Talk:Paul Reiter

message: Please establish on the page first that Christy has been a supporter - and that he has changed his mind. Otherwise that is WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He used to contribute to IPCC reports, of which, the IPCC maintains a supporting view. (Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health))--Zeeboid 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewers are not by neccessity supporters - in fact there have been quite a few of sceptics amongst them (fx. Steve McIntyre is for the AR4, Reiter, Vincent Gray, Richard S. Courtney from the TAR). --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was he an author on the report, or only a reviewer? Because reviewer is no status at all William M. Connolley 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expert reviewer. (at least according to the letter from the 60). Note: i of course meant Reiter not Christy in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So wait... There have been quite a few skeptics amongs the IPCC Reviewers?  Why is this not documented anywhere?  Paul Reiter was a member of the IPCC was he not?--Zeeboid 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably documented by the sceptics themselves - It shouldn't come as a surprise for Gray or Courtney, they've (iirc) been regular posters at john-daly. And it would probably also be documented in the review documents. You can also find it on the 60 scientists letter - where you got the information about Reiters reviewer status - right? --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: WMC, Do pay attention.  Member of the IPCC I would take as anyone who contributes to the IPCC.  Since the IPCC's views are well known, anyone who contributes to the IPCC is a Global warming supporter until they quit or leave or come out against the IPCC.  Much like someone who may possibly get some funding form anyone in "Big Oil" is known for being under "Big Oil's" influance.--Zeeboid 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as far as your POV Pushing, please read the quote from Reiter in this section to note his skepticism of the IPCC.--Zeeboid 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Member of the IPCC I would take as" <- well that is wrong. The members of the IPCC are clearly stated on the IPCC page - or on the various pages for the work-groups. It is not hard to become an "expert reviewer" - in essence it only requires that you request to be one. As WMC has said earlier - this is one of the things that sceptics do - first of all because it provides a preview of the final report - and secondly because it sound official. --Kim D. Petersen 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not on the current list because he left the IPCC.  Is this facutally incorrect?--Zeeboid 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we have any sources (other than himself) for his being there in the first place, and for his leaving? I think its rather sad that this chap - presumably a reputable scientist - apparently now exists (according to wiki) for no purpose other than to snipe at the IPCC. KDP is correct - there should be more about his science in here. Whether he left/joined IPCC is (of course) irrelevant to being a GW supporter anyway - you need before/after quotes to establish that William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former global warming supporter 

message: Wasn't he a contributor with the IPCC? This IPCC 3rd assessment doc has his name all over it.  The machine512 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he had his name removed? Wasn't that the point. And that doc merely has *refs* to his work William M. Connolley 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes me assume it is the draft he was referring to. The machine512 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "name removed" he doesn't mean refs to his work in the text - he means from the author list for the chapter. But we still only have his word for it so far William M. Connolley 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Houghtons response to TGGWS, seem to indicate that Reiter wasn't an author....  --Kim D. Petersen 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement with IPCC 

message: I'm raising this tag again, since none of us have been able to find information about his academic career. Currently its only about his views about the IPCC - and nil about his career, what his research is about. What his contributions to science is etc. We need this to establish a modicum of notability. 
Please do not remove the tag until this has been resolved. --Kim D. Petersen 08:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its time to put it up for AFD or remove the tag William M. Connolley 17:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Its been a while since i've looked, but i still haven't been able to find much data on him. --Kim D. Petersen 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So... which way are you going to jump? Given that you've just re-inserted the tag, logic says... William M. Connolley 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be an AfD - which would (imho) result in either of two scenarios: A deletion because Reiter ends up being considered non-notable, or an influx of new editors and new information to bolster the article and show Reiter's notability. My gut-feeling says that Reiter has more notability than the current article shows - which is why i didn't nominate immediatly. But currently the only notability item is that he is opposed to the IPCC conclusions. Which (imho) isn't enough. I was considering how to formulate the AfD proposal to address this. --Kim D. Petersen 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added article from CFP which gives a brief CV. Also 700 results at Google Scholar. Iceage77 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Solomon series is not WP:RS. And i've changed the Google Scholar search to remove other scientists (such as the P. Reiter who is a nuclear physicist from Germany). --Kim D. Petersen 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article contains useful info. If we eliminated every publication that had made errors in the past there would be no sources left. Iceage77 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RS we have to eliminate sources that are lacking editorial oversight. The Solomon series has been shown to lack this several times (in the same series). If it contains useful information - we will have to find other sources instead. Use it as a jumping pad to find these other sources. --Kim D. Petersen 19:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I've removed the link to (what appears to be) Reiter's blog. It seems likely that this really is his blog - at least the one posting that is made so far - is consistent with Reiters background. But i'd like some confirmation that this really is his blog. I've checked on the scienceblog site - and there is apparently no background info. So i'm requesting confirmation. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may just be spam. The same text is at . Indeed the one comment on the blog says "This is simply a test post." and is by Hank, who added this William M. Connolley 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog 

message: #1 ExxonSecrets does not accuse Reiter of being funded by Exxon. The "Funded by Exxon?" is misleading, slanderous, and has no place on an article covering a living person. 
#2 DeSmog, link number two is a joke. So they're "investigating" Reiter, huh? Their website is pure poetry. Founded and operated by a team running a PR firm in Canada . Whose clients include firms involved in Oil development in Canada  and other firms involved in the oil industry , add cruiseship firms, tourism firms and fast-food chains and last, but not least, representing a firm involved in road-building projects , much to the dismay of a national Union . Throwing stones in glass houses springs to mind.
Any information and accusations against Reiter that are "controversial" must be supported by hard facts. #1 is no hard fact. #2 seems to be a warning (investigating? what have they concluded? anything relevant?) to certain scientists petitioning the Canadian PM, and is politically motivated. It has squat to do with the environment, the bread and butter of DeSmog comes from companies that a lot of environmentalists would accuse of being "climate criminals". I'm removing both as undue weight, borderline slander and not adding anything of merit (except pure imagination and speculation) to the article itself. --Dean1970 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're getting a bit carried away. "Funded by Exxon?" was wrong; but that can just be removed and leve the link in place. DSB isn't a joke. William M. Connolley 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that you spend some time *adding* info about his important life work, which is currently rather lacking William M. Connolley 10:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The accusation with DeSmog as a source were added again, I removed them for reasons also mentioned above: not a reliable source, no reference. --Küchenkraut (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: external links

message: The quote refers to Global Warming Swindle film. But was it actually made by Reiter? It is not clear to me. Does anyone happen to have a reference? Splette :) How's my driving? 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote Question