Talk:Richard Lindzen

Contrarian / contrarianism

The article presently contains the following problematic text:

Lindzen has been characterized as a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[26][27][28][29] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak." [30] This characterization has been linked to Lindzen's view that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking. Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette"[31] – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.[32]

The problems with the text are many, so I'll just focus on the problems with Wikipedia's voice stating, "X has been characterized as a contrarian...".

1) As with most of the participants in the climate change debate, Lindzen has been characterized as everything: a denier, a contrarian, a shill, a skeptic, a scientist, and a modern-day Galileo. Likewise, there are probably no climate change skeptics who have not been characterised as "contrarians", as one of Kim's quotes above showed: "Climate contrarians include scientists S. Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Sallie Baliunas, David Legates, Sherwood Idso, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels" (M.T. Boykoff in the Geological Society Special Publication piece).

2) So what is a "contrarian" then, and how does it differ from a skeptic? It would be difficult for me to pin down exactly what the word means in the context of the climate change debate, but it is certainly intended to convey that one's sincerity is less than it would be if he was just a scientist who happened to disagree with the consensus. In other words, the word is not neutral; it is a loaded term. There is no way of objectively showing that a person is a contrarian. Anyone who calls someone a contrarian is merely expressing an opinion.

Simpler:

1) we have a lack of relevance (=lack of weight): every skeptic has been called a "contrarian" and likewise Lindzen has been called everything, so the reader wants to know, so what? What's the point you're trying to make here, Wikipedia?

2) the language is not neutral (=POV): "contrarian" is a subjective term, and as the term that may lead the reader to question Lindzen's sincerity, it's a subjective term with negative connotations.

As this is a BLP, BLP policy applies, and we have an urgent requirement to get the article right. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt Contrarian just another way to say rebel? Although from websters it seems to be more to do with stock investors?

Extended content
Main Entry: con·trar·i·an Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtrer-ē-ən, kän-\ Function: noun Date: 1657 a person who takes a contrary position or attitude; specifically : an investor who buys shares of stock when most others are selling and sells when others are buying — contrarian adjective — con·trar·i·an·ism \-ə-ˌniz-əm\ noun

mark nutley (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that definition up to the semicolon is okay, although we'd probably need access to the present edition of one of those multi-volume dictionaries you can only find in libraries. What matters, I think, is how the word is used in the context of the climate change debate, rather than how it was actually defined in the pre-Hansen era. One thing is certain: whatever it means, it is not a neutral term. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I collapsed the dictionary thing, it was a tad spread out lol. I think you need to look at it in context, hansen said lindzen was a contrarian because he disagrred with him. I don`t think it was meant as an insult at the time the way it appears to be now. So i am unsure of what to do. Hansen said it, it is reliably sourced, i don`t think it matters if that stays in tbh mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I don't know what Hansen himself has said. By "Hansen era", I simply meant the historical era of the climate change debate, which I'm arbitrarily suggesting began in June 1988 when Hansen appeared in the US Senate. I have no idea if Hansen himself has called Lindzen a "contrarian". I can understand why you wouldn't think it matters that much, because it is a minor point in the scheme of things. I am, however, trying to get this particular BLP right. Once I've done that, I plan to use it as a template to get all the other ones right too -- including biographies of the likes of Phil Jones & Rajendra Pachauri. It seems pedantic, I know, but I can assure you, this text would never get into a real encyclopaedia, where you'd find some far more pedantic-sounding discussions than this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex, it is reliably sourced, and you know that may more reliable sources can be attached to that sentence. You can take some from the list i've provided. BLP articles does not mean articles without criticisms or "negative" statements - it means that criticism and "negative" statements have to be extra carefully sourced. And this is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, one of the sources is this slanderous piece of hate speech here. That is a blog posting, not a reliable source. In any case, to keep it simple I have ignored the reliability of the sourcing in this argument here and focused on two main points: (1) it fails weight; and (2) it is not neutral. Alex Harvey (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(I have removed that source from the article now.) Alex Harvey (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, when you get back to this, please respond to the main point, (1) (assuming you do wish to continue). Alex Harvey (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against the removal of a single reference, there are plenty available (as shown). I do object to your labelling it "slanderous piece of hate speech" though (even though i'm rather certain that i wasn't the one who added it), especially since you are commenting on an author, who is also covered under BLP. (play it fair dude) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kim, I didn't say you added it and I didn't suspect you added it either. It is slanderous, and it is hateful. Now, will you be so good as to respond on point. That's point (1) above. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to the point. Now please refactor your BLP vio on Kit Stolz ... [you can remove this comment when you've done so] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will shortly have to escalate this issue to the BLP/N or some other noticeboard (that is the Lindzen BLP issue). Alternatively, you can choose at this point to contribute constructively rather than disruptively. Please respond to the point of this thread, point (1). Alex Harvey (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't currently see the Stolz blog post listed as a source for any information in this article. So, what exactly is the problem here? Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP is not limited to article space, and the trouble is that Alex is making rather serious allegations about Stolz. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because BLP policy states - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". Grist is not a news organization. And Grist "full editorial control" is summed up on the website as "Start writing now! No hassles, hardly any questions asked! You'll get immediate exposure, the joy of seeing your name in lights, perhaps a moment or two of fleeting fame".Momento (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As stated i have no objections against the removal of that particular reference. Btw. the Grist "start writing now" line is for commentary on stories - not for their journalistic aspects[1]. Here btw. is a bio of Stolz[2]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex Harvey, I have read your comments and tried to understand your objections. Unfortunately, I have found them lacking in clarity, and failing to produce actual evidence that the cited policies have been violated as claimed.

1) Your argument is based on the assertion that "Lindzen has been characterized as everything: a denier, a contrarian, a shill, a skeptic, a scientist, and a modern-day Galileo". The first part of this statement is sweeping to the point of meaninglessness ("everything") and the second, more specific part is not backed by evidence - can you present as many reliable sources describing Lindzen as a modern-day Galileo as those describing him as a contrarian? If so, we surely could consider mentioning that view in the article, too.

2) The term can certainly be understood in a more objective sense than you suggest, namely as describing someone who habitually takes a stand against the prevailing opinion, i.e. in this case not only with regard to global warming, but also, say, lung cancer. (Which also shows that the Boykoff quote does not support your argument 1), since it talks only about "Climate contrarians", without telling us whether these people are adherents of the mainstream views in other fields.) To quote from one of the cited sources [3], which is even titled "The Contrarian":

“If you want to prove yourself a brilliant scientist, you don’t always agree with the consensus,” said Daniel Kirk-Davidoff, a former student of Lindzen’s at MIT. “You show you’re right and everyone else is wrong.”

He certainly enjoys showing he’s right and everyone else is wrong,” Kirk-Davidoff continued. “If you have a ten minute conversation with him, you can tell that.”

The same article also mentions Lindzen's success at portraying himself as the principled underdog, a David against the Goliath of the scientific mainstream. All this shows that the insinuation it is certainly intended to convey that one's sincerity is less is entirely your own and presumably even Lindzen himself wouldn't agree with this negative interpretation.

But even if one ignores these problems with your argument and focuses on its conclusion, the language is not neutral (=POV): "contrarian" is a subjective term, it does not make sense as an objection to the current article version: The text does not call Lindzen a contrarian, it only says that he has been characterized as such - an entirely objective statement. WP:NPOV does not forbid reporting notable opinions (on the contrary, it requires us to do so). You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, that these sources (USA Today, Seed magazine, the scientists quoted by the Seattle Times and Outside magazine) are wrong and that Lindzen is not a contrarian. But until you get your view to a similar level of notability (by having it published in a reliable source, etc.), we will have to restrict coverage in the article to the view that you are disagreeing with.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, it seems you have skimmed through some of the issues, and I apologise if I haven't been clear. I haven't spelt out the policy violations line and verse yet as most of the editors here know the policies pretty well. Okay, as you've written quite a lot of text here, it'd take me quite a while to write up a response that properly addresses all the points you've made. Instead, I'll apologise in advance for not responding and return instead with a question: Do you believe that Lindzen habitually -- these are your words -- takes contrary positions on arguments, in the same way that, I suppose, a kleptomaniac "habitually" steals things from others? Or, if not in the same way, then how would you say his habitual contrary stance differs from that of the habitual theft of the kleptomaniac? Apologies that this is a round about way of getting back to the policy, but I'll return to WP:WEIGHT in a moment. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(If you're uncertain about where this is going, I'll also get you to look up WP:INDISCRIMINATE: ...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I point this out because you appear to have argued, because the "contrarian" may be verifiable per WP:V (I don't think it is but I'm not going there yet) it is automatically suitable for inclusion, whether I happen to agree or not.) Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe that Lindzen ... I am a bit puzzled by that question. Didn't I just argue that our own opinions about Lindzen do not matter in this debate?

I am even more surprised at the introduction of kleptomania into this discussion, and am trying hard to interpret it differently than as an attempt to discredit the rather innocent, factual term "habitually". In my understanding, it denotes nothing more than a recurring activity, a persistent trait - in other words, exactly the kind of thing that should be covered in biographies (as opposed to one-off events that are not characteristic of the subject). For example, one could say that Mother Teresa "habitually" picked dying people off the streets of Calcutta.

Or to mention examples closer to the subject area at hand: Richard Feynman or Wolfgang Pauli certainly had a contrarian streak: They habitually questioned and criticized things that most of their peers accepted. In both cases, this is a well-known and important fact about their personality and scientific activity which is mentioned in most biographies and indeed alluded to in both Wikipedia articles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see why I would try to discredit the word "habitual." It's a fine word. It can have two meanings, according to the Mirriam-Webster: doing, practicising, or acting in some manner by force of habit, e.g. habitual drunkenness or inherent in an individual, e.g. habitual grace. That is, it either means something good, or it means something bad. Habitual altruism (Mother Teresa) is a good thing, whereas habitual substance abuse, e.g. a smoking habit, is probably bad.

You note that Feynman and Pauli have been observed to have "contrarian streaks." I don't doubt it, even though their articles don't say so. I don't believe that you could be a great scientist and not have a contrarian streak.

So what is really being said when various people call Lindzen a "contrarian"? You've mentioned Kirk-Davidoff, but a careful reading of the source suggests that he was quoted out of context (you'll note that it is the only text in the article attributed to Kirk-Davidoff). K-D himself appears to have meant something positive, and in a context that is hidden from us. But generally, how is the term used when applied to Lindzen? The answer is, it is generally used in a pejorative sense, and takes a meaning which is peculiar to the climate change debate (where it is usually used as a euphemism for "denier.")

So coming back to weight, then, what do we have on this really? If you go through KDP's six sources, you'll find it's not as simple as his quotes suggest. The word is indeed used against Lindzen, but in incompatible senses, that none of this is captured in the present article. Wallace & Kirk-Davidoff clearly mean the positive sense of "contrarian" that all great scientists have. Others clearly meant the pejorative sense of the person who just refuses to admit he's wrong, or is an industry funded denier (e.g. the Boykoff clearly uses this latter sense, which is completely incompatible with Wallace & Kirk-Davidoff). Of the sources, we have just one source which actually looks in depth into the question of Lindzen's contrarianism, but that source is not reliable; it's published by an environmentalist with an obvious agenda. Subtracting that source, we have nothing. So there's no weight.

Given that we have ~ 600 words for a great man's career and accomplishments, how can we possibly justify a wishy-washy section on alleged contrarianism on the basis of this sketchy source material? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

HaeB, have you reconsidered the matter now? If so, are you going to say something? If not, are you going to say why you stand by your original arguments? Although I said above that I "expect" to be having these same arguments come 1/1/2011, it's certainly not my wish. What I'd really like to be doing come 1/1/2011 is using the arguments and precedents set by the discussions at this page to bring sanity to the other climate change BLPs. E.g. I would rather be spending that time demonstrating my good faith and fixing Phil Jones's or Kevin Trenberth's biographies. Right now, Phil Jones's article is an article about Climategate, and that isn't fair either, and for all the same reasons that Lindzen's biography is not fair. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC #1: Section on 'Statistical significance of recent warming'

This RFC follows from the above thread Talk:Richard_Lindzen#No_statistically_significant_warming_since_1995.

An editor has, after failing to build a consensus above, added the following section, which I reproduce verbatim:

Statistical significance of recent warming

Writing in Newsweek in 2007, he stated "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." [19] In a paper presented to the Competitive Enterprise Institute Lindzen referred to the "warming episode from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s" and the "fact that the global temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties" as evidence against climate models.[20] An open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, signed by Lindzen includes the statement "there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."[21] More recently, he has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and restated this as "warming has ceased for the past fourteen years".[22][23]

Other climate change advocates have supported this editor by restoring the material when it has been reverted.

Summary of problems:

1) Extremely WP:UNDUE emphasis on passing statements of a minor fact: I believe that the four sentences appearing in this article are of only a few statements that Lindzen has made to this effect.

2) Quote-mining (see WP:SYN): The text is classic quote mining that draws four sentences from four disparate sources, each removed from its original context, and presents Lindzen, falsely, as a believer that "global warming ceased in ~ 1998". In fact, Lindzen's well known view is that global warming is naturally caused, that increases in CO2 should lead to small increases in surface temperature, with no strong view on whether or not warming will continue into the 21st century.

3) Violation of WP:STRUCTURE: it is not clear why this section has been given its own subsection. Lindzen has published at least 230 papers, and many op-eds, and not one of them has been devoted to what is referred to in this subheading.

For his part, John Quiggin has argued that because there has been such a great deal of media furor surrounding this little fact of lack of statistically significant warming since 1995 (which has in fact been generated largely by Phil Jones's recent concession in a BBC interview that it is true and also presumably from revelations in the Climategate letters that other scientists like Kevin Trenberth have also worried about this privately), the section therefore derives a lot of weight indirectly.

I have said that this is a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.

Note: editor John Quiggin is an environmental activist and author of the recent Lindzen attack pages 'Lindzen and “No statistically significant warming since 1995″' cross-posted at his blog and Crooked Timber.

Presently, Professor Lindzen's article is grotesquely skewed to presenting his climate change skepticism at the expense of his career and contributions to mankind's scientific knowledge.

I therefore seek consensus to have this material completely removed, so that I can return to the task of having trimmed the bloated media appearances section and other sections to lengths that are consistent with our WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP policies. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses from Previously Involved Editors

• Comment I will leave this discussion to others. For the record though, User:Alex Harvey appears to be the only editor who has maintained an objection, while numerous others supported it in talk or re-included it after Alex Harvey's deletions. I don't think, therefore, that I was editing against consensus, or having failed to build a consensus among editors other than Alex Harvey.JQ (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Those editors supported you only after you had already added your material, which in turn occurred after you had firstly failed to build a consensus, which is exactly what I said, and this will be clear to anyone who can be bothered reading the above thread. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gasp. That's how WP works. When are you going to realize that? -Atmoz (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Atmoz. It may be how Wikipedia works -- in the climate change pages -- but it's definitely not how it's supposed to work. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No. In all of Wikipedia, edits are made without prior consensus. There is no requirement that consensus be made before making an edit. How many times does this have to be said to you before you understand? I know I've told you several times. I'm beginning to think you're just being obtuse. -Atmoz (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz, there is nothing wrong with making a WP:BOLD edit without consensus. That, however, is not what happened here, and it is not what we are talking about. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Alex. I think it is WP:SYN. A few quotes taken from many hundreds of words and arranged to make paragraph. The whole paragraph should be deleted and anything important inserted elsewhere.Momento (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses from Previously Uninvolved Editors

• Support inclusion of material — I can see no problems with sourcing or weight, and it's very interesting stuff that helps readers get a handle on what RL is saying. These are not "minor" facts. I can hardly think of more major pronouncements he could make. If there is quote mining, you have not shown it up by quoting RL saying the opposite. So if the quotes accurately reflect his opinions, and they seem to, you cannot call is SYN (which relates to marrying several unrelated facts/sources to come up with a novel conclusion, which is not happening as far as I can see). Your STRUCTURE objection is simply a fishing expedition. ► RATEL ◄ 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, would you be willing to make it transparent here that you are in fact a climate change activist from www.350.org and not a neutral, completely uninvolved editor here? When you write, "if the quotes accurately reflect his opinions, and they seem to...", I should say, I do believe this is probably your sincerely held view (so I assume good faith), but that you are wrong on this point, because you don't have any actual knowledge of, or interest in, Lindzen's views. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of material - I'm uninvolved on this issue, but involved on other issues for this article. JQ's reasons are persuasive. Lindzen is the best that the climate skeptic/denial camp has, sadly, so his arguments on these issues are far more notable than his scientific work of past decades. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, the problem is, though, that John hasn't given any reasons that are based on policy. You might like John's reasons, but that doesn't mean his reasons are consistent with policy. Are you saying that you believe, in fact, that his reasons are consistent with policy? If so, what is it that I have misunderstood? Please refer to a policy. You appear to be explicitly arguing that we should, in fact, use this article as a WP:COATRACK for the argumentation/refutation of climate change skepticism. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The policies are notability and weight - it satisfies both. This stuff is a major reason why Lindzen is wiki material and no more of a coatrack than to talk about his prior work when he did accepted science. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian, you say that "[t]his stuff is a major reason why Lindzen is wiki material". I ask, "What stuff?" Are we talking about the same section or are you talking about something totally unrelated? How could this stuff be a major reason Lindzen is Wiki material when Lindzen has been advocating for climate stability for at least 20 years and this stuff just blew up in the media less than a month ago (and of course the blow up is about Jones and has almost nothing to do with Lindzen). Do you really want to say that with a straight face? Alex Harvey (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think that this is a simple yes or no question about including this material. First, one of the sources, NowPublic, doesn't appear to be a reliable source, but the rest appear to be reliable. Second, the paragraph obviously is synthesis, but I personally think synthesis is ok within reason. Many articles in Wikipedia include synthesis, but no one complains because they don't dispute what the synthesis is saying. Third, the text obviously is cherry picking quotes from those sources. So, what I would suggest is simply trying to figure out how you want those sources represented in this article. What do you think the main message of each is? How should they be summarized or synthesized in this articles? In short, I suggest removing the paragraph in question and discussing each source in turn and how to present the information contained in each in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. On your point 2) I suppose that synthesis to an extent is unavoidable, and simply reflects the reality that we really are researchers, or at least should be, and not automata. So I agree; it is silly to pretend that we don't ever do original research. Again, the problem is that this particular piece of original research is flawed, and presents the reader with a distorted impression of Lindzen's views. On your point 3) thank you, yes, the text is obviously cherry picking, and I have no in principle agreement to having the article actually present Lindzen's actual views, as you said, providing we can return to focus on the overall balance of the whole. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Removal Per wp:weight and what alex has stated above. I also believe Quiggin has been asked to leave this blp alone after [4] this came to light mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Given the series of personal attacks here, would Alex and Mark like to comment on this Climate Audit post criticising Wikipedia [5]. In comments, someone signing as Alex Harvey calls for assistance on this article. JQ (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment This page is on my watch list, and i do not actually visit climate audit. I would also ask you to redact your wp:npa of calling me a spa and to remove yourself from this talkpage per my reason given above. Your wp:coi is now well known and i am stunned you still have the cheek to post here mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, Mark, you're saying that you're not a reader of or commenter at CA or similar 'sceptical' blogs, recruited by an appeal similar to that I've noted, but rather an independent editor with no axe to grind. On the assumption that this is the case, I've redacted as requested.JQ (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, i looked through the thread you link to at CA, the last post there is posted Rich Posted Feb 7, 2010 at 5:11 Were exactly is this alex harvey post? mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment is [6] -- Unsigned edit by JQ.

Posted Dec 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM How does that post coincide with my posting on this RFC? That was posted months ago. As i said i do not post nor visit CA, i have read and posted at Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That however i maintain a wp:npov with regards to articles, and i fail to were i post gives you leave to make PA`s. You say you have radacted it yet i still see it up there mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I was not criticising Wikipedia, but the unethical behaviour of individual editors. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Given the battleground mentality of most climate change articles, I'd really like to see the input of editors who are truly uninvolved in the wider debate, rather than hearing from the usual suspects whose opinion you could easily deduce anyway. I support inclusion, but acknowledge that by my own reasoning there are less involved editors than myself. Although I don't see any evidence Mark was involved, the off-site canvassing on a "skeptical" blog by Alex demonstrated above is a very serious concern. StuartH (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuart, your reasoning for inclusion is based on ... ? Did you consult an oracle this morning? Can you please comment constructively and base your response on Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. Alex Harvey (talk)

My comment was just that -- a comment, not a vote one way or the other. I stand by my two main points, that we need less involved editors than those above, and that your off-site canvassing is extremely inappropriate. As for including the section, I believe the appeals to WP:UNDUE are unjustified because Lindzen's "skepticism" is clearly significant as is his minority position on the significance of recent warming. It's clearly not synthesis or original research either, since it's almost a straight presentation of his own quotes. If you would like to use reliable sources to improve the context, please make a constructive suggestion on how to do so. StuartH (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment included a sentence, "I support inclusion", but doesn't anywhere give a reason. Please add the reason. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do so next time. Please see my follow-up post above for my reasoning. StuartH (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Great improvement

What a difference a week makes! I have been avoiding looking at this article because it was so awful but thanks to the recent edits, particularly Atmoz, it now looks like an encyclopedia article.Momento (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Atmoz has added the material that I wrote, of draft status, that we agreed was flawed and couldn't in principle be completed without help. I agree, it "looks" more like an encyclopaedia article. The writing is better (I mean, Atmoz has improved the wording in a number of points), but the question is, is it telling the story of Lindzen's intellectual history, or is it a better written story of something else? As the author of the material Atmoz has added, I happen to know it is flawed, and I have asked him, and others, not to add it, but to collaborate with me offline and complete it first. That's the way it should work (I believe). See WP:BLP, and note that "eventualism" is not supposed to apply to BLPs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

"that we agreed was flawed and couldn't in principle be completed without help" I never agree to either of those. Also, he never asked me not to add it, nor was I asked to collaborate offline. -Atmoz (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have the current version with its flaws than last week's version which was abysmal. It was a sick article that needed immediate help. I particularly like the greatly reduced "Media" section and the "Early work" section. And even though it can be improved the basic structure is far superior to last week's. Momento (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I also appreciate the reduced "Media" section, although I can't in good conscience support this so-called "Early work" section that ends in ~ 1970. It should be called the, uh, "Very Early Work" section. And I think it's fair to say, as you said yourself, that there's no way it'll ever be completed. Its existence here helps now to perpetuate an illusion that Lindzen has done nothing since the early 1970s -- which is of course what many here would like the world to believe. Which is not to say I think that's why Atmoz himself put it there, but it's unfortunately the result. Indeed, I should never have put this online. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another improvement. Fill out the middle period and you're half way there. I've taken "skepticism" out of the "Global Warming" heading. Let the reader decide.Momento (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is wave-CISK?

Sure, I managed to work out that Lindzen's wave-CISK theory was historically important. I can tell you that CISK stands for "conditional instability of the second kind." If you can figure out what a single word of the either the CISK theory or Lindzen's wave-CISK hypothesis means, I'll write a new section. I'll give you a clue.

Conditional instability of the second kind—(Abbreviated CISK.) A process whereby low-level convergence in the wind field produces convection and cumulus formation, thereby releasing latent heat.

This enhances the convergence and further increases convection. The atmospheric environment that favors CISK is found over warm, tropical oceans where there is an abundant supply of moisture, the Coriolis force is small, and air convergence is strong.

Charney, J. G., and A. Elliasen, 1964: On the growth of the hurricane depression. J. Atmos. Sci., 21, 69–75.

Now, what the status of CISK itself is today, I couldn't tell you. Is it accepted as fact? Or is it, like most of meteorology, 45 years later still just conjecture? That's the Charney/Elliasen 1964 theory I'm talking about, by the way. Lindzen came along and proposed another theory dubbed "wave-CISK" but it goes without saying that you can't really make sense of that until you've got your head around the CISK of Charney/Elliasen. But it seems that this is what got Lindzen sucked in, and has something or other to do with why he is now one of the world's experts in cloud physics. That's presumably why he was made a lead author of the IPCC 2001 report, and got to collaborate with Ray Pierrehumbert, whom he later described as a "fanatical environmentalist." You know, just between you & me, I believe that in Lawrence Solomon's "Deniers" article (cited), it's actually Ray Pierrehumbert he was referring to who at one point gets asked by the IPCC leaders to show proof of his "green credentials". Read it, and read the Climategate letters. How's that for some interesting original research? You know, given how easy it was for me to get this totally flawed material into the article, I'm curious how much other stuff I could sneak in. Anyhow, back to CISK, I don't understand it. I'm never going to understand it. Therefore, I predict a section on it is not going to get written anytime soon. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a fact or a theory; it is a property of an air column. It is regarded as useful, still William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And what about Lindzen's 1974 work?

Lindzen (1974) Wave-CISK in the tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 156-179

Lindzen (1974) Wave-CISK and tropical spectra. J. Atmos. Sci., 31, 1447-1449

The second "notes & correspondence" paper is cited ~ 180 times in google scholar. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Bretherton 2000 review paper apparently:

The term CISK (Conditional Instability of the Second Kind) was introduced by Charney and Eliassen (1964) to describe a positive feedback between deep moist convection and a large-scale circulation. They hypothesized that hurricane intensication was such a process, in which surface friction helps induce low-level convergence into a vortex, resulting in deep convection and latent heating which amplies the vortex. Yamasaki (1969) and Hayashi (1970) rst considered the feedbacks between deep convection and largescale equatorial waves. In their models, convection could intensify (destabilize) the wave in some cases through purely inviscid processes not dependent on feedbacks with surface drag or surface thermodynamic uxes. Lindzen (1974) termed this destabilization wave-CISK, to distinguish it from Charney and Eliassen's frictional CISK, and put forth perhaps the most expansive view of the role of wave-CISK, implicating it in the development of tropical circulations.

Alex Harvey (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wave-CISK isn't Lindzen's theory. Yamasaki was the first to apply CISK to waves in 1969. Although Lindzen did greatly expand on it in 1974. To quote from Bretherton 2000 (not a review paper, it's a draft for the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, but I can't actually find it in the encyclopedia...), "Wave-CISK has proved a somewhat slippery hypothesis to test, and has largely fallen from favor among specialists in convective dynamics." B concludes, "neither observations nor current [2000] cloud-resolving numerical model simulations clearly show classical wave-CISK like modes. Furthermore, the theoretical models that predict wave-CISK are based on dubious parameterizations of cumulus convection.". I'll try to write up a paragraph on wave-CISK later this week, if you want. -Atmoz (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, where did you get that from? It's clear that Lindzen called it "wave-CISK" and it's obvious from google scholar that his papers are the ones that everyone discussed. It's less clear what Yamasaki's contribution was but I have no doubt it was important too. I am a little puzzled as to how you're going to manage to write this later in the week. Surely, it'd take you a few weeks just to even read the papers. Are you a specialist in this area? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes came from the "Bretherton 2000 review paper apparently" link you gave above. The bit about wave-CISK/Yamasaki/Lindzen did too. Tropical dynamics is not my thing, but I can talk to someone who's it is. -Atmoz (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought the document was behind a pay wall. I've got it now, though, and I'll have a read of it. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Here is the first of your quotes in context:

Wave-CISK has proved a somewhat slippery hypothesis to test, and has largely fallen from favor among specialists in convective dynamics for reasons discussed below. However, it is a mode of instability permitted by many convective parameterizations, some used in climate models, so it can be a useful concept in interpreting model output even if physically dubious.

Your second quote is equally out of context, i.e. followed by a very big "however"... (It struck me as immediately odd that Bretherton would be dissing the idea of wave-CISK given his own role in its development...). I guess I'll have to read the paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither quote is out of context. -Atmoz (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, Atmoz... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex, this is fairly complex stuff and you need the help of someone like Atmoz if you are to understand it, and more than that to understand its current status. So you need to lay aside the combative attitude. If it helps, this is no part of the Great GW Wars at all. For my part, I misunderstood you, and thought you were talking about CISK not wave-CISK. I'm not familiar with w-C. However, wiki *should* have an article on CISK, so I've linked it (and the article, just in case Striving kicks in, doesn't need to mention w-C or L in the first instance) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

CISK now redirects to Convective instability which needs improvement William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

William, I appreciate the conciliatory input. I've read the Bretherton 2000 draft now, and I still don't think I'm going to understand much of this in the near or distant future. Bretherton's final message seems to be that the idea remains interesting, and certainly worthy of further investigation. I guess, I object somewhat to a focussing on whether or not the idea is "discredited" or not in the first place. Whether right or wrong, all ideas are valuable. An idea that was discussed in the literature for 30 years is an historically important idea. I'd be very careful in trying to say who should get credit for what exactly what in the story; you'll see even Yamasaki builds on earlier work of Lindzen & Holton, and I'm sure they all, at the end of the day, came up with these ideas together. At the least, it seems Lindzen should be credited with giving the phenomenon a name that stuck -- whether it's a real phenomenon or just an artifact of models. It also seems he proposed a number of interesting ways of testing/falsifying the theory, and I'd guess this is why his work was cited so many times. I'd say the section, if written, should include some treatment of the Lindzen 2003 paper there that may give his own current thinking on the matter. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

climate sensitivity

You have a link to climate sensitivity above a presentation of Lindzen's Iris hypothesis but the climate sensitivity article does not mention this hypothesis. Should we shift the link over to the Iris hypothesis article? TMLutas (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that. Seems like a good idea to me. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity is a broader topic than the iris. The iris hypothesis is also already linked. There's no need to link it twice so close together. If the climate sensitivity link isn't useful, just delete it. -Atmoz (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lindzen 2003

This may be useful for anyone who tries to put wave-CISK into context of Lindzen's intellectual history.

3. Early approaches to the interaction of waves and cumulus convection

The initial approach to such waves was the so-called wave-CISK theories (Lindzen 1974b; Yamasaki 1969; Hayashi 1970). These followed the approach of Charney and Eliassen (1964) in assuming that, if a large-scale dynamic system could lift air to the lifting condensation level, then a cooperative interaction between convection and the large-scale disturbance could lead to the amplification of the disturbance. In the Charney–Eliassen version of CISK, the lifting was due to Ekman pumping, while in wave-CISK, the lifting comes from the wave field itself. Maximum lifting at the lifting condensation level implied an equivalent depth of 10 m (with a quarter wavelength corresponding to about 500 m). This led to the suggestion that a spectrum like that displayed in Kiladis and Wheeler (1999) should exist—though with a smaller equivalent depth (Lindzen 1974a).

In these early approaches, the cumulus mass flux was taken to be proportional to convergence at 500 m. However, the constant of proportionality was generally unknown. To remedy this, Cho and Ogura (1974) sought to determine with observations the relation between cumulus mass flux and vertical velocity at the lifting condensation level. They found that the cumulus mass flux was approximately 4 times the ambient vertical mass flux at the lifting condensation level. Although more recent discussions tend to ignore this, there was a substantial reassessment of wave-CISK over the following 5 yr. However, even in the 1960s, A. Eliassen (1975, personal communication) noted a basic problem with the very concept of CISK that was associated with his name: namely, that the lowest 2 km of the tropical atmosphere formed a turbulent trade wind boundary layer in which air was constantly being lifted above the lifting condensation level—even in the absence of any larger-scale system. In general, the breakout of deep convection is limited by the presence of a trade inversion (or more generally, the convective inhibition energy; Mapes 2000).

As noted by SL and Lindzen (1988), the ratio found by Cho and Ogura (1974) became unity if one considered ambient vertical mass flux at 2 km instead of 500 m. This led to an approach to cumulus parameterization wherein local cumulus mass flux was taken to be determined by evaporation and large-scale convergence within the trade wind boundary layer (Lindzen 1988; Geleyn et al. 1982). The resulting parameterization, modified for use with the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) model, has come to be known as the Tiedke parameterization, though the parameterizations used by the ECMWF have evolved since. The geometry involved is schematically illustrated in Fig. 3. It was noted by SL that tropical waves were more nearly characterized by an equivalent depth of 30 m, which corresponded approximately to a vertical wavelength of 8 km, with a quarter wavelength (where one would expect a maximum in convergence) corresponding to the depth of the convective boundary layer (note that different papers associate the same vertical wavelengths with somewhat different equivalent depths because of the use of different basic-state Ts). Unfortunately, SL found that their interaction was unable to produce instability except for gravity waves corresponding to squall systems.

In Stevens et al. (1977), emphasis shifted from wave-CISK to a view of equilibrated waves whose convergence field below 2 km served to simply reorganize convection that would occur anyway. ... The work of SL already noted that wave-CISK really no longer worked with the mass budget parameterization.

Alex Harvey (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)