Talk:Paul Reiter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a respected entomologist who has spent decades studying mosquito-borne malaria, believes that global warming would have little impact on the spread of malaria. But the IPCC refused to consider his views in its third assessment, and has completely excluded him from contributing to the fourth assessment. [1]

[edit] Former global warming supporter

Please establish on the page first that Christy has been a supporter - and that he has changed his mind. Otherwise that is WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He used to contribute to IPCC reports, of which, the IPCC maintains a supporting view. (Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health))--Zeeboid 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers are not by neccessity supporters - in fact there have been quite a few of sceptics amongst them (fx. Steve McIntyre is for the AR4, Reiter, Vincent Gray, Richard S. Courtney from the TAR). --Kim D. Petersen 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Was he an author on the report, or only a reviewer? Because reviewer is no status at all William M. Connolley 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert reviewer. (at least according to the letter from the 60[2]). Note: i of course meant Reiter not Christy in the above. --Kim D. Petersen 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So wait... There have been quite a few skeptics amongs the IPCC Reviewers? Why is this not documented anywhere? Paul Reiter was a member of the IPCC was he not?--Zeeboid 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is probably documented by the sceptics themselves - It shouldn't come as a surprise for Gray or Courtney, they've (iirc) been regular posters at john-daly. And it would probably also be documented in the review documents. You can also find it on the 60 scientists letter - where you got the information about Reiters reviewer status - right? --Kim D. Petersen 01:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - do pay attention. One of the badges the septics like to flash is "IPCC expert reviewer" - because it sounds good. The fact that it actually means nothing doesn't matter for their purposes. And what does "a member of the IPCC" mean? William M. Connolley 09:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WMC, Do pay attention. Member of the IPCC I would take as anyone who contributes to the IPCC. Since the IPCC's views are well known, anyone who contributes to the IPCC is a Global warming supporter until they quit or leave or come out against the IPCC. Much like someone who may possibly get some funding form anyone in "Big Oil" is known for being under "Big Oil's" influance.--Zeeboid 03:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And as far as your POV Pushing, please read the quote from Reiter in this section to note his skepticism of the IPCC.--Zeeboid 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Member of the IPCC I would take as" <- well that is wrong. The members of the IPCC are clearly stated on the IPCC page - or on the various pages for the work-groups. It is not hard to become an "expert reviewer" - in essence it only requires that you request to be one. As WMC has said earlier - this is one of the things that sceptics do - first of all because it provides a preview of the final report - and secondly because it sound official. --Kim D. Petersen 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not on the current list because he left the IPCC. Is this facutally incorrect?--Zeeboid 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any sources (other than himself) for his being there in the first place, and for his leaving? I think its rather sad that this chap - presumably a reputable scientist - apparently now exists (according to wiki) for no purpose other than to snipe at the IPCC. KDP is correct - there should be more about his science in here. Whether he left/joined IPCC is (of course) irrelevant to being a GW supporter anyway - you need before/after quotes to establish that William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing and 'notable' - or - too much IPCC too little entomology

I'm sorry but this is getting out of hand. Reiter is a renowned entomologist - one of the worlds top-most experts on this subject (afaik). This means by default that his notability if for entomology. He is known (or has become so) for his scepticism as well - but to say that this is the reason for him being notable is simply going over the edge.

Now someone here is trying to make this article into a global warming scepticism page - instead of about Reiter (the scientist). Try to balance things a bit - there is nothing wrong with noting his scepticism - but it gets too much when almost all of the text on the page is about this. How about doing some research on the Man - the science - and why he is who he is instead? --Kim D. Petersen 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Reiter's quote about the IPCC factually incorrect? Because if its not, I don't see a reason for you to keep that informaiton from his article. If you do a google search for "Paul Reiter" 11 of the top 12 results refrence his opinions on the IPCC (including a link to his wiki article). So I would argue that the info on his wiki article about his disgust for the IPCC dominating is accurate. I will, however, do a larger search on him to find more info on "Entomology" to add to the article. Perhaps you could assist in this task?--Zeeboid 16:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You are getting blinded by the political side / debate in the US - too many trees to see the forest. (Googlebomb effect) - Try "unbiasing" or widening your search - by only searching on ".edu" sites (which brings other articles to almost 0). Or adding a keyword "entomology" (which gives a more fair (but not much) view).
2. If it really was the case the Reiter only was noted for IPCC malaria scepticism - then he wouldn't meet [[3]] - and he does - which is why he is interesting.
3. Yes the info is correct - all i'm saying is that you have to have a balanced article. The Christy one is still there - isn't it? It is because it doesn't break balance between Christy the scientist and Christy in politics/media. Christy is most known for his Satelitte / Radiosonde work.

Hope this clears it up... --Kim D. Petersen 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Then assist me in adding this informaiton, not taking informatoin away because it doesn't fit what you think the article should be. I agree the article needs to be "beefed up" but not at the cost of other reliable informaiton.--Zeeboid 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - i have no trouble with the quote - once the article is "beefed" up. As it stands that IPCC stuff is already taking a too substantial part of the article. (Reiter was for instance in this Movie - which should be referenced.) But i don't have that much time to dig - i'm currently at the deadline of a project. If you really want that quote in - then add balance. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so much of his google ends up with IPCC neatly demonstrates how un-notable he really is, apart from piggy-backing on the IPCC William M. Connolley 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)