Talk:Ross McKitrick

"authored works on climate change denial"

HidariMigi made another change to the lead, to say McKitrick has "authored works on climate change denial", which is nearly the same as what's in Jess's October 27 2015 change = "authored works promoting climate change denial", which was disputed in the earlier talk page discussion (mostly between Jess and S Philbrick) and removed. So I hereby ping S Philbrick and Jess (Ashaeria also participated but is now blocked).I believe that, as was true before, it's poorly sourced contentious material in a BLP, and re-insertion without consensus is not allowed. But I've delayed reverting in case there are other comments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I can simplify this discussion: does economist Ross McKitrick write articles, speak and present papers contrary to the scientific opinion on climate change? Or to use the previous terminology, does McKitrick believe that "global warming" caused by human activity is not real? The answer as taken from his own writing and reported on by others, is yes.

For starters, McKitrick disbelieves in the very concept of a scientific consensus -- and calls studies citing "97%" agreement a "con" or a fabrication".

McKitrick claimed at the 2011 Beijing Forum, "[R]ecent comparisons between model forecasts and actual observations show that the climate does not appear to be as sensitive to greenhouse gases as was earlier feared. Data from weather balloons indicates that the troposphere over the tropics has not warmed significantly since the late 1950s..." (Hint: He was wrong.)

In a 2014 article "'Climate Change Denier' Dismisses Label" (Calgary Herald), he is quoted, "The issue really is the extent to which you accept that greenhouse gas emissions are causing a major catastrophe...I would just say my reading of the evidence is that so far, it doesn’t appear to be a big issue."

Claiming that "there is a systematic bias towards overstating the risk of global warming", McKitick laments, "The drumbeat of alarmism never seems to stop, helped along by a media that seems incapable of elementary fact checking when environmental issues are raised."

In the same paper, he acknowledges his position is contrary to the mainstream, "[N]owadays to question any of the climate change narrative is to risk being attacked and denounced as a “denier” or an anti science industry shill."

However, in an article for the pro-business Frasier Institute, he hedges that even if there is any warming going on, it's actually a good thing: "Looking at the past 1000 years, it is apparent that warming is a better trend than cooling, and temperatures at contemporary levels are associated with general prosperity... By accounting for feasible adaptation to changing growing conditions, more recent studies have shown net gains in global agriculture and forestry due to climate warming."

McKitrick lauds himself as "an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues." He is an expert on global warming denial. Full stop. --HidariMigi (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have added a citation to the American Behavioral Scientist Journal article identifying Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick's book Taken By Storm amongst "Climate Change Denial Books". --HidariMigi (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what should be happening. There are differences of opinion regarding whether the best way to characterize McKitrick's work as climate change denial or some of the phrasing. Let's continue this discussion and reach a consensus before making a change to the article. (I have a major family event in progress over the next two days so may have limited time to contribute but I'll see what I can do) --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me start with why this is more than simply wordsmithing. I think we can all agree that there is a range of opinions on the subject. I'll start with one view of how to characterize that range although I'm sure that there are other ways to do this. Imagine a line and mark a point somewhere near the middle, representing people who largely agree with the opinions of the IPCC report. There are many people on this point or close thereby. There are some people who think the IPCC report understates the potential problems, and there are some people who think the report overstates the problem. Of those who think the IPCC report overstates the problem, there are some who raise legitimate questions about the conclusions in an effort to improve the science, exactly the way science is supposed to be conducted. There are also some who take a stronger view, either ignoring or denying that the science has any validity. (I'm focusing on the science, there's a whole other layer getting at the economics and proposed responses — I'm ignoring for simplicity but recognize that some of the more significant differences of opinion lie in that arena.)

We often characterize those who disagree with some aspects of the IPCC report as skeptics. In practice, this term is typically applied to those who think the issues are less significant than the IPCC report rather than those who disagree with the report because they think that you situation is more serious. We characterize those who events wholesale denial of the scientific conclusion as deniers.

So far, none of the above should be particularly controversial. What is becoming controversial, in my opinion is a penchant by some to use the term denier for people who are making a legitimate case for skeptical arguments.

So why should it matter whether an individual is placed within the skeptical portion of the range or in the denial portion of the range?

Because there are people characterizing deniers as murderers, and openly calling for the death.

If it were simply a case of a choice between two slightly different, benign terms, it wouldn't be a big deal, but when it is a distinction between a term that means a legitimate player in the scientific process, and a term that could get you killed, then it's worth making sure we get it right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You're being over-dramatic (if you want to go full-on with this, you need to do it more generally, so not here). The more obvious answer to "why should it matter whether an individual is placed within the skeptical portion of the range or in the denial portion of the range" is because these do, indeed, represent the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable "skepticism"; the latter being effectively denial (note the quotes around skepticism, because obviously all good scientists are skeptical; he "skeptics" don't get to appropriate the word to describe their fringe behaviour). So, should wiki accurately describe people? Obviously, yes, to the best of our ability. So the question is are there good sources for the D-word William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

We are in agreement that we ought to accurately describe people.

The test isn't whether we simply need to find some good sources for the D-word. You no doubt know that there are climate activists attempting to smear anyone who strays from orthodoxy as a denier. The issue isn't whether there are any such sources, but what the preponderance of sources say. If responsible, published reliable sources are close to unanimous, then the term can be used. If the usage is more nuanced, it is Wikipedia practice to reflect that nuance. My pair of links (and there are many more) I merely intended to emphasize that this is more important than many Wikipedia discussions about word usage.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Denier" is a word to avoid and we should only use it in Wikipedia's voice if that's the mainstream viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No; it's in the "Words to watch" section. As usual, it should be used, if appropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The re-introduction of "denialist" in the style guideline "Words to Watch" was part of the campaign to expunge "climate change denial" from WP by the self-same editors who have attempted to skew descriptive language about climate change towards that which legitimises their fringe beliefs. The consensus was to remove it from the list, in contrast to the closing statement by admin DDG. As pointed out by editor Ubikwit, "With regard to "climate change", the discussion reached consensus that the term was not controversial and its use policy-compliant. Only tendentious recourse to "WTW" has prevented the edit warring and talk page disruption from ending."--HidariMigi (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Going through HidariMigi's claims in order:
"McKitrick disbelieves in the very concept of a scientific consensus -- and calls studies citing "97%" agreement a "con" or a fabrication". There's no evidence that he said there's no such thing as a concept, the first supplied link isn't to something said by McKitrick, the second is to "the studies" and not what McKitrick called some studies, the third doesn't contain the word "fabrication".
"McKitrick claimed at the 2011 Beijing Forum ... (Hint: He was wrong)". McKitrick mentions troposphere in the tropics as of 2011, and HidariMigi says that was refuted by a blog that mentions troposphere in subtropics in 2014.
"In a 2014 article "'Climate Change Denier' Dismisses Label": So if he thinks denier is a bad label and failed to say climate change is a "major catastrophe", HidariMigi thinks it's okay to call him a denier? I prefer the standard set by Jimbo Wales: "Unless we have a firm reliable source quoting the person self-identifying as a "climate change denier" we should almost always avoid the term, due to the "Holocaust denier" connotations. I suppose there could be exceptions, but the sourcing would have to be really good, i.e. not just a throwaway remark by an intellectual opponent." (here).
"In the same paper, he acknowledges his position is contrary to the mainstream": Actually in the linked article he says "how mainstream alarmism has become". The only way that we can use that as evidence is if we say that alarmism and mainstream are the same thing.
"However, in an article for the pro-business Frasier Institute": (sic, actually it's the Fraser Institute): the linked article says "Over the past century, despite the observed warming, there is no upward trend in the frequency of storms" etc. Er, thanks for pointing to a paper where McKitrick says of course there's been warming.
"McKitrick lauds himself as "an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues.": No, the linked item says "Professor McKitrick is widely-cited in Canada and around the world as an expert on global warming and environmental policy issues."
"I have added a citation to the American Behavioral Scientist Journal article identifying Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick's book Taken By Storm amongst "Climate Change Denial Books".": Dunlap + Jacques say "The present study extends our earlier work by examining books espousing climate change denial per se published through 2010, including some examined in the prior study since they represent examples of environmental skepticism." -- I can't read this without concluding that they think denial and skepticism are synonyms. In any case the McKitrick book is just an item in a long list without any backup or explanation, so I'd give more weight to reviewers who used whole sentences ([1]). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see the above editor's Jimbo quote, and raise Wale's own "General Rule: "I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think."

Much of the editor's argumentation is predicated on picking at pedantic nits: as is obvious from the context and the linked references that "concept of a scientific consensus" refers to climate change, not just any old general consensus. McKitrick denies there is such a scientific consensus-- he titled his editorial, "The Con in Consensus". For inexplicable reasons, Mr. Gulutzan was unable to find this at the end of the first paragraph: "[T]he 97 per cent claim is a fabrication." [emphasis mine.] (Oh, and pointing out my single-letter typo in the Fraser Institute, when not only is the context clear, but it was previously referenced correctly is the height of pedantry.)

Likewise, Mr. Gulutzan fails to get to the gist of what the small selection of quotes were about: establishing that McKitrick denies that global warming is real; that he is, in all ways, a climate change denier. Not a "mere" skeptic, which connotes some sort of minor disbelief of some of the evidence, McKitrick is a full-on denier of every element of (yes) the scientific consensus: he denies that warming is actually occurring, or claims it is so minor as to be negligible; he denies that anthropogenic carbon emissions are problematic; he denies that even if there were any warming, that it would be a bad thing; he even denies that he is a climate change denier, because, according to him, "a climate change denier would be somebody who thinks we’re still in the middle of an Ice Age and the continent is covered by a glacier."--HidariMigi (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

HidariMigi is correct that "fabrication" occurs in the article, I erred. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with HidariMigi that argumentum ad Jimbo is not a silver bullet. Were it the only rebuttal, it would be weak tea, indeed. Yet the substance of the argument, that the use of a loaded term ought to be used with extreme caution, and arguable requires self-identification, is a good argument. Typically, deniers, such as creationists and flat-earther, are not just willing to so self-describe, but proud to do so. It is quite understandable why opponents would use the term "denier", it's intellectually lazy, and means one can claim victory without doing any heavy lifting. I don't think we should encourage such mudsmearing, without extremely strong supporting evidence, which is quite lacking. Note I am not taking a position as strong as Jimbo's, I can accept a label if adequately sourced, and by that I don't simply mean evidence that someone has called him a denier, but evidence that a proper definition of denying is utilized, and evidence is presented by experts demonstrating that the label applies.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we're done. There is no consensus for re-inserting "denial". On the other hand, there is no consensus that HidariMigi's edits were obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. Unless others have seriously different impressions about this discussion, we can end it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Section Break

Good god. HidariMigi, don't you have better things to do in your Real Life? Give this a break, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone you disagree with to shut up is not the way to a solution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mr. Tillman followed up with this, on my talk page. Which has given him an opportunity to discuss further.--HidariMigi (talk)

I both disagree with Tilman's request to give it a break, and Gadling's characterization. There's no need to ratchet up the rhetoric.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Restore recently removed material?

Joel B. Lewis made two edits on August 31 (here and here) removing some references to McKitrick's work. I believe that the references were appropriate and seek consensus to restore the material. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

McKitrick is some sort of academic or public intellectual. Consequently he writes many things in public or semi-public fora. For reasons of weight and significance, in order to include "McKitrick wrote X", "McKitrick said Y", etc., what should be included are secondary sources that comment on the fact that he wrote X or said Y, not the primary source in which he did the writing or saying. Ergo I suggest you look for such secondary sources, that can then be used as references. (If none exist, that would suggest my removal was sensible.) --JBL (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

SourceWatch

Parejkoj, after re-inserting that Mr McKitrick has authored works "opposing climate science", added a cite to a blog (but one thing at a time) and to SourceWatch, edit summary = "Add refs about McKitrick's climate change denial". I believe this is bad because: (1) SourceWatch's help page says "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." So WP:UGC. (2) The end of the Sourcewatch article says "Wikipedia also has an article on Ross McKitrick. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL." So WP:CIRCULAR. (3) It doesn't directly support the wording. So WP:V. I remind that WP:BLP is a policy so essays don't override it and Parejkoj needs consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point on SourceWatch. I've removed that and replaced it with three better references that directly call him a climate denier. - Parejkoj (talk)

I believe your recent edits are still poorly sourced but I'll give it a while and see if you get the consensus which you need. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Expanding my prior remark ... The re-insertions for "denying climate science" and their edit summaries were "Undid revision 1202370948 by Peter Gulutzan (talk) - McKitrick is a known denier. I'll add a ref.", "Add refs about McKitrick's climate change denial"., "Better references to label McKitrick a climate science denier" The first cite is to a piece by David Suzuki on davidsuzuki.org, the second cite is to a piece which says "In this two-part blog series, we respond to Professor McKitrick’s comments." whose principal author is a "graduate of Barnard College with a B.A. in French Literature and a minor in Political Science". the third cite is to The Narwhal -- "The Narwhal was created by Carol Linnitt and Emma Gilchrist in 2018, and grew out of their previous project, DeSmog Canada." I still favour removal, as has had to be done previously repeatedly (see earlier threads on this talk page) for poorly sourced material on a BLP. I'll wait a while more to see whether a third party comes in to this thread, and if nobody does I'll take it to WP:3O. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:3O requested. 17:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan:, @Parejkoj: I arrived here from WP:3O ([permanent link). I will first state my recommendation; then I will provide the reasons why.

I recommend the following:

• Remove the citation to the David Suzuki Foundation
• Retain the citations to State of the Planet and The Narwhal
• Retain the identification of Ross McKitrick as denying climate science/denying climate change.

To explain the reasons for my opinion, I provide the following observations about the questioned sources, in order of how Peter Gulutzan described them.

• The first source, "Deniers Deflated", is a piece co-written by the zoologist David Suzuki and Ian Hanington (previously a co-author with Suzuki of Everything Under the Sun) published by the David Suzuki Foundation. The Suzuki Foundation doesn't clarify the nature of its publication process (is there an editorial team? Can this editorial team overrule Suzuki?). It's possible we could consider Suzuki could a self-published expert, as he's previously published on climate science (his The Big Picture was published by Greystone Books, an imprint of the Canadian publisher Douglas & McIntyre). However, WP:BLP policy is that self-published experts are still not fit to be cited; no self-published sources should be cited on a biography of a living person. "Deniers Deflated as Climate Reality Hits Home" doesn't seem suitable for this article.
• The second source, "Who Said What?", is an article in State of the Planet: News from the Columbia Climate School, a news site established by the Columbia Climate School of Columbia University. State of the Planet has a Communications Team that oversees publication and has writing guidelines. Although the article calls itself a "blog series", WP:V reminds us that Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals. Self-published blogs are to be distinguished from newsblogs. WP:BLP affirms this: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. This source is a newsblog, not a self-published blog, and it has editorial control over its posts (submissions must be made to the Communications Team and aren't posted directly to the site). We are therefore past that hurdle. The next question is whether the authors are professionals. Peter Gulutzan correctly identified the authorship of Madeleine Rubenstein. However, on scientific publications the "principal author" is generally the one who is listed first, who in this case is Mary-Elena Carr, a biological oceanographer and Affiliate of the Columbia Climate Center, where she was previously the Associate Director. The next co-author is Kate Brash, and NPR reports that she has been the assistant director of the Columbia Climate Center of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. I also notice that she's a co-author of Climate Change: A Reference Handbook published by ABC-CLIO, a press for academic reference books. The third co-author before Rubenstein is Robert Anderson, who has a Ph.D. in chemical oceanography and is an Ewing-Lamont Research Professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. The authors of the article are professionals with credentials for the science they're writing about. "Who Said What?" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.
• The third source, "Leading UK Sceptic Group Promotes Koch-funded Canadian Climate Denier", is an article by Kyla Mandel, a journalist who is a senior editor at TIME magazine for climate, science, and space coverage. The author is a professional. The publication venue is The Narwhal, an online nonprofit magazine with an editorial team. "Leading UK Skeptic Group Promotes Koch-funded Canadian Climate Denier" is a reliable source fit for citation in this article.

Finally, in the course of double checking these sources and verifying claims, I discovered that for what it's worth, an article in a peer-reviewed journal published by the academic press SAGE straightforwardly includes Taken by Storm, the book McKitrick co-authored with Christopher Essex, in an appendix titled Books Espousing Climate Change Denial:

• Riley E. Dunlap and Peter J. Jacques, "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks", American Behavioral Science 57, no. 6 (June 2013): 699–731, here 713, 726, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213477096.

To conclude, that Ross McKitrick has denied climate change is supported by reliable sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

[Hydrangeans] Okay. I concentrated on the prominent line "By Madeleine Rubenstein" immediately below the title, you concentrated on the small-print "authors" below it. I concentrated on the fact that it was a blog, you decided climate.columbia.edu is is a "news organization". I concentrated on the fact Kyla Mandel wrote the article in 2015 which was before getting a masters degree from Columbia in 2017 and long before being hired by Time in 2022, you decided the article was by a Time editor. And unattributed bias is undiscussed. But these are matters about which reasonable disagreement is possible. You have fulfilled what should be expected of a WP:3O editor, Parejkoj's edits now have support beyond mere asserting, I will not revert them. Thank you for joining in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)