Talk:Ross McKitrick

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)

Clarifying “denying climate science” wording

I would like to revisit the wording “denying climate science” in the Writing section.

I have read the prior Talk-page discussions, including the 2017 discussion and the 2024 third-opinion comment. I understand that some sources use “denier” or “denial” language about McKitrick, and I am not asking to remove sourced criticism of his climate-related work.

My concern is narrower: even if some sources use that label, the phrase “denying climate science” is broad and potentially loaded when used in Wikipedia’s own voice in a biography of a living person. It could be read as saying that McKitrick denies climate science generally, rather than that he disputes particular claims about climate model projections, climate sensitivity, climate impacts, and climate policy.

Because this is a BLP, I think the article should use the most precise wording that still reflects the sources. A more specific description would preserve the critical content without relying on a broad label.

Suggested change:

Change: “McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and ones denying climate science.”

to: “McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and works critical of mainstream climate science, climate model projections, and climate policy.”

Alternatively: “McKitrick has authored works about environmental economics and works challenging aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change, climate model projections, and climate policy.”

This proposal does not depend on excluding critical sources. It asks whether the article should attribute or describe the criticism more precisely rather than stating the broad label “denying climate science” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Guilleparra (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

He's not challenging sheat, challenging implies actual evidence, all he does Is repeat debunked 2009 denier talking points, contradict himself and acting like he's a brave dissident because science doesn't recognize him ~2026-36474-14 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

I don’t think this addresses the concern I raised.

My proposal is not about whether McKitrick’s views are scientifically correct or incorrect, nor whether reliable sources criticize them. Those points are already well documented.

The question is whether the wording “authoring works denying climate science” is the most precise encyclopedic description in Wikipedia’s own voice, particularly in a BLP.

If reliable sources characterize particular arguments as rejecting climate sensitivity estimates, climate model projections, attribution studies, or aspects of the scientific consensus, then describing those positions directly may be more precise than the broader phrase “denying climate science.”

If you believe the current wording is preferable under policy, could you explain how it satisfies WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV compared with a more specific description? Guilleparra (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My proposal is not about whether McKitrick’s views are scientifically correct or incorrect Exactly that is the problem. You are trying to hide the fact that he is talking anti-scientific nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

My question isn’t whether McKitrick’s claims are scientifically valid. Reliable sources criticizing his work can and should be reflected in the article where appropriate.

The issue I’m raising is a narrower editorial one: whether the phrase “authoring works denying climate science” is the most precise wording for Wikipedia to use in its own voice in a biography of a living person. Under WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, should we instead describe the specific positions he has taken, or attribute broader characterizations to the sources that use them?

What is constant about denialists' claims is the conclusion "we should do nothing about climate change". All their other statements are only justifications for that, and they are fluid. It does not really matter what they use as justification at one specific date. It can be a different justification the next time the same person says something. They have a pool of a few dozen talking points, and they all grab some of them and spout them when asked. "More precise" is just "more random". They are pretty much the same as young-earth creationists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I don’t think we’re making progress because the specific issue I’ve raised still hasn’t been addressed. From the beginning, my question has not been whether McKitrick’s views are scientifically correct, whether reliable sources criticize them, or whether those criticisms belong in the article. I’ve explicitly acknowledged that they do.

The issue I’ve raised is much narrower: whether the phrase “denying climate science” is the most precise wording for Wikipedia to use in its own voice in a biography of a living person, or whether a more specific or attributed description would better reflect the sources and comply with WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The responses so far have explained why you believe McKitrick’s views are wrong, but they haven’t addressed that editorial question. If the current wording is preferable under Wikipedia policy, I’d appreciate an explanation of why that is, rather than another discussion of the merits of McKitrick’s views.

If there is a policy-based reason for retaining the current wording, I’m still interested in hearing it. If not, I don’t think repeating arguments about the validity of McKitrick’s views will move this discussion forward, because that has never been the issue I’ve been asking about. Guilleparra (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think the current wording is preferable, could you explain why it is more consistent with those policies than a more specific description? Guilleparra (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The responses so far have explained why you believe McKitrick’s views are wrong No. I explained above why details about what exactly he complains about are irrelevant. "Denying climate science" is good enough and precise enough. And it should be in Wikivoice and not attributed to anybody because it is not just an opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of this discussion. Throughout this discussion you’ve repeatedly argued that “the details are irrelevant,” that “denying climate science is good enough and precise enough,” and most recently that “it should be in Wikivoice and not attributed because it is not just an opinion.” Those statements explain your conclusion, but they don’t answer the question I’ve been asking.

From my opening post onward, I’ve explicitly said that I’m not asking whether McKitrick’s views are scientifically correct, whether reliable sources criticize them, or whether those criticisms belong in the article. I’ve acknowledged all of those points from the beginning. The question I’ve consistently asked is why the broad phrase “denying climate science” is preferable, under WP:BLP and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, to either (1) describing the specific positions discussed by the sources or (2) attributing the broader characterization to the sources that use it.

So far, none of your replies have addressed that editorial question. Instead, they have repeatedly returned to the merits of McKitrick’s views or restated the conclusion that “denying climate science” is an objective description. Simply restating that conclusion does not explain why Wikipedia policy requires or prefers that wording over a more specific or attributed description.

If your position is that Wikipedia policy permits or prefers the current wording, could you explain why by reference to the relevant policy? That is the question I’ve been asking throughout this discussion. Guilleparra (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what I said. Again.

WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:DUE. I am finished with this nonsense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I disputed this wording in previous thread SourceWatch, I failed due to WP:3O. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)