remark in the body of the text were expanded with INDEPTH coverage of this remark, it looks like sufficient SIGCOV of this remark now exists to enable such an expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point. It would be ok with me, too. --JBL (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is irrelevant as part of the lead section. One "supporter" above mentions his unsuitability as a Trump advisor - this article is not about politics - it's a man's life. In light of current affairs, however, the only way I could see "support" for this quote is to both (1) add context and (2) plan on removing it upon his death or retirement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::3 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• This^ account was created yesterday, and is a single-purpose account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's an IP address -- it's impossible to tell how long the individual using it has been editing, or on what topics. When I use IPv6, my address changes every day or more often. On the other hand, its argument is obviously silly, and anyone assessing consensus will realize that. --JBL (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought the point here was to do a survey - you guys seem to be relentless about whitewashing objective writing ([Some contributors] seems to get in all sorts of fights along political lines). I'm totally with you if the article is about "the appointment of William Happer to the NSC", opinions should fly...here it's a biography and this out of context quote would have no place in his obituary or eulogy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::24 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Observe that the same person, 11 hours later, has a different IP address. Biographies are not obituaries or eulogies. (Actually I could totally see this quote ending up in an obituary in a major newspaper.) Also it is very poor form to make personal comments about other editors. Also also I have no idea what "whitewashing objective writing" is supposed to mean in this context. --JBL (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone seems to have removed my faux pas. Thanks. As an aside - we probably know many people in common. Anyway, I was inelegantly referring to the consistent, immediate removal of added context for that quote.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:4011:1800::1b (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That seems likely, at least if you spend much time in building 2. —JBL (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Undue; an excellent example of exactly what we should try to avoid in a lead section. The lead already summarizes Happer's position on climate change. It is redundant and non-neutral to include his most incendiary quote. Quotes should generally be avoided in lead sections as a general matter. R2 (bleep) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead should be a summary of the body. There's no reason this specific detail should be in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• opposed, Bo99 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't belong in the lead, this article already has serious NPOV and BLP issues and including this would just make it worse. We don't egnerally use people's most controversial quotes in the opening, climate change as a subject is not a reason to break that here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  and BLP issues If you see improperly sourced content violating WP:BLP please remove it. —PaleoNeonate – 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Definitely does not belong in the lead, and just from a form and style consideration, it's out of sequence, reads very strangely and doesn't befit an encyclopedia article to be in the lead. The rest of the lead appears to be an adequate summary, and this quote appears in the body in any case. Cynistrategus (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It does not belong in the lead, but is fine elsewhere. Rorix the White (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is supposed to summarize the article (including his views). Specific details, like the quote, belong in the section describing his views. William2001^(talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I came to this with an open mind. The statement was made in 2014. I ran down recent hits from google-news, and in approx. half of the 10 items I skimmed the Hitler comments appeared. This indicates to me that this is a significant view, of lasting importance, highlighted by WP:RSes covering this individual. Therefore, I would tack onto the end of existing lede (already discussing climate change / appointment to position). Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on the references

I don't edit many wikipedia articles so I'm not sure on the protocol, but a number of the citations seem to be incorrect or broken. In particular, the reference labeled "Shaw" points to a report from the National Academy on University Research Centers of Excellence for Homeland Security. This reference is then used throughout the article to justify where Happer worked. Is this really the appropriate reference throughout? It's behind a paywall so I can't see it. The first reference sounds more appropriate (it points to his biography from the American Institute of Physics), but it's a dead link. This second link should probably be changed or checked because it's used throughout the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.242.72 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I found an archive version of the AIP page, so the link works now. As for the other reference, the ability for anyone to view a reference is preferrable, but not an absolute prerequisite to satisfy WP:V. We usually accept in good faith that the reference supports the claim, if there isn't a good reason to doubt it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The second reference (which is freely downloadable, just with a bit of hassle) includes biographies of the participants. One of the participants is Happer. It is somewhat unclear to me who wrote the biography (i.e., it might have been with information he provided), but I also don't see any reason to think it is wrong about anything. (Before my edits of a few days ago, it was clear that information from it had been added by somewhat who didn't really understand what they were doing -- what was significant, etc. -- but I was able to download the file and verify that it asserts the things it was being used for in the biographical sections of the article.) --JBL (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"It was described by Ryan Chittum… as shameful"

The following is used in the article to disagree with a Happer article called "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide":

It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The first thing about this is that Chittum is not said to have any scientific qualifications. The second, looking at the source cited, is that Chittum quotes at length from Happer, makes personal attacks on him, and says that Happer has been contradicted by John Shimkus, who also appears to have no scientific qualifications. Taking a quick look at the WSJ, Chittum was its correspondent on real estate. This material is just knockabout stuff, so I propose to delete it, unless anyone objects and can make a case for keeping it. Moonraker (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The CJR is a reliable source and the quote is attributed so it falls under WP:RSOPINION, the same criteria which makes the WSJ Op-Ed worthy of inclusion in the first place. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ReconditeRodent -- the paragraph as it's been left is "Here's a thing Happer wrote." Well, Happer is an academic; academics write lots of things. The only reason this thing is worth including (broadly per WP:DUE) is the part Moonraker removed, i.e., that it merited comment elsewhere; that comment was in a RS and was properly attributed. I'm going to restore it. JBL (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider a proposal that reduced the amount of "here's a ridiculous quote from Happer, followed by a back-and-forth about just how ridiculous it is" in the article in favor of a broader perspective. For example, maybe that whole paragraph should be deleted. (But it's not an outlier in the section.) --JBL (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Moonraker. Anybody can have an opinion about the article, and anybody can google to find an opinion -- I did, and found one saying "Needless to say, they [i.e. Happer and Schmitt] were right on the money." But existence of an opinion is not a case for inserting it in the Happer article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, the same person who added the quote originally, has restored. I do not believe there is consensus for this and I do believe that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE means consensus is required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Including a childish attack by Chittum in a BLP is surely contrary to policy, but to clarify that he is not a serious critic I have added his credentials. Moonraker (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The only reason this thing is worth including (broadly per WP:DUE) is the part Moonraker removed is correct - "adding credentials for Chittum" makes the article look like fighting between the pro-science camp and the denialist camp.

Since the quote in question is about biology and Happer has no biological qualifications, Happer and Chittum are on the same boat. Should we also add that Happer is a biological layman? Better to delete the whole thing, which I did. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The quote was about CO2 and was only obliquely about biology. It doesn't take long to establish that CO2 is good for plant life, even by a "biological layman". It is common knowledge.

Happer is qualified to draw conclusions based upon the data from his specialty, physics, as it relates to gases in the atmosphere (also his specialty) and how they relate to a common biological phenomenon which is extremely well-known and not in dispute (i.e., that plants generally grow better as CO2 is elevated). Add to that fact that Happer is actually a scientist, and a scientist from any field can operate in any other on the basis of their understanding of how the scientific method works, by merely learning the necessary guidelines...which are extremely easy to obtain and learn. Many scientists crossover into other fields that have nothing to do with their original formal education. Science would look very different if they did not.

Chittum, on the other hand, is not even a scientist. He holds not scientific credentials whatsoever, and so isn't even marginally qualified to render judgment on a scientist who has obviously researched the material he is discussing--whether or not we agree with Happer's conclusion or not. Chittum is a business journalist, unqualified to offer any meaningful opinion on that WSJ article.

Bottom line is that Happer is a scientist, Chittum is not. Happer is qualified to render expert opinions on the effect of CO2 on Earth's systems (since it is his area of expertise in physics), and is qualified to render an expert opinion on a non-controversial statement that CO2 is a boon to plant life, which can be established by anyone with a minimal amount of research. Chittum is not qualified in any scientific field, and is not qualified to render a meaningful opinion regarding Happer's work.

Frankly, I don't care about the disputed portion that was deleted. I just feel that this deserved to be addressed. We shouldn't try to equate the opinions of those who are professionals with those who are offering utterly unqualified opinions, whose only purpose is to attack another. I don't see how Chittum's article was ever a consideration in the first place for anything. It was devoid of value, just a smear piece. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Greenpeace "sting" problem, part deux...

In an earlier revision, under "Views - Climate Change Position", a statement was added from an article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science) ostensibly summarizing Happer's opinion about the report he was writing on climate change for the fake business representative, saying, "Happer further acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal."

However, an examination of the source reveals that the Guardian printed conflicting information which indicates clearly that Happer did not think his report would not pass peer-review.

In fact, his statement upon which that statement made by the Guardian was based clearly indicates exactly the opposite of what the Guardian claimed: “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like."

Happer stated two things regarding the acceptance of the article for peer review:

(1) It might greatly delay publication.

(2) It might require major changes.

Happer's statement indicates a possibility that it would be delayed or require changes...not that it was probable (i.e., more likely than not). Nor was there any suggestion by Happer that it would not pass peer-review; his statement makes the assumption that it certainly would pass peer-review, but possibly delayed or with major changes.

The rule is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

I'm unclear if this discussion should be removed from the talk page, but the Guardian's false statement should certainly not be on his biography on Wikipedia. We need to strive for a neutral POV. The Guardian's own words contradict themselves, so they are not neutral, particularly when they directly contradict the quote upon which they base their statement. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"It needs major changes (inverting the main point) to pass" has the same meaning as "it does not pass". It is essentially "2+2=5", and it needs to be changed to "2+2=4" to pass review. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a fallacious interpretation. You have converted "It may not pass unchanged" to "It most likely won't pass", and then equate changes to the same thing as a different report altogether. Bottom line is that Happer believed that the report would pass peer-review. He thought that it might (small probability) be delayed. That is still passing peer-review. He thought that it might (small probability) require changes. That is still passing peer-review. He did not doubt it would pass peer-review, by his own words. His words carry the assumption that it absolutely would pass peer-review, even in the case that it was delayed or required changes. The argument could be made that he did not know if it would pass peer-review without changes, but by expressing that it "might" require changes, rather than "would" or "probably would", he is expressing the opinion that it is a possibility, but not a possibility that is more likely than not. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review. That is simply incorrect, on the basis of both grammar and logic. It misrepresents his own words, and could be potentially libelous. I'm surprised that nobody has noticed it before. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be super helpful if you stopped using the word "fallacy" and its derivations, which you don't seem to understand very well. It's ok to talk like a normal human being and say things like "I disagree with you, for this reason: ..." or "I think the article would be better if it said X instead of Y, because of Z" (where hopefully the reasons have something to do with Wikipedia's core policies or guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc.). --JBL (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The logic was incorrect--factually untrue and based upon a fallacious representation. The statement "It needs major changes (inverting the main point) to pass" has the same meaning as "it does not pass" is factually untrue. Those two things are not logically equivalent. The remainder of the comment is even less rational than the first part. Understanding logic and logical fallacies is an important aspect of producing accurate information. I would counter that you don't appear to have an essential grasp of the meaning of fallacy, since you do not appear to have recognized the fallacious nature of his comment.

I removed the portion of my comment which I feel was disparaging, which I did not consciously intend. But a statement of fact is a statement of fact. That argument was fallacious.

Rather than sniping at each other, which is not useful for any of us, why don't we simply discuss the issue?

My intention was only to clean up some biased and unnecessary items in order to further the Wikipedia:NPOV purpose. The Guardian made a statement which was factually untrue, based upon the quote that was immediately attached to that statement in the Guardian's own article. Our own personal viewpoints should not matter regarding the content of what is added to a Wikipedia article. We are striving for a high-quality, NPOV article. If we include factually-inaccurate, biased, or opinionated materials when they are not appropriate, we will diminish the value of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source.

Therefore, completely apart from any feelings any of us might have about the issues involved, we need to present the issue accurately and honestly. This entire Guardian article is biased in favor of Greenpeace's position. There is no neutrality or counterpoint in the article itself. It is fair to use the article as a reference, but we ought to be careful to use it in a neutral manner. The Guardian's statement that Happer said the report would not pass peer-review directly contradicts his own statement in which the strongest statement he made was that it might require changes and might be delayed...nothing about it not passing peer-review. (It would be somewhat naive to suppose that all or even most reports submitted for peer-review do not require changes. From what I have observed, that is the rule rather than the exception.)

Therefore, to remain neutral POV, that portion of the Guardian's statement should not be included, since it is factually incorrect. I have left the rest of the story untouched, because it is simply sums up the event. (I feel that perhaps the sentence "Hiding the sources of funding in this way is lawful under U.S. law" is also not appropriate for a neutral POV article, since that implies dishonesty on the part of Happer, which was not established. It is also a viewpoint-based statement. Asking a company to donate rather than taking a fee, when that donation doesn't fund your work is only "hiding funding" to people who are ideologically primed to see any donation to a group that also supports a person as "funding". Since Happer gains no benefit and that money would never be used to pay for the report, it isn't really hiding funding. It is also an unnecessary expansion. Nevertheless, I did not remove it. Perhaps it should be removed to keep the article neutral.)

We can argue about the nuances of the statement, which is fair, but it is rather obvious that Happer believed that the report would pass peer-review, so that additional comment should be removed. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Happer status as a "climate scientist"

A previous revision states in two places that Happer is not a climate scientist...

"Happer, who is not a climate scientist, rejects the scientific consensus on climate change."

"Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist, and says that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research."

I removed these statements because they misrepresent Happer's experience as a physicist and his scientific experience in the field of climatology. Whether we agree with him or not, it cannot be contested that he has obtained the requisite experience to qualify as a physicist with supervisory authority over climate change research and with numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals specifically in the field of climate science (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Happer/research)...thus incontrovertibly qualifying him as a climate scientist.

Passing peer review and publishing in a particular field of science is a certain indication that a scientist qualifies in that field. Happer is a climate scientist, even if we do not agree with his conclusions.

Up until about 2019, when UCLA offered the first undergraduate degree in climate science, there was no such thing as a formal "climate scientist" or formal "climatologist". A climate scientist is simply a scientist of any field of science who studies the climate.

Therefore, the first statement is not true. He is undoubtedly a climate scientist, having published in the field of climate science as currently as June 2024.

The second statement is a genetic fallacy, because it attempts to devalue Happer's value as a climate scientist by unnecessarily indicating that he has no formal training as a climate scientist. To maintain a neutral POV, it is adequate and correct to say that "Happer says that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research."

This removes the bias of the genetic fallacy--which would suggest that his experience has no meaning in the field of climate science, merely because it is not formal, when the same is true of the majority of climate scientists who hail from many different scientific fields--while providing adequate information regarding the source of his scientific knowledge on the subject of climate, providing a neutral POV for the reader. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Physicists are physicists, they are no climatologists, they are physicists. We would need as RS saying he is a climate scientist. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no climatologists, who are solely climatologists. They are all scientists with degrees in particular fields that aren't climatology who research in the field of climatology. Up until five years ago, nobody could get a degree in climatology. Verify it yourself. Climatologists are physicists, chemists, geologists, marine biologists, and many others. Until a degree was offered in 2019, nobody could study specifically to be a climatologist. Climatologists are people who study the climate. Happer studies the climate. Ergo, he is a climatologist. As I pointed out, the indicator that someone is a particular type of scientist is that they research in that field and publish in that field. Happer does both. There are physicists who are climatologists. There are chemists who are climatologists. There are biologists who are climatologists. You have a misunderstanding of what a climatologist is. Even if we grant he is a physicist, he contributes to the field of climatology, making him a climatologist or climate scientist--take your pick--as well. To say he is not a climatologist or climate scientist is an attempt to inject politics into the article. Your statement that I have an agenda is false. If I had an agenda, I would have edited the entire article. I edited only those few things that did not present a neutral POV, as appropriate for an encyclopedic article. There is plenty of content in the article that indicates that Happer's position on the climate is not in the mainstream. It is unnecessary to add fallacious and inaccurate statements to his biography to make that point. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)