Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 26 March 2010

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 31, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Template:Histinfo

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Booker's sources

At the risk of repeating myself, chapter 4 of Booker's book specifically deals with how the HSC came to be an integral part of the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report. All chapter 4 is is a chronological, very well-sourced account of the controversy which I found to be meticulous, impressively put together and extremely informative. It certainly did not strike me as a fringe piece of work that was extreme or in any sense 'wacky'. The various comments above (ad hominem attacks that in my view are extremely unhelpful and gross violations of WP: BLP; and the exclusive focus of only criticisms of Booker in the media – no mention at all of the investigative journalism he has done; for example, for Private Eye, for close on 50 years, or the positive reviews that TRGWD received – must call into question the neutrality of editors) re: Booker therefore would not only seem to be misplaced in the present case but a deflection from the work that he did in this chapter that could serve as a useful, relevant, and valuable reference in the relevant sub-section of the article. (Does any other editor know of a 30 page account with 50 references on this particular controversy? Anyone?) Of course, the author is coming at it from the point of view of climate change skepticism (we all know that) but the overriding impression that I have is that it is a thorough and competent piece of investigative journalism. I invite editors to assume good faith (on my part) when I say that all the chapter is is a chronological, very well researched account of the controversy that is written from the point of view of someone who is skeptical of the real extent of man made global warming. Anyway, I've decided to list below verbatim Booker's sources for this chapter. I also invite editors to again assume good faith and say honestly whether they believe the list of sources below, which support a 30 page chronological account of this controversy, strike them as being the types of references used in the work of a fringe lunatic – or do these sources strike them as being scholarly, authoratative, exhaustive, and wholly relevant to the topic? Here are the sources:

Might it just be possible that the article is missing an excellently sourced reference for this controversy?Jprw (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed repeating yourself, but your sources are revealing: McK as the first two? And so many more refs to McK? McK isn't even the competent one - that is McI. And are you pretending this is balanced? Incidentally ref 5 is very revealing - see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports for a more accurate version William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that Booker has been using fabricated quotes in his book William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, the made-up John T. Houghton quote. Amazingly, I actually did a tidy-up on that article after somebody wrote about Houghton's debunking, but somehow it escaped me that a major deployment of this false quotation was in Booker's own book. --TS 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As usual you are both wrong, Read This mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Err no. As usual TS and I are right, and you're on the other side of the fence. Booker has been using fabricated quotes, and your source doesn't address the problem. Even Booker admits this: Like many others, I was misled by the internet into assuming the quote, attributed to a book written by Sir John in 1994, was genuine, and that it must have been removed from the later edition I used when compiling my own account of the global warming story. Naturally, in the face of Sir John's insistence that he never said it, we shall all in due course take steps to correct the record, as I shall do in the next edition of my book. . Even Booker has accepted reality - when will you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Even that blog piece stops short of claiming that Booker's attribution was correct. I leave the arguing over whether Houghton's own words are similar enough to those attributed to him to those who enjoy that kind of thing. Booker got it wrong. Houghton did not say what Booker says he said in the book to which Booker attributes those words. Booker's scholarship, once again, is impeached. And less of the personal attacks, please. This isn't a free-for-all on a forum. --TS 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work guys. If Booker has repudiated the use of a quote in his book, then that particular quote shouldn't be used in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Bookers comment on the Hockey-stick in the same opinion column, does tell us that Bookers opinion on the HSC is WP:FRINGE. He is directly contradicting the NAS panel (as well as all other subsequent independent research on paleoclimate) that examined the graph and its validity. So much for Booker being able to provide an "accurate" account of the HSC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with the NAS panel is "fringe"? Is that what you're asserting? Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you're no longer reading what people are writing (I've remarked on this on your talk page). Kim adds "as well as all other subsequent independent research on paleoclimate". At least read the arguments being put, so you will know what you are supposed to be responding to. --TS 00:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the science? Absolutely. There were two independent reviews of the HS, one of these only looked at the MBH (Wegman), and the other at all reconstructions available (NAS), both concluded that there were methodological flaws in the MBH paper, but the NAS panel confirmed that the results were consistent, across all reconstructions. As far as i know - there has been no scientific contradiction of the NAS panels result. That means that there isn't even a tiny minority scientific basis for Bookers claim. Which makes his statements fringe.... Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, could you please list sources of criticism of the hockey stick graph that you don't consider to be "fringe"? I've asked Tony to do so a couple of times, and hasn't been able or willing so far. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole article about this: Hockey stick controversy. But the basics is this: MBH had some methodological flaws, these had no real impact on the result/graph, which has been confirmed by subsequent research and reconstructions. Ie. all subsequent reconstructions have found the same basic features, some with a bit more amplitude, but all within the error-envelope of the MBH study. This resulted in the Sphaghetti graph (which you can find at File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png), which is the current state of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions over the last 1K years. The HCS article is a blow by blow and detailed description of the controversy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't respond to Cla68's request because it seemed to be irrelevant to the question of whether Booker's work is an adequate source. As he has himself referred to one such,the NAS study, my impression that it was not a serious question is confirmed. --TS 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comfirming Booker as a reliable, third-party, published source and the accurate fact-checking reputation. You may have spared the notice boards a unnecessary disruption on this obvious issue for a single sentence. The IPCC should be less likely to make errors than Booker, however they still both do. We can have faith that Misplaced Pages's interests for content creation will be served well above an exclusionary POV to let the reader decide on the attributing errors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Er Zulu Papa 5, this person you say has been confirmed as a "reliable, third-party, published source and the accurate fact-checking reputation" has just admitted that he read some nonsense on the internet that contradicted what he could see with his own eyes in his own edition of Houghton's book, and went with the nonsense he read on the internet. And that's after he was given a good ticking off by the Press Complaints Commission for another bit of bad research on climate change. This is hopeless. Give up. --TS 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks .. it's confirmed he checks his facts for accuracy. The quality process is not perfect but it exists for continous improvement. We can have faith in it to be reliable. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading a book and I find that, try as I might, I cannot personally confirm a claim I read about its contents on the internet. Of course I reject the evidence of my own eyes and assume that the internet is right. Months later somebody else notices that the claim, which I reproduced, is false, and so of course, I blame the internet for tricking me. And that's me checking my facts for accuracy, is it? --TS 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Happens all the time here in Misplaced Pages with WP:V. Fortunately, wiki can change quicker than the IPCC or Booker, and Wiki has no vested interests in their missionary work, like those other POVs. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to use as a scholarly source somebody who has been ticked off by the Press Complaints Commission for publishing nonsense, and who openly admits getting other nonsense from the internet. --TS 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony, your opinion is not supported by our policies. Booker's book remains a RS according to our policy. Again, we don't decide who is right and who is wrong. We're neutral, right? We just report what the RS say. Remember, the IPCC's 4th report was found to contain nonsense, videlicet, the Himalayan meltdown prediction and the amount of land in the Netherlands that is below sea level. Will you now go on record as rejecting that document? Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep coming up with arguments like this. On what basis do you claim that the Booker work is a reliable source? On what basis do you write off the many independent impeachments of Booker's scholarship as my opinion? On what basis do you propose we ignore the fact that Booker espouses a tiny fringe minority opinion in the book? And don't try to side-track this onto a discussion of the WGII errors. Being neutral does not mean that we misrepresent sources. Our policies absolutely require us to use only the best sources, which Booker's work certainly is not. --TS 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Our policies require us to use only the best sources?" Where does it say that, because I'm not seeing it in the policy. All that is required of a book is that it be published by a reputable publishing house and that the citation be complete. That's the reason that we cite sources, so that the reader can check the source for themselves and make their own opinion on the veracity and credibility of the information. We are not allowed to do that for them when it comes to RSs, except for BLPs. It's verifiability, not truth, that we seek. The reader decides if its true or not. If there are reliable sources that dispute what Booker says in his book, go add them to his article, it doesn't bother me any as long as they're presented in an NPOV manner. Then, when we cite his book, the reader can click on the book article and read more about it. If someone disputes Booker's opinion on the graph in question, we give the other opinion as well. We don't care who is wrong and who right, right? And you didn't answer my question about the errors in the IPCC report. Do you agree or not that they discredit the entire IPCC report? Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, just read the verifiability policy. A reliable source is one that " a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A questionable source is one that has "a poor reputation for checking the facts." This is very basic Misplaced Pages policy. Guess which side Booker falls on. Ticked off by the Press Complaints Commission for misrepresentation, ticked off by the Health and Safety Executive for spouting nonsense about asbestos, and openly admitting that he does his research by reading stuff that some guy wrote on the internet. He actually says he was "misled by the internet", and describes how he had the book in front of him but still reproduced the nonsense from the internet even though he knew that he could not verify it from the evidence of his eyes.

"All that is required of a book is that it be published by a reputable publishing house and that the citation be complete." Oh yes, so if a reputable publishing house publishes a book on people who have contacted little green men, we'll just pop on over to exobiology and cite the anatomical descriptions from the book, shall we?

You claim that we can put any old rubbish into the article subject to your extremely lax interpretation, then the poor old reader has the job of making some kind of sense out of the mess that results. That is no part of our verifiability policy. We sift the sources and we only use the best. We don't care about what's wrong or right, but we do care about what is verifiable. A book written by somebody who we're never sure has bothered to do his homework is not verifiable. We might as well cite the Mayor of Casterbridge.

We also care very much about due weight. We do not cite fringe sources except where we are writing about those fringe opinions. --TS 08:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about IPCC #4. The IPCC obviously did a poor job at fact checking their report since at least two significant errors ended up in it. So, does this discredit the entire report? Please look at this list of books here. Some of those are better than others. Some of them contain errors. Some of them are better written than others. Some are used as single sources for some of the assertions in the article. Was any of this an issue in writing that article, which is featured? Nope. The reason is because our RS and verifiability policies aren't as stringent as you're trying to make them out to be. All that matters is verifiability. Booker's book is a verifiable, reliable source, end of story. I'll have the book in hand shortly and I'll see if it provides any useful information to help in improving any of our AGW articles. Perhaps we can get the hockey stick controversy article featured, which is something I'm sure you'd support, for it sounds like Booker's book has some valuable information on the history of that graph. Cla68 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've told you I won't be diverted from this question by straw man arguments. We have no consensus that Booker's work is reliable, and exceptionally strong evidence that it is not. Moreover it is a fringe source that has been criticised by mainstream reviewers for overemphasizing the importance of the MBH reconstruction to the IPCC's reports. Read Verifiability policy, and you'll find a lot of policy about this kind of situation. For further reading, also study the Neutral point of view policy, particularly the section about due weight. --TS 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that various editors zero in on the one or two references (but all the same 'McK isn't even the competent one' is just your opinion) that are suspect, and then ignore entirely his other (45+) references, which are relevant (and presumably you would agree authoritative) and which support his chronological account of this controversy and provide ample evidence that he performed painstaking investigative work in putting chapter 4 together. As for the bias, which is obvious, I said that he was coming at it as a sceptic, but that doesn't mean that this isn't still a valuable reference for this particular controversy. It's also interesting that no-one can answer my question "Does any other editor know of a 30 page account with 50 references on this particular controversy?" Yes, I realise that I am repeating myself a lot – but that is only because of editors continuing extreme hostility to Booker, never giving him credit when credit is due, pronouncing him guilty until proven innocent (actually you are just saying that he is guilty and will stay guilty and that he won't even be given a trial). The main thrust of your argument (Questionable source with a bad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) does not stand up to an analysis of his work on this chapter. You may be able to use it for his other pronouncements, but not here. I'm therefore going to reinstate the quote in the article: I've read the chapter and I see no reason why overall it shouldn't serve as a valuable reference for interested readers, perhaps the best one currently available. Jprw (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, please be patient. Just because nobody responds to your questions doesn't mean your arguments are unanswerable. As far as I'm concerned the number of references Booker lists is irrelevant. His reputation for inaccuracy and his open espousal of an extreme minority position are the crucial issues. --TS 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TS. The list of refs is irrelevant. COnsider State of Fear William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What is irrelevant here is both TS and WMC`s POV of booker, the sources prove beyond a shadow that it is well researched. I fully support the inclusion is this into the article. Perhaps jprw a RFC is in order here? The usual suspects will continue to focus on Booker and their pov of him is less than flattering as can be seen from what they have written, they will never accept him as a source due to this. mark nutley (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker as a Questionable Sorure ]... sorry doesn't fit. He's has a good reputation for checking the facts and has editorial oversight. It's not a website or a publication expressing extremist, or promotional views (they are the majority views from other sources) and the primary sources presented do not rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Frankly, claiming Booker is a questionable source ... is itself highly questionable OR given the sources surrounding Booker's work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that claiming Booker is a questionable source ... is itself highly questionable is itself highly questionable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

| Keep that up to infinate regression and by Mathematical induction you will see the orginal claim is plain bad faith. Booker deserves good faith here in Misplaced Pages like anyone else. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't go through the details again, because they're in his biography. Numerous reputable, independent authorities have reproved Booker's misrepresentations, both in this field and in other fields of science. The more technically qualified reviewers of his book (a science writer and an environment correspondent, both with excellent reputations and both well within the scientific mainstream) clearly identified this work as an account written from a fringe viewpoint and each of them criticised serious failings they identified in his work. More recently Booker has admitted he relied on unverifiable sources from the internet for some of the content, and openly states that he was "misled by the internet", an error we would laugh at if a high school student made it. All we're doing here is repeating the same arguments. I'm pointing to the evidence that Booker is a fringe source with a poor reputation for fact checking, and you (and Cla68 to some extent) are saying the evidence either doesn't exist or doesn't make any difference. This involves either ignoring the evidence or the verifiability policy or both. --TS 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Violations of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPV re: Booker

I see that the reference to ch 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster has been removed again, this time with the charming and extremely helpful comment "as talk page discussion, remove advert for irrelevant book by crank". And as before, none of the central points that I make are addressed. I'm not going to edit war. But I will sum up what I have seen on this discussion page.

• A constant stream of bile directed at Christopher Booker (a man in his 70s with fifty years investigative journalism behind him, and one of the co-founders of Private Eye, the pre-eminent UK current affairs magazine). One editor even compared Booker to the fringe creationist Ken Ham
• Consistent cherrypicking of hostile reviews of Booker's work and ignoring positive ones
• Using the cherrypicked former hostile reviews as a yardstick for all Booker's work, including for the work he did in putting together chapter 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster, a meticulous piece of investigative journalism that provides an extremely well referenced chronological account of this particular controversy (i.e., how the HS came to be inextricably linked to the IPCC's 3rd AR)
• Consistent cherrypicking WP rules to suit their position, rather like the character played by Peter Sellers in the classic satire I'm Alright Jack, who whips out his rulebook if anyone disagrees with him, but who of course chooses to ignore the rulebook when he is at fault himself

The net result of all this in my opinion is that we have a Misplaced Pages page that is non-neutral, and, sadly, that any interested readers accessing the page will be presented with a whitewashed account of the IPCC. I'm therefore going to post a non-neutral banner. I've no doubt that this will likewise be removed in a flash – but at least my concern will have been registered in the Misplaced Pages system. Jprw (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You've persistently attepted to give undue weight to the fringe views of this contrarian, and have yet to provide any reliable third party evidence that this 2009 book has had any significant effect on, or significance to, the IPCC, let alone enough to justify plugging it in this brief summary section of another main article. Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate and unfounded. Incidentally, describing Private Eye as "the pre-eminent UK current affairs magazine" is pretty much like giving the same description to The Onion as a US current affairs magazine. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The clear consensus here is not to include the book. You've pushed very very hard to get it in, and ignored all the arguments against it. If you keep pushing "Booker is great!" don't be too surprised when people point out taht, err, no he isn't. And no: you don't just tag an article because you can't get your pet reference in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality tag from the article. No matter what one's concerns about statements on talk, they do not add to a rationale for tagging the article. --TS 09:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The BLP concerns are a serious cause for concern about prejudice to Booker's reliable source inclusion. Time for this issue to be taken to the next level for BLP resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been clearly shown, he's not a reliable source on this subject and so no inclusion, no BLP issue in the article. The statements I've seen on this talk page have been properly sourced and do not violate BLP. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been shown that Booker isn't a realible source. His book was published by a reputable publishing house, and that is all that is required. I thought the argument was not that Booker wasn't a reliable source, but that his opinions are fringe? Which is it? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker has been shown to be an unreliable source promoting fringe pseudoscientific views. Your statement that "His book was published by a reputable publishing house, and that is all that is required" is not in compliance with verifiability policy. . . dave souza, talk 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this it is. Notice that the policy says that if there is a dispute over what a reliable source is saying, then that should be noted in the article. So, if anyone disputes what Booker is saying, that can be noted in the article. That's how we provide NPOV informaiton on a subject. By the way, the IPCC #4 report was found to contain at least two significant errors, does that discredit it as a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry WP:BLP applies in all of Wiki, not just the article. Do you have a suggested resolution path for faith in others to help address this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think you should learn to make coherent valuable content edits. Failing that, and all the evidence up to now is that you do indeed fail that, this isn't the place for prattle: take it elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If I created PA like that, I would end up the subject here repeatedly failing in front of all to create value but for a discplinary distraction. Owners are obstructing the value creation process in these articles, even in denial to fair dispute resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll report WMC's comment later if no one else has already. That comment definitely crosses the line. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it's a comment on the editor, I've advised WMC to strike it. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic. Cla68, you're persistently arguing that publication by a reputable publishing house is all that is required to meet verifiability policy, and you've even provided this link. I must assume that you've forgotten the first paragraph, "The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."
Booker as a writer has been shown to have no good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's agreed that in the many thousands of pages of IPCC AR4 one significant error has been found, don't know where you get two. It's also agreed that the 368 pages of Booker's "manual" of climate denialism opens with an error specifically cited to a book which does not contain the erroneous statement. Booker acknowledges the error, saying he found it on the internets and didn't bother checking the cited source. Not a good reputation for fact-checking. We also have the well qualified scientist and writer Philip Ball saying of the book that "much, including the central claim, is bunk", and describing some of the errors including Booker's absurd claim about the significance of the hockey stick graph. Ball gives further details of errors and misrepresentations in the book here, and notes Booker's disclaimer that "It is inevitable that such a book will contain errors". Ball's description is worth reading. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't yet have the book in hand, I'm willing to agree to disagree for now and table this discussion until I can look at the book and decide if it has any information or insight that would be a useful addition to any of the articles in the 'pedia. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "shelve", not "table" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cla, it doesn't really matter whether you've read the book or not. Content within the book will not address questions regarding WP:WEIGHT nor will it address the very real problem with Bookers reliability on the subject area of science. But i will make one comment on the book, and whether it can be cited as a thourough or even good timeline/blow-by-blow account (dismissing for a moment all other issues), and that is with regards to the references that Booker uses. There is one very significant missing citations: The NAS panel on the topic. (no the NAS report he does cite is not about paleoclimate). See our article on Hockey stick controversy for details. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree for now. In the meantime, could you point out to me which books on this list are unreliable or unnoteworthy? Of course not, doing so is way beyond our charter. All that matters it that they were published by reputable publishing houses, like Booker's book. Some of them do contain errors, especially the books written by Japanese authors containing Japanese fighter aces' victory claims. If you'll check the footnotes to that article, you'll see where I've discussed the discrepancies between some of the sources. That's how we do things, we report what the sources say and explain when there are discrepancies between reliable sources. Do you see the book Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle by Richard B. Frank on that list? That is one of the most used books in the Guadalcanal Campaign articles as it is one of the best sources. Mr. Frank was not a professional historian before he wrote that book. He was a lawyer. Does that disqualify it as a reliable source? There are at least a couple of errors that I know about in that book. Does that disqualify it? Cla68 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no background knowledge at all to be able to verify or fact-check any references about or around WWII and the pacific war in specific, i hope/suspect that other editors in that topic-area are better equipped to do so, that is after all why WP works so well. In other words: I have exactly no basis for detecting an unreliable source in that topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't either. I have no training or professional experience as a historian or authority on World War II. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages does not require that. Misplaced Pages's volunteers are for the most part, as far as I know, complete amateurs like me, because Misplaced Pages does not require any special expertise. Instead, Misplaced Pages's rules simply require that our sources meet the definition of reliable, such as not being a self-published book. We take the RSs, like Booker's book, scientific journals, newspapers, magazines, etc, and put information from them into articles in a neutral manner, as if we aren't taking a side on the issue, and give all sides from the RS if there is any disagreement, which there certainly appears to be about this hockey stick graph. We then let the readers decide for themselves what is true. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, with feeling, regardless of the publisher, Booker has a bad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and as a writer is not a reliable source on any other subject than his own fringe views. If they're to be noted, you'll need to find reliable third party secondary sources showing their significance to the context. And, of course, weight will apply to any scientfic claims. . . dave souza, talk 09:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Books etc are the std sources for WWII. Oddly enough, few people write scientific papers about it. Scientific papers are the std sources for science. Oddly enough, people write scientific papers about science William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are academic/research style papers about historical subjects. Some are doctoral theses. I've seen some when I peruse the archives of some universities, especially the military schools. Books are easier to use and the information in books is usually fine for our purposes. I'm not sure if Booker gets much into the science of warming, or if he mainly concentrates on the political/human-related facets of its history and composition. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you remember that you're looking at a primary source giving the claims of an active propagandist known for misinformation and conspiracy theories. While you're waiting for it to arrive you might like to read another book giving useful background information, The Discovery of Global Warming - A History by Spencer Weart, which has the advantage of being free, available online. The timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. Philip Ball recommends Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon or apparently as a podcast. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit curious as to why the argument to include this is being discussed in two places. First here and then at the hockey stick controversy as well. I think that if this book has anything useful to say about the controvers, it would need to be included first in the main article about the controversy first. Than if it is important enough put in the lede there and included here. My view is that the paragraph here is supposed to be a summary of hockey stick article.

There is also the question of the bit "and this criticism has been picked up by others." this was created by nigelj as I think some kind of compromise between including the book and not mentioning Booker at all. I figured best to at least point out that this bit should be removed if it is decided to not mention booker at all or mention him in more detail. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, worth doing. Will hunt out a source later today. . dave souza, talk 09:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral tone in hockey stick section

A POV edit was recently made to the section "Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph", and should be edited to restore a neutral tone to the article. The passage in questino reads, "...with McKitrick making inaccurate claims and saying that the graph is skewed by a cabal of paleoclimatologists." I have no objection to what's being reported here if it's properly cited--the claims may very well be inaccurate. However, Misplaced Pages does not take positions, it reports them. Who says the claims are inaccurate? --DGaw (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the cited source does indeed provide evidence of inaccurate claims but in trying to keep this concise while reflecting the majority view this came over rather badly. Having reviewed the source, it makes more sense to emphasise the NAS findings in this brief summary, so I've edited it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 17:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Paper / article

Papers are articles and articles are papers so is null. But if it makes you happy, it is fine William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

An acceptable HS reference?

In the recent discussions above I asked if any editor knew of a better single well sourced account of how the hockey stick graph came to be inextricably linked with the IPCC’s third assessment report than chapter 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker. Well, it looks as though this may be it. 14/14 five star reviews on Amazon. Again, obviously from the point of view of climate change skepticism. Presumably the main reason given in the above discussions for excluding Booker (that he is some kind of unreliable lunatic operating on the fringes of reality) will not similarly apply to Andrew Montford? In any case, it is becoming very noticeable now in the media and in publishing that the volume of criticism towards the IPCC, and the Hockey Stick in particular, is increasing all the time. Surely it can only be a matter of time before the IPCC Misplaced Pages article more accurately reflects this? Jprw (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're abandoning Booker, and finally realising what people have been telling you for ages, then great. If you've just switched to yet more skeptic nonsense, then bad. Review: The author has done an enormous public service in chronicling the long and sordid history of the infamous Mann hockey-stick graph and the persistent and heroic efforts of Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre to reveal its errors. --Edward John Craig, Managing Editor, National Review Online - no, this is just more skeptic nonsense. We don't need a section or article on ill-informed media discussion of the hockey stick, for all the reasons we've already gone through. The IPCC article should *not* be reflecting this ill-informed rubbish, and it doesn't. You should stop pushing it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not abandoning Booker, just making the observation that wherever you turn in the media and in publishing the skeptical literature is growing all the time. There seems to be the "Misplaced Pages reality" regarding AGW, and then the reality you meet in the outside world. I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the former has to come more into line with the latter. And to answer dave souza below, I seem to recall a recent article in The Guardian calling for the IPCC to be disbanded. Anyway I'm off now to edit articles where the discussions don't get so heated. Good luck. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@ jprw, your claim that "in the media and in publishing... the volume of criticism towards the IPCC, and the Hockey Stick in particular, is increasing all the time" is flatly contradicted by the reputable 12 part report from The Guardian, and this looks rather promising as a reform of the IPCC. . . dave souza, talk 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your link Tough love in a troubled climate acknowledges the current problems. I certainly was unaware of this situation before the recent revelations, as I had assumed the science was based on firmer ground. The suggestions it makes toward the end would go a long way to improve the IPCC's credibility. Maybe attitudes will change:Hurricane study unites formerly divided experts —mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, mattisse, that's an interesting story, and yet another case of detailed studies undermining the mainstream media's dramatic claims that the IPCC was wrong in hinting that AGW could result in worse storms. Similarly, the MSM and some environmental activists have, in the past, exaggerated the extent to which the science was settled. If you read a little of the IPCC reports you'll find they strongly emphasise the uncertainties and need for further research. Those attacking the credibility of the IPCC use a false dichotomy, similar to the creationist two-model approach, in which any error is claimed to undermine the whole science. . dave souza, talk 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Jprw you actually though bishop would be allowed in here :), however not only is it wp:rs it is also recommended reading by the British_Parliament 27. Finally I recommend that the members of the committee read chapter 15 of "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by A W Montford— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a grammatical error in your statement, mark. It's not "recommended reading by the" UK parliament, it's reading recommended to parliament by Phillip Bratby, a retired physicist who wrote "a political scam, pre-designed to scare the world about a problem for which there is no scientific evidence. Man-made global warming does not exist. The BBC should report it as such in its headlines, and not just go along with this scam." in response to a BBC item in March 2009. So, no change there. . . dave souza, talk 09:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. He also recommends, or at least cites, "http://en.wikipedia.org/Karl_Popper". LOL, dave souza, talk 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the article on the Hockey Stick fuss already antago references to several reliable sources on the subject. The investigation by NAS is the best there is far as I'm aware. So why don't we just cite that? The above seems like a desperate search for an unreliable source on the grounds that we're not representing fringe views enough, and that surely cannot improve Misplaced Pages. The fringe views are... well, they're fringe. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reform suggestions

The IPCC needs to change and switch to shorter, more targeted reports | Environment | guardian.co.uk, by Robert Watson, which links to Major Change Is Needed If the IPCC Hopes to Survive by Roger A. Pielke, Jr.: Yale Environment 360. That publication also features In India, a Clear Victor on The Climate Action Front by Isabel Hilton: Yale Environment 360, which is rather informative about the political developments in India. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree. The problem cannot be considered from just one view. Talking image (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Add NYT link:

Add NYT link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?em (IPCC) "Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate" By JOHN M. BRODER Published: March 2, 2010 and see Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist) 99.88.231.56 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Add link from WSJ "Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel"

Add link http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978.html? from WSJ "Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel" FEBRUARY 26, 2010 by Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com and Keith Johnson at keith.johnson@wsj.com \; with example excerpt: "..."There is a very broad and deep consensus that I buy into that we're producing too much CO2 and it's going to cause problems eventually," said John H. Marburger III, former science adviser to President George W. Bush. Many details remain uncertain, he said, but "I think it's unequivocal that there is a human component." ...Mr. Marburger, the former Bush science adviser, said he frequently heard policy makers express frustration at the lack of certainty in many areas of science, including climate. "'Why can't we get better numbers?' Everybody asks that," he said. "But science rarely gives you the right answer. Science tells you what the situation is, but it doesn't tell you what to do." 99.29.185.24 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor reference

I haven't read much of this WP article (it looks to need some pruning at a glance) but in passing I note this reference McKibben, Bill (March 15, 2007). "Warning on Warming". The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com) 54 (4): 18. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981. Retrieved 2010-02-21 is a bit trashy. The fact that the author innumerately uses the expression "lowest common denominator findings" when he means "findings divided by the lowest common denominator" or "highest common factor findings" is itself deeply unimpressive (lowest common denominator findings would be big and get bigger for each additional party included) and our decision to repeat the error as the only citation from the review is even sadder. Do we have something similar we could cite which was less erroneous? --BozMo talk 10:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took this out as an obviously deceptive edit comment. Nor is it clearly reasonable to add it here under an accurate comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly how it is an "obviously deceptive edit comment", and give an example of how it could have been phrased differently? Jprw (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because you said adding ref to criticism section when it wasn't. Is that really so hard to see? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest an acceptable alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the obvious would be "add a pile of contentious criticism with no attempt at consensus". So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"So, now you have (albeit only implicitly) admitted that your summary was misleading, how about apologising for it?" No, I won't apologise for making a possibly too vague or short edit summary. But how about you apologise for making such a ridiculous and unjustified request, as well as succumming so easily and quickly to violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV? Jprw (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jprw, I object to the edit on BLP grounds. Unless that specific behavior by Paucheri has been noted in a number of RS, I don't think it should be included. In addition, I'm disappointed with WMC's combative way of presenting his objection to the edit. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comment. I see that there may be BLP issues that I didn't properly take into account and in view of these I'll remove it. In the meantime, if other RS appear on this specific point we may want to consider reincluding it. As an aside, the current reference to Paucheri in the article looks out of place. Jprw (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is nice that you've finally done the right thing. It is regrettable that you only did so once "your side" pointed out your error William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, please don't make personal comments like this. It could be interpreted as baiting and by any measure is inappropriate for collaborative and cooperative discussions on article content. Cla68 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic to say the least that WMC quotes this at the top of his page:

"To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X."

Perhaps it is intended as some kind of parody. Jprw (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this have any place here? Please refactor/delete and remove this comment as well, when you've done so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do so after you acknowledge that WMC's behaviour above was inappropriate and completely unconstructive to the WP editing process, and in violation of numerous WP principles. Jprw (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that these talk-pages are under probation - right? Now be good and remove all of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I see evidence that you are capable of applying the same high standards to WMC (whose antagonistic attitude and chronic AGF lapses directly led to this) as to myself I will with pleasure remove it. In the meantime, his hypocrisy needs exposing and his flagrant, arrogant and continual circumvention of various WP fundamental principles needs drawing attention to. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason to bicker about these kinds of things here. We just note our initial concerns about the behavior of others on this talk page, then take further discussion of it up on their user account talk pages or at the probation enforcement page. Cla68 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

May i remind both of you about this. Now please refactor everything that isn't directly related to the article - and that includes this comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Voodoo science

I'm seeing a lot of references to Paucheri's "Voodoo science" remark about the glacier prediction. For example, see here. There seems to be a preponderance of refs available to justify a mention -- but perhaps it would fit better on his page, which also doesn't appear to mention it. Jprw (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't use the link you've provided, since it is factually incorrect. But yes, it would be better at RKP first William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also a blog, though Monbiot's suggestion of November 2009 for the alleged remark ties in with some research I did on the subject, showing it had more to do with politics in India, and was a bit more complex than you might suppose. Beware of the "Crisis. What crisis?" effect where newspapers make up statements that enter folklore as though they were a verbatim quote. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion on how you think it should be phrased. Cla68 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• B-Class United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles