Talk:Philip Stott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] More unsupported edits from WMC

I notice you have declined to explain why having journal papers published is relevant to criticizing the IPCC... --JonGwynne 20:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Because Stott is considered an "expert" by virtue of his distinguished academic career. However, his lack of obvious expertise in the area (as would be demonstrated by pubs), undercuts this claim. Guettarda 16:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lots of experts aren't published in acadmic journals. To argue that this undercuts their expertise is simple snobbery. Also, criticizing the IPCC doesn't require specific expertise - it only requires objectivity and the ability to observe the flaws of the organization. As you point out, Stott's "distinguished academic career" is sufficient evidence of his expertise in areas related to that careers - which includes issues related to the environment and climate. --JonGwynne 16:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree this is snobbery. It's an important point to make. Since he has no expertise in this field, Mr Stott's opinions carry no more weight than any man in the street - in fact, much less so given his links with bodies such as the Scientific Alliance. Determinedly promoting a particular point of view for emotional or political reasons is the anithesis of genuine academic inquiry. --Noel Darlow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.93.50 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Kingdoms of Sukhothai and Si Satchanalai.

As the article mentions this book - is he really still writing it? It was listed in the program of River Books (a publishing house in Bangkok specialized on art and history) for some years as forthcoming, but in the latest program it was no longer mentioned. It even already had the ISBN 9748225283 assigned... andy 11:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Stott's childhood & education

Does anyone have details of his date of birth, childhood and education? DFH 19:14:50, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I suggest you ask [84.67.165.59 who is obviouslt Stott himself. Someone should remind him about autobiography... William M. Connolley 17:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

Is there a more balanced assessment anywhere? This reads like a self-authored hagiography - a saint describing himself!

Feel free to edit it William M. Connolley 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point, but I note that Wikipedia's "vanity guidelines" include the following: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created". This makes the inclusion of the article a little problematic, I feel. But admittedly this is a guideline and not a rule, and maybe there are lots of other people who are using Wikipedia entries as a means of self advertisement.

I watched Stott edit it; he didn't seem to be doing too bad a job, so I didn't intervene. But if you like, you can revert it to the pre-Stott state. He didn't write all of it. Oh, and please sign your comments: ~~~~ William M. Connolley 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

You're evading the issue, I think. But never mind - life's too short. Oh, and do forgive the anonymity of my remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsosan (talk • contribs)