Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 20 January 2014

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Environment: Climate change Start‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Other archives PSU Investigation UEA Controversy

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Blatant whitewashing

I will continue putting this on the talk page, even if someone keeps deleting it. This entry is wholly inadequate in regards to Mann's history of distorting his achievements, particularly his Nobel Laureate status. He is currently suing multiple people in Federal court, including author and columnist Mark Steyn. The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate. Steyn has called Mann a liar; the record has proven as much. Yet there is not a single sentence, not a single word, concerning this court case in the entry. There is not a single sentence dedicated to Mann's falsehoods regarding his Nobel Laureate status. The guy falsely claimed for years that he was a Laureate. Not a single mention of this is made in the entry. As the above Nobel Prize talk section makes clear, the controversy surrounding this issue obviously exists, and it is the job of an encyclopedia to include this information, particularly in regards to Mann suing people because they had the temerity to call him a liar. But rather than a mention of this controversy, we get a Mann apologist informing us it is the job of Misplaced Pages to strike some sort of balance in order to maintain Mann's reputation. An editor actually argues that edits concerning Mann's Nobel status have to strike some sort of balance that allows Mann to "maintain his integrity". Using a supposedly unbiased encyclopedia in this manner is wholly unacceptable. The entry needs to be changed to reflect the controversy over Mann's Nobel status and a mention needs to be made of his lawsuit against Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, the Heartland Institute and others. As it stands now, someone unfamiliar with this whole episode, after reading this entry, would have no clue that any controversy surrounded this issue. Instead we get a blatant whitewash and the hyping of a certificate that Mann, along with dozens of others, was rewarded. So instead of covering the controversy, we get a bunch of pablum telling us all how special Mann supposedly is.74.138.45.132 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Without going into your other dubious comments, your statement "The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate" is blatantly false: it's not what it says in the court document you quote below. . dave souza, talk 03:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The following statement appears in Michael Mann's Misplaced Pages entry: "The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC."

The source for this sentence? A statement released by the IPCC FIVE YEARS after it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, for some odd reason, the author of the entry doesn't tell us why the IPCC felt the need to release such a statement. The reason? It had been contacted by numerous journalists, including Charles Cooke of National Review(one of the organizations sued by Mann), asking for a clarification of Mann's Nobel status. None of this is mentioned in the entry. Rather the "author" seems to be trying to give the impression that the IPCC released such a statement five years after the fact so we could all know how awesome Michael Mann is because he received a "certificate" that was awarded to approximately 2000 people. The reason this information is omitted? To "maintain integrity", as if protecting Mann's reputation is the job of an objective encyclopedia. Nor are we told about Mann's lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg and others. Why are we not told about this information? I don't know for certain, but I suspect it is because it has been uncovered that Mann's legal complaint explicitly, and falsely, claims, in it at least separate two places, that Mann was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. So we have a situation in which a notable defamation lawsuit is omitted for the likely reason it would reveal unflattering information about Mann. And, to reiterate, we have an editor who has specifically stated that Mann's reputation must be protected, so nary a word of the lawsuit or the real reason for the IPCC statement is included in this entry. Instead we get asinine, laughable assertions on the talk page that Mann never claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, despite the fact that the dust jacket for his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines makes the claim that Mann won the Nobel Peace Prize. Mann was so insistent he was a Nobel Laureate that he actually makes that very claim in the legal filing for his defamation case. The following quotes are taken directly from the legal complaint filed by Mann on October 22, 2012(note this date and the date the IPCC issued its statement cited in reference 39) with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division:

1. "...As a result of this research, DR. MANN AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE"(emphasis mine). This quote is taken from point #2 of his legal complaint.

2. "In 2007, DR. MANN SHARED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE with other IPCC authors for their work in climate change..."(emphasis mine). This quote is taken from point #17 of his legal complaint. The entire complaint can be found at the following link: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

These statements are a matter of public record. It is simply impossible to argue that Mann didn't falsely claim that he was a Nobel Laureate; the claim was on the dust jacket of one of his books, for Christ sake. The false claims are legion and one can find links to numerous sources after spending about two minutes on Google. Including even the barest mention of this controversy and the lawsuit is not an example of "negative spin" as one particular "editor" has maintained, rather it is an objective statement of fact. The only one engaging in spin is the person who has explicitly stated that he has edited this entry in order to protect Mann's "integrity", as if that is Misplaced Pages's purpose. The sacrificing of the the truth in order to salvage Mann's reputation and "maintain his integrity" has led to the absolutely ludicrous implication that the IPCC issued a clarifying statement in order to let us know how super-awesome Mann is because he won some certificate, rather than to clear up the fact that Mann is not, despite his repeated claims to the contrary, a Nobel Laureate. And as I make clear in an above comment, if someone keeps trying to remove a discussion that is pertinent to the entry on ridiculous BLP grounds, I will continue to put the comments back onto the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.45.132 (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We need a single reliable source for Mann's idiotic statements. the truth, and the connection between them. If that is provided, it probably should be in the article. (And court documents — even decisions — are not adequate, per WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH.) If sourced statements critical of Mann are provided, we can discuss details. If no such statements are provided, we really shouldn't discuss it, even on the talk page.

However, even if the above IP is the sock of a blocked editor, he does make a good point, and I want it discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I am not, nor have I ever been, a "blocked editor", nor am I a "sock". I have never posted under any other name, ever. But hey, this is Misplaced Pages, so casual smears don't really matter, do they?74.138.45.132 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that you are Scibaby, even though others might. Although a native English speaker, I don't know a good way to say "I don't know whether X is true, but even if it is, then Y." If I were to say "if ... were the sock of a blocked editor", I would be implying that X is false. I wasn't intending to imply the X is true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if one still argues with a straight face that Mann never claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, one cannot argue that he has not filed a lawsuit against Steyn, National Review, etc. EVen if one doesn't mention Mann's repeated falsehoods concerning his Nobel status, there should be at least a mention of the lawsuit. Why isn't there? As I mention above, I suspect it is because that would raise the issue of Mann's erroneous claims to be a Nobel Laureate contained within his legal complaint. After all, as two parties to the lawsuit, National Review and Mark Steyn, make clear, they didn't really start asking questions about Mann's Laureate status until after he filed the complaint; this is why I pointed out the dates the lawsuit was filed and the IPCC statement regarding the Laureate status of individual IPCC members. Another editor points out the need for reliable sources. Here is at least one: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/10/23/climate-scientist-michael-mann-sues-over-comparison-to-child-molester/ 74.138.45.132 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is notoriously unreliable, better is needed for a WP:BLP. dave souza, talk 03:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go with the bullshit that Fox News is not a reliable source. Sorry, but Fox is considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages, whether you like it or not. But fine, I will oblige your bullshit request. I can't wait to read the hilarious reason as to why the Washington Post is not a reliable source: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-23/local/35500704_1_climate-change-national-review-jerry-sandusky Of particular note is the reference to Mann as a Nobel Prize winner. Hmm, I wonder whose serial lying on that issue gave the Post that now-debunked(as made clear by the subsequent IPCC statement)false impression? PS That question is rhetorical74.138.45.132 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the WaPo is better but it doesn't support your overblown allegations. The "serial lying" all seems to be coming from the defendants in the case, whose views you seem to be promoting. . . dave souza, talk 04:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is hard to take seriously an attack on my motivations coming from someone who has explicitly stated that he is out to protect Mann's "integrity", as if such a motive accords with the purpose of an objective encyclopedia.. The fact is that Mann called himself a Nobel Laureate on his Penn State website, on his books, in his press releases and in his legal filings. There is a reason the IPCC felt compelled to issue a statement five years after it was awarded the Nobel Prize, and it has nothing to do with a bunch of certificates as you imply. Unfortunately, those unacquainted with this controversy have no way of knowing about Mann's actions if they only visit Misplaced Pages. Why? Because you saw to it that anything damaging to Mann's "integrity" was removed. Sorry, but you can't explain this stuff away no matter how much you try. Mann's press releases in which he calls himself a "Nobel Prize winner" are a matter of public record, as are his legal filings. Your attempts to whitewash Mann's recorda are as pathetic as they are transparent. If someone else won't include the information concerning the lawsuit and Mann's repeated false claims of being a Nobel Laureate, I will add them to the entry myself, despite my distaste for editing entries. The writing of an encyclopedia should not be left to someone who has made clear that he considers the protection of Mann's reputation to be of paramount importance.74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm afraid Fox News is considered reliable, per a number of discussions at WP:RSN. Still, none of the sources yet presented support the anon's desired text, or, as far as I can tell, mention the Nobel claims as being a matter of controversy. The separate sources that M says he is a "Nobel Laureate", and various other parties say he isn't, can't be combined in the article unless a single' reliable sources says both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I made clear in an above comment, even if one claims that Mann has not stated he was a Nobel Laureate, or if one claims there is no controversy around those claims (I guess the IPCC decided to issue a statement five years after the fact just for the hell of it)that is no reason to leave out information concerning his lawsuit against National Review, among others. The lawsuit merits a mention, regardless of whether anything anyone has written about Mann's false Nobel claims have any merit at all. I have yet to read a suitable justification for leaving out the information concerning such a lawsuit, though I have made clear what I believe are the motives for such an omission. And whether the sources provided are technically suitable under Misplaced Pages standards or not, Mann has clearly lied about his Nobel status. His own Facebook page contains those lies: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/437351706321037

I am not certain if this source is considered reliable(I believe it is), but near the end you will find a discussion of Mann's false claims and the Nobel Committee statement that Mann was not entitled to call himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner. There is also a lengthy discussion of the lawsuit against Steyn, National Review etc. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/07/52068.htm 74.138.45.132 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if one is willing to concede that the issues surrounding Mann's false claims don't rise to the level of "controversy", the above-linked Courthouse News article should put to rest the notion that the Nobel Committee didn't, in the word of the article, "repudiate" Mann for his false claims. Reliable sources have been provided in regards to both the lawsuit and the falsehood of Mann's statements. There is no longer any excuse, other than the bogus one concerning the protection of Mann's "integrity", as to why these things should not be mentioned in the entry, even if the mention is brief.74.138.45.132 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're misreading the sources you present. In your own terms, you're lying. This is focussing on a minor aspect of a court case filed more than six months ago, one which has had very little or no coverage since. . . dave souza, talk 05:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. The only one lying is you. The source I provide, Courthouse News, states the following: "Though MANN CLAIMS IN HIS COMPLAINT THAT HE WAS AWARDED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim"(emphasis mine). And my misrepresentation is what, exactly? I specifically state in my above comment that even if this doesn't rise to the level of what some would consider a controversy(although the IPCC clearly believes it has risen to a level in which it feels the need to issue a clarifying statement five years after the fact), Mann has falsely claimed he was a Nobel Laureate and both the Nobel Committee and the IPCC, in its November statement, have claimed otherwise. You remember that statement, don't you? After all, you are the one who wrote about it in the entry, though you make no mention as to why the IPCC felt it was necessary to issue such a statement, other than to hilariously imply that they did so in order to recognize various individuals with a "personalized certificate". The source that I quote makes it abundantly clear that Mann was "repudiated", to use their word, for his falsehoods. As for the Washington Post article, I didn't misread a source, I merely surmised what everyone who isn't a Mann lackey already knows: he is almost assuredly the source of the bogus assertion that he is a Nobel Prize winner; it surely wasn't the IPCC who gave various media outlets that impression. If it wasn't Mann, who did? Only one other person from the IPCC Committee, Lord Monckton, has ever claimed he was a Nobel Laureate. Apparently everyone else, except Mann, knew better. But proving Mann's loose association with the truth is not why I cited the Washington Post. I referenced that article in order to make it plain that Mann is indeed involved in a court case, even though one would be completely ignorant of that fact if he relied solely on Misplaced Pages as his source of information about Mann. As for that court case, the reason it hasn't had much coverage is because it is still in the preliminary stages, genius. No testimony has even been given in the case. But hey, nice attempt at burying any mention of the case. And by nice, I mean lame. A defamation case filed by Mann is notable, whether you like it or not, and the fact that the case has been mentioned by Fox News(a source you wrongly claim is not considered reliable by Misplaced Pages), The Washington Post, Forbes, Scientific American and numerous other sources easily disproves your farcical bullshit, which is precisely what your claims are. And regardless of whether there is a raging controversy or not, a reliable source, as clearly demonstrated by the quote I just produced, has noted that Mann falsely claimed he was a Nobel Laureate and the Nobel Committee and the IPCC have stated such is not the case. No one is misrepresenting anything, other than you. For clarity, I will reproduce the quote. Here it is: "Though Mann claims in his complaint that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim." Here we have in language that is plain as can be a statement that Mann FALSELY claimed he was a Nobel Prize winner and the response from the IPCC (the "winner" mentioned in the quote)that he isn't. Your assertion that I am lying or misrepresenting the sources is pathetic. The "complaint" mentioned in that quote is the one to which I link in another comment; the text of the complaint can be read in full at this site: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf . In points #2, 5 and 17, Mann claims he is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. But the exact text of the complaint is irrelevant because I have produced a reliable source detailing how Mann was repudiated by both the IPCC and the Nobel Committee. You can't explain this away, no matter how hard you try to resort to Misplaced Pages legalese in order to try and spike it. You aren't just grasping at straws, you are grabbing the whole fuc*ing bale. As I suspected all along, it is becoming increasingly clear why you want no mention of this case in the entry, even though it was Mann, the person for whom you have advocated in the "pages" of a supposedly objective encyclopedia, who filed it. It is because any mention of the case will necessarily lead to a mention of the Courthouse News story and the revelation that Mann made false statements in his legal complaint. That this is your motive has become abundantly obvious. First you claimed in the talk section that any mention of Mann's false claims were untrue (yeah, that's been pretty well disproved) and amounted to "negative spin" as if merely relaying an objective fact is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Then, when that wasn't enough to bury discussion of the lawsuit and Mann's false statements, you started deleting entire sections of the talk page. When it became apparent I was just going to keep reposting the same exact comments regardless of how many times you deleted them, you resorted to the wholly predictable "Fox News is not a reliable source" bullshit, a "defense" I knew you would use as soon as I pasted the link. Now you are calling me a liar, even though I have directly quoted a source detailing how Mann was repudiated for falsely claiming he is a Nobel Laureate in a legal complaint filed for a lawsuit about which you don't want a single word to appear in the entry. However, what you want doesn't matter anymore. I have provided multiple sources that illustrate the fact that Mann has indeed initiated a defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review, among others, and a reliable source that fits the criteria laid out by another commenter who stipulated that a single reliable source would need to mention both Mann's false claims and their repudiation by the IPCC and the Nobel Committee. As I mention in another comment, if someone else doesn't add this information to the entry, I will. In closing I will simply reiterate how pathetic the "little or no coverage" defense is, as if a court case that has been mentioned by numerous reliable sources requires continuous coverage in order to merit a one or two sentence mention in an online encyclopedia. I would also like to add that if this comment is deleted, I will simply add it back to the talk page again.74.138.45.132 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Read your source again. The Nobel Committee didn't "repudiate" Mann, the IPCC issued a clarification of its earlier statement. You're also completely wrong about the IPCC's earlier statements and about whether others made the same claim as Mann. This is a trivial aspect of the court case, which is of questionable significance to Mann's bio. You're the one misrepresenting sources and trying to give this undue weight. Oh, and instead of attacking my motives you should read WP:NPA. dave souza, talk 07:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, your claims would have a modicum of merit if you could us tell why exactly, five years after the fact, the IPCC felt the need to issue a statement in regards to the Nobel status of individual IPCC members. As I mention in other comments, various individuals, such as Timothy Richards and Charles Cooke, asked the IPCC and the Nobel Committee specifically about Mann's status. These inquiries were made after Mann filed his lawsuit on October 22, 2012. Those individuals started asking questions in the weeks afterwards. The IPCC then issued its clarifying statement in early November. Hmm, I wonder why? If there is another reason, why does this not appear in the entry? Instead we are merely told a clarifying statement was made without any explanation, AT ALL, given. There is a reason why the Courthouse News article uses the word "repudiate" in regards to Mann's claims. The meaning of that word is fairly obvious. And in another comment I state that Mann and Lord Monckton have falsely claimed they were Nobel Laureates. If I am wrong in that regard, why don't you enlighten us as to who else has falsely made this claim. As for the charge that I am giving the accusations undue weight, it is hard to believe anyone would make such an argument. I can think of no one else whose biography would not contain a mention of the fact that he filed a lawsuit and lied about his Nobel status in the legal filing. Anyone who knows anything about the case(that would clearly not include you) already knows that Mann's opponents are using his false claims to bolster their defense against his defamation lawsuit. The assertion that someone lying in a legal document for a case he filed doesn't merit a mention is so ludicrous it is barely deserved of a response. This very entry at one time repeated Mann's false claim that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and if I am not mistaken, MANN'S VERY OWN WEB PAGE WAS USED AS ONE OF THE SOOURCES FOR HIS BIOGRAPHICAL DATA. The fact that he won the award was notable, but his lies about it aren't? Yeah, whatever you say. One or two sentences concerning these lies constitutes undue weight? Uh huh, sure thing. Even more ridiculous is the fact that you seem to want to confine the discussion of Mann's lies to the court case, as if Mann didn't lie on his Facebook page(a link to this particular lie is included in an above comment), his book jacket, his Penn State bio, etc, etc. etc. If I went to the talk page of the entry for any other individual on Misplaced Pages and made the claim that such an illustrious history of lying, a history that included lying in court documents, doesn't even merit one sentence in an entry, I would be laughed off the page. And even if one completely ignores the lengthy(at least five years) history of falsehoods coming from Mann concerning his Nobel Laureate "status", as you seem intent on doing, there is absolutely no excuse, at all, for there being no mention of a defamation suit Mann filed against various individuals and media outlets, including a best-selling author and the most influential conservative magazine in the United States. And I will repeat, for the umpteenth time, that it seems pretty obvious nothing has been written about the case because it would lead to a mention of the revelation that Mann lied in court documents, an action that isn't merely a "minor incident". And regardless of how much bullshit you write about me being "completely wrong" about what the sources say, the Courthouse News article clearly states, with no ambiguity, that Mann's filings in his defamation suit clearly contain the false claim he is a Nobel Laureate. That information would have to be included in this entry. In closing, I would like to mention that a Misplaced Pages entry entitled "Nobel Prize Controversies" includes the following statement: "Separately, an individual working for the IPCC at the time, Michael E. Mann has generated controversy by claiming to be a prize winner in a 2012 court filing for a defamation suit." Something similar needs to be included in Mann's entry. As a commenter has succinctly explained in a sub-section entitled "Remarks and a suggestion" that appears directly below this comment, Mann's history of misleading statements concerning his Nobel status is well-known and there is indeed a controversy swirling around this issue, despite claims otherwise being made on the talk page, and denying as much is ridiculous, as is not including a mention of this in his Misplaced Pages entry.74.138.45.132 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. . dave souza, talk 14:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to rely on original research. Various sources have stated that Mann has filed a lawsuit against multiple parties. A reliable source states that Mann lied in his court filings. Those are undisputed facts. They are going to find their way into the entry whether you like it or not and I am done arguing with you on this point. Every other word I wrote concerning the reason for the IPCC clarification, the Nobel Committee correspondences with various individuals vociferously disputing Mann's claims and Mann's history of lying could be pure speculation that I decided to make up off the top of my head(although anyone reading this knows otherwise) and that still doesn't change the facts that: a)there are multiple reliable sources that discuss the court case and b) at least one of those sources mentions Mann's false statements in regards to his Nobel status and the ensuing, TO USE THEIR WORD, "repudiation" of Mann by the IPCC. As I state, everything else I wrote could be a deliberate fabrication and it wouldn't change the facts I just elucidated, which is why the mention of the court case and the false legal filings are inevitable and also why I am done arguing with you on this; if no one else mentions those things in the entry, I will.74.138.45.132 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

74.138.45.132, your claims are, for the most part, bullshit.

• The reason for Mann's suit? His claims that Steyn, and others, libeled him by stating he isn't entitled to call himself a Nobel Laureate. - Not true. And since you linked to the original complaint it's apparent that you knew your statement was false.
• Steyn has called Mann a liar; the record has proven as much. - also false.
• falsely claimed for years that he was a Laureate. - you have a source for that, because given your prior statements I'm disinclined to believe you.
• controversy surrounding this issue obviously exists - plenty, but the "controversy" mostly involves the denialist campaigns to smear Mann
• particularly in regards to Mann suing people because they had the temerity to call him a liar - as the complaint you linked to clearly shows, Mann is suing Steyn et al. for libel per se; they accused him of professional fraud, despite the fact that Mann can make one of the best cases that exists in academia that his work is entirely appropriate.
• DR. MANN SHARED THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE with other IPCC authors for their work in climate change - Yes, that would be a correct statement. The fact that you don't understand the difference between that and "I am a Nobel Laureate" says plenty about you, but nothing about Mann.
• It is simply impossible to argue that Mann didn't falsely claim that he was a Nobel Laureate - it's actually well within the realm of possibility to argue that (Mann did not falsely claim he was a Nobel Laureate: see how easy it is!) but even if it wasn't, we'd need a reliable source to make that claim. We cannot, per Misplaced Pages policy, look at a set of facts and draw our our claims. That's considered "original research".

• The false claims are legion and one can find links to numerous sources after spending about two minutes on Google - but are they reliable sources, or just denialist blogs? The onus is on you to provide high-quality sources for your claims. You can't expect others to do your work for you.
• There is a reason the IPCC felt compelled to issue a statement five years after it was awarded the Nobel Prize - OK. Do you have a reliable source that says what the reason is? Are you willing to share it? If you can't provide a reliable source for your claims, don't make them.
• one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim - that statement is so absurd that it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the source. If the IPCC contributors aren't "actual winners" then the only "actual 2007 winner" is Al Gore. Who did not "repudiate that claim". Or maybe they're saying that the IPCC itself (not the people who make it up, since you insist that the people have no rights to the award) spoke, entirely of its own accord. Which is laughably absurd.

I could go on and on, but there's only so much bullshit I can take in one day. However, it is imperative that you read our policy on biographies of living people immediately and that you modify your comments such that they are in keeping with that policy. You cannot make unsubstantiated claims of wrong-doing against living people without providing impeccable sources. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Remarks and a suggestion

{outdent} As the editor who sought to "maintain Mann's integrity" last December, I'll make a few comments.

• By "maintaining Mann's integrity," I meant adhering to WP:BLP. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• I agree there has been some whitewashing here. (And puffery, too, but most has been removed. The Nobel Prize is still too prominent in the lede.)
• Care must be taken not to belittle or besmirch the subject of a BLP. (In other words, to maintain his/her integrity or wholeness.)
• A great deal of controversy surrounded the Nobel Prize issue in Dec. There were other communications than those above. It would be wrong to deny there was controversy here, in the blogosphere, and on Mann's Facebook page.
• The second paragraph in the "Awards" section is dreadfully written--or rather, contorted by editing aimed at "getting it right," as per WP:BLP. I suggest the IP propose a rewrite of that paragraph that 1. Tells about the Prize awarded to the IPCC/Gore. 2. Tells how numerous contributors to the IPCC report claimed to be laureates. 3. Explains why they were not. -> All this while adhering to WP:BLP in letter and in spirit! Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points, which take me back to my comment (the last in Archive 4) – "In my opinion, a brief mention of this lawsuit is appropriate in the #CRU email controversy section, which should also note the ATI lawsuit and its outcome. We should possibly also note Mann's libel suit against Tim Ball, but I've not found any reliable sources for that. . . dave souza, talk 11:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)" That opinion stands, I await the IP's proposals for wording which fully complies with the policies you rightly point out.. . dave souza, talk 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream doesn't like Tim Ball, so it ignores him. (WP, quite misguidedly, imho, deleted an article on him. He is not a rigorous scholar, nor is he a researcher, but he is well known in the climate wars.) The Chronicle of Higher Education covers the lawsuit with quite a screed against "warmists." The Columbia Journalism Review reported on both lawsuits last July. Yopienso (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I think several statements, particularly in the opening paragraph here, are highly judgmental and not neutral or objective.

First, to say that he "has made significant contributions to the understanding of climate change" is highly dubious, given that his models have made numerous predictions which have been erroneous - the current "pause" contradicting his main "hockey stick" contention. A more neutral (and truthful) statement would be that he "has made significant contributions to climate change models."

Second, to say that he "has had an outstanding publication record ... in the face of political and personal attacks" again makes a biased judgment call on his publication record, ignores his own political and personal attacks on others (e.g., lawsuit against Steyn), and leaves out the important issue of his oft-repeated but false claim of being a Nobel Laureate. His own University bio has removed this claim, and he has no more claim to a Nobel than did Al Gore's statistician - he contributed to the project which won the award, but was not named by the Nobel committee (and not awarded the medal or financial reward) given to Nobel Laureates. A more neutral and accurate phrasing would be that he "has a prolific publication record ..." and that he "has been involved in numerous controversies."

I will make the changes on the page and would appreciate others discussing here any objections rather than just getting into an infinite loop of reversals and restatements. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You evidently disagree with the European Geosciences Union and are making your own unsupported derogatory remarks. for anything to appear here, it has to fully comply with .Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy: your suggestions fail to meet that requirement. . dave souza, talk 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not making unsupported allegations. There is nothing derogatory about the changes I made. Rolling back to statements that are unsupportable is illogical and shows your bias. Please stop changing back to this version which violates the BPL standards and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the original violates NPOV; the revision is neutral. The original claims that his models/contributions improved our understanding of climate change, but his warming predictions are far from observed (e.g., the hockey stick). The pointing out of the political and personal attacks violates NPOV, and ignores his own political, legal, and personal attacks - this edit put them back in and put in a completely neutral statement that he was involved in controversies rather than the biased POV that he was the subject of attacks. The references I added were also material and relevant, including the defamation lawsuit filing, as well the documented (WayBack Machine, for example) retraction of Nobel Prize-winning claims. If you believe that any of the edits were in violation of the BPL guidelines, please demonstrate for each that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft watch (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You've produced extremely poor sources and derogatory claims that blatantly fail both NPOV and BLP policy, please desist. . dave souza, talk 10:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dave, I'm sorry, but repeating the poor sourcing and derogatory remarks claims does not make them true. His own bio on his own university's web site is not a poor source for the claim that he has retracted his Nobel Laureate claim. If you believe it is, I would claim that you are alone in that belief and should look to your own remarks for bias. Taking out judgmental statements does not demonstrate a violation of a neutral point of view - it is the definition of a neutral point of view. Stating that he is the target of attacks while deleting well-documented examples of his attacks on others (such as the actual lawsuit he filed on two individuals and two reputable businesses) is a demonstration once again of your own lack of neutrality, not an example of mine. We can certainly raise these specific topics for arbitration if you think this would be something that is likely to come out in your favor. I can't understand why you act as though these statements, which are not in any way judgmental about Michael Mann, can be called derogatory - that is a completely false claim by you. Further, the University of Pittsburgh bio of his, and the actual document of the lawsuit he filed, can hardly be called poor sources. A quick googling of your name does raise quite some questions of your neutrality, and I would be happy to include this information in a request for arbitration and perhaps a review of your status as an editor. Shall we start that process? Msft watch (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? What reliable third party source do you have to support your assertions, making sure that any sources fully meet WP:BLP requirements and you're not applying WP:SYNTH to primary sources to produce your allegations. You are of course welcome to try dispute resolution procedures, in which case I remind you to start focussing on content. Any googling of my name is unlikely to help you there. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear to any reader here that you have an agenda. It is also pretty clear to me that you are more dedicated to your agenda than I am to fixing this article by removing your bias from it. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are promoting or detracting from your cause by obvious slanting. After all, the basic claim of those who oppose your point of view is that the "settled science" is actually slanted. Enjoy yourself - I'm gong on to greener and more fulfilling pastures.Msft watch (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Physicist?

The Michael E. Mann bio around the web and here frequently claims he is a physicist. The basis of this claim appears to be that he (claims to have) an undergraduate Physics degree. I have found no evidence that he has ever worked or taught as a physicist. Is an undergraduate degree alone sufficient to support this claim? One might think that this claim is made in order to lend credence to his climate change work.

For example, if you majored in Political Science as an undergraduate, but then went to work as a social worker, should your bio claim that you are a Politician, Scientist, or Political Scientist?

If there are objections, it is worth a discussion. If there are no objections, then I would propose and subsequently undertake to delete this claim from the bio.Msft watch (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: actually, the bio claims that he also had a master's degree in Physics, so the undergraduate comment is understating his credentials if only slightly. However, many claims in the article (his tic tac toe programming, undergraduate and master's degrees, etc.) are not supported by any references at all, or only by references that were written by the subject himself. His upbringing in Amherst, father's occupation, programming tic tac toe, Berkeley attendance and majors, etc., all appear to be sourced by Mann's autobiography. Is this a sufficient source (especially after this source has had to retract a fairly bold claim about being a Nobel Laureate in the past)?Msft watch (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Per BLP, the book including his bio is reliably published, and climate science includes physics. Once again you seem to be making attacks on a very respected scientist without any reliable source. . dave souza, talk 10:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If it's really an autobiography, even if published by an otherwise reliable publisher, it should be considered almost as if self-published. His CV is certainly self-published. Still, I generally side with Dave in this instance, as most of the statements are non-controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Technically WP:SELFPUBLISH specifically refers to " a personal web page or publish their own book", the second link is about the "publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher". In this case the book is by an established third-party publisher, so that section of the policy doesn't apply. Of course since it's written by Mann it shows his own views, and is not an outside view on his bio, so due caution may be needed where statements are contested by reliable third party published sources that meet BLP requirements. . dave souza, talk 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

dave souza- this subject appears to be a little to close to you for you to objectively be editing it. For the integrity of Misplaced Pages, you should probably just walk away from this page, you don't look good here at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.102.130 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dave, climate science also includes "English," in that writers often use English. That does not make climate scientists English scientists. The Physicist claim is not supported by any facts. Clearly, quoting Michael E. Mann about his own qualifications is not an objective source. There is no attack here, only an attempt to make this highly slanted bio into something a bit more balanced. No one is suggesting deleting this bio, as Michael Mann is clearly an important figure, but his many misrepresentations of himself (e.g., Nobel prize, physicist, standing up against attacks) are biased and not compliant with BLP - the standard you cited yourself in this forum. Your bias is clear, for example with your editorial remarks such as "it shows his own views." Had you simply said "it shows his own views," you would have been correct, although his views on himself are tautologically biased. There is no basis for his claim that he is a physicist, as this discussion has shown, so this must be stricken in order to ensure a non-biased bio here.Msft watch (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Having looked into this a bit, the most likely source for this statement is Fred Pearce, so I've added a citation. Obviously Mann had good qualifications in physics before starting his doctoral thesis, and he also has a doctorate in Geology & Geophysics. Are you arguing that Geophysics isn't physics? As for his career, note his appointments include the Department of Geosciences, and he is Director, Earth System Science Center. As for continuing expertise in geophysics, in 2012 he was elected a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union. Looks pretty solid. By the way, you'd better stop misrepresenting what he says, WP:BLP also applies to article talk pages. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to call Mann a physicist in the first sentence of the lede. He isn't really a physicist, having only a BS in physics and not working specifically in the field. The physics background enhances his ability to work in geophysics, which I do think is a separate discipline from physics, though clearly related. It merits mention, but as a degree awarded and later in the lede or body.

Also, I'd remove "outstanding" since the source qualifies it with "for his age." "Strong" seems less peacock-ish.

From a purely stylistic stance, I'd delete "who contributed substantially to the reports" from the sentence about his recognition wrt the IPCC's Nobel Prize. Yopienso (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed "physicist" to "geophysicist" because it is more precise. The source said "physicist turned paleoclimatologist." I've replaced that good source with Mann's CV, checking first to make sure it's still used elsewhere on the page. I was wrong in my comment above--he also has two masters from the physics dept. at Yale, but his PhD is in geophysics and that's what he works in and is known for.

The contention, imo, has been more about perceived slights or puffery than about the best descriptor. I hope this works. Yopienso (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I support Yopienso's common-sense edit. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peacock, puffery, balance....

"He has had an outstanding publication record, including very influential papers, and has pointed out publicly the implications of dangerous climate change..."

"became the focus of controversy when some individuals and groups opposed to the scientific consensus attempted to dispute the data and methodology of this reconstruction to advance their views....

Etc. etc. I think we need a little balance her, for an intensely controversial figure who (in the opinion of some scientists) has done more harm to his "Cause" than good. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists laud him, Pete. The European Geosciences Union says, "Mann has published seminal papers in top journals and his publication record is outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age (10 articles in the 3 top journals: Nature, Science, PNAS)." Yopienso (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for some RS criticism when I have time. He's praised publicly, and criticized privately, is my impression -- so BLP-grade cites may be hard. Nevertheless, we're not doing a hagiography. Might be something from Curry and others who wondered why a new PhD got jumped up so quickly by IPCC. Lots of stuff in the Climategate emails, but prob. not BLP-grade. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note: " his publication record is outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age" does not support "He has had an outstanding publication record." Someone may have said that, but it's unclear what qualifications an expert on Mann's publication record might need. In addition, http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/hans-oeschger/2012/michael-mann/ doesn't strike me as "reliable" for anything positive and controversial; it might be reliable for a negative statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Award announcements are expected to have puffery. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. But we can exercise editorial discretion in reproducing them. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tillman, there's no reason to publish such comments as fact, when, at best, they should be WP:ATTRIBUTED. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I shortened the long, wandering para on the IPCC Nobel prize business. In case I was too drastic, here's the excised material:

The IPCC officially states that the certificates were issued "to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Hard to imagine the general reader wanting to read this; I suppose it could go in a footnote if anyone feels that's necessary. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Pete, if it goes anywhere it ought to go on the 2007_Nobel_Peace_Prize page since it isn't specific to Mann. TimOsborn (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, and welcome. While I agree this BLP has been a hagiography, the certificate is indeed specific to Mann: it has his name on it and was mailed to him. The "trick" here :-) is to assess what is due weight; Mann himself has made much of this, and his detractors have made much of his out-sized claims to being a Nobel laureate. Had such publicity not occurred, that certificate would probably not merit mention.

IMHO, the first part of the paragraph is necessary to explain that issue, but the last gratuitous sentence should be deleted:

The IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC," celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC. In his 2012 book Mann noted an IPCC meeting in 2009 celebrating the prize, where Working Group 1 co-chair Susan Solomon highlighted the personal sacrifice that he and Benjamin D. Santer had made in the name of the IPCC. Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, I was referring to the different piece of text that Pete was asking about, which is now partly in footnote 50 (and looks fine now). Wasn't suggesting to delete the paragraph you highlighted, which is indeed Mann-specific. The issue about who won the prize, whose contributions were acknowledged and how, is a generic one and it isn't efficient to cover it on every page that mentions IPCC scientists and the 2007 prize. Many pages had this wrong, not just this one. I've fixed a couple of dozen pages that had this wrong and there are probably still many more (e.g. I just spotted these two: Welsh Nobel laureates and List of Martinians). TimOsborn (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the same paragraph; I'm suggesting it be further trimmed. I may just go ahead and take out that very unencyclopedic bit of puffery myself. But I see what you mean, and am glad that info has been relegated to/preserved in a footnote. Yopienso (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new section, Public outreach on global warming

-- -or some such title. Prof. Mann been publishing a number of op-eds in such prominent outlets as the New York Times. He has a new one, If You See Something, Say Something, NY Times JAN. 17, 2014.

Sample pullquote:

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress....

I've seen a number of these -- maybe you have too -- and realized we don't really have a place for them. Probably we should. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1. "IPCC Statement about the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize" (PDF). IPCC Press Office. Retrieved November 2, 2012.
   "Letter from Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC". Michael E. Mann, Timeline Photos : Facebook. October 30, 2012. Retrieved November 2, 2012., pdf of letter retrieved December 12, 2012.
   Mann, Michael E. (October 25, 2012). "Timeline Photos : Facebook". facebook. Retrieved October 28, 2012.
2. Bralower, Timothy; Rosenhoover, Christie (2007). "Nobel Prize Comes to Geosciences" (PDF). Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Retrieved October 28, 2012.

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics