Talk:Instrumental temperature record/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Gavin/Roger Quotes

I certainly don't think Gavin's quote belongs, but am interested in discussing whether to keep Pielke's. I do not believe both are of equal merit for inclusion. This is, in part (referenced in my revert comment), because Gavin is critical of something that hasn't yet taken place, nor has it been claimed to have taken place (namely the quantification of microclimate effects on temperature records). Pielke's quote, on the other hand, merely points out the importance that this documentation has to climate science--a much more relevant statement (the documentation allows the aforementioned analysis to take place). The question is, therefore, whether Pielke's quote is important enough to keep. I say it is. Zoomwsu 05:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I lean twoards thinking that both the Gavin and Pielke quotes should be included. While Pielke is given a lot of weight already, I don't think the inclusion of a perfectly relevent statement by him on Watt's project makes much differance. Revolutionaryluddite 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Both out. There is too much Pielke in here already William M. Connolley 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

+1 oC?

I disagree with [1]. The on-line presentation is not a RS (its not PR; you can say anything at a meeting). Nor is it accurate: the source says "estimate". Its also rather unclear how the "estimate" is made William M. Connolley 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too a RS--the presentation was given at a university-sponsored workshop and was given ample time for comment and feedback. It may be "unclear" how the estimate was made, but a scientific study and presentation estimated that the majority of stations have >1 degree of error, so inclusion of this info is warranted on this page. Zoomwsu 15:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetings are just for fun. There is really no way that you can be critical at meetings. There is not enough time to let the stuff sink in. Q&As at meetings are mostly to satisfy curiosity. Finally, the audience is not representative of the relevant community at large because the sample is too small and it sufferes from selection bias (those there decided to attend the meeting.) So we cannot use this as a substitute for a PR process. Meetings are for fun! Brusegadi 15:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wishful thinking does not a RS make. It's a non-peer-reviewed presentation. People can and do say all sorts of nonsense at meetings, even ones sponsored by professional organizations. Meetings are good for floating ideas and seeing what the reaction is from colleagues, but the simple fact that someone presented something at a meeting does not imply that it's gone through any critical vetting. Raymond Arritt 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys are going to keep it out, please at least make it a complete sentence. I still disagree that it shouldn't be included and I find it very frustrating to have to fight these silly little battles time and time again. BTW, it's not about criticism at the meeting. Watts allowed a few weeks for comment and feedback before posting his presentation. IF there were a problem with the conclusions, those concerns should have already have been voiced. Zoomwsu 15:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not so simple. Finding mistakes can be very difficult; it requires effort. There is no guarantee that such effort was placed on the review of this material. It is also funny that much of the literature here is based on the work of many, work that has passed peer review and has been subject to years of questioning; but then you intend to make that as credible as one non peer revd presentation given by one man. What happened to the skepticism? Brusegadi 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It has become apparent to me that my philosophy on what should be included differs from some here. My bar is lower. Watts is notable in his field and has done more research on this subject than anyone else. He has put himself in the public eye and staked his reputation on his work. He has presented results at a scientific workshop and on a public website. To me, this seems sufficient to be included in Wikipedia, whereas others think only peer-reviewed, published research papers should be included. I think that bar is set too high, at the expense of including good, quality information that will enlighten the reader. Simply put, I strive for inclusiveness, and unless something is obviously false or biased, is worthy of inclusion. Zoomwsu 16:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Watts is notable in his field and has done more research on this subject than anyone else." Tell me you're not serious. Please. How thoroughly have you surveyed the literature in this field? Did you somehow overlook people like Tom Karl and Tom Peterson? As far as I can tell Watts has never published a peer-reviewed paper on anything. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: Watts has done more research and documentation on the quality of USHCN surface stations more anyone else in the field. If this is not the case, please include the information from that other research here! Zoomwsu 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See the two aforementioned authors. I feel unsporting; given that Watts has published precisely zero papers on the topic, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Raymond Arritt 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but thats precisely *why* he can be trusted! A real publication record makes you part of the Kabal :-). More seriously, its clear Z has no idea what makes for a RS. This could be remedied by reading RS. But in the meantime, Z's assertion that putting something onto a website makes it an RS is wrong William M. Connolley 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should go without saying that peer-reviewed, published research is more reliable than a presentation or non-reviewed (but publicly accessible) scientific paper. That said, I don't think Wikipedia needs to ignore quality work that may not, in your opinion, rise to the level of inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia was designed, in part, to avoid the type of intellectual elitism you and your cohorts promote. Wikipedia is egalitarian in nature and the information that is included should reflect that. I'd also appreciate it if you'd give me a little more respect, as you mischaracterize my positions and opinions (e.g. this "Kabal" business) in a way that insults my intelligence. Zoomwsu 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do consider William's suggestion to read up on Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and the related policy page on verifiability, paying particular attention to the discussion of self-published sources. Raymond Arritt 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arritt, Dr.Connolley, and Brusegadi-- although his "Meetings are for fun!" comment disturbs me-- that the powerpoint link isn't reliable. The presentation was performed in front of a select audience without the ability to face independent criticism. Revolutionaryluddite 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)