Talk:Vincent R. Gray

message: Why is a chemist described as a climate scientist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkine (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he says he is, apparently. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather because apparently, anyone who is trained in a natural science field that touches the climate can be called a "climate scientist". This language is used throughout Wikipedia in climate articles. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This  is not a RS. Gray is not a climatologist just because he says he is. As near as can be told, he's more into coal. I don't trust that for the paper count either: he clearly doesn't have 12 in climate (E&E doesn't count, obviously, since its not a proper journal) and have no reason to belive the 100 William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: All this:
: Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based geologist. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and according to the National Resources Stewardship Project has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. is sourceless.
Furthermore, there is little evidence here for notability William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can you disagree with in this sentence? That he has a college diploma? Or that according to the NRSP, he had a long career? Sources are needed for "likely challengeable" items, not for an article's every word... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He has published more than 100 scientific papers --85.165.73.186 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the ISI Web of Science database, he has published 10. Raymond Arritt (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haven't we been over this?  Many of his publications (by his own admission) are in less than reputable venues such as LaRouche, E&E, etc.  Counting those, the 100 number is probably accurate. Oren0 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is very much in doubt, as has been pointed out, so it shouldn't go in. I doubt btw. that you could claim even 100 scientific papers using less than reputable venues. I can buy 100 articles on global warming, but that is hardly something that is worth mentioning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not worth mentioning.  But discrediting sources because they repeat the 100 number when we don't know if it's true or not seems unreasonable (see below). Oren0 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the contrary: we know the 100 number is wrong, so we know its an unreliable source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd love to hear how you know this.  Have you counted his publications in LaRouche, E&E, and the like?  It didn't say 100 publications in ISI. Oren0 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boring. Go on, have the last word and the rest of us can give up on this tedium William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source / notable? 

message: ISI says Gray has 10 pubs, all between 1980 and 1986, all having to do with coal. Since Natural Resources Stewardship Project's "100 publications" is off by an order of magnitude, its credibility is toast I'm going to scrap everything else that comes from that source per WP:BLP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP is essentially about protecting an individuals reputation and such. I dont think that it can be threatening to V. Gray's reputation that his WP article states that he published 100 articles rather than 10. Strange approach if you really want to delete this. Also, if he published in publications that are not caught by ISI, I see no problem with this for the purpose of this page. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think thats fair. Unless someone comes in to put some reason why Gray is notable, I'm going to AFD this very soon, unless the festive season intervenes William M. Connolley (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No-one did, so I have William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication record and credibility of NRSP

message: I think there can be a WP:BLP problem with the moot change of article's name from Vincent Gray (scientist) to Vincent Gray (consultant). I am far from certain that we all use the same definition for "scientist" (some seem to think it's restrained to having a certain publication record, while that's not what the dictionnaries tell us). The guy reviewed every IPCC report and he would not be a scientist? That would open the door to some questions... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He calls himself a consultant, so it's hard to see how this objection has merit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All scientists on Wikipedia whose name is already taken by another article are diff'ed with(scientist). This article would likely be the first and only with (consultant), which would suggest that he's not a scientist. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he a scientist? By what definition? How can you tell? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you suggest that non-scientists can be involved in the IPCC review process? --Childhood's End (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they can. If there was a vetting process, people would complain that they were being excluded. Best to let everyone comment. Surely you're not opposed to such openness? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I am not opposed. Nor would I be to openness towards the comments made. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A real kindergarten eh?  Forcing me to the 3RR rule instead of being mature and try to see your wrongs here before making potentially libelous edits. As an admin, you'll certainly be interested to read WP:REF (you know, the part where they say that sources are for likely challengeable claims). Then please have the maturity to revert yourself.  --Childhood's End (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're the one who mentioned his web page, you obviously know where to find the information. Is it really such a burdensome task to add a link to it? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Oh wait, you'll delete it again because you dont like the NRSP. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP issue 

message: Hey. I saw this page listed on WP:3O, so here's my take. If you look around, the term "climate consultant" has been used to describe other people: Dr. M. R. Morgan, Dr. Keith D. Hage (here), the same two and a bunch more here, and even Al Gore has been described as such. While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed. Does this help? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this discussion has gone way overboard, and I concur with your stance, especially with your last point. The guy also reviewed the IPCC reports, submitted comments, and is sought by some media to discuss climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see you providing any evidence that wiki uses the term to describe people. And the argument "elsewhere, X has been called Y therefore here it is OK to call Z a Y" is obviously nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with the term "climate consultant" in general, though it can be abused. Its amusing that you pick Morgan and Hage  since this is a clear example of septics puffing themselves up with meaningless credentials. Similarly, the use of IPCC reviewer as a status (as Ce attempts to use it) is also meaningless. Someone sought by the media is called a "pundit" - I'd be happy with "climate pundit" for Gray - would that be an acceptable compromise? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't call him that.  Nobody reliable has.  I really feel like the other editors that have come from WP:3O have settled this.  There's no reason not to call him a climate consultant given that he's reported as such in at least one reliable source.  It's not like the term confers any expertise.  It's unreasonable to assume that some record of his consulting work would be reported in a reliable source, as that wouldn't be newsworthy. Oren0 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 3O people agree that the NZH calling him a CC is merely reporting his self description; henace, as I said before, we have no RS for the claim. We can continue to call him self-described, if you like, though. If you don't like "pundit" then you're dismissing Ce's stuff about media as irrelevant, and I agree there. So we're back to having no RS for him being a "consultant" in any meaningful sense. If you're now saying that his being a consultant isn't notable, then fine: lets leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're reading their comments with rose colored glasses.  User:HelloAnnyong: While it is a term that's certainly awkward, I think it's okay to call him a climate consultant. At the very least, "and calls himself" is pejorative and should be removed.  User:Tanthalas39: However, with at least one significant source (NZ Herald) referring to him as a climate consultant, I don't see any real reason why he shouldn't be able to claim the title...It seems that the opposition here wants concrete proof that he has made money, signed a contract, walked around with a clipboard, or other things that the proverbial consultant does - but none of that is needed.  I really don't see how you have a leg to stand on here.  And I didn't say that being a consultant isn't notable, I said it isn't very meaningful.  Both people who came from 3O seem to agree with myself and CE: he should be listed without "he claims" as a climate consultant.  Do you really want to take this further?  We could go the RfC route but I think we both know where it would end up.  It's time to bow to the WP:CONSENSUS and let this one go. Oren0 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We seem to have run out of things to say here, certainly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could always start an RfC... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I finally found something about him...
: Dr. Gray was born 24.3.1922 in London, UK. Won a major scholarship to Emanuel College, Cambridge in Chemistry 1939. First Class Honours degree (B A) in Chemistry 1942, Ph D in 1946, (also M A). Petrocarbon Ltd, Manchester, 1946. Institute Pasteur, Paris, 1947-1949. 1949-1950, amongst the first Post-Doctoral fellows at the National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada. Returned to UK 1950, and worked for National Coal Board, Cheltenham, Timber Research Association, High Wycombe, and Ministry of Works, London. 1970 appointed first Director, Building Research Association of New Zealand. Subsequently forensic scientists with the Department of Scientific Research, and Chief Chemist, Coal Research. 1987 to 1991 I was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and at the Teachers University in Kunming, Yunnan China, 
Shall I put it in? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, if you think it's relevant. Oren0 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP discourages including birthdates for marginally notable individuals.  See Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_birthdays. Since Gray's notability is marginal (at best), I've deleted the d.o.b. His approximate age can be inferred from the dates of his degrees. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, OK. But it does suggest including year of birth. There is little point in leaving people guessing (especially for people with degrees during the war, which could easily delay things) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "born 1922 in London" should be fine. The mention of London is worthwhile since he's worked in several countries. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: Gray appears to have written http://climaterealists.com/?id=5583
shall we include it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incisive new article 

message: An earlier draft distorted Gray's views by calling him, in effect, a global warming denier. This is only part of his main position. More broadly, Gray disbelieves in the AGW theory. His disagrees with both aspects of the theory: not just the claim that the earth is warming, but the claim that "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible"
It's important to describe each advocates views fairly, and not to try to discredit them. (Of course, if an advocate for one POV has made attempts to discredit the advocate of an opposing POV, we might need to describe that as a discrediting tactic. Readers are often interested, not only in the reasoning advocates have about scientific and other issues, but also in the ways the characterize their opponents. 
I bring this up because in the broader context of the global warming controversy, personal attacks by one side against the other are germane to how people decide how much credibility to give to arguments the various sides make. This discussion, therefore, needs to go a bit beyond the boundaries of only improving this article. My aim is to improve the neutrality of the encyclopedia as a whole, and NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More accurate depiction of his views

message: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray
ok it is E&E and about physics, sort of! still a peer reviewed paper  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.2.147 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the expertise to judge this one for myself, but since the claim (that he's 'never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change') has clearly been contested, I've removed it. It shouldn't be restored without a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  no peer reviewed paper claim on climate science 

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) 16:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vincent R. Gray. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10409062
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110072412/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1
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) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified