Talk:Robert M. Carter

message: Is it just me or is this page a bit too praiseworthy, without any critical analysis of his views.  One begins to suspect that the subject may also be an author... Kwakpwns (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I get this too. And it focuses on his recent career in climate change denial, rather than his more mainstream academic work in marine geology, with the "Selected Papers" (Selected by whom, I wonder) being baised towards this corner of his research (and including a couple that are not academic publications). There may be some climate change politics involved in the creation and editing of this page. RobinGrant (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  too praiseworthy? 

message: It looks like the subject of the bio has done a lot of the editing.  There are three separate links to his personal website and a rather complete list of his papers which aren't of particular interest.  According to his website, he is a paid speaker on climate issues, despite having no expertise in the field.  If there are no objections in the next couple of days I'm going to clean up the self promotion a bit. Phil153 (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. But keep in mind that WP's purpose is not to attack individuals. Nor is it even to fight global warming, as evil as that is. Redddogg (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The self-promotion needs to be edited, for example ... has published more than 100 scientific papers ... is self-promotion, as is ... his current research focuses on stratigraphy..., from the second paragraph. I think that the removal of Selected Research Publications is reasonable. GrahamP (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it seems reasonable enough not to need editing, but feel free to improve it, of course.Phil153 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Self Promotion? 

message: I just went through the footnotes and I notice that a lot of the article is sourced by primary sources, including Dr. Carter's own website. It probably would make both sides happier if the secondary sources, the articles written about him, were used more. Redddogg (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any articles about him? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing has been written about him then the article should be deleted because he would be non-notable by WP's definition. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:Attack page, thank you. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:RS. The WP:BLP guidelines do not rule out critique, as long as its adequately sourced to a reliable source. Simply stating that the journalist is writing opinion, doesn't make it so. The article is printed in a respectable news-paper, by a respected journalist - and is not marked as an Op-Ed, or a column, thus having to adhere to the newspapers general review guidelines (which is what RS is specifically about). The information is also not surprising (ie. should invoke a red flag - since we can find equal descriptions elsewhere).  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I took off a couple of sentences saying that he has not published a scientific paper denying global warming and that he is not a climate scientist.  The article needs to be about what he is and what he has done. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that stuff is directly relevant (see discussion above) and I'm restoring it. Gamaliel (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection isn't the information but the way it was expressed.  What he didn't do and what he isn't. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's going to publicly discuss global warming, then the fact that he has no standing in the climate science community is directly relevant and it would be a glaring omission if we didn't mention this pertinent fact. It isn't simply a matter of mentioning "what he isn't". It's not like we are mentioning he didn't go to clown college. Gamaliel (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should WP mention that Sarah Palin was not in the military? Or that Barack Obama didn't go to medical school?  I think that if we start mentioning what everyone has not done it could really get out of hand. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel was very clear, so either you haven't read what he wrote or you are deliberately ignoring it.  Carter is not a climate scientist and he has not been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic, nor is he recognized as an expert in the field.  NPOV is also clear on this point and supports inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I reinstated the comments related to Carter's lack of peer reviewed evidence, leaving the links to the recent publications, and leaving most of the adjusted wording. The "Knock, Knock..." article does not present original evidence contradicting the consenus - it is an opinion piece stating Carter's well worn position, with many supporting references from skeptics. It offers a worthwhile read, and provides Carter an opportunity to state his case, but is essentally a rehash of the same newspaper and magazine articles that Carter has published over the preceeding decade. Note that it was published in an economics journal. GrahamP (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative comments removed

message: The current generation of internet users being highly video oriented, I believe it is important to link to video interviews/presentations where available. I added the following section:
"===Videos featuring Carter===" 	
* 2007 Australian lecture on relationship of CO2 to global warming
	 
- 	
* Testing the Hypothesis of Dangerous Global Warming  YouTube (Parts 1-2), Climate Conference (Heartland Institute), New York, March 2, 2008
	 
- 	
* Balancing the Climate Debate (Alan Lee, Nzone Tonight), Youtube Shine TV, Auckland, New Zealand, April 18, 2008
-------------------
KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted the section alleging possible copyright violations.
Please explain in detail. I see no violation in providing a link to posted videos. This is distinct from the issue of directly adding the videos themselves.DLH (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not link to possible copyright violations. And these are highly likely to be such. Since WP:COPYRIGHT distinctly says that we can't link to such - they are out. (see specifically WP:LINKVIO). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim you are overreaching. Reread the policy:
Linking to copyrighted works
Shortcuts:
WP:COPYLINK
WP:COPYLINKS
WP:LINKVIO
"Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content. However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." The linking restriction is explicitly to sites you know are breaching copyright.
I emailed Bob Carter who replied that the copyright was owned by Leon Ashby. Leon Ashby in turn emailed on Nov 14 2008, with explicit permission: 
* 'I have the original copyright of all of Bob Carters videos. Yes Do whatever you can to sort of any difficulties. I grant copyright for anything that assists with the improvement of Bob`s message or giving wider viewership of them as long as they are non profit activities.
cheers
Leon Ashby
Bushvision president'
With this explicit approval and in light of Wikipedia's actual policy, I am reverting the deletion.  DLH (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Video/Interviews

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: The text as written (especially with the leading "However..." phrasing, implies the source contradicts Carter's claim to receive no funding from oil or tobacco.   However, the source doesn't do this, nor does being on a committee for a group that once may have received funding from a source equate to you personally receiving funding from that source.  Clearly a NPOV issue, especially in a BLP Fell Gleamingtalk 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: I'm not entirely sure that the sources of funding for the IPA are entirely relevant on an article about Robert M. Carter. I would suggest that they might be relevant at the article on the institute itself but I don't see why it's relevant here. Could someone please put an argument that it should stay? Thepm (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- this  seems to violate NPOV by implying that Carter might be  a corporate "shill". Doesn't seem appropriate in a BLP. Pete Tillman (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding sources for IPA 

message: The article as it stands provides a distorted account of Carter's scientific credentials regarding global warming. There is an extensive list of co-authored articles (mostly in economics journals), external links to his own speeches or articles in support of him, including double reference to a POV by (economist-politician) Vaclav Klaus. Yet the criticism surrounding him is made to appear as marginal opinion of a journalist. In fact, the quote from the SMH that he has "little standing in the Australian climate science community" is rather an understatement and not simply the opinion of a journalist. For instance David Karoly of Melbourne University / IPCC considers Carter's theories an "alternate reality", a review of his latest book by New Zealand scientist James Renwick states that "is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions", while another article considers that Carter is "Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument" ... "bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact" and that his "half-truth"s amount to "a whole lie". --Elekhh (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV again

message: It would appear that new evidence has emerged that Robert Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institutehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism which he does not deny.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-accepts-cash-for-climate-20120215-1t7ho.html. Claims are being made that this is a channel for funding from fossil fuel interests. I'm not sure about the most acceptable way of including this information is here?Dean Morrison (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Given recent developmentshttp://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents my principal advice would be to do nothing until the dust settles slightly.  Then it's just a matter of applying the usual principles (reliable secondary sources, NPOV, especially as applied to biographical material, and due weight considerations).  A good question to imagine asking yourself if how you would respond to a report that somebody ws being funded by, say, Greenpeace, funnelled through a think tank.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jonathan Jones.  I don't see any compelling reason to rush something into the article.  Madman (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course is no need to rush, but given that he admitted to receive funding from that source, and this has been widely reported in the global media, there is no compelling reason not to include it, except if one doesn't want to see the facts, which I'm afraid is common phenomena among his adepts. Also the repeated removal of criticism does nothing in favour of due weight and NPOV. --ELEKHHT 23:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I've added a couple of sentences about this with just the relevant information: that the documents were obtained fraudulently, that some were claimed fake by Heartland, and that neither Heartland or Carter deny the payments take place. All are sourced. Please fix if I've used any inappropriate language; I've tried to keep it neutral. Guybrush (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Heartland was paying Carter (and others) for writing part of the NIPCC reports that they have been sponsoring. So the news  quote, "high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message,"  may be a bit much. I'm travelling, and will look this up when I return. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of payments by the Heartland Institute

message: from http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4
99.190.86.244 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Empathy?  97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure of your point.  This source probably qualifies as a blog -- it certainly isn't NPOV -- and it only has one sentence concerning Bob Carter, a quote of his.  I suppose the quote could be included if another verifying source could be found.  Madman (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are not supposed to be NPOV, articles are. Klein is a well-respected journalist writing for a mainstream news source - "the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States" according to its Wikipedia article. 129.15.163.119 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could put a bit about this article (or link to it) at Naomi Klein -- if it fits there? Seems pretty minor.  Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential resource paragraph by [[Naomi Klein]] 

message: I've pared back the lede to a bare-bones sentence. It was getting problematic per WP:BLP. Add back RS stuff but please, no personal opinions! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the lede to reflect Carter's continued activity in scientific research: he has continued to publish technical papers since his retirement from JCU. The most recent I found was published in July 2014 in Earth Science Reviews, abstract; Carter is a co-author. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede and WP:BLP 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: The first para of "career"
:: Carter began his career as an assistant lecturer in geology at the University of Otago in 1963 and advanced to senior lecturer after obtaining his Ph.D. in 1968. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005.
is essentially entirely sourced to his own words (the same ones in three different versions) William M. Connolley (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "2005 - Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand". I can find no sources for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  There exists http://cdn.securepages.co.nz/~gsnz/file_downloads/GSNZ_NL_Mar2006a.pdf which says "Lionel Carter [no relation -WMC], aided by Jarg Pettinga, spoke on "Uncovering the face of the eastern New Zealand margin - a view from the sea". They described major work done by three innovative marine geologists over the last 50 years - Henry Pantin, Bob Carter, and Keith Lewis - who were afterwards given tokens of the Society´s appreciation of their work. " That's not quite the same thing, but might find a place in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career: sources? 

message: He seems to have a moderately successful academic career. There are millions of those, but they do not qualify as "notable" by Wikipedia standards. What is he notable for? Keith McClary (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: His career was undistinguished. His notability is as a "skeptic" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should feature his skeptic activities and mention that his day job was academic. Don't we have a policy about undue emphasis on non-notable matters? Keith McClary (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert M. Carter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012014621/http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html to http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104165110/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert M. Carter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007162007/http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html to http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified