Talk:Anthony Watts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Just a start

Watts and his work on SurfaceStations.org are being discussed on several articles related to global warming. I thought I would start this stub to help people get a better idea of who Anthony Watts is. He has deserved his own page for a while now. Please make it better. RonCram 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plasticup, very nicely done. Thank you.RonCram 03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. I think there should be a link to his blog at 'www.norcalblogs.com/watts/'; I also don't think a page for 'SurfaceStations.org' is really necessary. 72.47.71.160 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC) New User
Okay, I added an External Link to his blog and SurfaceStations.org and unwikified SurfaceStations.org. RonCram 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the tags

The article currently reads:

Watts leads an all volunteer effort to document the quality of weather stations. The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA[citation needed]. The data is collected and displayed on the website for others to study. The collection of this metadata is considered very important by many scientists[citation needed][who?].
  • Tag #1 -The website has the initial instructions and links to forms, etc here. [1] Roger A. Pielke has described what is required to adequately document and photograph a weather station and Pielke has strongly endorsed the work of SurfaceStations.org. [2] In fact, Pielke even allowed Watts to post a guest blog on ClimateScience.[3] If the instructions given by Watts were inadequate, Pielke would not be a supporter.
  • Tag #2 -Scientists who have gone on the record supporting Watts effort include Roger A. Pielke, Stephen McIntyre, Lubos Motl and Warwick Hughes. But really, what scientist is going to say they do not want better data? Such an attitude would be completely unscientific. As the tags are unwarranted, I am removing them. RonCram 13:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ron - The only scientist within climatology mentioned above is Pielke Sr. - Motl is the only other scientist, and he is string-theorist (about as far from climatology as you can get). McIntyre is an amateur (not that this necessarily is bad). Hughes is a "freelance earth scientist" whatever that means - whats his background? One relevant scientist doesn't make "Many" - even by a far cry.. (even 4 wouldn't be "many"). As far as i can see there is no collection except for pictures of metadata at Surfacestations.org - thats not all the metadata that is required by NOAA, and it's a far way from determining whether a surface station meets requirements or not. --Kim D. Petersen 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Kim, not true. McIntyre has published in climate journals and so has Warwick Hughes. Do a search on google scholar before you make baseless claims. There are a number of other scientists who support Watts who post on ClimateAudit. I did not see a need to present a comprehensive list of all of the scientists who support Watts. Regarding your other point, you need to spend more time on SurfaceStations.org and on Pielke's blog. In addition to the photos, volunteers must complete a form that asks a variety of questions to determine if the station meets the requirements of the NOAA. I provided the links above. Please read them. RonCram 22:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Publishing a paper (or a comment - as most of Hughes' are) in a scientific journal - doesn't make you a scientist. And yes - you will have to present a reliable source to your claim about "many" - otherwise its WP:OR. And you will have to document that it fullfills NOAA's requirements (which i very much doubt - having seen a random selection of filled out forms. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
the URL cited http://surfacestations.org/get_involved.htm doesn't have any quote from an expert in the field that this work meets the NOAA's requirements. And the URL doesn't have any of the forms that Ron mentioned. It would be useful if you could reference 1) exactly what the NOAA's requirements for monitoring stations are and 2) what the instructions on surfacestations.org are (without having to register for an account and wade through the site) and 3) some expert saying the instructions there fulfil the NOAA's requirements and 4) some expert saying whether or not the volunteers are doing what needs to be done to the standard required by the NOAA.
Regarding the use of the word "many", please read Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words, in particular:
Similarly, sentences like Many people think...—aside from leading to questions such as just how many is many—often implicitly endorse bandwagon fallacies, as their purpose is not to inform the reader about the fact that some people hold this opinion or other, but lend credibility to the statement that follows.
172.213.24.239 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is the definition of "scientist" that we use at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. You cannot change the definition willy-nilly. If four is not enough, how many scientists do I have to document to use the word "many"? Do you really want to see a list of names with a link to each? Do you really think that will make the article better? Also, the sentence says "The SurfaceStations.org website contains all of the instructions one would need to gather enough information to determine if a weather station meets the requirements of NOAA." It does not say that all of the data will necessarily be complete for each station, only that all of the instructions are there. RonCram 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing an experiment makes you a scientist, no formal training or publications needed. --Theblog 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Being a scientist requires you follow the Scientific method. Being called a scientist on Wikipedia would require that other experts acknowledge that you are one. Usually publication in peer-reviewed authoritative journals, or possession of formal training such as a doctorate, would be sufficient acknowledgement. 129.215.37.156 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Schmints thoughts

Tell me why Gavin Schmidt's self published views on Anthony Watts' project are in any way relevant? I'm sure there are some other unrelated bloggers that have said good things about Watts, why not get one of them? Or make an effort to respond to find Watts' response to Schmindts post at the very least. I suggest if you really think they are notable then on Gavin's page you make a new section "His thoughts on Anthony Watts' project" --Theblog (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just read it, Gavin voiced his thoughts in a comment, talk about unnotable, and as presented before I removed it, it was improperly described.
Here is the quote:
Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards
[Response: They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset which is already hugely oversampling the regional anomalies. - gavin]
Here is part of the line I removed
"Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt,"
Where is the reference to global warming in the comment he is responding to? Gavin does not criticise linking the surface stations.org project to global warming, because the guy never linked them. Gavin is not even responding to Watts directly, he's responding to some unknown blog commentator, again not noteworthy. Find some direct criticism from a non self published source and I say go to town. --Theblog (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, working at GISS, writing in a WP:SPS that is regarded as a WP:RS on climate science issues. He is directly involved in temperature reconstructions - and has been called as an expert on such subjects several times. His critique is both relevant and notable. And even more so, because all of the participants here are blog posters and the entire thing is blog-related. Pielke's comments are in a blog, McIntyre same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP should be followed to the letter. Schmidt is not even responding to what you are saying he is responding to. He is responding to a commenter making a entirely different point not regarding global warming. Do you think the Schmidt line is framed accurately? If you insist on violating WP:BLP then at least frame his self published quote to a random blog commentator correctly. --Theblog (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a further reference. And its apparently notable enough that both Anthony Watt's comments on it at his own blog[4], and on Climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Your further reference has absolutely nothing to do with the original GS quote, its better left out. --Theblog (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, your reply from Watts does not address the comment quoted by GS, it addresses the other post, which is not mentioned directly in the article at all. --Theblog (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That GS is talking about the relation to GW is obvious. The entire point of this project, and why anyone cares about it, is the relation to GW William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you should let Anthony Watts speak for himself, I do not feel an unknown web commenter (or Mr. Connolley) speaks for Anthony Watts or his motives, and furthermore I don't feel GS's somewhat offtopic response to the unknown commentor's comment is notable. Additionally, GS's views have absolutely no bearing on Anthony Watts' views on global warming. If anything, report the "consensus" view in regards to Watts' views, maybe a line from AR4 on the topic of "localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment"- you can always cherry pick some guy who disagrees with anyone, this cherrypick of GS isn't even a particularly good one for reasons I listed above.--Theblog (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)