Talk:Joe Bastardi

Untitled

Someone posted an "advert" tag on this article, but didn't specify what (s)he thought the problem was with it. Please clarify. --Quintin3265 15:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• * * * *

The following statement in the article seems questionable, especially based on forecasts for the 2005 hurricane season: "He has become well-known for his surprisingly accurate long-range forecasts."

Accuweather just got some free publicity on the Bob King blog for their 2006 hurricane season forecast, in spite of their inaccurate mid-season 2005 forecast ( http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2005/07/28/57684.htm? ) Margie 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"...believe you should forecast whatever you feel at that moment..." Is inaccurate. Much studying of weather maps and other meteorological data by Mr. Bastardi OR any other forecaster who really makes a forecast i.e., “forecast for Northern NJ is for 10 to 15 inches of snow” is more than the nonsense statement “at the moment”.

• * * * *

Accuracy is/was spelled incorrectly in the opening paragraph. Funny that the writer slams Bastardi for his grammatical errors. This article sounds completely biased against him. Wyglaf 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

This article is seriously in need of citations, given WP:Biographies of living persons. It appears that it's currently just a lot of OR, and given that he's alive, we need to be extra cautious. I say this coming into the article with very little knowledge of who Joe Bastardi is, by the way, so I have no biases toward or against his forecasts and style. -- 129.255.93.180 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there seems to be some odd stuff in the paragraph referenced, especially given it's a Biography. For example: "Bastardi's hurricane season forecasts have not proven to be very accurate in many cases.[citation needed] In 2007, Bastardi predicted that there would be 15-17 named storms, and there were actually 14 named storms. He also predicted 3 major hurricanes of Saffir-Simpson category 3 or greater, and two occurred during that year [7]. Interestingly, his predictions on the website before and after the season appear to differ." The first and last sentences in this paragraph are not supported by the one citation and are either un-sourced or original research. I will be updating the article accordingly, please discuss here before reverting.

There is also some weasel wording on the prior paragraph, but it does seem to be supported by the citation so I'm going to leave that one alone. Arnold.A.D. (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow I hope this wasn't intentional - trying to assume good faith here - but the section in this paragraph that was left did not match the citation and left an impression that was completely opposite. The WP article stated "In 2007, Bastardi predicted that there would be 15-17 named storms, and there were actually 14 named storms. He also predicted 3 major hurricanes of Saffir-Simpson category 3 or greater, and two occurred during that year [7]." - where the reference states "13 or 14 total storms in the Atlantic Basin, including three intense hurricanes of Category 3 or greater". This section has been rewritten to be consistent with the citation Arnold.A.D. (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Since this guy has stepped into the political fray, the article needs to include some criticism of him, not be too fun and flowery. He is competitive? He is an expert? He disagrees with the establishment? Come on, what are his credentials as a researcher? Post grad work?Anthony717 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. There was a lot of material that clearly had been written by adoring followers. I think it is unfair to imply there was political bias in the article. But it did seem that Bastardi's opinionated style had won a following. I rather agree that the material was both too detailed and one-sided. I was trying to make it coherent, removal is much better. M.boli (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s.: I will now remove the Citation Styles issue from the top. The remaining badly-done citations that I had not cleaned up yet were all (not coincidentally) in the elided sections. M.boli (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Bastardi is justifiably severely criticized by the climate community.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/one-confusedi-bastardi.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/18/299067/joe-bastardi-science/

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/did-someone-say-pdo

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=bastardi&submit=Search&qt=&q=bastardi+site%3Awww.realclimate.org&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66A\%0D%0AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/joe-bastardi-found-a-cherry.html

The problem is that these very good blogs are none the less blogs, and hard to use under WP:BLP. Bastardi is a employed by a company that predicts the weather for fossil fuel companies, and likely is more valuable to them as a climate change denier than as a weather forecaster. He is a man with a bachelor's degree who maintains that a multitude of PHD's are wrong. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 03:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I will remove the personal attack at the end of the article. It should stick to facts, not commentary, such as "it is nonsense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.224.31 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OR

There is a section regarding his claims on a Fox interview followed by a critical analysis which appears to be original research, the commentary of the editor himself. It has a reference of citation needed. If the author of that can provide a credible reference stating what I describe as OR he is free to revert my removal edit with the reference inserted. Batvette (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bastardi's stance on global warming

I replaced the deleted material.

First, While it was originally stated by individuals, Media Matter restated it in their lead and in their section titles

Second, It is well sourced, and clearly states what the scientific community thinks of Bastardi. Someone apparently thinks the section is too long, so it would make sense to shorten it. So I removed some of Bastardi's scientifically incorrect nonsense.

Finally, the section should remain as Bastardi has injected himself in the debate on climate change as an expert, when obviously he is not. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 01:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is Media Matters's criticism worthy of note? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bastardi has a point of view. It is possible to report and respect his point of view, at the same time putting it in the context of global warming science. Mostly just repeating what Media Matters says about Bastardi does not achieve this. They aren't in the business of writing encyclopedia articles---they are in the business of ridiculing their political enemies (primarily anybody who appears on Fox News). Bastardi is something of a clown on this topic, perpetually making sniggering reference to all kinds of climate denial nonsense, so I guess he is an easy target. But that doesn't justify turning Wikipedia over to Media Matters. M.boli (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Some changes:

• Editing out the Bastardi quote on hurricanes left this section with a big continuity bug. I repaired it by putting the quote back. I assume this was an accident.
• The quotes disputing Bastardi opinions and abilities were solicited by Media Matters. These weren't even reactions to Bastardi harvested from the news, they were manufactured explictly for an anti-Bastardi article and repeated here as fact. I took them out.
• The chief value of the Media Matters article is that it collected examples of Bastardi saying dumb things about climate change. So I kept the reference, and more accurately described it.

M.boli (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Big thank you to ‎‎ThePowerofX (talk) for improving this section, partly through judicious and skilled reorganization. The big find is a convincing quote in which Bastardi displays one of his essentially loopy notions. One reason it is convincing is that the quote comes with its context: a long TV interview. Nobody can claim it was selectively edited or out of context. Good work! M.boli (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why it's worthy of note. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bastardi frequently serves as an expert popularizer of climate change denialism, so his views would seem to be a notable part of his biography, along with their inconsistency with scientific opinion.

But I think your question may be: what makes Media Matters' commentary on Bastardi notable. Nothing, which is why I edited out all those quotes about Bastardi.

Nevertheless there are two references to Media Matters reports in there right now:

• Media Matters posted online a Fox News interview where Bastardi expounds at length on his views (I invite you to follow the link and watch it), complete with transcription of one of his beliefs. I think it is perfectly legit to quote him and link to that. The quote fairly represents Bastardi's views, tone, and emphasis. It is not a hack job.
• Media Matters has also collected examples of Bastardi's other odd climate statements. I think it is OK to point to those. I would be happier with a more neutral article but I haven't found any. (It is easy to find Bastardi being ridiculed for his views, it is less common to find a catalog of some of his beliefs.)

Let me repeat that Media Matters writers' commentary on Bastardi has been removed from the article. I agree it isn't notable. M.boli (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On the interview, we should reference the interview directly, removing the attack filter. I have no qualms with using Bastardi's words where appropriate, I just want us to use good sources.

Regarding MMfA "collecting examples," why is that worthy of inclusion, especially given MMfA's biases and tone? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We can reference the interview directly, if you wish, but the response by atmospheric scientists is certainly noteworthy. In this regard, the Media Matters piece is straight forward. They simply repeat what Joe Bastardi has said publicly and then describe and quote what practising scientists say in response. The tone of reply by genuine experts can be construed as withering, but their opinion is worthy of notice and inclusion. — ThePowerofX 08:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If we have good sources for the responses by the scientists, then absolutely. The tone is strictly regarding the partisan lens of MMfA and the idea that simply because they choose to highlight something, it's noteworthy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree simply stating Bastardi's views without comparison to scientific opinion is not especially helpful. From this point of view I think that the MMfA article that ThePowerofX inserted, the Fox interview and CO2 quote, is reasonable. The other MMfA article, with the catalog of Bastardi quotes, is a problem. They solicited a raft of responses from working scientists, many of which simply criticize the guy. So while the article does contain Bastardi's ideas and some scientists' responses, it also has a lot of personal attack. Maybe just delete that paragraph from this article? I put it there (edited down from an earlier problematic version) but on reflection I am less sure. M.boli (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the focus should be Bastardi's stance on a particular topic, and what, if any, notable response that has garnered. The sentence about Media Matters having "collected instances" of incorrect claims should be removed and replaced with something about prevailing scientific opinion. Perhaps including a succinct quote from physicist Richard Muller contesting Bastardi views. MMfA is perfectly good source for the opinion expressed by scientists. We don't preclude a source because of ideology alone. — ThePowerofX 18:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Along similar lines is an Aug 2011 article from Skeptical Science. (Oddly, it was published almost the same day as the Aug 2011 MMfA article.) I'm thinking that its criticisms of Bastardi's claims contain more substance. M.boli (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Paring Down the Stance on Global Warming Section

User Weatherbell deleted a huge amount from the Stance on Global Warming section, saying in the edit summary that the deleted material was contentious. I rather agree. A whole lot of material had been added to this section, which took on the character of purely piling on.

But I do claim this edit removed the important context, viz: Bastardi's views are contrary to the scientific consensus. As an encyclopedia article, I think it is only responsible to point that out. Without (as I say) piling on. So I restored some of that.

I also I restored (and slightly edited) the part about Bastardi's views on the roles of CO₂. This was because he expresses those views them most vigorously and often, and they explain his thinking. I think they are a distinctive and important part of his stance. Also the quote shows both his views and the style with which he talks about them.

But I also think that restoring the mass of deleted material would be both unnecessary and contentious. For example, he indeed has been wrong about Arctic sea ice. But that isn't the major part of his argument. What is in this section now is enough to both summarize his positions and place them in context. M.boli (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Who hasn't read 3/4 of an article and quit reading? What happens if someone reads 3/4 of this section and goes elsewhere? He leaves with the impression that Bastardi is right! The point of the whole section is that he disagrees with the vast majority of scientists. That's what it should state. Every time Bastardi's views are stated, there must be information showing that this is not what real scientists actually think about climate change. As it stands now, it's practically a forum for his oddball views. Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconding this, but we need to be using high-quality sources for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I rearranged the section to address the above observation by Sagredo. But I haven't scouted any higher-quality references like Thargor Orlando suggested, which would of course be a good thing. Generally, let's keep perspective. It would be a mistake to turn this section into a catalog of all of Bastardi's wrong statements M.boli (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cruft in the Stance on Global Warming section

It isn't necessary to debate global warming within the individual sentences of this section

Right now the section a) makes Bastardi's stance quite clear and also b) makes blindingly clear that his views are not mainstream climate science. There is no reasonable possibility of mis-impression on these two points.

There is no reason add a mini-debate to effectively append "liar!" and "sez who!" into every sentence describing one of Bastardi's assertions.

M.boli (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This section is still far too long. We just need 3 sentences max outlining his view on climate change and the fact it is at odds with the scientific consensus. Why do we need detailed mentions of every single stupid claim this moron has made? 31.205.70.180 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Because he has written books on the subject, positions himself as a public expert on climate change, is notable for his contrarian views, has been frequently discussed. Given this the section is not too long in contrast to the rest of the article. -- GreenC 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Bastardi-Nye Pissing Match

First: I apologize for deleting the edit by User:141.218.36.179 because I thought the cite was unrelated to the text and the text was unrelated to the article. In fact the cite contained an embedded video which indeed explained it.

Second: I don't see what is encylopedia-worthy about this particular pissing match between two entertainers. Bastardi and Nye are each calling each other names. They are each challenging the other to make predictions about average global temperatures. So what? It doesn't add to our knowledge of Bastardi's stance on climate change. (These views are encyclopedia-worthy because Bastardi is where millions of people get their information on this topic.) It doesn't add to the substantive debunking of those views. (As an encyclopedia, it is our job to place his views in the scientific context: they are bonkers.)

At most the new material adds some context, viz: Bastardi is an entertainer who engages in feuds with other entertainers.

I have rewritten the paragraph accordingly. I'm still not persuaded it belongs here. But to the extent that it might, here is what that might look like. M.boli (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

climatecrocks.com

Green Cardamom added the words "In September 20, 2010, on AccuWeather television Bastardi predicted Arctic ice cover for 2011 would be the same as 2005 ie. significantly higher. Six years later in 2016, sea ice cover passed multiple new record lows and never reached 2005 levels as Bastardi predicted." citing climatecrocks.com which is run by Peter_Sinclair_(blogger). I removed it with edit summary = "Removed a claim based on something called climatecrocks.com. wp:blpsps." Green Cardamom put it back in with edit summary = "factual information - not a claim or opinion - sourced by Peter Sinclair who is notable". Before re-removing, I am checking whether others have opinions about Green Cardamom's edits or my WP:BLPSPS objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Gulutzan. It seems to me the source would seem to be precluded by WP:BLPSPS, Sinclair self-published this video. Sinclair publishes also for Yale Climate Connections, which does not yield this material (or similar articles about Bastardi).

I am in sympathy with the notion that Bastardi is something of a fool on climate change, publishing easily falsifiable predictions that haven't panned out. But the thrust of Bastardi's opinion is made clear in the article, that his position is at odds with established science is also made clear. There is no loss if we fail to report every time Bastardi said something dumb. If a suitable source were available for this particular incorrect prediction, it would be OK to include it in the article. (It wouldn't rise to the level of be undue emphasis to include it.) But the article is perfectly fine without it. M.boli (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dave souza and Hob Gadling: who have participated in similar discussions. -- GreenC 23:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with that. Self-published, not a good source; do not jump over every stick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Green Cardamom just changed the title and text of the Peter Sinclair article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, had a look at the article and, without checking through the history, it looks ok. On B's predictions, I've checked the cited source and instead of "the next 30 years", this was a 2011 article announcing cooling he'd predicted to reach '70s levels by 2030. Edited accordingly . . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Three people (Peter Gulutzan, M.boli, Hob Gadling) agree that WP:BLPSPS applies. I'll guess that Green Cardamom and Dave souza disagree, although Dave souza referred to a different passage. I have re-removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert of 22 April 2019

I reverted two changes. One was vandalism by an IP user who doesn't like climate change. The larger change was by Lovemankind83 (talk · contribs) who deleted much of the material illustrating Bastardi's bombastic forecasting persona, and also changed the lede sentence to label him a "denier". My opinion is that Bastardi's contrarian and brash persona is what makes him popular. Bastardi's specific claims in the deleted material were probably not encyclopedia-worthy, but having that material in this article was a good illustration.

Regarding the "denier" label, this has been litigated already. In 2015 there was an attempt to put that label in the ledes of a number of biographical articles, and to create a category "climate change deniers". The consensus among editors was to avoid the "denier" label. Personally "denier" doesn't cause me any trouble, I use it in speech frequently. But I understand the point that for a lot of readers that label is contentious, partisan, and possibly insulting. So I took it out. Bastardi's views on climate change are amply described in the article. I can see how we should refer to that in the lede sentence, but just labeling him a denier isn't helpful. M.boli (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why put Bastardi's weird views in this article

Regarding the question posed by Wbpth-wbttn (talk · contribs): why list Bastardi's nutty ideas in this article? I think the answer is this is an article about Bastardi, not an article about climate change. An article about an alchemist would illustrate the views, but also inform the reader these are contrary to modern scientific knowledge. In this light, the most recent edits seem fine to me. – M.boli (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)