Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 19 April 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hockey stick controversy redirect. 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, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Community article probation

Environment: Climate change NA‑class

This environment-related redirect 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 NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Less of an Encyclopedia article and more of a report

I'm a neutral observer here and I want to raise a point about the structure of this article. It really looks like a committee report with too many fine details and is not quite readable for those outside the field. Even my Professor who has a doctorate from MIT finds trouble in following this article. Can somebody take initiative in making this an encyclopedic article that is reachable to all learned people?

WTF?

OK, I'm baffled.

By the late 1990s a number of competing teams were using proxy indicators to estimate the temperature record of past centuries, and finding suggestions that recent warming was exceptional.

is sourced to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm. I can't see the text there that supports this - could someone point it out, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"This consensus was sharply attacked by a few scientists. Some pulled out the old argument that the advance of urbanization was biasing temperature readings. In fact, around 1990 meticulous re-analysis of old records had squeezed out the urban heat-island bias to the satisfaction of all but the most stubborn critics. Moreover, long-term warming trends showed up in various kinds of physical "proxy" data measured far from cities. To be sure, in urban areas whatever global warming the greenhouse effect might be causing got a strong addition of heat, so that the combination significantly raised the mortality from heat waves. But the larger global warming trend was no statistical error.(39*)" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That, as I'm sure you've noticed, is totally irrelevant to the point at hand. Why not quote another random peice of text from the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK ... WTF? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As William said, your quote is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. It's talking about the instrumental temperature record, not about proxy-based temperature reconstructions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blind faith is what I hear. I made the Proxy statement BOLD to make it clear. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What does "Blind faith" have to do with anything? The statement that you bolded is about the temperature record (as Stephan correctly states), more specifically about UHI. It actually pays to read the context, and attempt to understand the subject. It is not enough just to search for "proxy" and think that it must be related. Proxies are many different things... A recent interesting one for instance is an English houseowner who wrote down every time he had to mow his lawn, meticulously over years. (can't find the link though) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Come come, you are being unfair. Obviously the word proxy can have only one meaning, and must at all times refer to exactly the same thing. How could it possibly be otherwise? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps unsuccessfully, I was trying to summarise a fairly long argument from "But looking at the world as a whole, in the late 1990s the great majority of experts at last agreed. Yes, a serious warming trend was underway" onwards. Specific points;

A variety of new evidence suggested that the recent warming was exceptional even if one looked back many centuries.
Fortunately there were other climate proxies, and scientists worked to derive past temperatures entirely without the use of tree rings. Ingenious analysis of coral reefs, lake sediments, layers in stalactites, and so forth engaged experts from a variety of obscure specialties. Unexpected sources of error turned up here too. But years of analysis by different and often rival groups produced increasingly reliable numbers, all pretty much in agreement with each other and with tree rings.

The source then mentions glaciology results from 2005 before returning to "A group headed by Michael Mann combined a variety of measures to construct a graph of estimated temperatures averaged over the Northern Hemisphere over the past ten centuries." There's no indication of whether or not graphs had been used to present the individual findings, but the comment in the section above makes reasonable sense;

It even says so in Mann et al. (1998); "A variety of studies have sought to use a ‘multiproxy’ approach to understand long-term climate variations, by analysing a widely distributed set of proxy and instrumental climate indicators1,5–8 to yield insights into longterm global climate variations. Building on such past studies..." -Atmoz (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)"

Haven't looked at that quotation yet myself. As always, suggestions for improved wording welcome. . . dave souza, talk 10:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

more info: from Mann et al. (1998);

A variety of studies have sought to use a ‘multiproxy’ approach to understand long-term climate variations, by analysing a widely distributed set of proxy and instrumental climate indicators1,5–8 to yield insights into longterm global climate variations. Building on such past studies, we take a new statistical approach to reconstructing global patterns of annual temperature back to the beginning of the fifteenth century, based on the calibration of multiproxy data networks by the dominant patterns of temperature variability in the instrumental record.

So, they were claiming novelty in the statistical approach, not in simply using multiproxy records. Which presumably explains Fred Pearce's Grauniad description of pioneering work. . . dave souza, talk 10:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be better taking the ref from Mann et al. in that case William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Another ref would be Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006), Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the United States National Research Council;

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

Not sure if that covers the preceding studies as well, but we should acknowledge their innovation at the same time as showing that they built on numerous studies pointing towards the same conclusions, as shown by Weart. Maybe the Mann et al. summary is a good source for that introductory statement. . dave souza, talk 12:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lost refs, fix please?

In Discussion of the MBH reconstruction, this text has lost its refs:

More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the Academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,... . . . "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."

Would someone who is more familiar with the article please restore the refs? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Downward trend

I see that an anon editor at 87.74.14.139 has spent best part of the last 24 hours changing the emphasis of much of this article and adding nonsense like "Global temperatures over the past 10 years have generally been in a downward trend, in contrast to the predictions of Mann's computer models." I have reverted once, but under the terms of the article probation there is not much more that I can do about this. --Nigelj (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was just one of a series of edits promoting fringe views and giving inaccurate unsourced statements. I've undone these changes and advised the IP editor of sanctions. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

1. Lost/missing refs: see item 9, above and tags in text.

2. Duplicate and confusing text: the discussion of the NRC/NAS investigation and report is split into two sections, and discusses separately the preliminary and final report. This is very confusing -- all the NRC/NAS stuff should be discussed in one section, and probably a fair bit of the fine detail can be trimmed. This is intended to be an encyclopedia article, accessible and informative to the general (educated) public.

There are (fairly minor) POV issues with these two sections -- in general, I got the impression that the NAS/NRC criticisms were downplayed a bit. I've started fixing these & will continue. Also see the Cuffey discussion, below.

3. Item 1 (top of this page) has never really been addressed: the article still "looks like a committee report with too many fine details and is not quite readable for those outside the field."

Please feel free to add to this list -- or just pitch in! The article really is a bit of a mess at present. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Cuffey quote, criticism of IPCC use of HS graph

I proposed adding this sentence to The HS section of the IPCC article (proposal updated a bit from the discussion there, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

"In 2006, glaciologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California at Berkeley, a member of the US National Research Council panel that reviewed the Hockey stick controversy, criticized the way the graph had been used by the IPCC: "I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was." Source: Nature's news report, 2006

Two editors pointed out that this quote, if we use it, should first be added to this article. Objections to this quote and the complete discussion are available at the IPCC article Talk page.

We're hampered because the primary reference to Cuffey's remarks, the 2006 Nature news report, has gone behind a paywall. Cuffey's comments were from a press conference at the release of the 2006 NRC/NAS report, and were widely reported at that time. It does look like Nature led with the Cuffey criticism -- if so, we should too.

If a reader has a copy, could they archive it, or email a copy to me, pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom ? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll check Infotrac for the quote, as I believe it carries Nature articles. I think the quote is appropriate for this article. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Nature didn't lead with the Cuffey criticism, its one of 3 quotes at the end of the article. My question would again be: Why the Cuffey quote? Why not not one of the North quotes (the chair of the NAS panel) or the Bloomberg quote? This is a question due weight and whether a quote is representative. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nature and Science have always been behind a paywall, though that's slowly changing. A balanced and fully representative analysis of the report will be welcome, in the interim the full title seems reasonable. If this one quote is added, the others must also be added for balance. Regarding the tag, a great deal of improvement to this article is needed, I corrected obvious problems with the lead and will try to assist with improving the body text. . . dave souza, talk 07:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen kindly emailed me a copy of the Nature article -- thanks, Kim! So I (or he) can copy anyone else who'd care to read it.

As for the Cuffey quote: I hate to add in something else in a section that's already a mess. So I'll put this cleanup on my to-do list, probably in a few days, and propose to revisit the quote(s?) then. Unless someone else beats me to it? Hopefully, we can improve the article without stirring up too much controversy here.

I feel pretty strongly that the Cuffey quote belongs in the IPCC HS section; less strongly for here. If the consensus is we need more quotes for balance, so be it. Arguably that would be good, since the average reader won't be able to see the original Nature item. If we can integrate them into a good, readable, encyclopedic article.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including other quotes in addition to Cuffey's. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This article will likely need a major rewrite ... but not quite yet

People interested in this page might want to start studying:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/06/wegman-and-rapp-on-proxies-a-divergence-problem-part-2

Basically, Deep Climate shows evidence of seeming plagiarism in the Wegman Report of Raymond Bradley's 1999 textbook, including a few cases where wording was changed slightly to reduce the credibility of that work, and at least one where Bradley's comments were actually inverted.

DC also found evidence that chunks of the social networks text in the Wegman Report were taken from: two separate textbooks .... and .... Misplaced Pages

JohnMashey (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Please keep in mind two things. First, this article is not about the Wegman Report. (But feel free to start a new article about it.) Second, DeepClimate, for all its many virtues, is not a WP:RS. I do agree, however, that this article would benefit from a major rewrite. David.Kane (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to edit a (contentious) article, I added this to Discussion, primarily because I hate to see people wasting their time editing it in the immediate future. Second, I wasn't going to cite the DC posts (certainly not WP:RS) - they provide context and explanation for the the items that (I think, tell me if I'm wrong) {], the side-by-side comparisons of Bradley and the Wegman Report:

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wegman-bradley-tree-rings.pdf

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals1.pdf

I own a copy of Bradley, which matches what DC says.

A large fraction of this article is devoted to a) the events that led to the Wegman Report, b) the Wegman Report, c) The NRC Report created because of the way the Wegman panel got set up. To this day, people cite the Wegman Report favorably, and I'm not sure there would be even the hint of a controversy without it. I've argued that it was just the high point of a long sequence of actions:

http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony (not itself WP:RS either, but with many pointers to such.)

But, good partitioning of a complex sequence into manageable articles is always a legitimate argument with no right answer. Given all the history that has surfaced, I have a hard time extracting the WR in isolation from the events around it, but others may differ.

Finally, I was inspired by seeing Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion" listed here and finding it already has its own Misplaced Pages page filled with glowing reviews. JohnMashey (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

David Hand comments

Some recent comments from David Hand:

"The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick. Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller," he said. "The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper."

Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. "The Mann 1998 hockey stick paper used a particular technique that exaggerated the hockey stick effect," he said.

Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

New Scientist places David Hand's remarks in context. "The upwards incline on later versions of the graph has been corrected to be shorter and less exaggerated. Hand said he was 'impressed' by McIntyre's statistical work. But whereas McIntyre claims that Mann's methods have 'created' the hockey stick from data that does not contain it, Hand agrees with Mann." Wikispan (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The two articles are saying pretty much the same thing: the key word is "exaggerated" in both cases. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hand study clearly should be referenced in this article. However, there appears to be a bit of whitewashing going on. My attempts to add it are being persistently reverted Fell Gleaming 09:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ABF much? You inserted it into the lead where it certainly doesn't belong. The panel did not check the HS - so therefore while it may be interesting perhaps to get Hand's opinion, it is a minor detail for somewhere in the body. (and we have a problem with WP:NOT#NEWS here as Stephan points out). The lead is a summary of the article - and Hand's opinion summerizes nothing.

Of other problems with your changes:

• "dismissed as faulty" => "challenged" - is a completely wrong summary of the S&B paper. POV
• "More than a dozen" => "Nearly a dozen" - please look up what "upwards of" means.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to merit a sentence or two somewhere in the middle, but it's not quite clear to me exactly where best to put it. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The keyword is "personal opinion" of someone who hasn't A) been involved in the research B) examined the research C) Not an expert D) Diffuse (we have no idea what he means or by how much) E) Sourced only to news. Seems to be quite WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Hand study clearly should be referenced in this article." Which study are you referring to? Wikispan (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a lack of consistency in this position. Citing personal opinion of uninvolved individuals is standard journalistic and encyclopedic practice. As for "not an expert", Hand analyzed only the statistical techniques being used. On this topic, he is verifiably much more of an expert than Mann himself. Fell Gleaming 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What lack of consistency? Yes, we cite personal opinions when and iff the opinions are notable within the context of the issue in question. Hand (afaikt) has not analyzed the "statistical techniques being used" - since it wasn't a CRU paper . And Hand is definitively not more of an expert on this particular issue than "Mann himself". Otherwise you would be able to claim that any statistician should be an more of an expert on topics where statistical methods are used. Hand's opinions are certainly notable within the context of the CRU debacle - but my argument is that it isn't here. Opinions that are notable in this context is von Storch, Mann etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe the opinion of perhaps the most eminent statistician in the world -- and certainly the most eminent one in Britain-- is not competent to comment on statistical methods being used, after he has reviewed them. Your argument is like complaing a Supreme Court Justice can't comment on the legality of your speeding ticket, because he wasn't there when the officer wrote it. Fell Gleaming 17:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What study? All we seem to have is a brief news report of an apparently off-the-cuff verbal statement, made by the kind of reporters who commonly misunderstand or misrepresent scientific issues. If Hand wants to make a significant statement, he should make it in writing, preferably in a peer reviewed journal. . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So your position is we should remove from all WP articles all statements made in interviews by scientists? The only thing admissable should be peer-reviewed journal papers?

As for the contention that it was an "off the cuff" remark, that is clearly contradicted by the source. Hand was specifically tasked to study the material as part of the CRU scandal. Do you need to see another source on this? Fell Gleaming 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Why, then, is there no mention of Mann in the report? . . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Or of the hockey-stick for that matter. The only thing that comes close is a comment on lack of mention of uncertainties on tree-ring studies... and that was specifically for presentation usage (by others) - where as they note in the report that all scientific papers had sufficient disclosure of such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hand appears to have been expanding on the otherwise somewhat cryptic comment "Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design" in the report. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He might have - then again - he might not. Not really an hypothesis that we can use, unless we get a confirmation of it. On the other hand, both the Wegman and the NRC reviews said that methodologies chosen were problematic - Wegman doesn't go further - but the NRC panel states that it had little to no effect.. Since they apparently only looked at CRU material, we can't use Hand as an expert source on something that he hasn't examined. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is torturous pseudo-logic. Hand looked at the material. Are you suggesting he lied, when he said that, when using proper statistical techniques, the hockey stick became flatter, but the underlying signal still existed? We have a reliable source, the subject is preeminently notable, and the comments extraordinarily apropos to the article's topic. Any other viewpoint is POV pushing. Fell Gleaming 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your reasoning is indeed tortuous pov pushing. Some unclear comments in a press conference about a different topic don't count for much. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Editors and journalists at several of Britain's largest news organizations found them clear enough to report. And you feel I'm POV pushing? Fell Gleaming 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The particular technique they used exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick is odd. Remember, the "up" bit of the HS at the end is the instrumental temperature record - you can't alter that with different reconstructions. The "shaft" bit is the bit we all have such fun arguing about William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

a) It's quite clear You exaggerate the blade by altering the baseline of the shaft, rather than its slope, and b) you're attempting to do original research. Hand's statement was that the effect was exaggerated, period. Fell Gleaming 22:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because if (a) is correct the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller, makes no sense at all. Your OR stuff is just running away from the argument William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.... Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy ... criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics."

“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.

I have to agree with the others here that this obviously has no relevance whatsoever and should be prevented from any inclusion in Misplaced Pages.99.142.15.173 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hand's criticism is legimate and credible. He agrees that the hockey stick is basically sound, but that it's somewhat exaggerated. The source (New Scientist) is solid. We're going to have to come up with compromise sentence or two about it to include in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hand hasn't said anything that isn't already thoroughly included in the article. Despite Mann et al 's 1998 paper having made clear that better reconstructions are needed (since provided by many other scientists with further work still in progress), it has been well criticized for excessive smoothing of the presented curve, both in the RSs and here in the WP article. The more recent reconstructions are well discussed and well shown both in the text and in the composite reconstruction graph (at right--which somehow still looks a bit like a hockey stick?-- or maybe it's just me). Hand's off-the-cuff comment appears to add little or nothing compelling that isn't already thoroughly discussed. I'd say a brief one-sentence mention of Hand's criticism of the statistical methods used in the Mann study would be more than adequate, say something like "Statistician David Hand has also criticized the statistical methods used in the Mann et al study." with a link to the quote. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm reading this right. In the Telegraph article, Hand is quoted as saying The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper and Had they used an appropriate technique the size of the blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller. Now, setting aside the necessary caveat that I've never seen a journalist get a quote exactly right (even when they use quotation marks, my experience is that they're paraphrasing), what he's saying is that join between the temperatures at the beginning of the 20th century are, in his opinion, too low. Looking at the graph, it would appear that he's talking about that little dip, right before the steep climb for the 20th century. That dip and climb come right around the time that the instrumental record begins.

Now look at two other comments in that article: the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to and the graph do not make clear when these different sets of data are used. Now look back at the graph. How does a field hockey stick differ from an ice hockey stick? And ice hockey stick meets the blade at an angle, while a field hockey stick has a curve. Again - two different data sets were used and blade of the hockey stick would have been smaller. In other words, it appears that Hand is saying that the pre-20th century data was fitted separately from the 20th century data, and the two plots were joined. If they had been treated as a single data set, that final dip would have disappeared and the curve-fitting algorithm would have smoothed that angular change. I don't know if the appropriate response is "duh", or "given the difference in confidence intervals around different measures, is that really appropriate". Though, if that is the case, he's right in saying "they should have said so", if that is, in fact, what they did. Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the caveats re journalists are important. But again disregarding them for the moment, The change in temperature is not as great over the 20th century compared to the past as suggested by the Mann paper only makes sense if you reverse it to: The change in temperature is greater in the past as compared to the 20th century as suggested by the paper (compared to the past, the 20C (and a bit further back) is far better known; so that bit isn't in doubt at the moment). So I think the issue is not the join at the start of 20C, but the variability before then (this has been the question all along). So I think as Kenosis has suggested, Hand is saying nothing new, and isn't saying it in a very illuminating way. I can't make any sense of the graph would be more like a field hockey stick at all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

YES. As WMC already knows, the proxies are developed by correlating a given proxy measurement (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) to the instrumental temperature record. It's how they're derived in the first place, which is why the curves tend to align well in the years after instrumental temperature records began. Only after developing such correlations can they be extrapolated farther into the past. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I'm puzzled where the Torygraph gets Prof Hand singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. He said the graph... from. Is that supposed to be a quote from the report? Also He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to. - as said above, that is hard to understand. But "he agreed" suggests that the journo threw a suggestion at him and he didn't say no William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed worrying – if Hand is correct and the graph should look more like a Field hockey stick, the graph instead of turning up sharply at an angle, curves round past the vertical and begins heading backwards. Time travel or end times? I do recall some variation in sticks when I played it at school, but none the less... Even more worrying, the most eminent statistician in the world, as recorded by the Daily Telegraph, "singled out a 1998 paper by Prof Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a constant target for climate change sceptics, as an example of this. He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated..." – but MBH98 only goes back to 1400, which by my amateur arithmetic is going back 610 years. Can it be that Hand can't count? Or is it more likely that the newspapers have mangled his statements? . . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And why does he say "would be smaller", "would be more like" — it sounds like he didn't actually bother to check it out. His point would have been much more convincing if he actually produced a graph himself — like M&M did. Lars T. (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is very clear. The entire controversy is over whether or not M&M's claims of inappropriate statistical methods being used are valid. When one of the most preeminent statisticians in the world says they are, that's a crucial part of the debate. Hand's conclusion was not "off the cuff"; it came after he studied the graph and the methods used. To say his conclusion that the methods were flawed, and the graph exaggerated is "already covered elsewhere in the article" is whitewashing. Some of us may just not like the fact, but its a valid part of the debate -- made even more valid by the fact the conclusion was reached by a person with no interest in the debate, rather than another climate scientist with a vested interest. Fell Gleaming 02:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As of the last time I checked in here I'm sure I'd advocated that a sentence like ''Statistician David Hand has also criticized the statistical methods used in the Mann et al study." would be more than adequate. IOW, by all means add Hand to the list of Mann's critics. But please be extremely brief, as Hand hasn't said anything that adds substantively to the various criticisms of Mann et al 's excessive smoothing of the curve on the comparatively limited data set they worked with leading up to their 1998 paper. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reflect on due weight. FG's claims are (from what i've read in references) bogus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable point too. Well short of reasonably starting something like a List of critics of the statistical methods used by Michael E. Mann in his 1998 paper, it seems to me, as I said, that there's nothing new here--Mann has already been well criticized for the excessive curve-smoothing. But if it's to be included in the article beyond merely adding Hand to the list of Mann's critics, perhaps such an inclusion should also mention Hand's statement that even under his estimation of the preferred yield of state-of-the-art statistical methods to the data set with which Mann et al was working (conveniently pointed out by the later studies in the composite graph shown in the article and above on this talk page) the graph still looks to him like a hockey stick, :-) IOW, by Hand's account, the real dispute is "what kind of hockey stick does it look like? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we had such a list - then it would be due weight to include. Inclusion here seems to be based only upon: This is a critic thus we must include - which is undue weight, if its not notable critique. And so far (including your arguments) it isn't a notable criticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

" ...it came after he studied the graph and the methods used" <- Erm? Where do you get this from? Hand hasn't (according to any of the things i've seen) done so. He also doesn't seem to mention M&M anywhere (and they weren't part of the investigation either), so where does that come in? Perhaps there is some reference i haven't seen? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No one said Hand mentioned M&M. The fact remains the controversy began with their criticism of the statistical methods used. As for Hand's comments, how do you believe he can conclude inappropriate methods were used, unless he knew what those methods were? And how would know what methods were used, if he didn't examine the methodology? Still further, how could he conclude what the correct shape of the graph should be, had he not looked at the data? When one of the world's most eminent statisticians is asked to review the statistical treatment of data, the remarks he gives upon presenting his report are the results of that review. Trying to suggest Hand perhaps lied or shirked his duty is outrageous.

The facts are incontrovertible. Despite obfuscatory contortions to the contrary, when a scientist states they've found flaws in someone's else work, then they've studied it. We can only surmise about the degree or accuracy of their analysis, but that analysis certainly exists. Fell Gleaming 03:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a rather extreme amount of speculation (in other words 100% WP:OR). None of your "facts" are incontrovertible - in fact they are all extrapolation based on assumption. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A direct quote in a reliable source is not WP:OR The original research here is the reasoning used to fabricate a belief that verifiable quotes aren't really verifiable, unless we know personal details about the person who said them. Fell Gleaming 04:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Press conferences aren't reliable sources for the analysis of statistical methodology. Guettarda (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the silliness still goes on. The invented ideas of undue weight and equal validity - neither of which are actual concepts or they'd have articles - are being used to justify circumvention of Misplaced Pages's original neutrality policy.

Why not let each side in the controversy present its arguments and evidence, and let the reader make up his or her own mind? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed, if you want to change policy, you are well aware what the proper venue would be. Guettarda (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it has been a few days now. What is the proposed sentence(s) that have been proposed on Hand's opinion? If no one has offered one, I'll do so soon. Remember, the recent CRU investigative report noted that the CRU had failed to consult with professional statisticians to help them with their work. This seems to be a recurring theme surrounding the hockey stick controversy. Therefore, Hand's opinion is germane to this narrative. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla - perhaps its because you aren't familiar with the research - but the CRU investigative report has nothing to do with the hockeystick (and doesn't mention it at all). Hand hasn't examined anything about the HS, and he isn't an expert on the subject. The reason for this is that it the HS paper isn't CRU research (which was what the panel examined). This has been mentioned several times in this section - so please take some time and read it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell are we not arguing if a throw-away sentence even can be considered a critique? It's not like Hand has written a paper on the issue — that would have a foot to stand on. Lars T. (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Hand did write a paper on the issue. "Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.... Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy ... criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics."

“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have read the report - and it is not about the Hockey-stick. It is about the CRU, and the purported scientific problems there ... which it incidentally dismisses rather thoroughly. In case you've missed it: The MBH paper is not a CRU paper. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please contact the Financial Times of London. We are not able to "second guess" their reporting. Their reliably sourced, notable, germane, and neutral report is clear:

"Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.... Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy ... criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics."

“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded."

Any debate regarding the "correctness" of the FT's reporting is beyond our purview.99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well - since we can verify the information in the FT from the actual report (and read that the FT is doing second hand reporting based on the Telegraph source) - we do not need to contact them. The CRU investigative team did not check the hockey-stick, because it is not a CRU paper - or CRU research. That Hand (probably answering a question from a journalist) states some personal views on the issue - is rather irrelevant, when he hasn't done any research on the issue.

Nb: Verifying and making sure sources are chosen that are correct, is part of the editorial process on Misplaced Pages - we do not blindly put in erroneous or suspected erroneous text - just because it can be verified. That in fact would be a perversion of the Misplaced Pages ideals. We use only verifiable information - we do not use all verifiable information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, "a perversion of Misplaced Pages ideals" is clearly at hand. The most obvious and blatant being your interpreting the source document to re-write the secondary report. Please read Misplaced Pages policy on primary and secondary sources. It's crystal clear:

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

99.141.241.135 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the specific policy w.r.t. using primary sources is:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.

Note the statement "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." That's one issue. Another is the basic editorial decision whether to use this material at all in this article (which is what the discussion has largely been about thus far) and also about how might we do so if we were to use it at all.

As to your assertion that resistance to the use of the Financial Times material is a perversion of WP ideals, to be frank it's ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than your insistence that we follow your POV here. We're discussing, and thus far in this discussion there's no credible case for the use in the article of material from the report of the CRU inquiry (a primary source for the seven member panel's official view) because the seven member panel made no reference whatsoever to the Mann hockey stick. However, as WP editors we have every right to double-check David Hand's off-the-cuff remarks to a reporter from the Financial Times to try to discern whether he was speaking for himself or for the panel, and it's pretty clear he was speaking for himself and that the Financial Times is not a secondary source w.r.t. anything to do with the hockey stick per se, but is instead a secondary source for the panel's report on their CRU inquiry, to the extent that the FT selectively quotes one statement from the report.

The Financial Times article is, though, a primary source for Hand's remarks. In this context, this discussion is, again, about our editorial decision whether to report these remarks, and if so, how to report these remarks such that they can be double-checked by anybody with a general education. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that bold makes you more correct? Sorry but the CRU report is there for all to read - please do so - and once you find a single mention that they have studied the hockey-stick - then come back. Until then, its just Hand's personal opinion. And while Hand's opinion is relevant in Climatic Research Unit email controversy, because the report is directly involved with that - it isn't relevant here. Please stop beating that unfortunate cadaver of an equine. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, and published author this week on a report commissioned by the CRU criticizing the statistical interpretation represented by the hockey stick graph is somehow not-relevant to this article on that self-same hockey stick graph just boggles the mind. It is absurd.99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If the report on the CRU had been reviewing the hockey-stick - then it would have been relevant. But it wasn't - it didn't even touch upon it. What we have is Hand's purely personal views - in a newspaper article. And Hand's personal views when he hasn't researched or touched upon the research topic is WP:UNDUE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your biased manipulation of Misplaced Pages for directed conclusions is transparent. There is no basis in any Misplaced Pages practice, policy or existing article to block such relevant, reliable and well reported comments from such a central figure speaking with absolute topicality on this very subject. This is like seeking reason at Alice's Tea Party. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your promotion of fringe views is blatant and unsustainable. Hand's comments are not well reported, clarification when he's actually studied the subject will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society comments being reported in the Financial Times of London's newspaper is anything but fringe. Your claim otherwise is without basis and demonstrates all the hallmarks of editing without even the pretense of neutrality or good faith.99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that The Telegraph—and consequently the FT and Fox News—erred by conflating the CRU report with impromptu remarks made during presentation. Nowhere does the aforementioned study touch on this temperature reconstruction, which is clearly outside of their remit (the British panel had no business critiquing the work of a University in the United States). A majority of news outlets reported the story correctly. That is the most important consideration. Wikispan (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I propose the following sentences be added to the end of the "Updates" section so that if falls in chronological order, "David Hand, president of the UK's Royal Statistical Society and a member the Oxburgh panel which investigated the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit regarding its involvement in the email controversy, criticized Mann's methods of statistical analysis in producing the hockey stick graph which Hand says produced an exaggerated result. Hand stated that the hockey stick shape is genuine, but that the shape should look, "More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick.". Now, the president of the UK's most prestigious statistical institute is not fringe. Two sentences on his opinion in an article of this length is not undue weight. Please give your thoughts on my suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it that you are still unable to grasp that the CRU investigation has nothing to do with the HS? This is Hand's personal view - and it has no relevancy here (no matter how much one inflates his credentials). In fact you've addressed exactly zero of the comments given above on relevancy and weight - instead you've chosen to present a straw-man with the fringe comment (which as far as i can tell - no one has brought up ). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sory kim, are you saying that Hands critique of the hockey stick should not be in the Hockey stick controversy article? How peculiar. Of course this should be in this article, it is highly relevant to the article mark nutley (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it "highly relevant"? He is not an expert on the topic. He hasn't published any papers/reports or any other such scientific material on the topic. He hasn't examined the research professionally. etc. Just because someone has a view on something, doesn't mean that it is relevant. What exactly is his critique, and how does it differ from what is already in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, are you really saying that David Hand, the president of the Royal Statistical Society is not expert enough to comment on the statistical methods used in mbh98? That`s a joke right? mark nutley (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not answering my question. But just to comment: No just because Hand is a statistician - and a rather notable one - doesn't mean that his views are relevant. They would be relevant if he had actually studied the subject and published something about it. We are now at the 3rd or 4th iteration of this particular circular argumentation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the two subjects (CRU emails and hockey stick) are related because the leaked emails reveal that the RealClimate blog authors, who spend a lot of time defending the hockey stick, and CRU traded advice on how to stymie requests from Stephen McIntyre for data. McIntyre is a respected statistician. I assume that this is at least part of the reason that Hand recommended adding the criticism of the CRU for not consulting with statisticians to the investigative report and why he brought up the hockey stick graph in his post-report comments. Currently, this is speculation on my part. Nevertheless, I'm still not seeing any reason not to include Hand's, who is an expert on statistics and statistics is at the heart of the hockey stick graph controversy, opinion in the article. Right now it appears to be three-to-one (counting the IP) to include. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"McIntyre is a respected statistician." ((tl|faact}}. Hipocrite (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

McIntyre's work was praised by the President of the Royal Statistical Society, Professor David Hand - and by Professor Richard A. Muller writing in MIT's Technology Review amongst many others. These are eminent, distinguished and qualified experts speaking with unmistakable clarity. Your opinion obviously differs - publish it and we can give it all the consideration it's due.

Blocking Hand's comments as "fringe", "amateur", or "irrelevant off-topic" is bizarre. To deny the notability of Hand's comments on this article's subject is beyond the pale and of absolute and pure bad faith editing -it's tendentious and detrimental to the neutral and encyclopedic mission of the project. It is absurd.99.141.241.135 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are starting to invent things. No one here has been "Blocking Hand's comments as "fringe", "amateur", or "irrelevant off-topic"" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Cla. you understood wrong. The hockey-stick is a particular temperature reconstruction, that has nothing to do with the CRU, since it was a purely US work. What has or hasn't been going on in the emails has nothing to do with the temperature reconstruction. When Hand is making a statement on the HS - then he isn't talking about something that he has examined or in other ways been professionally involved in... He is stating his personal views. And while these may be interesting - they are just views. It doesn't really matter how much you (or others) puff or boldface his credentials (he could have a nobel price for that matter) - if he hasn't examined it in a professional aspect, or published on it - then his views are rather irrelevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know he has not? mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proving a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're unable to prove that your negative claim is true? Did you just make it up or did you read his mind? Or do you just know it? Maybe you just want to believe it might be so? 99.141.241.135 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

KDF, perhaps you should read the article on intellectual honesty.99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it ridiculous that Hand's notable, expert and on-topic comments are rejected with such ferocity and absolutism until now. I just read the article on you in the National Post, "if you have read a climate change article on Misplaced Pages -- or on any controversial subject that may have its own Kim Dabelstein Petersen -- beware. Misplaced Pages is in the hands of the zealots." This discussion of Hand is a Textbook example, and you are its poster child. .99.141.241.135 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Der Spiegel - Computer using Mann's Method given Random Data, Hockey Stick Graph Produced

Der Spiegel reports that a computer programmed using Mann's methodology, and entered random data produced a "hockey stick curve." Extremely notable, significant and from a reliable and famously neutral source. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They simply quote McIntyre's claim from his very first paper — do you have any other point? Oh, and they claim that "grape vines were cultivated in Scotland" during the MWP, they must have that confused with today. Case dismissed. Lars T. (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no vineyards in scotland today, are you perhaps thinking of something else? mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense - there is even a commercial vineyard - whether it will be a success is something different --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from an article on that vineyard:

"Mr Gottgens hopes to produce his first crop, using two white varieties, by the end of the year, despite trials showing the grape's chances of surviving a Scottish winter would depend on a warm summer. He added: "If it's not hot enough we won't produce the wine." "

Fell Gleaming 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Several centuries without vineyards in Scotland...and its now getting warm enough to again start growing grapes there. Happy news indeed. Fell Gleaming 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That article seems rather badly out of datae. Did you miss the reports exhonerating Jones? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is from this month. You may wish to contact Der Spiegel if you feel they are incorrect, but here at Misplaced Pages we do not engage in WP:OR. We use reliable secondary sources, the standard is verifiability WP:Verify, not some "Truth" that only you are enable to enlighten us with. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:V. It doesn't say that we must use all verifiable material - just that all information must be verifiable. We do not put in information that is incorrect (and verifiably so) - just because someone can find a WP:RS that says it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My response was directed towards Bill's comment that "Jone's exoneration", claims which themselves pre-dated the introduced articles published date, somehow trumped any consideration of the Der Spiegel reference. Your response seems to be akin to that of an auctioneer taking bids from the chandeliers - nothing more than an inept and heavy-handed straw man argument apropos of nothing.99.141.241.135 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP poster is correct as is der spiegel. This has been known about manns work for years, McIntyre figured this out ages ago. I think i`ll put this in, after all this is about the Hockey stick controversy mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The date of the event is meaningless. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS. As for the report's on Jones, this is an article about Mann. Finally, we cannot conclude an article "wrong", without a reliable source that claims that. Anything else is original research, as KDP well knows. Fell Gleaming 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been covered by reliable scientific sources, Der Speigel mirroring equally unreliable newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and showing plainly erroneous reporting does not meet the required standard. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does Der Spiegel base their reporting of the hockey stick graph on the Telegraph - I can't even find a mention of the Telegraph in any part of the article or pages. Nor did I find any relationship with the T and the authors, Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter. I do not appreciate the time-wasting your lies have caused me in re-checking my source. Do you just make this bullshit up as you go along?99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, if you wish to claim the Telegraph and Der Speigel are unreliable sources, you may want to post them to the RS NB and see what sort of response you get. Just make sure you have a thick skin before you attempt such a thing. Fell Gleaming 22:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll accept that Der Speigel has nonsense not covered by the Telegraph. Whether or not they count as an rs depends on context, and for science they look pretty hopeless. Also outdated, now that the CRU has been largely vindicated by two inquiries. Your enthusiasm for them is noted, and I'm surprised you've not rushed to add this gem to the relevant article: "Unfortunately for Jones, however, McIntyre's supporters eventually included people who know how to secretly hack into computers and steal data." However, in my view this tidbit is premature and we're better awaiting the result of the police activity. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All I know for sure is that you lied to me regarding my source in an effort to falsely impeach it. Forgive me if I don't believe you and doubt your motives now.99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IP address has misrepresented what the source says. He states "Der Spiegel reports that a computer programmed using Mann's methodology, and entered random data produced a "hockey stick curve."" He neglects to state that Der Spiegel actually reports that "McIntyre programmed his computer using Mann's methodology and entered completely random data into the program. The results, says McIntyre, "was a hockey stick curve."" Why are sources yet again being misrepresented? Hipocrite (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So... you believe McIntyre's computer...wasn't a computer? That perspective is rather bizarre. Fell Gleaming 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're going to go all the way around the bases on this misrepresentation of sources, but the Der Spiegel source doesn't present anything not already in the article. You know that now that someone actually read back and quoted the source to you. I know you think my time is free and valueless, so misrepresenting sources (by omission) by you and people you agree with is ok, but I recollect you were just warned about conduct exactly like this. It's good you're not 99.141, and that 99.141 didn't edit the article, isn't it! Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a prat. Nothing was misrepresented, and the information from the Der Speigel article is not "already in the article". Fell Gleaming 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a policy reason for this material to be excluded from this article? Because all i`m seeing above is bickering. I`m going to add this to the article unless given an actual policy based reason for it not to be in mark nutley (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be rather foolish (to add just because there isn't a policy against it). But the relevant policy is: WP:UNDUE. And an additional reason is, that strangely enough - the information that the anon wants to add already is in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Der Spiegel reports on McIntyre's claim only, and not on a new claim, but on the claim we already have in the article in the paragraph starting "On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper...". Of course, why M&M's claims are worthless is fairly obvious to anybody who looks at their methodology, and follow-up reconstructions done without the criticized PCA show essentially the same results as the original reconstruction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is already in the article — the fact that you can't find identify it should tell you something, but I fear your intellect won't even go that far. Lars T. (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As they used the same methodology as Mann et al does this mean their results are also worthless? I know that they are of course, but am curious as to your response. And i have yet to see a reconstruction which gives a hockey stick that has not used A- Bristlecone Pines B- the Yamal Dataset or C- using short centering to get the desired results. Post on my talk page though, lets try and stay OT here mark nutley (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....no, Mann et al. have not fed red noise into their algorithms. And it's interesting what you "know", given how many things you "knew" turned out to be plain wrong over the last few weeks. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content not me please. The reason random data was fed in was to prove that you got a hockey stick regardless of what data went in. Mann et al did not bother to do this, they already knew that without the Bristlecone pines included, you got no hockey stick, they also knew without short centering their results did not give the desired result. I assume you already know this, so why argue the point? Now why not get back on topic? mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there! You can't put too many denialist theories together in the same breath - there is no scientific reason why they will be mutually compatible. If the original methodology would produce a 'desired' shape using any data, even random data, then why did they need to include the the Bristlecone pines proxy data? With or without it, the same shape should have appeared? --Nigelj (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I`ll put this a little simpler for you. Bristlecone pines = No MWP and huge uptick, No Bristleconepines = MWP and no uptick. Short centering was used to ensure that the data from the pines overrode all other data fed in, to produce an even bigger uptick. All these flaws are well documented, perhaps you should look at how mann got his result and not slag off the guy who discovered just how badly flawed mbh98 was? mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Watch your tone" and accusing me of being "offensive"??!! Hold you own discussion, and have a look at WP:AGF. I'm outta here with comments like this. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your right, sorry about that, I`m a little touchy today (am a bit broken). I have removed that comment mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

" why M&M's claims are worthless is fairly obvious to anybody who looks at their methodology," -- David Hand, president of the British Royal Statistical Society and one of the most eminent statisticians in the world, looked at their methodology and praised it. Are you more qualified than he? Fell Gleaming 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the statistics part, almost certainly not. For the natural sciences part, quite possibly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should publish your opinions on the matter - and after a reliable secondary source reports, comments or refers to your opinion on this subject we can consider its notability and what, if any, weight to give it.99.141.241.135 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

David Hand rejected McIntyre's research, according to New Scientist.

Hand said he was "impressed" by McIntyre's statistical work. But whereas McIntyre claims that Mann's methods have "created" the hockey stick from data that does not contain it, Hand agrees with Mann: he too says that the hockey stick – showing an above-average rise in temperatures during the 20th century – is there. The upward incline is just shorter than Mann's original graphic suggests. "More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick," he told New Scientist.

The one person who FellGleaming cites to vouch for McIntyre's credibility ultimately believes his work is crap. None of this is new. Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong Wikispan (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to that article you got the quote from please mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry just noticed it mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the revisionists are out in force today:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

Fell Gleaming 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Wikispan, i do not see what you have quoted in the link you have provided. Which section of the article is it in? mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Spin from the Torygraph. What did Hands actually say? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Counter-spin and ad-hominem attack on the messenger from the committed activist using Misplaced Pages to further his own political goals.99.141.241.135 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

McExperts

Actual email on the subject from Michael Mann, when asked to provide data so his results could be verified:

  HI Phil,
  Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be
  sure it falls into the "no good" category.
  There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest
  Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it
  publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't
  be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL
  paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
  I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of
  their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do
  so at our own peril!
  talk to you later,
  mike

• http://www.tuxwerx.com/Climategate/mail/1076359809.txt

What's mikey so afraid of, Hrm? Such an attitude is so contrary to basic scientific procedure and methodology that words can hardly express it. Fell Gleaming 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're soapbxing and ranting, as well as being deliberately disrespectful. In this case, however, Mann's sin (according to you) appears to be not giving persons unspecified a copy of the dataset he digitised by hand from a J & D'A paper. This looks very similar to the spurious (and now indeed found to be spurious) complaints against Jones - that he wouldn't give others peoples data when not allowed to do so. Do you have any intent at all to improve the page itself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Providing data to somebody with a disposition to beat evidence out of shape to support a prior position is a pointless exercise indeed. There are plenty of examples of this―where scientists have told McExperts to "hop it"―outside of Climatology. Wikispan (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How is an email from Mann himself, on his attempts to prevent others from verifying his Hockey Stick results -- not relevant to the Hockey Stick controversy? Whitewash much? Fell Gleaming 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• NA-Class Environment pages
• NA-importance Environment pages
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics