Talk:Robert Watson (chemist)

message: I restored well-sourced material regarding a Climategate debate that was removed without comment, moved into correct section and replaced one questionable source with a better source.  Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You restored junk. Are you really taking responsibility for that edit? And this has little or nothing to do with the CRU stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it for fairly obvious reasons before realising there had been a post here. If anyone seriously contests the removal then I'll justify it further. Verbal chat 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, two of the references are to scientifically reliable sources.  Are you really claiming that NASA doesn't know that Mars' limited atmosphere is 95% CO2?  Or that a professor of chemistry at Oxford, writing is a college textbook is not scientifically reliable?  Or is it the opinion of Watson that is objectionable?  The material is his bio, and the "Climategate" tag is the title in the source, not what I think about it.  The material covered his opinion, as publicly reported and was not negative.  In addition, WP:UNDUE is specious argument, as it showed his opinion and then provided balancing information from NASA and an Oxford scientist. The material was balanced, as required by the standard.  And the only "obvious" reason that I can see for reverting the material was a desire to keep the term "Climategate" out of the public view.  BTW, it would appear to me that WMC has a WP:COI in any article mentioning that term, as some of the e-mails involved in Climategate were to or from him.  Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text; it is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars. which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: ATren is close on the atmospheric physics. It's more that there is no atmosphere to retain heat. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that WP:SYN prevents us from including this paragraph. We would need a reliable source that states "Watson's theory about xyz contradicts known facts."  Any ideas we have here about how the two statements fit together are moot (WP:VNT). Evil saltine (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of well-cited material removed without comment 

message: Next editor to insert the defmatory text is going right to AIV - not ANI, AIV. It's vandalism - if you don't understand why, don't reinsert it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism (and you should stop saying that), but it's a BLP vio and I will revert if it goes back in. This is clearly WP:SYN. ATren (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with ATren that this is not Vandalism as outlined in WP:VAN "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.", and I agree with both Hipocrite and others that this should not go in per WP:SYN/WP:BLP in the proposed form. Nsaa (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next editor 

message: I have full protected this for one week due to the edit war of today. Edit warring when the topic, esp a BLP, and parties involved are part of an ongoing arbcase is not a good idea.  — Rlevse • Talk •  21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be sensible to unprotect now. There is overwhelhming agreement that the anon/JGP/MN/WVB edit should not be included; I don't think there is now any danger of them reinserting it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.   There is consensus that the SYNTH portion should be excluded, but Watson's comments about atmospheric conditions on Mars and Venus are cited and are representative of Watson's opinions and viewpoints, and they're in no way defamatory or violations of BLP (although the phrasing could be improved) --  incidentally such comments tend to support WMC's view more than oppose it, as I understand it. Page should remain protected for a week as is currently in place. Minor4th • talk 22:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Watson's statements about global warming on Mars, Earth and Venus are standard textbook stuff, perhaps oversimplified in the context of a live debate. Why are they significant? Your apparent failure to understand that Mars has no significant greenhouse gas effect due to the thinness of the atmosphere suggests that you should study the subject in more depth before thinking about adding such information. . . dave souza, talk 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the information and have not commented on this matter before the post to which you are responding.  Where in the world would you find any clue about my understanding or lack of understanding about the lack of greenhouse effect on Mars or the thinness of its atmosphere?    That is out of left field.   I have never once commented on such matters to give you an opinion about the depth of my knowledge one way or the other.  Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. In any event, I'm not fond of being misrepresented in such a way.  Aside from that, your comment is irrelevant to the issue of page protection.  I wonder why you showed up to make such an unwarranted attack on my suggestion that the page remain protected.  Minor4th 02:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust this is a misunderstanding. Your statement "that the SYNTH portion should be excluded, but Watson's comments about atmospheric conditions on Mars and Venus are cited and are representative of Watson's opinions and viewpoints, and they're in no way defamatory" appears to support adding a trivially ordinary comment made by Watson in the middle of a much longer debate, with no evidence of significance, or third party analysis of how his words are to be assessed. The words have been picked up in the skeptic/denier blogosphere where they've been misinterpreted in the same way as the description that's been removed, but that's not a reliable source. As you'll note from the linked evidence below, Watson's remark was misquoted and was out of context. A little research would show you that the atmosphere of Mars is too thin to have a significant greenhouse effect, and that Watson's remark is unexceptional. While your wording implied support for re-adding the claimed quote from Watson, I'm glad to accept that this appearance was incorrect. You are of course welcome to propose a reliable third party source as a basis for a paragraph on Watson's views, but if no-one is trying to add a poorly supported statement about Watson's "typical" opinions then protection is not needed. . . dave souza, talk 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  Per DS, but also: why should the page remain protected? No-one is discussing anything here (or at least: no-one was till I re-opened this conversation); there is no issue being sorted out. If anyone has a proposal for text that *should* be inserted, they should present it. Also: Watson's comments are sourced to a *video*, and as pointed out above that isn't a great source. If this was truely indicative of Watson's opinion, it would be possible to find a rather better source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor correction, it's an audio file, which I've helpfully transcribed here. Looks like undue weight in a BLP, and as Lar has pointed out that's very bad. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you. So, M4th: did you have a proposal for text to improve the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at the moment.  I was more concerned with the edit war than I was with the content.  The article will be scrutinized and improved by others more capable than myself if there are improvements to be made, but thanks for asking.   Minor4th 08:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: It's worth polling on, certainly, so let's do that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @R: the consensus is here and at arbcomm. I don't think we have anynoe serious arguing for inclusion of the text (notice that of those who re-inserted it, MN and WVB haven't even attempted to defend their decision here), and a large number of people arguing against. I would have hoped you would have read the evidence on this. I've listed 8 people who don't want the text. The only person who still seems to want it is GJP. Incidentally, GJP's evidence is well worth reading - apparently there were only 5 reverts; neither he, not MN, nor WVB reverted at all (it also asserts erroneously that all those reverting it back in attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  @H: seems rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it would be nice to show how many people support various parts of the text they may or may not have put in the article, as a point of information. Perhaps lots of people think this is notable content - then we'd need to include it, albeit with it made clear that he's in 100% agreement with standard models and understanding for at-least the last 40 years or so (Viking landers) (correction, 100 years - Percival Lowell - well, perhaps only 80 years via Theodore Dunham, or less via Gerard Kuiper). Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @WMC, oh I've read it and I'm not seeing the strong consensus you see though the brouhaha has indeed settled down somewhat.  — Rlevse • Talk •  15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odd. OK, can you see the 8 people arguing against including it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Errm, OK, maybe you can answer for R: do you see the 8 I've pointed to? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  8 vs an implied 4 is not consensus. The implied 3 might be disruptive, might be wrong, might need blocking and or banning (the 8 might also), and it's tough for me to say this given that I don't believe it to be true, but we have to assume that the 4 were editing what they think was good content back into the article - the fact that they were violating SYN and BLP (as one of them sometimes admits, and sometimes denies), means that they were ignorant, not malicious, and thus need to be informed. When (as it appears to be heading towards) the 4 and their real-life acquantances prove that they aren't willing to become informed, you reach where we are right now - with 8 people trying to explain science to others, and the others appearing not to listen, and hopefully arbcom will do something about that.  Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slow down. I was trying to find out from R which side he doubted. OK, so we accept the 8. Against that we have 4 implied - or so you assert. I dispute that. I think WP:AGF requires us to believe that people are capable of realising their errors, and I take their silence to be tacit consent. Cerftainly, if they were actively interested in returning the disputed material I would have expected them to argue for its inclusion. How many do you assert have actively argued for inclusion of the text? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  None. No one has argued for the inclusion of the text that the 4 included into the article. One of them appears to be arguing for the return of a form that excludes all of the negative commentary and synthesis (phrasing it as "here's an argument Robert Watson uses to illustrate climate change"), but it's entirely unclear because the 4 who appear to support including it aren't very communicative.  Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then I think we're close to agreement: of those who have expressed an opinion, we have an 8-0 or possibly 8-1 split in terms of excluding the text, which is as close to "overwhelming consensus" as we're likely to get. In terms of editing this page, I argue that (given the proximity of this to arbcom) no-one is going to risk reverting the text without first discussing it; hence removing the prot on the basis of that was safe (as it proved). I'd also argue that of those who reverted we should WP:AGF and assume that they have either changed their minds or just decided to bow out of the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that including Watson's words without a third party source discussing their significance is still WP:SYN. I'd assume that it's unlikely that those suggesting adding the words, or indeed merging the article, will do so without proper talk page discussion, so protection should not be necessary. Time to edit other topics, after tea. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I think on that basis we can agree that Watson has used the comparison in explaining greenhouse gas effects to the public, and has been cited in at least one book for his expertise on the topic. Also agree that this isn't particularly significant for his biography. While he's clearly notable, we don't have evidence that this detailed issue is important here. . dave souza, talk 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just an "analogy", it's a common comparison that played a significant part in the development of the science of global warming. Numerous scientific organisations have pointed to this, what's so unique or significant about Watson describing it? His words are on a video, an audio and a transcript, but you don't seem to have found a source commenting on the fact that he's used this common comparison. Since videos are tedious, could you please transcribe what he said on that video, or at the very least give the time at which he makes the statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: GregJackP answered you fully -- Watson said what he said, the IP included an unfortunate SYNTH statement that Greg inadvertently left in. Greg does not support including the SYNTH.  It's not a violation of policy and it was not blatant vandalism when Connolley reverted against his editing restriction if that's what you're getting at.   Move along. Minor4th 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mars doesn't have any significant greenhouse effect because of the lack of greenhouse gases – Watson did say "almost no greenhouse gases" at the start of his statement, see my transcript, so the audience should have been clear about that. What we've yet to see is a secondary source showing the significance of that particular statement, so it's still SYNTH even without the other sources. Also, it wasn't something that "that Greg inadvertently left in", Greg formatted one source and found a different textbook source to support the same SYNTH. An understandable lapse in following policy, presumably due to not fully understanding WP:SYN, but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent". . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that clarification, I'll agree that he oversimplified on that one occasion but still don't see a secondary source showing that this is significant to his bio. Even with such a source, we'd have to consider whether mentioning it gave the issue undue weight – you might like to consider this similar situation. Am happy to leave it at that, cheers, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I see nothing "pointy" about this poll to get people's opinions, please remember AGF. It would be instructive if you gave your views above, and might help us find out where the difference of opinion comes from and how to deal with it via policy or consensus. Verbal chat 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to be pointy - if I was, I would have just asked Q3, the one where I expect everyone to agree with me. Where was it picked up by the media? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: If you wish, put numbered comments in this section and someone can move them into the table. . dave souza, talk 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's been making the circuit lately and he's an interesting fellow  but I question whether there should even be a bio about him or whether it should be anything more than a stub.   What's he notable for?   One event -- getting ousted from chairmanship of IPCC.   Other than that, he is pretty much right in line with every other consensus scientist.   The same could be said for many of the BLP's in this area.   I think the BLP's are being used as POV forks to include information that is harder to get in a main article -- that goes for both "sides" and pretty much all BLP's in this area.   So, I don't know that I can really comment on his opinions or press coverage because it's not really notable except to the extent that Watson does not tend to follow the advice of handlers who would prefer that he not legitimize minority views by debating with them.  <--- but I'm not sure that has been covered in the mainstream press.  My opinion -- merge this BLP and many others into a main article and keep the info to a minimum of truly notable material.  Minor4th 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be trying to denigrate or dismiss Watson, please don't. See WP:NOTE. . .dave souza, talk 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not in the least.   You and I seem to misunderstand each other whenever we interact for some reason.  Minor4th 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, your suggestion of a merge appears to be neither within policy nor serious. I'm happy to leave it at that but you're welcome to explain it further if you wish. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war protection

message: WMC- where is this "There is overwhelhming agreement that the anon/JGP/MN/WVB edit should not be included;"? It's certainly not on this talk, now nor before when you made this request. I'm okay with NW unproting it as it's worth a try, but I'd really like to know where this "overwhelming agreement" is.  — Rlevse • Talk •  12:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth polling on, certainly, so let's do that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: @R: the consensus is here and at arbcomm. I don't think we have anynoe serious arguing for inclusion of the text (notice that of those who re-inserted it, MN and WVB haven't even attempted to defend their decision here), and a large number of people arguing against. I would have hoped you would have read the evidence on this. I've listed 8 people who don't want the text. The only person who still seems to want it is GJP. Incidentally, GJP's evidence is well worth reading - apparently there were only 5 reverts; neither he, not MN, nor WVB reverted at all (it also asserts erroneously that all those reverting it back in attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  @H: seems rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it would be nice to show how many people support various parts of the text they may or may not have put in the article, as a point of information. Perhaps lots of people think this is notable content - then we'd need to include it, albeit with it made clear that he's in 100% agreement with standard models and understanding for at-least the last 40 years or so (Viking landers) (correction, 100 years - Percival Lowell - well, perhaps only 80 years via Theodore Dunham, or less via Gerard Kuiper). Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @WMC, oh I've read it and I'm not seeing the strong consensus you see though the brouhaha has indeed settled down somewhat.  — Rlevse • Talk •  15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odd. OK, can you see the 8 people arguing against including it? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Errm, OK, maybe you can answer for R: do you see the 8 I've pointed to? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  8 vs an implied 4 is not consensus. The implied 3 might be disruptive, might be wrong, might need blocking and or banning (the 8 might also), and it's tough for me to say this given that I don't believe it to be true, but we have to assume that the 4 were editing what they think was good content back into the article - the fact that they were violating SYN and BLP (as one of them sometimes admits, and sometimes denies), means that they were ignorant, not malicious, and thus need to be informed. When (as it appears to be heading towards) the 4 and their real-life acquantances prove that they aren't willing to become informed, you reach where we are right now - with 8 people trying to explain science to others, and the others appearing not to listen, and hopefully arbcom will do something about that.  Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slow down. I was trying to find out from R which side he doubted. OK, so we accept the 8. Against that we have 4 implied - or so you assert. I dispute that. I think WP:AGF requires us to believe that people are capable of realising their errors, and I take their silence to be tacit consent. Cerftainly, if they were actively interested in returning the disputed material I would have expected them to argue for its inclusion. How many do you assert have actively argued for inclusion of the text? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  None. No one has argued for the inclusion of the text that the 4 included into the article. One of them appears to be arguing for the return of a form that excludes all of the negative commentary and synthesis (phrasing it as "here's an argument Robert Watson uses to illustrate climate change"), but it's entirely unclear because the 4 who appear to support including it aren't very communicative.  Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then I think we're close to agreement: of those who have expressed an opinion, we have an 8-0 or possibly 8-1 split in terms of excluding the text, which is as close to "overwhelming consensus" as we're likely to get. In terms of editing this page, I argue that (given the proximity of this to arbcom) no-one is going to risk reverting the text without first discussing it; hence removing the prot on the basis of that was safe (as it proved). I'd also argue that of those who reverted we should WP:AGF and assume that they have either changed their minds or just decided to bow out of the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that including Watson's words without a third party source discussing their significance is still WP:SYN. I'd assume that it's unlikely that those suggesting adding the words, or indeed merging the article, will do so without proper talk page discussion, so protection should not be necessary. Time to edit other topics, after tea. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I think on that basis we can agree that Watson has used the comparison in explaining greenhouse gas effects to the public, and has been cited in at least one book for his expertise on the topic. Also agree that this isn't particularly significant for his biography. While he's clearly notable, we don't have evidence that this detailed issue is important here. . dave souza, talk 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus re excluding the material? 

message: The section edit-warred over has multiple issues. I adress them seperately, to prevent tainting one poll with what must be overwhelming consensus on the other. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just an "analogy", it's a common comparison that played a significant part in the development of the science of global warming. Numerous scientific organisations have pointed to this, what's so unique or significant about Watson describing it? His words are on a video, an audio and a transcript, but you don't seem to have found a source commenting on the fact that he's used this common comparison. Since videos are tedious, could you please transcribe what he said on that video, or at the very least give the time at which he makes the statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: GregJackP answered you fully -- Watson said what he said, the IP included an unfortunate SYNTH statement that Greg inadvertently left in. Greg does not support including the SYNTH.  It's not a violation of policy and it was not blatant vandalism when Connolley reverted against his editing restriction if that's what you're getting at.   Move along. Minor4th 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mars doesn't have any significant greenhouse effect because of the lack of greenhouse gases – Watson did say "almost no greenhouse gases" at the start of his statement, see my transcript, so the audience should have been clear about that. What we've yet to see is a secondary source showing the significance of that particular statement, so it's still SYNTH even without the other sources. Also, it wasn't something that "that Greg inadvertently left in", Greg formatted one source and found a different textbook source to support the same SYNTH. An understandable lapse in following policy, presumably due to not fully understanding WP:SYN, but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent". . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that clarification, I'll agree that he oversimplified on that one occasion but still don't see a secondary source showing that this is significant to his bio. Even with such a source, we'd have to consider whether mentioning it gave the issue undue weight – you might like to consider this similar situation. Am happy to leave it at that, cheers, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I see nothing "pointy" about this poll to get people's opinions, please remember AGF. It would be instructive if you gave your views above, and might help us find out where the difference of opinion comes from and how to deal with it via policy or consensus. Verbal chat 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to be pointy - if I was, I would have just asked Q3, the one where I expect everyone to agree with me. Where was it picked up by the media? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: If you wish, put numbered comments in this section and someone can move them into the table. . dave souza, talk 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's been making the circuit lately and he's an interesting fellow  but I question whether there should even be a bio about him or whether it should be anything more than a stub.   What's he notable for?   One event -- getting ousted from chairmanship of IPCC.   Other than that, he is pretty much right in line with every other consensus scientist.   The same could be said for many of the BLP's in this area.   I think the BLP's are being used as POV forks to include information that is harder to get in a main article -- that goes for both "sides" and pretty much all BLP's in this area.   So, I don't know that I can really comment on his opinions or press coverage because it's not really notable except to the extent that Watson does not tend to follow the advice of handlers who would prefer that he not legitimize minority views by debating with them.  <--- but I'm not sure that has been covered in the mainstream press.  My opinion -- merge this BLP and many others into a main article and keep the info to a minimum of truly notable material.  Minor4th 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be trying to denigrate or dismiss Watson, please don't. See WP:NOTE. . .dave souza, talk 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not in the least.   You and I seem to misunderstand each other whenever we interact for some reason.  Minor4th 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, your suggestion of a merge appears to be neither within policy nor serious. I'm happy to leave it at that but you're welcome to explain it further if you wish. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strawpolls 

message: Robert Watson expressed in at least one interview that the various temperatures of Mars and Venus demonstrate alternating effects of greenhouse gasses. Is this notable for inclusion on this page?
===== Notable =====
#In addition to the Guardian debate, he also used the analogy in 2002 (see ABC-Australia ref below) and on C-SPAN (2007).  His words, perhaps to explain it in a way understandable to lay people, but still used over at least a 7-year period in at least three different venues, all reported by reliable sources.  GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just an "analogy", it's a common comparison that played a significant part in the development of the science of global warming. Numerous scientific organisations have pointed to this, what's so unique or significant about Watson describing it? His words are on a video, an audio and a transcript, but you don't seem to have found a source commenting on the fact that he's used this common comparison. Since videos are tedious, could you please transcribe what he said on that video, or at the very least give the time at which he makes the statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On inclusion, generally 

message: #In addition to the Guardian debate, he also used the analogy in 2002 (see ABC-Australia ref below) and on C-SPAN (2007).  His words, perhaps to explain it in a way understandable to lay people, but still used over at least a 7-year period in at least three different venues, all reported by reliable sources.  GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just an "analogy", it's a common comparison that played a significant part in the development of the science of global warming. Numerous scientific organisations have pointed to this, what's so unique or significant about Watson describing it? His words are on a video, an audio and a transcript, but you don't seem to have found a source commenting on the fact that he's used this common comparison. Since videos are tedious, could you please transcribe what he said on that video, or at the very least give the time at which he makes the statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable 

message: # It's like saying that he also has said in one interview that the speed of light in a vaccum is a constant - this is our basic understanding of how things work. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not notable 

message: Part of the proposed text was "NASA reports in a 'Mars Fact Sheet', stating that the atmosphere of Mars is approximately 95% carbon dioxide." Is this appropriate to include?
===== Appropriate =====
#Why does hipocrite keep saying mars has no atmosphere? Of course it does, it`s not an asteroid you know. If there were no atmosphere there would be no storms, but there are. Read up on it mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On CO2 %age, specifically 

message: #Why does hipocrite keep saying mars has no atmosphere? Of course it does, it`s not an asteroid you know. If there were no atmosphere there would be no storms, but there are. Read up on it mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate 

message: # Even if we include any text, noting that Mars' atmosphere is all CO2 is misleading. If we are to comment on the atmospheres, the relevent note is that Mars' has no atmosphere, not that it's scarse molecules are all CO2. Hipocrite (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Appropriate

message: Robert Watson's view has been described as "in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." Is this a violation of any policies?
===== Violation =====
# It's transparently a violation of three- in addition to no reliable source on Mars' saying that our basic understanding of Mars' is that there is a substantial greenhouse effect (making it SYN), it accuses a scientist of gross incompotence (BLP), and is wrong - Mars is not expected to have a large greenhouse effect (thus, this false statement must violate V, as false statements are unverifiable.) Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: GregJackP answered you fully -- Watson said what he said, the IP included an unfortunate SYNTH statement that Greg inadvertently left in. Greg does not support including the SYNTH.  It's not a violation of policy and it was not blatant vandalism when Connolley reverted against his editing restriction if that's what you're getting at.   Move along. Minor4th 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mars doesn't have any significant greenhouse effect because of the lack of greenhouse gases – Watson did say "almost no greenhouse gases" at the start of his statement, see my transcript, so the audience should have been clear about that. What we've yet to see is a secondary source showing the significance of that particular statement, so it's still SYNTH even without the other sources. Also, it wasn't something that "that Greg inadvertently left in", Greg formatted one source and found a different textbook source to support the same SYNTH. An understandable lapse in following policy, presumably due to not fully understanding WP:SYN, but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent". . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that clarification, I'll agree that he oversimplified on that one occasion but still don't see a secondary source showing that this is significant to his bio. Even with such a source, we'd have to consider whether mentioning it gave the issue undue weight – you might like to consider this similar situation. Am happy to leave it at that, cheers, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Policies, specifically 

message: # It's transparently a violation of three- in addition to no reliable source on Mars' saying that our basic understanding of Mars' is that there is a substantial greenhouse effect (making it SYN), it accuses a scientist of gross incompotence (BLP), and is wrong - Mars is not expected to have a large greenhouse effect (thus, this false statement must violate V, as false statements are unverifiable.) Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation 

message: #As noted above, he also made the same statement on C-SPAN - to the effect that Mars was freezing due to no greenhouse gases.  Perhaps an ill-choice of words, but he made basically the same statement twice. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: GregJackP answered you fully -- Watson said what he said, the IP included an unfortunate SYNTH statement that Greg inadvertently left in. Greg does not support including the SYNTH.  It's not a violation of policy and it was not blatant vandalism when Connolley reverted against his editing restriction if that's what you're getting at.   Move along. Minor4th 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mars doesn't have any significant greenhouse effect because of the lack of greenhouse gases – Watson did say "almost no greenhouse gases" at the start of his statement, see my transcript, so the audience should have been clear about that. What we've yet to see is a secondary source showing the significance of that particular statement, so it's still SYNTH even without the other sources. Also, it wasn't something that "that Greg inadvertently left in", Greg formatted one source and found a different textbook source to support the same SYNTH. An understandable lapse in following policy, presumably due to not fully understanding WP:SYN, but a deliberate act so hardly "inadvertent". . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that clarification, I'll agree that he oversimplified on that one occasion but still don't see a secondary source showing that this is significant to his bio. Even with such a source, we'd have to consider whether mentioning it gave the issue undue weight – you might like to consider this similar situation. Am happy to leave it at that, cheers, dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Violation 

message: Comment- your poll seems rather POINT-y, but since youve asked, I think this biography is rather weak and says very little about the man.  There's an "Opinions" section that contains two quotes, each of which appears to have been selected to push or offset opposing POV's in the CC debate and neither of which seems particularly representative of Watson's contributions in the area.  While it is true that Watson's statements about observation of Mars and Venus are rather simplistic and not controversial, perhaps that is their elegance. He has explained the greenhouse effect in very tangible terms that even non-scientists can appreciate and it is true that those comments have been picked up by the media, so why not write something intelligent incorporating those statements as representative of his views and the particular way he describes it in lay terms?  Everything does not need to be a fight.   Minor4th 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing "pointy" about this poll to get people's opinions, please remember AGF. It would be instructive if you gave your views above, and might help us find out where the difference of opinion comes from and how to deal with it via policy or consensus. Verbal chat 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to be pointy - if I was, I would have just asked Q3, the one where I expect everyone to agree with me. Where was it picked up by the media? Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: If you wish, put numbered comments in this section and someone can move them into the table. . dave souza, talk 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's been making the circuit lately and he's an interesting fellow  but I question whether there should even be a bio about him or whether it should be anything more than a stub.   What's he notable for?   One event -- getting ousted from chairmanship of IPCC.   Other than that, he is pretty much right in line with every other consensus scientist.   The same could be said for many of the BLP's in this area.   I think the BLP's are being used as POV forks to include information that is harder to get in a main article -- that goes for both "sides" and pretty much all BLP's in this area.   So, I don't know that I can really comment on his opinions or press coverage because it's not really notable except to the extent that Watson does not tend to follow the advice of handlers who would prefer that he not legitimize minority views by debating with them.  <--- but I'm not sure that has been covered in the mainstream press.  My opinion -- merge this BLP and many others into a main article and keep the info to a minimum of truly notable material.  Minor4th 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be trying to denigrate or dismiss Watson, please don't. See WP:NOTE. . .dave souza, talk 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not in the least.   You and I seem to misunderstand each other whenever we interact for some reason.  Minor4th 19:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, your suggestion of a merge appears to be neither within policy nor serious. I'm happy to leave it at that but you're welcome to explain it further if you wish. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Why is this relevant?  He is apparently one of dozens of scientists (at least mentioned) in the work.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422382/fullcredits#cast ?  108.73.115.217 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference for the connection, not for relevance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Planet Earth: The Future]] 

message: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leakegate 88.159.71.224 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a reliable source, and appears irrelevant anyway. . dave souza, talk 05:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate gate BS? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Robert Watson (scientist). 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/20160927032529/http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/notablealumni/honoraryfellows/ to http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/notablealumni/honoraryfellows/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318130922/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_scirev to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_scirev
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705223036/http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/adviser.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/how/adviser.htm
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) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified