Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant)

Dealing with the usual bias on Wikipedia

This article, like most politically tinged articles on Wikipedia, is biased, and needs to be fixed. Whoever you people are who tolerate this bias are doing the world a radical disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.170.65 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Could you highlight the passages in the article that appear to be problematic? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing science with politics. Climate change denial is not just a political opinion, it is a pseudoscience motivated by a political opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition: That is what the reliable sources say - the scientific ones quoted in the article Climate change denial. If you disagree with them, that is your problem, not ours. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Climate change "denial" is an attempt to impose guilt by association on climate skeptics by comparing them to Holocaust deniers. This is unacceptable in an NPOV article. I changed "Denial" to "Skepticism". 75.25.160.162 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Your opinion is not relevant. "Denial" is the term used by scientists, so it is the term used by Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Denial is not a scientific term, even when used by a scientist. Damorbel (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if that were true, so what? You want to delete all words that are not "scientific terms"? But climate change denial is an actual phenomenon, and we have WP:RS saying this guy is part of it. End of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Go away. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. But we assume good faith here. They don't realise the consequences of their actions. (Or maybe we are wrong ourselves.)

But the best way to address this is to create an account and start contributing. Don't do that to express your own POV here, that's counterproductive. Instead learn our policies etc (which are not perfect but the best we have, and normally when they fail it's because they are not followed rather than because they are) and then improve Wikipedia. Drop me a line on my talk page if I can help. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement that increased CO2 is beneficial

There have been back-and-forth edits related to the words "... having stated that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial ..." Some edits -- ignoring IPs and ignoring another use of "falsely" later in the paragraph -- are: Scrooge and Marley CPA inserted on April 20, Thincat removed on April 20, Safrolic re-inserted on May 13, Doctorx0079 removed on June 28. JimRenge re-inserted on June 28. (Possibly I've missed something among edits by Hob Gadling and Joel B. Lewis.) I agree with the falsely-opposers but acknowledge that the falsely-supporters are the majority at the moment. Anybody else? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. The reason I removed the two "falsely" words is not because I believe his claims are true (I don't) but because the two references we give for the statements do not say this. The first is a paper by Moore himself who unsurprisingly does not say his claim is false. The second is a report in the Independent which merely reports what he said without any editorial comment whether it is true or not. We are not providing reliable sources saying his claims are false. See WP:Scientific consensus. Thincat (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

There was also a third "falsely", before "claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change", which was sourced and which was still removed. This whole thing is a transparent attempt at fringe POV pushing. It is common knowledge that climate change is caused by human activity, in spite of all the attempts to hide it by financially an ideologigally interested parties.

Regarding the "beneficial" thing, [1] explains what it is not true, although it does not mention Moore. [2] does mention him and refutes his position from a mainstream science standpoint. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did not remove the third "falsely", I left it in because it was referenced. Here is the article after my last edit.[3] It looks to me that someone was sprinkling in "falsely"s with the supposed justification "It is scientific consensus that increased CO2 is not beneficial- we don't need this source to say that his statements are false."[4] and once an edit war breaks out there can be unintended consequences. I suspect that if you added the references you suggest I would have no problem with the words being restored but I can't speak for anyone else. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, a week has gone by and the two "falsely" claims in the lead are still referenced to sources that do not say his statements are false so I have added the two references suggested above by Hob Gadling. I'll ponder more on whether I think this is OK. On an editorial point (but not, I think, a BLP issue) I would remove all this editorialising from the lead and simply state there what the man has said with a general statement that his views are controversial. The body of the article is the place to put in specific criticism of his statements. Thincat (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

They are not "controversial", they are contrary to the science. Of course plants need CO2, you learn that at school. But the essential point is its effect on the climate. Its effect on plants is just a red herring Moore used.

"Criticism" is a vague term that ranges from baseless disagreement to total refutation, and it should be avoided. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You may find this very strange but for the purposes of this article I am far more concerned that what we write is referenced to reliable sources. Whether what Moore says is true or false is secondary. In the real world I think what he says is baloney but my opinion on that is irrelevant. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for this high-level musing. Well, this is an inevitable difficulty dealing with various kinds of shills, charlatans, and cranks: WP:FRINGE requires that we present the mainstream view, while reliable sources may not have gone out of their way to directly address particular false claims. This creates a delicate balancing act between WP:FRINGE on one hand and WP:SYNTH or WP:COATRACK on the other. I agree with you that leaving refutations in text completely unsourced is not acceptable long-term and I appreciate your efforts to ameliorate the situation. One possible approach is to reduce the volume of "[Subject of article] said [false or outrageous thing]" in such biographies (especially when primary-sourced), to reduce the amount of in-text correction necessary to comply with WP:FRINGE. --JBL (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. If we cannot find any specific refutations for Moore's claims in sources and cannot mention that Moore's claims are fringe without any sources, then we cannot mention the claims themselves either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that. We can say Moore claims A, B and C with references that he did say those things. We can also say "the scientific consensus rejects A, B and C" with references to those (but I doubt if that should go in the lead). But we can't say "Moore falsely said A, falsely said B and falsely said C" unless we have reliable sources saying the statements he made are false statements. Anyway, I'll be bowing out because I don't like editing in controversial areas and I hardly ever edit about people who are still alive (possibly for a similar reason). As a parting shot, this article got on my watchlist back in 2007 when I linked[5] to an archive of a page "The Founders of Greenpeace" where Greenpeace listed him amongst five of the "founders and first members" of the 1970 Don't Make A Wave committee.[6]. But I doubt that matters any longer. Thincat (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone tried to edit-war the falselies back out although the discussion is still ongoing. Since his fringe statements are refuted in the next sentence, I think the falselies are actually not needed if the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state". But of course, the clearly sourced on-lede non-lede falsely must stay. I edited to this effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

the dubiousness of the statements is made clear by using "to claim" instead of "to state" I do not think, as a general principle, that using the word "claim" instead of "state" makes it clear that the statement is false. But your edits are fine with me. --JBL (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant, in combination with the next sentence, it achieves that goal at least for those readers who understand the fact that a consensus in science is based on the nature of reality and not on sinister conspiracies to hide the truth. Of course, those who do not want to accept the falseness of the claims for ideological reasons will not be convinced anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If the "someone" whom you accuse of edit warring is not Darmot and gilad, who tried to remove "falsely" here and here, please be clearer. If your change to "for example by claiming that increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is beneficial" stands, we'll see whether WP:CLAIM might matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says, To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. That is exactly what it should do in this instance, as Moore's claim is just that: a claim. Regarding who edit-warred, I don't care. Look it up in the article history yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be that climate change is caused in part by human activity, but that is by no means definitively proven the way that the law of gravity is proven. Patrick Moore generally presents reasoned viewpoints in a calm and rational manner. It is appropriate to mention the viewpoints he is most commonly known for and then to point out how this goes against the consensus with supporting citations. I don't think his viewpoint is quite as fringe as some editors seems to believe. However, it seems fair that Moore's views be treated as least as fairly as other *more* fringe views are treated on Wikipedia. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh lordy. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

These counterfactual personal opinions are not relevant to the content of the article, which must be based on reliable sources. And FWIW, it is far more likely that Booth didn't shoot Lincoln than that human activity doesn't cause global heating which causes climate change--there is overwhelming scientific evidence for this, and comparing it to "the law of gravity" (which, if referring to Newton, is known to be inaccurate) doesn't change that. -- Jibal (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed "falsely" a couple of times, not because the statements are wrong or even unreferenced, but because they insert point-of-view into the article. It doesn't matter if they are true or false, articles should not editorialize. Darmot and gilad (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are inserting POV. Saying "falsely" is necessarily taking a specific point of view, on an issue that is complex and still hotly debated, not as clear-cut as "2 + 2 = 4" or "F=ma". Science works by induction, not merely accumulating statistics. There's a good book called How to Lie with Statistics. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hotly debated outside of science, by unreliable sources. Wikipedia does not care about those unless reliable sources talk about them. Instead of just saying "POV", you should actually read WP:POV, especially the WP:GEVAL part of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Who are "they"? Assume good faith. And the "specific point of view" is that of the scientific community, and is endorsed by WP policy. There's obviously no reason why the factuality of a statement must be on the same level as an analytical tautology like "2+2=4", and FWIW, "F=ma" is based on assumptions that are false in the real world (where you need F = m dv/dt + v dm/dt). Talk about "accumulating statistics" is a strawman, and the conclusions of climate science are based on induction and inference (which statistical analysis is an important part of) from observations. -- Jibal (talk)

I see user JayBeeEll is now going through other articles I have edited and reverting my changes. This seems like a vendetta. Darmot and gilad (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is evident that these changes are aimed at improving Wikipedia and not at you personally; assume good faith. The best way to avoid having one's edits reverted is to stick to WP policy. -- Jibal (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Been a long time since I edited this page, but I too find the 'falsely' to be excessive editorializing and oppose the inclusion. I also oppose the presence of the Greenpeace's accusations at the lede, as I've argued before. Especially the first quote, which I think grossly disregards BLP policy. VdSV9•♫ 00:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

More CO2

Hi Peter Gulutzan. The section of Snopes that I thought was relevant comes at the end: "As Moore states, it is true that CO2 is a crucial building block of life that provides the raw material for plants to grow. This, in turn, provides animals with food and oxygen. However, such an observation, which you can find described in any middle-school science textbook, does not infringe upon the fundamental, physical truth that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the planet." Is that not relevant to the sentence in the article? Firefangledfeathers 18:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edit added a cite to Alex Kasprak at snopes.com at the end of this sentence: "He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." That passage which you're quoting is not saying that he made such a claim, and not attempting to refute it. So I don't agree that is relevant. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The adverb "falsely" is biased language.

"He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." The sentence should read: "He has claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change." There is also improper use of the reference attached to that statement as "proof" of this wrongness. I don't know how to edit it, but perhaps someone else can. 118.211.231.92 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There is no mention in David Icke's article that his claim the world is run by shape-shifting lizard people is false. This article is no different. When you say an obviously false claim is false, you ironically give it more credibility. TFD (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Icke is different because very few people would even consider his ideas to be true. For climate change, that is not the case: the disinformation campaign of people like Moore has been successful. The IP who started this thread obviously agrees with Moore's false claim and thinks that removing the "false" would be desireable because it would give his claims more credibility. Indeed, the word "false" makes it more clear that it is false. You say the opposite, so you actually do not "agree". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasonably informed rational people do not doubt the reality of climate change. OTOH they don't appreciate being lectured to and told what to believe. While the polemical style is unlikely to make them doubt the reality of global warming, it will make them doubt the veracity of claims made about Moore, sensing that the authors have a clear bias against him.

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:TONE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published." I don't think that most reputable sources would use the current phrasing. TFD (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have asked other editors to comment at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

the authors have a clear bias against him That is not something reasonably informed rational people would think. It is something disinformed people who already agree with Moore would think, or people who adhere to the dogma that one should never express a standpoint. Both are unlikely to learn anything, regardless of what we write, so their reaction does not matter much. Reasonably informed rational people think instead "yes, obviously that claim is false. I know that." They are aware that lots of information they get is redundant to their own knowledge, and that it is intended to inform less reasonably informed, less rational people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidence and think that every article that mentions it is a good place to lecture readers. Sounds pretty polemical to me. It sounds more like what an opposition PAC would write than a serious article. TFD (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There was an episode of Judge Judy where a litigant said "She's lying your honor!" And Judge Judy asked, "Can't you just say she's wrong?" A better tone doesn't change the meaning, it just makes it less emotional. TFD (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

you think that most people don't know that climate change is supported by scientific evidence I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic.

Do I really have to explain why the "lying" - "wrong" difference has no implications for the current case? It seems to me you are grasping at straws. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them.

The example from Judge Judy shows that words that have the same meaning can have different connotations.

I notice that the tone of the article Elizabeth Holmes is neutral, although she made false claims about medical devices she was selling. And unlike this article, a reasonably informed reader would not know they were ineffective unless they were told about them. It still conveys her effectively even if it doesn't contain lots of hyperbole. TFD (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think most people know that climate change is supported by evidence then you are being condescending to them. I already said that I never said I think that: I have no idea where you got that. You need to reexamine your logic. I made not even one statement about how popular those positions are. So, enough with the strawman arguments already. But even if I had said that, the logic that followed your strawman is twice invalid: there is no reason why opinions about popularity of opinions are "condescending", and even if they were, opinions are (or should be) based on good reasoning and not on considerations about whether people will think them "condescending".

Since you crammed three easily-spotted mistakes into one sentence, any discussion with you is necessarily fruitless, and I do not need to read the rest of your incoherent rambling. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that "falsely" is biased language, and also omniscient language, and therefore not encyclopedic. If a real encyclopedia were reporting on the flat-earth society, for instance, it would merely report facts, that is, that this organization has this opinion, or holds this position, which is that the earth is flat. No encyclopedia would say,"the flat-earth society falsely claims that the earth is flat." This is not because the reader might mistakenly think that the earth is flat, or that using "falsely" would give it either more or less credibility, but rather that the role of an encyclopedia is to report on what is, and in that case, the what-is is, that the flat-earth society thinks that the earth is flat, and here are the arguments they present. Then there might be a cross-reference to an article which suggests a different point of view, or a comment that this goes against the mainstream scientific opinion, but to use the world "falsely" puts the writer in the position of the omniscient observer, as they say in high-school English class, which is not the language of an encyclopedia. The same is true of the sentence that starts with, "These views are contradicted by the scientific consensus..." The word "contradicted" is also a word that puts the author in the position of claiming omniscience, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Contraverse (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Do not blindly throw text at random positions. It looked as is if TFD had responded to your contribution. I moved it to the correct place.

Established facts should be handled like established facts, not like opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That wording was mentioned in an earlier thread but was not the main subject. It's worse than that. The cite is of Climate Feedback. That group-blog post starts with a quote of Mr Moore's statement and a link to Instagram but when I followed the link I didn't see that statement, so context if any is unknown. And don't be misled by the site's list of reviewers -- its "scientists' feedback" sections are prefaced by "[Comment from a previous evaluation of a similar claim.]" i.e.those are not responses to Mr Moore's statement -- only the editor's comments are a response. In any case the quote, if valid, is about lack of proof that CO2 causes, not lack of evidence that CO2 contributes. So better to remove the whole sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Update: I realize now that the Instagram comment might be somewhere on an accompanying video which won't play on my machine. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

How is it "biased" if its completely true? Leave the word in there and ignore the other IP. 73.68.72.229 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)