Talk:Robert Watson (chemist)

Why is 'advocacy' in quotes? - Molinari 20:41 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

scare quotes

Restoration of well-cited material removed without comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Regardless of factual accuracy, it's clearly WP:SYN to attempt to debunk statements from one source with "facts" from another source. And since it doesn't appear that anyone here wants to explain why it's factually dubious, I believe the issue is that Mars' atmosphere is so sparse, that even if it's mostly CO2, it's still a very small amount in absolute terms. ATren (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Next editor

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)

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)

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)

Edit war protection

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Rlevse's userpage says he is traveling for the next week, so I have unprotected the page. NW (Talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)