Talk:Joe Bastardi

message: Someone posted an "advert" tag on this article, but didn't specify what (s)he thought the problem was with it.  Please clarify.  --Quintin3265 15:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a section regarding his claims on a Fox interview followed by a critical analysis which appears to be original research, the commentary of the editor himself. It has a reference of citation needed. If the author of that can provide a credible reference stating what I describe as OR he is free to revert my removal edit with the reference inserted. Batvette (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR  

message: User Weatherbell deleted a huge amount from the Stance on Global Warming section, saying in the edit summary that the deleted material was contentious.  I rather agree.  A whole lot of material had been added to this section, which took on the character of purely piling on.
 
But I do claim this edit removed the important context, viz: Bastardi's views are contrary to the scientific consensus. As an encyclopedia article, I think it is only responsible to point that out. Without (as I say) piling on. So I restored some of that.
 
I also I restored (and slightly edited) the part about Bastardi's views on the roles of CO2. This was because he expresses those views them most vigorously and often, and they explain his thinking. I think they are a distinctive and important part of his stance. Also the quote shows both his views and the style with which he talks about them. 
 
But I also think that restoring the mass of deleted material would be both unnecessary and contentious. For example, he indeed has been wrong about Arctic sea ice. But that isn't the major part of his argument. What is in this section now is enough to both summarize his positions and place them in context. M.boli (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Who hasn't read 3/4 of an article and quit reading?   What happens if someone reads 3/4 of this section and goes elsewhere?  He leaves with the impression that Bastardi is right!  The point of the whole section is that he disagrees with the vast majority of scientists.  That's what it should state.  Every time Bastardi's  views are stated, there must be information showing that this is not what real scientists actually think about climate change.  As it stands now, it's practically a forum for his oddball views. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconding this, but we need to be using high-quality sources for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paring Down the Stance on Global Warming Section 

message: It isn't necessary to debate global warming within the individual sentences of this section
Right now the section a) makes Bastardi's stance quite clear and also b) makes blindingly clear that his views are not mainstream climate science. There is no reasonable possibility of mis-impression on these two points. 
There is no reason add a mini-debate to effectively append "liar!" and "sez who!" into every sentence describing one of Bastardi's assertions.
M.boli (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he has written books on the subject, positions himself as a public expert on climate change, is notable for his contrarian views, has been frequently discussed. Given this the section is not too long in contrast to the rest of the article. -- GreenC 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft in the Stance on Global Warming section 

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) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: First: I apologize for deleting the edit by User:141.218.36.179 because I thought the cite was unrelated to the text and the text was unrelated to the article. In fact the cite contained an embedded video which indeed explained it.
Second: I don't see what is encylopedia-worthy about this particular pissing match between two entertainers. Bastardi and Nye are each calling each other names. They are each challenging the other to make predictions about average global temperatures. So what? It doesn't add to our knowledge of Bastardi's stance on climate change. (These views are encyclopedia-worthy because Bastardi is where millions of people get their information on this topic.) It doesn't add to the substantive debunking of those views. (As an encyclopedia, it is our job to place his views in the scientific context: they are bonkers.) 
At most the new material adds some context, viz: Bastardi is an entertainer who engages in feuds with other entertainers. 
I have rewritten the paragraph accordingly. I'm still not persuaded it belongs here. But to the extent that it might, here is what that might look like.
M.boli (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bastardi-Nye Pissing Match 

message: I reverted two changes. One was vandalism by an IP user who doesn't like climate change. The larger change was by  who deleted much of the material illustrating Bastardi's bombastic forecasting persona, and also changed the lede sentence to label him a "denier". My opinion is that Bastardi's contrarian and brash persona is what makes him popular. Bastardi's specific claims in the deleted material were probably not encyclopedia-worthy, but having that material in this article was a good illustration.
Regarding the "denier" label, this has been litigated already. In 2015 there was an attempt to put that label in the ledes of a number of biographical articles, and to create a category "climate change deniers". The consensus among editors was to avoid the "denier" label. Personally "denier" doesn't cause me any trouble, I use it in speech frequently. But I understand the point that for a lot of readers that label is contentious, partisan, and possibly insulting. So I took it out. Bastardi's views on climate change are amply described in the article. I can see how we should refer to that in the lede sentence, but just labeling him a denier isn't helpful. M.boli (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of 22 April 2019 

message: Regarding the question posed by : why list Bastardi's nutty ideas in this article? I think the answer is this is an article about Bastardi, not an article about climate change. An article about an alchemist would illustrate the views, but also inform the reader these are contrary to modern scientific knowledge. In this light, the most recent edits seem fine to me. – M.boli (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why put Bastardi's weird views in this article