Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 17 August 2010 (→Removing stuff: - no, not remotely). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

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

Environment: Climate change Start‑class

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

Template:Community article probation

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

PSU Investigation UEA Controversy

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Request For Comment

There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion a book about the work of Michael E. Mann should be included in the See Also section of this article. I think it is time for outside opinions on the matter so that it might be resolved. mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved users

• reject In the context of this biography, the book simply isn't notable. It might be notable on the hockey stick controversy article though (in a public perception part) to which this links - but note that the comment by Judith Curry so flung around, states something that is overlooked, but rather important: The book has been widely (to the extent of completely) ignored by the scientific community. This is a biography of a scientist, and the hockey-stick controversy is a scientific one. WP:UNDUE here, and (unfortunately) i suspect promoted here as WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include – Without commenting on the irony in KDP’s appeal to keep non biographical information out of biographies and his unwillingness to do so in articles related to AGW skeptics, the material belongs in the hockey stick article, not here.However, a link to the book in the see also section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute as the whether The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book about the work of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes, should be included in the See Also section of this article. Previous discussion started 3 days ago at #See also to HS book. Outside opinions are requested so that it might be resolved. Atmoz (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include Mann is notable outside of academic circles for one reason only, the controversy around his work. The hockey stick illusion is a book about that controversy and as such rates being in the see also section here mark nutley (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Reject I don't know if I qualify as involved or uninvolved on this article but I'll play it safe and put my comments under the involved section. AFAIK, the concensus of the scientific community is that global warming is real and primarily the result of mankind. The book in question supports a minority (possibly fringe?) viewpoint. There is no reason to include this per WP:NPOV. If readers want to find information about minority POVs, there are plenty of other articles they can read. We're not here to cater to minority viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• reject per others William M. Connolley (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include. The Hockey Stick Illusion has received favorable notices in a number of respected publications and from respected commentators -- see here (above) for a list. The subject of the book is Prof. Mann (et al.)'s paleoclimate reconstructions, commonly known as the Hockey Stick graph. Our article already mentions the long-running controversy about this work. It seems obvious to me that, as a service to the reader, the book should be referenced in the article.

Opponents of referring to this book have explained their opposition with unsourced innuendo, including (direct quotes) "smear campaign," "fringe allegations about Mann," and "attack book." -- see "See also to HS book" above and page history for context. They have been asked to supply reliable sources for these criticisms; none have replied. To omit the book from our article would have the appearance of attempting to conceal serious criticisms of Prof. Mann's work. -Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject per ChrisO and others. Note that the "respected contributors" listed aren't really. And with the exception of Gilder's self-published review, the "reviews" are very thin. Guettarda (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure. (Adding my comment here because I've edited related articles in the past, although I came here through RfC page.) I would have thought it was notable and should be mentioned in the main body, not in See also. I'm always strongly opposed to warring over See also sections. They should never be used to slip in ideas that would be contested in the main body of the article where sourcing rules apply. I see below someone has said "it's fringe". Not a relevant argument in a biography (except for stuff that is so loopy it will never be mentioned in the mainstream media, of course). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fringe argument is extremely relevant. I used the example below of the "birther" conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth certificate. They are completely loopy, but they have received far more coverage in mainstream sources than this largely ignored book, which isn't even biographical in nature. But we do not add pro-birther books to the "see also" section of the Barack Obama article, precisely because they're fringe works, just like this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a clear parallel, and I think the reason that I see notability as more important than fringe on this is an important point of principle, which probably needs to be aired in quite another forum, but I will try and state it concisely here. That is, that each article falls within a field of enquiry that has its own standards of scholarship. For biographies the gold standard is a scholarly biography that has become the "standard" biography on the subject. This is obviously impossible to apply in the case either of Mann or of Obama. Instead we use coverage in the mainstream media, as our sources, and also as our guide to what is notable, and what is due weight. The "birther" question is a notable issue in the case of Obama and deserves a brief mention. Similarly, the fact that Mann's "hockey stick" idea has aroused discussion around the edges of scientific academic, and in the mainstream press too, is notable. The "Illusion" book isn't RS for that; it should be regarded as primary, and sources such as Nature, the BBC or the New York Times should be used instead. Without looking back at the news coverage I'm not sure how much attention any of this merits, but I would have thought a brief mention worthwhile. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your reasoning, I think the problem is really one of weight. The controversy itself is already linked from this articles, which to me seems appropriate as many people only know Mann because of it, which is itself regrettable, but not the responsibility of wikipedia. The problem lies with this book in particular, or any particular single source or book being given such weight as a direct link. ChrisO's analogy becomes relevant when it's viewed in that context; there are many books and articles that have been written about the hockey stick, just as there are many books and articles that have been written about particulars of Obama's career (like the Birther conspiracy theory), but linking any of them directly would be granting them excessive importance. siafu (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the only book (so far) specifically about the Hockey-stick graph controversy. Certainly it's the only such book that's made it to Misplaced Pages.

ChrisO's analogy, comparing Montford's book to "birther" conspiracy theories about Barack Obama, is, in my opinion, so far afield as to be offensive. Montford has written a serious book, that has received respectful treatment -- except from Mann's partisans, sfaict. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresent the facts here. Montford, chemist turned accountant turned science writer, has written a fringe book that has been mostly ignored by the mainstream science establishment. Contrasted to the Obama Birther conspiracy, they receive a similar treatment in the public eye; one could just as easily say it has received a respectful treatment -- except from Obama's partisans, "sfaic". Both claims are, however, ridiculous; these are indeed fringe theories. The question still remains either way-- how is this relevant to Mann himself? If it isn't, there is no way to get past the problem of undue weight. siafu (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're offended by the Birther analogy, consider the analogy of including a title like Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers by Bill Kaysing in the See Also section for Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. Fortunately, this book doesn't have it's own article yet, but it stands at #137,328 in Amazon's best-seller list, compared to Montford's #90,695. Obviously the Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is quite a bit more obvious as a piece of fringe nonsense and yet it's sales figures would indicate that it's being taken "seriously" by many -- all except NASA's partisans, namely, almost everybody. siafu (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many respected commentators, such as Judith Curry and George Gilder, commenting favorably on either the "birther" conspiracy or the "moon landing never happened' business. So I don't think either analogy is good.

Would you please present evidence, other than your personal opinion(s), that Montford's book is "fringe". I hope you can see the logical fallacy in arguing that " 'everyone' has ignored the book, so it must be fringe, " which you & other editors have presented repeatedly. We are trying to be objective here.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, it's you who are presenting a Catch-22 here. If there are lots of sources describing this book as "fringe", then that means there are lots of people paying attention to it, which in turns makes it less ignored and more well-known. If it is fringe then it is not going to have many commentators. Obviously you're not going to have commentators like Judith Curry talking about those other topics, since she's a climatologist, and you will, in fact, find quite a few commentators like Mr. Gilder (how you can call him a "respected commentator" is beyond me) taking up the cause of Birtherism since it's precisely the extreme right-wing that Gilder represents that is championing that particular ridiculous cause. siafu (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject – the book is promoting fringe claims about Mann's work, not presenting anything notable or reliable about his biography. . . dave souza, talk 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, do you have any refs/cites that state that Montford's book is "fringe"? What I've seen suggests a serious piece of work, and Judith Curry shares this opinion. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since all the reviews seem to be by those promoting the "skeptic" side, there's no evidence that it has mainstream credence. Judith Curry's attempts to reach out to "skeptics" have been rather credulous, accepting their claim that pointing to plagiarism by Wegman was a "smear" then having to retract that, and she's in a tiny minority in her approach. Looking at the cited review by Mark Ridley, it appears that the book contains blatant falsehoods, such as the allegation that "Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down)." The book evidently gives uncritical support to McIntyre's claims to have proved the "hockey stick" wrong, claims which are clearly fringe and are rejected by scientists. . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from your wp:or have you any refs at all which say this book is fringe? mark nutley (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The book has been ignored by the mainstream, Mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that, do you think the reason it has been ignored by climatologists is because it hits to close to home? It uncovers some ugly truths? There can be two reason as to why it has been ignored by one side of the debate you know mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You just complained about OR - does it only cut one way? Hmmmm. Curry's statement is rather clear - the book has been ignored. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No Or intended just a point you seem to keep missing. Yes curry says it was ignored, does she say why? Does she say it is fringe? Or an attack? no she does not, she says it is an accurate telling of the controversy. Now we have no sources saying it is fringe, or an attack, or a polemic, or whatever else you guys want to call it. So apart from wp:IDONTLIKEIT no reasons are being given to have this in the see also mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, she is not saying it is "accurate". She is saying that it "provides the perspective of the skeptics", and she is giving no reasons for it being ignored - other than because people actually have no interest in reading it. She argues that people should read it and rebut it - which she argues (in her opinion) will be hard. But she is also stating that she isn't an authority on the issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ Kim, the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Context is the sceptical/blogosphere view - not the mainstream view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

• Reject. The obvious problem with inclusion is that the book is a fringe work by fringe commentators, making claims that have largely been ignored or have been rejected by mainstream commentators in the relevant field. It is comparable to including the pro-birther book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality or any one of a number of other fringe works in the "see also" section of Barack Obama. The bottom line, basically, is that fringe works are unsuitable for inclusion in BLPs in any capacity, whether as sources or "see also" links. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on you chris, but do you actually have any sources which say this book is fringe? mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See siafu's comments below, which is basically what I would have written in response to you. A book by a fringe non-scientist promoting claims which have been overwhelmingly rejected is not a useful "see also" link, any more than a book by someone promoting claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate would be a suitable link in that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject for similar reasons as ChrisO; the onus is on Mr. nutley to demonstrate that this book is taken seriously or represents a credible viewpoint, not the other way round. As it is, I have to agree that the justification for inclusion is exceptionally weak. siafu (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: editors ChrisO and siafu (above) refer to each others justifications -- ChrisO calls the book "fringe work by fringe commentators" etc.. Could either or both of you please supply sources for your criticisms? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling something fringe is indicating a lack of notability or relevance; if it's true, there won't be any sources for it precisely because it's not notable or relevant. If it's not true, then there will be plenty of sources indicating that. As I said, the burden of proof is on those seeking inclusion here, not those opposing. siafu (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Dr Judith Curry has had something to say about this book, and she certainly did not call it fringe "The well argued allegations in this book, which are serious, should be refuted by the mainstream climate community involved in this research and the IPCC if they are in fact incorrect. And if they are correct, there are serious problems with climate research and with the IPCC," and "the fact that NO ONE from the mainstream climate community is commenting on this (other than a few people over at Klimazweibel) is telling, in my opinion; much of what Montford has written will not be easily refuted." See comment 178

Looking over that source reveals some irony here, in that comment 178 you are referring to is a response to a challenge by someone pointing that no one is taking notice of this book (comment 175). Irony aside, these are just blog comments, not exactly high up on the reliable source scale anyway. Really, the controversy is already linked from this article (paragraph 4, in "Career and Awards"), and a link to this book from that article seems entirely appropriate, but what completely inappropriate here is a link from the page on Michael Mann (as opposed to a page about the "controversy"). How is it notable in this regard? It's not. siafu (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the link you mention to the Hockey stick controversy is somewhat obscured inside a pipelined link. May I take it you would support linking (forex, as a See also) directly to the article title, as a service to the general reader? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing obscure about a pipelined link. siafu (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And a further note, if there is anything "obscure", I think it is probably in the other direction here; the link you are referring to connects hockey stick straight to the article on the hockey stick controversy. The genuinely naive reader, that is, one who would be confused by an "obscure" piped link, would likely assume that hockey stick would link to an article describing the hockey stick itself and what it represents, say global warming. From my point of view, this already seems like an unnecessary cession to the opposing point of view to Mann's work. siafu (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I might add that Curry's comments are themselves a fringe opinion - Montford does no more than repeat claims that have already been addressed by others. What he has written has already been refuted. For instance, he regurgitates the allegations about the CRU emails that have been conclusively disproved by the various inquiries into that affair. The lack of responses to the book indicate three things - that Montford is not a significant voice (he has a very low profile in reliable sources), that he has said little or nothing that is new or interesting, and that nobody has felt it worthwhile to waste time criticising the book in detail. A book by a fringe writer that has largely been ignored is barely notable in its own right, and is certainly not significant enough to warrant a link from a biographical article, particularly as it's not even a biographical publication. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the book yourself, Chris? If not, could you please supply a RS for your assertions? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are reversing the burden here. Even Curry says the book is being ignored. If it is being ignored, then it doesn't have WP:WEIGHT. We are not here to promote a book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, Kim. "My"side has presented multiple sources that praise the book and consider it significant. "Your" side has presented -- well, personal opinions, so far. Have you something else? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for being obtuse, but I've only noticed one source being presented (Curry), and it doesn't seem to support the thesis that this an important work at all or that it is directly relevant to Mr. Mann. siafu (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What you have presented are activist/fringe/advocacy sources - the only one that could reasonably be stated to be relevant to science is Curry - and Curry states that the book has been ignored. Take a look at the article talk page for the book - one of the very problematic issues there is exactly the lack of independent reviews. You are advocating that because it has been ignored - it hasn't got bad reviews - thus it must be a valid/good source. Hmmmm. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include : Notability only applies to the article itself, not the content found therein (see WP:NOTE), so arguments citing notability of the book within this article are irrelevant to determining whether to include a content item on this page. That having been said, the book itself has been judged notable enough to have an article of its own AND the topic of the book discusses one of the most notable aspects of the subject of this BLP. As such, readers of this biography should be properly directed to other articles related to that notable topic (i.e. the Hockey Stick Controversy and books about it). --174.34.174.4 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Note - this !vote came from an open proxy, and is invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Within an article notable is referring to its weight, which is an integral part of the neutral point of view policy, and about as far from irrelevant as you can get :). The Hockey stick controversy is linked within the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. Ignored in the field, due to fringe content; irrelevant to Mann's biog per ChrisO's Obama analogy. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include. Though I do not agree with everything the book's author says, it is is not fringe just inconvenient to the mainstream view (I have actually read the book by the way). As usual, strict+ interpretation of the rules is being applied when dealing with GW (the normal Misplaced Pages bias on the subject).-Mariordo (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Include Of course. Why would you not include a controversial book written by the subject of the article?Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the case here - the book was not written by the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include The book is notable and directly discusses the only thing that Mann is notable for himself (IMHO). If it weren't for this hockey stick thing no one outside of a small group of close friends and colleagues would have the slightest idea who Michael Mann is, or care for that matter. --Rush's Algore (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (banned; probable sock William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Comment: Per User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor#Blocked, which redirects from Rushs Algore, "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username."  ???, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of notability in specific relation to Mann's bio? . . . dave souza, talk 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include For reasons given by Rush's Algore. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The purpose of "See also" is to provide further information, not misinformation. TFD (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Might i ask were the misinformation is? mark nutley (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a polemical work written by a layman published outside the academic press and pushing fringe science. However the onus is on you to show that the opinions of this book have gained any support within to scientific community to at least raise it to level of a respectable minority view. Could you please point me to a review in a scientific journal that commends it? TFD (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the ref which says it is a polemic. I would recommend you actually look at the publisher before you say it is published outside of the academic press I think you will find they publish a lot of academic stuff. And are you saying Mann`s work is fringe? as that is what the book is about mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for relevant scientific opinion of Muntford's book. Here is one that woud seem to kill the "fringe" argument, from Judith Curry:

"I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford. ... The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book." (About 10 paras into the interview)

"So I am laying down the gauntlet, this really needs to discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders." .

Whatever your personal opinion of Prof. Curry, she is a respected climatologist. Her opinion of Muntford's book is worth more than mine or yours, I submit. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Her view is that this is a narrative presented from McIntyre's perspective (and with a certain spin). And you forgot to mention what she also says:

"It is being ignored by the climate establishment, see for example Gavin Schmidt’s comment at RC when i mentioned this book on the Comments on the Second CRU Inquiry Reports thread. Has ANYONE supporting the IPCC and the consensus view read this?"

And that is what has been said everywhere - it is a book that is being ignored by the mainstream. Obviously Curry thinks its interesting - but that is her personal view - which has extremely little weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the author of The hockey stick illusion as fringe, which I thought was apparent. While the book was published by a respectable publisher they are not an academic publisher and therefore the science in the book has not been peer-reviewed, the writer, although he has a bachelor's degree is not a scientist and the theories are fringe. While Curry is a respected climatologist, she has not presented her views to peer review either. When she does, we will be able to see the degree of acceptance her views have received. If you disagree with the Misplaced Pages policy of neutrality, and believe that fringe views should have equal or greater weight that the consensus of the scientific community then you should work to change the policy. TFD (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, books are never (sfaik) sometimes peer-reviewed, even academic books by respected scientists. And peer-reviewd book reviews are even rarer. I suggest your concerns are overblown. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You should check again, academic books are peer-reviewed. (See for instance the debate on the sceptical environmentalist, where this was an issue... Some claimed that it wasn't (which it was)). And Curry's statement isn't a book-review, nor is it published in a reliable source --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You can follow the links to peer review and academic publishing for explanation. TFD (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sometimes" seems accurate: "Some university presses undertake peer review of books" -- Peer_review#Procedure (etc.). And peer review has problems of its own, partic. in climate science. But we are getting rather far afield. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. That's not what "see also" sections are for. They should be neutral, relevant and notable in the context of the article on which they appear. The HSI is an irrelevant, biased hit piece which is not taken seriously by the scientific community. StuartH (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Include. Disliking this book or disagreeing with it doesn't justify your decision to pretend that it doesn't exist. It should be listed in the See Also section but probably doesn't deserve a mention anywhere else. Users can follow the links to that article and the stuff about how it was received should be written on that page.Owen214 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reject. I support efforts to slow down climate change alarmism where it exists, but this book is not relevant enough to be linked here. It would fit on a page about Climategate or the Hockey Stick controversy but not here.Ocaasi (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Include (I haven't edited this article, but I am active in this topic area and have advocated using this book elsewhere). This book has been used as a source in an academic paper published by the University of Oxford . So this book is definitely reliable. That being said, I don't agree with using it to add anything other than general biographical information to this article. Most, if not all, information on Mann's involvement in the Hockey stick controversy, especially criticism, should be left in that article, not this one. A single sentence saying something like, "Mann and his team's research which produced the hockey stick is controversial" is all it should amount to. Listing this book in the "See also" section in this article is ok. Cla68 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, used in total to source a 39 word sentence in the introduction to a 42 page report. Really impressive. There are extremely more reliable sources to source that single sentence from. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a paper published by the University of Oxford and written by a team of 14 academics or experts on the subject matter, four of which have BLP articles in Misplaced Pages, uses this book as a source. I personally don't see how there could be any more question on if this book meets our RS guideline. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not using it as a source - they are pointing out that it exists. (which is impressive since the emails hadn't been out for that long). In hindsight, we can also determine that the speculative sentence that it is a footnote to .... Has been shown to be wrong, by the inquiry reports. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, and the it doesn't matter that there aren't any paleoscientists (a very select discipline) among the 14 academics who wrote that paper. What matters is that it shows that the book is considered reliable in the academic community. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have used it to source their assertion in the paper. I invite anyone who reads this to click on the link and read the paper and the footnote (#3) for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes True. They point out that there are allegations - which we by now know are wrong. Remember that the paper was written before the inquiry reports came out. They even tell us that the veracity of the book isn't confirmed "Hitherto, none of the specific critiques of this work by those auditing it have been adjudicated by reviews of the matter" - by now "hitherto" has passed, and the critiques have been addressed - and shown to be wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the question here. The question is whether this book is reliable. It was used a source in an academic paper. They don't say, "the veracity of this book hasn't been confirmed" or anything like that. They use it to source an assertion they make in the article's text. Oh, by the way, one of the paper's authors, Mike Hulme, is a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia. This book is not only reliable, it's recommended reading by one of East Anglia's climate change professors. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are used regularly in papers - that doesn't make them reliable. You can find lots of papers that reference Inhofe's 400 for example - but that list is still unreliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But that isn't how our guidelines are written, which is what we go by. So sorry, I disagree with you. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is how our guidelines are written. Being cited in an academic paper doesn't make the source that is being cited reliable. Sorry. That seems to be an invention. Do please point me to where our policies say something like that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim, you appear to have a strong personal opinion on the book, as do I, so I don't think we're going to be able to win each other to the other's side. By the way, for the benefit of other readers here, this book has been used as a source in two academic papers . Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Include I personally believe that when we are talking about Academia or Scientists in the scientific community they should be held to higher standards than other BLP articles, with the inclusion of RS counterpoint(s) as long as proper weight is given. Especially when taxpayer's money and lawmakers policies are based on the finding of said research. Calling a scientific minority viewpoint "fringe" is completely ridiculous, its like going back in time to the "Flat Earth consensus" and arguing with the Church in the dark ages. In Science the argument/debate is never over. The fabric of our universe is always being revealed (with or without Peer-reviewed journals). However the dogma of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming community would almost have you believe Mosses himself came down from Mount Sinai with their research findings. If nothing else Climategate revealed how that dirty tricks, censorship, and agenda-driven-researcher biased-science is used to influence Global Policy.--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

It was silly. There, happy now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume you are talking to me. I have no doubt that he has some number of peer-reviewed journal articles, but is it not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to not have a source that has discussed Mann's total number? I know this is nit picky but what is to stop someone from adding a "0" ans say 800? --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is better to try discussing this stuff on the talk page first rather than tagging the article. I think that saying "has more than X" is commonplace for highly-productive scientists. But in fact I think I at least in part agree with you: "more than 80" is pointless; no-one really cares how many. I've replaced it with "numerous" which is vague. I also removed the refimprove which has been there for ages for little reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The exact figure is 94: 39 as sole author, 55 as co-author. This figure is given in the PSU Final Investigation Report on page 18. I've added it to the article. I recommend mining the report for biographical info; it's full of useful bits like that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I added that ref into the heading, then found it was already in the career section, so I reverted back to the last version by WMC. I know most people on here can do basic math (on their fingers) but to add "Over 90" is WP:SYNTH. I know this may seem like I 'm being a WP:LAWYER, but that is the way I understand it. If their is a RS that states "Over 90" then go with it, but I don't think we should add that as No one has ever stated that. I also think the direct quote "Mann is the lead author of 39 scientific publications and co-author on an additional 55 publications" should be used in the Career section or in the lead, you guys decide. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not WP:SYN - sourcing is not required for trivial calculations (39+55 = over 90). I specifically avoided giving the exact number because it will be outdated very quickly. Are you volunteering to constantly monitor Mann's output and keep those figures up to date? If not, then we need to go back to a form of words that will not be outdated within weeks or months. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:CALC as well, which is a subsection of WP:OR. NW (Talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew that was in policy somewhere but I couldn't remember where! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

thumbs up.
I wonder how Mann's civil investigation from the State attorney will turn out?--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather little i suspect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the PSU Inquiry

We don't have any at present, and of course any we add must meet WP:BLP standards.

Here's a start:

In an essay on the various Climategate inquiries, senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann ... would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" ) ... Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false. ... In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Source: Climategate and the Big Green Lie by Clive Crook, The Atlantic, Jul 14 2010.

Note that Crook explicitly states that he is NOT a CC skeptic, and writes that "I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously." --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you can add that source to the footnote, because it gives good information on the Penn State inquiry, but I wouldn't add any new text as of yet. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an editorial. It's also fairly uninformed. And oh, I was an evolutionist, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

More critics: Fox News quotes Steven Milloy of Junk Science: "It was set up to be a total whitewash and the panel made no effort to investigate," Milloy said. "They didn't even interview the recipients of the e-mails. It is ridiculous."

A spokesman for Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives said it was a "conflict of interest" for Penn State to investigate itself. ). An op-ed columnist at the State College, PA Centre Daily wrote, "The conflict of interest is so apparent that one wonders why the university even bothered to produce this report on its own."

I'm aware that we need balancing opinions from those who liked the PSU inquiry, but the RS ones I've seen are pretty anodyne, such as this one from the NY Times: "Pennsylvania State University has found no evidence of research misconduct on the part of Michael Mann." , etc. Perhaps we'll just have to use those. Help? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you consider Milloy a reliable source? And don't say "because Fox news quoted him", because Fox also picked up on Breitbart's nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly. Tillman, what has gone wrong with you? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WMC, please tell me what's "silly" about quoting critics who call the PSU inquiry "difficult to parody", "a total whitewash", and an obvious "conflict of interest." For that matter, I'm still waiting for a physical explanation for Mannian teleconnections via tree-ring widths.

As for Milloy, his CV would seem to indicate a certain gravitas. Perhaps you could spell out your objections: as always, a source is always reliable as to his own opinions.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Milloy on Mann? Milloy is a paid-for lobbyist. His opinion has no objective value at all. As for the explanation: well I'm still waiting for your explanation of qi. But this isn't a newsgroup: please use my talk page if you have specific questions for me, or perhaps the science reference desk if there is a scientific matter you don't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• WMC, I could give you an explanation of Qi, I am an expert on the subject. What do you want to know, where can I post my answer to you on the subject.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Qi? Two-letter word, worth a lot of points in Scrabble. You could look it up ;-] Pete Tillman (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Qi – see the The Book of General Ignorance And in hot news... but perhaps this is getting offtopic. Why the rush to include non-notable opinions attacking someone's work in a BLP? Surely a reliable third party source is required to show significance.... dave souza, talk 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable for his own opinion? Sure. But then you'd have to come up with some reason why Milloy's opinion is notable. Guettarda (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, because it was reported by a RS? In any case, it's just a supporting opinion for PSU's COI, easily replaced if the consensus requires. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

News at 10, lobbyist ignorant about climate science attacks scientist. Scholarly third party source assessing significance? . . dave souza, talk 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? And what RS was that? (I assume you're not talking about Fox - that was addressed already, and you raised no objections.) Guettarda (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the Atlantic piece, as I said before, I think can be added as a source to the passage about Mann's run-in with his school's administration over the ethics charges. Otherwise, I don't have any suggestion for adding any more text to this article. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found one non-editorial article which includes critical reaction to the investigation: . I suggest adding the following lines covering reaction pro and con:

The outcome of the investigation was welcomed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Project on Climate Science, who welcomed it as a "return to common sense" in the face of "a manufactured distraction". It was, however, criticized by the free-market Institute of Public Affairs who asserted that it had not been an independent review and that the university was "highly unlikely" to be critical of one of its most high-profile academics.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV reason

Not enough detail on hockey stick controversy, so I've tagged it. At the least, the Hockey Stick Illusion needs to be referenced here if people are going to be insisting on including much less notable criticism in articles like Solomon and Monckton. ATren (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC

Please don't be silly, and don't indulge in revenge tagging William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of controversy surrounding this guy it is ridiculous that so little of it is mentioned, we need to add some of that content here mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What more mention do you need? There is already a very obvious link to the controversy article in the lead; that's pretty much as up-front as can be done. siafu (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice if everyone was adhering to that topic restriction Cla68 was on about - why are you participating in edit wars? What, exactly, do you want to change in the article? Please make a specific proposal for change. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. The decision is long-delayed, but anticipated soon, would it really hurt to hold off a couple days? It does look like revenge tagging, while there may be issues, I don’t think the first thing to do it to tag. The first thing to do is talk about what is needed. While it is understandable one might not expect agreement, one should start with the assumption that reasonable editors will agree on reasonable points, and only if there is intractability, should the NPOV tag be used.--SPhilbrickT 17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your right phil, i have self reverted mark nutley (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the article significantly to provide more info on Mann's career and to reword some awkwardly phrased bits elsewhere. The "controversial" bits are covered in three paragraphs under a new heading, "Climate change controversies". To my mind, the current balance in this section is about right. We have one summary paragraph each on the three principal controversies (the hockey stick, the CRU emails and the Cuccinelli investigation), linking to the spinoff articles on those subjects. If those articles didn't exist then Marknutley would have a valid point about adding material on those controversies here. However, as each of the articles is lengthy and detailed, there's no need to overload this article and turn it into a coatrack for secondary issues. The key points of each can be adequately covered in a single summary paragraph. We do, however, still need more info on Mann's career and work - I feel that what we have now is a bit thin, considering the scale and significance of Mann's work. I've done what I can with the resources that I have, but as I'm a non-expert I don't really feel I can get much further on that aspect. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I have reverted ChrisO's change to my addition, because it omitted important details. However, I did move it up so it follows the Climategate paragraph. ATren (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "better", and you wiped out a set of unrelated changes in your blind revert. You're coatracking the article - exactly as I warned against - by adding a set of allegations without any countering POV. The order of your edit is also wrong - the allegations need to be presented before the response. If you want to add the detail of Michaels' POV, please do so in the CRU emails article. For the purposes of this article, all we need to note is the general gist of the allegation - that Mann was supposedly attempting to block the publication of others' papers. There's no need to add lengthy quotes from Michaels to establish that allegation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your version is a whitewash, and it's your second revert. I've tagged it until the relevant criticism is added back in. You should self revert since this article is 1RR. ATren (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Atren, your version is an unrebutted smear by Michaels. Agree with the principle of keeping detail in the relevant articles on the "controversies". Since Michaels has been arguing against Mann from long before the emails, and using columns in the WSJ to make unjustified attacks on climate scientists, that's something that needs carefully balanced treatment and not a simple assertion presenting Michaels as just another climatologist. . dave souza, talk 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's perfectly reasonable criticism in a highly respectable source. Stop pushing your POV. ATren (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Atren – Oh yeah? Source added. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not under 1r mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, don't be so quick to tag stuff in revenge. I've removed the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, please consider the following:

• It's too much detail. This is supposed to be a summary section linking out to a more detailed article, where I've said your addition would be more appropriate.
• It's entirely one-sided. It presents allegations without any responding POV and no mention of the fact that Michaels' claim was rejected.
• Michaels is plainly not just "another climatologist". He isn't a working scientist, as far as I can see from his article, and is employed by the Cato Institute - an anti-climate science organisation. His affiliations need to be mentioned in order to attribute the statement appropriately.
• His claims have not been "whitewashed". They are still in the article, just summarised. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a whitewash. The more detailed version is clearly appropriate. ATren (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a whitewash if the claims are still there in a summary version? Wouldn't a whitewash require them to be taken out altogether? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagged the section in question as POV, atren is correct mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's another smear by Michaels, more detail available if need be, but that's getting off topic. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL at the argument by Michaels – "So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science." See Soon and Baliunas controversy. If the papers by Michaels were down to that standard, no wonder they got rejected! . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you clearly have a POV here. Leave it to those who don't. ATren (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind not making comments like that while I'm having a drink? You owe me a new monitor now... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@ ChrisO, Who? It made me LOL, but it wasn't that funny and I deny all responsibility

@ Atren, you're clearly ignorant about Soon et al. so do please study the subject. . . dave souza, talk 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And you're clearly so blinded by your own POV that you don't recognize that the threat by Mann is notable regardless of the context. That other paper is irrelevant to what Mann said and did. Once again, you are letting your POV cloud your editorial judgement, something very common here. ATren (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant ATren's remark. "Leave it to those who don't " - is ATren including himself in that category? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. ChrisO, I have no fucking clue who most of these people are. I never saw Gore's film, never read a book on the topic, never cared enough to even study the science. My passion in this topic area is purely driven by the inequity of the coverage, which is obvious to someone like me. You guys routinely push your POV and you don't even realize you're doing it. Look at the above: Dave is reading into the issue rather than just trusting the source. It's classic POV behavior and it's rampant in this subject area. You're just as guilty of it. Unfortunately, arbcom will probably not see it either because (I believe) they too have sympathies aligned with your faction. Incredibly, people like me, Cla68, Lar, and SlimVirgin, none of whom have any history whatsoever of activism in this area, are equated to people like WMC, you Dave, SBHB, etc, all of whom have extensive history on wiki (and sometimes off) promoting your views in this area. It's ridiculous, and an embarrassment to this entire project. ATren (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I doubt if you will believe me, but I also never saw Gore's film, never read a book on the topic, never cared enough to even study the science. My interest in the topic area is driven first and foremost by the appalling BLP editing I've seen here - such as Marknutley's very first edit on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately the way you went about adding Michaels' allegations is part of the problem. BLP requires us to be very conservative when dealing with accusations against living persons. There is a certain way to approach such claims, and that wasn't the way to do it. I've explained above how this can best be dealt with and I'm happy to work with you to get it sorted amicably. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, the hypocrisy is dripping on this thread. ChrisO, grand defender of BLPs; and the same editor who edit-warred to include a critical presentation from some professor's web page in a skeptic BLP. Sorry Chris, your BLP gallantry rings hollow. ATren (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're interpreting as POV is actually strict application of BLP. In the article in question, which has been so badly affected by BLP violations that it's had to be semi-protected for the majority of its existence, I've repeatedly taken out BLP violations directed both at the subject of the article and at other individuals with whom the subject has been in disagreement. We're not just talking about trivial gossip, we're talking seriously defamatory material here. My involvement with that article has been essential in keeping it in (fairly) good condition. Another admin with no previous involvement in this topic area and extensive experience of editing BLPs of British politicians has said that "even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers" - I think that speaks for itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, please. Your BLP hackery on Monckton was shameful, do not try to spin it any other way. 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: Do you honestly expect a newbie editor to understand Misplaced Pages's complicated rules on WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS on their very first edit? And did you take the time to take help this editor add his contribution to Misplaced Pages so that it followed all of Misplaced Pages's rules? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) No, but I do expect newbie editors not to post idiotic things sourced to cranks, and (2) at the time this article was being swarmed by hit-and-run editors, so there was nothing to mark nutley (apologies for the pun) out from the rest at the time. He just happened to be one of the few new editors to stick around and avoid getting banned or indefinitely blocked. Marknutley has since had extensive advice from other editors on how to follow Misplaced Pages's rules, and, to be honest, it doesn't seem to have made a huge amount of difference. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox is in the wrong place

Why is the info box in the center of the article? Shouldn't it be on the right? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

. I could fix that up, but I see it's not going to be possible at the moment, so I've given up on fixing these kind of things for now. Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's displaying in the right place (top right) for me on Firefox 3.6.8 and IE 8. What browser are you using? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm using IE8, 32-bit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked FireFox 3.6.4 and Chrome, and it looks fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked IE8, 64-bit and it looks fine. So far, IE8 32-bit is the only one with the formatting issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very odd. I'm also using IE8 32-bit and it looks fine too. Could it be your display settings? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried tweaking the infobox. Can you check how it looks to you now? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine now. What did you do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a hunch that it was the awards section. I added some HTML line breaks to make it a bit more digestible for the browser. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags

For everyone to note and action: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Article tags. ATren and Marknutley please note in particular. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've subdivided the controversies section and moved the tag Marknutley added to the section that (I think) he is disputing. If it's in the wrong place please feel free to move it elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag on the CRU email section because I added numerous sources from both sides of issue. If anyone cares to replace it, that's fine with me. I'm not edit warring the tag -- just thought it could be removed with the additional sources and balancing info. But it's up to y'all. Minor4th 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. I've taken the liberty of amending it a little to make it more concise and remove some redundant elements that were already in an earlier section of the article - I'm guessing you copied and pasted this in from another article, so it needed a little more work to make it fit properly into this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy

This section could probably be expanded. When I say that, I don't mean that the details of the criticisms of his research should be expanded, because I think that is probably more appropriate for the controversy article. Instead, I think this article should have more detail on the effects of MBH98 and 99 on Mann's career. For example, the widespread acclaim and fame he received after the two papers were published and the graph was used prominently by scientific and media organizations. I read that for a scientist as young as Mann to be chosen as the chief editor of a chapter in the IPCC's report was unusual and remarkable. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea. I'm afraid I don't really know enough about it to document it, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, I don't think that aspect should go in the "controversies" section since it doesn't really seem to be controversial. I've revised the article to describe the MBH98 paper in the main "career and work" section. We can address the aspects you mention as a continuation of that description. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Have modified it to clear up the 98/99 confusion, we should probably also give a mention to Mann et al. 2008 as work on temp reconstructions. . dave souza, talk 08:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Michaels' criticism is muted

The alarmist faction has whitewashed the Michaels criticism to the point where it is completely lost. This was published in a major newspaper and it represents the sentiments of many who believe Mann acted badly here. Furthermore, it questions the validity of the private inquiries which exonerated him, and there is not a word of that in the current version. Also, Michaels is a climatologist, so I plan to restore that. Finally, this is notable enough for its own paragraph, so I will restore the paragraph break. Mann's supporters here need to stop whitewashing this notable and well-sourced criticism. ATren (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another published criticism of Mann supporting Michaels. ATren (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Another ATren (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted your PA. Don't do this please William M. Connolley (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "independent support" is from Steve Milloy. Please, try to take this seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. You are evaluating valid sources through your POV lens. ATren (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, please stop attacking other editors. I am getting very tired of the way you keep denouncing other editors as an "alarmist faction" intent on "whitewashing". I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I've already told you that your proposed addition is a WP:COATRACK which is undue weight for this article, and I've suggested that you try to work it into the CRUec article instead. Please try to edit cooperatively instead of trying to force material into the article without consensus. I'd like to remind you that the BLP policy requires consensus to be obtained first, which you have not done. You're setting yourself up for action from the ArbCom if you persist with this. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not coatrack. It's impeccably sourced and relevant to Mann. I plan to add it back in later today. If you would like to propose an alternate wording which incorporates all of the elements above, feel free, and we can discuss. That's how it's supposed to work, remember? ATren (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest a text on this talk page. When you do, let's discuss it and agree where it can go. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

. ATren (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

Climatologist Patrick Michaels has criticized Mann for his role in the Climate emails scandal. Michaels cited an email from 2003 in which Mann discussed his intent to "encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in" a journal which published a paper that disputed his work. Michaels claimed that he had four papers rejected by that paper since Mann's email. Michaels has also disputed the findings of both the Penn State and East Anglia investigations, claiming that the results were influenced by "tens of millions in federal global warming research funding" which both universities receive.

Reference

The Climategate Whitewash Continues - Patrick Michaels, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2010

Comments

I am concerned that this proposed text states as fact what is merely one participant's opinion - while that might be acceptable in other articles, this is the biography of one of his adversaries. I am further concerned that Michaels' claims are presented without any reference to Mann's rebuttal. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how criticism is presented in other BLPs. It's fine. If you have Mann's rebuttal, bring it here for discussion. ATren (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you not read the followup, published in the WSJ? It seems like doing the source based research is a prelude to proposing an edit. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not cease the games and just point to it? ATren (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the above is what Dave Souza has said before - it's an unrebutted smear. The term "Climate emails scandal" is your POV. You omit the fact that Michaels is a Cato Institute member, not a working scientist. The claim by Michaels about the 2003 email is unrebutted and out of context. The claim about the four rejected papers is unrebutted. The claim about the funding of the universities is unrebutted. It's entirely one-sided. It presents allegations without any responding POV and no mention of the fact that Michaels' claims were rejected. It's undue weight in giving so much attention to one critic who has been a long-time enemy of Michael Mann, and it's unnecessarily wordy. You're also overlooking the fact that this material is already in the article in a less undue-weight form.

I'm going to compare what you're proposing with what's there now:

I remind you that BLPs are meant to be treated conservatively and are not a dumping ground for fringe smears. I propose to take this to the BLP noticeboard for an outside view. Will you agree to this? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, this is standard practice in other BLPs. The text is impeccably sourced and relevant. If Hipocrite links to Mann's rebuttal we can discuss adding that in too, but this entire text is a fine summary of Michaels' two main points. Take it to BLP/N if you like. If you do, I will raise comparisons to other BLPs in this topic area for reference. ATren (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll raise it at BLP/N as agreed. Please don't try to add it to the article in the meantime. It's your decision as to whether to raise other BLPs in the topic area but please don't forget that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not regarded as a valid argument. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources showing various views

I've commented at the BLP noticeboard giving various sources about the long-running dispute between Michaels and Mann. If any mention is made of criticisms by Michaels, these other sources should also be used to give some balance. . . dave souza, talk 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyviolation

The majority of the Awards section is a copyviolation of this .pdf page 18. Should it be removed until rewritten? mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was some works-of-US-govt are PD clause William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PSU isn't the federal government. It's a state-supported institution. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a copyvio. It provides the same basic information but worded quite differently. See below. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a copyvio, but it's edging a little close to plagiarism. It's not a cause for immediate removal but some of those sentences probably ought to be rephrased a bit more and/or the use of quotation marks should be employed more liberally. NW (Talk) 14:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion

I've started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about the material that ATren wants to add to this article. Please see WP:BLPN#Michael E. Mann (climate change BLP). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the category Climatologists as this page is already in a narrower subcategory American Climatologists. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 03:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Paper

This new paper blows mann`s "work" out of the water. Were should we put it? Here or the HSC article? mark nutley (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, first, you really should know better than to take Watts' anti-science nonsense as fact. It's revealing that you seem to rely on a blog that promotes crank conspiracy theories for all your information on this topic. Second, the thing you've just linked is headlined "Submitted to the Annals of Applied Statistics". It appears to be merely a submission. I could submit something to a journal but that wouldn't remotely make it a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly anti-science nor crank. Comment on content and try to leave your POV at the door. It is submitted yes but will no doubt be published. I also linked in the url for the paper btw. mark nutley (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First, your opinion on WUWT is noted, but not widely shared. Secondly, Talk:Global warming/FAQQ22 applies even more to unpublished than to published papers. And thirdly, have you read the paper, not just Watts' bowdlerisation? While the paper has a couple of whoppers, too, their reconstruction is not, actually, in wild disagreement with MBH. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course i read it, and it vindicates M&M does it not. It also states in short that the poxie records are junk and not fit for purpose. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago But we`ll wait till it`s published, the fat lady has begun to sing guys mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened to "try to leave your POV at the door"? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing stuff

Should we judge the content OR the person adding the content? Ref.:

1. "(rv it does not say hundreds of individual scientists in the source, wp:or) -> (rv - don't restore Scibaby edits or you will get blocked too)" and
2. "Virginia Attorney General's investigation: edit hyperbole, not supported by source" -> "m (Reverted edits by Sympaticox (talk) to last version by Arzel)"?

Nsaa (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Socks of banned users are routinely reverted to enforce the ban. If you want to take responsibility for the edits, do so with a clear edit summary. However, I suggest you consider the edits carefully. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that editing on behalf of a banned editor is unlikely to be tolerated by administrators or arbitrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I will take responsibility for fairly and accurately representing what the source actually says. Reverting socks of banned users is all well and good if they're engaged in vandalism, but are you really going to argue that an edit that accurately represents the cited references should be reverted to an inaccurate version just to stick it to the sock? That makes no sense at all. And ChrisO's edit summary that an edit that improves the article could subject a user to a block is nothing other than intimidation to push a POV and keep accurate information from the article. This is nuts. I am rewording this section to accurately reflect the source that was cited -- please do not edit war, revert to a POV version or threaten me with blocks for sock-related edits. Minor4th 23:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is off course the way to handle this. Thanks Minor4th. Nsaa (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

{(edit conflict) Stephan Schulz, are you blaming Marknutly to be a sock? He has provided a well written comment (read the first diff). On the second one I've added a {{cn}}. Nsaa (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a farce "rm tag, editor hasn't read sources)". How the heck can I read a source for an unsourced statement? Nsaa (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've spelled it out for you in the article. You're welcome, don't bother to thank me. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately "burdensome and unwarranted" were nowhere in the cited reference, so I have removed that portion. I replaced the sourced information that you removed regarding investigation of deliberate manipulation of climate data, and I attributed the "shameful abuse" quote to the individual who actually said it. Minor4th 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misreading what the Cuccinelli spokesperson said: "Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said the revelations "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants could be fraud." In other words, the investigation relates to the grants, not the data. We already say this in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The fraudulent act that is being investigated is the potential deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion. I'm misreading nothing. I really hope that you did not remove this sourced information once again. Minor4th 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming English is your native language, in which case it should be obvious that the issue being addressed by the spokesman is "the use of such data to apply for taxpayer-funded grants". Do you not see the contradiction between your claim and the spokeman's statement that Mann's conclusions are not being investigated? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, please take care to read the sources properly: the quote you are objecting to is in the cited Washington Post article, to wit: "This past week, more than 675 Virginia professors also signed a letter asking that Cuccinelli drop his demand for documents related to the work of former U-Va. climate scientist Michael Mann, calling it "burdensome and entirely unwarranted."" I've added the full quote to the reference so that it is completely clear to you, even without reading the linked article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That was my mistake -- I searched "burdensome" and "unwarranted" but I did not see that there was a second page where the quote resided. My mistake on that, and my apologies. Minor4th 00:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding the other issue, about the proper reading of the spokesman's comments, I'd like to raise it at the BLP noticeboard to get some outside views. I'll post a link shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've raised the latter issue at WP:BLPN#Fraud accusations against Michael E. Mann. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Minor4th 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The wholesale removal of the section on the AG investigation is improper considering a BLP notice was just begun and also considering this article is under probation and there is not anything even close to consensus about removing the well sourced section. I am going to give the editor an opportunity to self revert and seek consensus, and if he does not self revert, I intend to revert his removal of the section so that discussion can be had and consensus can be sought. Minor4th 02:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. It's about him and it's well-sourced, so there's no reason to remove it. SlimVirgin 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPN discussion and please refrain from re-adding contentious material to a WP:BLP until discussion concludes. A link remains to the main article, there is no need whatsoever to insist on a fuller summary here at this minute. Rd232 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rd, I don't want to edit war over this, but BLP and UNDUE are never reasons to remove when material is as well-sourced and directly relevant as this. SlimVirgin 03:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, why don't you paste the entire AG investigation article here? WP:UNDUE is never irrelevant. There is too little information available about the investigation itself - most of the AG article is about responses. In other words, it's currently hot air and vapours, and reporting it here is undue. Mentioning it is covered elsewhere is OK . Besides which, regardless of disagreement, the material is undoubtedly contentious at the moment and so you certainly should not be wanting to edit war it into the article prior to discussion concluding. Rd232 03:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly balanced in covering the accusations and the objections to the investigation. I'm not clear on why you don't think it's appropraite to include it rd232. Can you explain? Freakshownerd (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently repeated requests to leave the long description out pending the conclusion of discussion (which is how contentious WP:BLP material is supposed to be handled) are going to be ignored, so I wash my hands of it. I was just passing by BLPN (I don't watch this article) and wanted an appropriate discussion (prior to reinsertion if so agreed); I have neither the stomach nor the interest to deal with edit warriors willing to ignore BLP. I've also already explained quite adequately at BLPN why detailing the investigation here is wrong. Bye. Rd232 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And if passersby wonder at the "edit warriors" remark - this is not an unreasonable conclusion under the circumstances, given the complete failure to engage with the reasons given for removal, with justifications for immediate reinsertion of contentious BLP material including the red herrings of "well sourced" and "notable" (both of which are also disputable, but were not disputed). Rd232 16:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think the BLP issue is? Freakshownerd (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent]] Rd232 is misunderstanding and misapplying BLP policy. Removal is not proper except in cases where controversial content is unsourced or poorly sourced, and that is certainly not the case here. The information is nowhere near WP:UNDUE either -- it's a short summary of the high points, as opposed to a lengthy discussion. Editors from "both sides" of the divide have edited this section and included positive and negative content with reliable sourcing. There is simply no policy rationale for removing the content, and I would appreciate if Rd232 would further refrain from misapplying BLP policy, as his arguments do not apply here. To call "well-sourced" and "notable" red herrings in this discussion shows an incredible failure to understand BLP policy. Minor4th 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content should be removed immediately. If the quality of the sourcing is disputed, it makes far more sense to remove it temporarily NOT necessarily permanently pending outcome of discussion than to insist on retaining it whilst the quality of sourcing is debated. The quality of the sourcing is disputed because the vagueness of the claims creates insinuations; it doesn't matter if the vague claims are repeated accurately, there's still a BLP problem - this is well established BLP practice. Furthermore, if you need to look up what a red herring is, feel free to do so - then go back to where I made that statement. PS At BLPN you mention factionalism - well an insistence on maintaining vague accusations of fraud even before discussion on it concludes looks a damn sight more factional than wanting it removed temporarily pending discussion on whether to remove it permanently (or until the story develops). Rd232 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, just to be crystal clear, the removal of contentious content pending discussion is a well-established practice regardless of BLP considerations. It just makes sense, in terms of cooling things down and avoiding edit wars and focussing on discussion. Rd232 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you not see that removing the work of several editors with different POV's has not cooled things down but has actually instigated an edit war rather than heading one off? The BLP "issue" was over one statement about the nature of the fraud investigation, and in response you removed the whole darn section rather than clarify the one sentence or deal with that particular issue. I have now clarified that one sentence so there should be no issue at all. Minor4th 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When The Washington Post is reporting something about a public figure, that satisfies the BLP policy. SlimVirgin 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely so. Minor4th 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not remotely. From the very top of WP:BLP: "it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reliable sourcing is just the start of the BLP process. There are many more issues that need to be considered. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

The Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation part of the article gave huge weight to demands on the University of Virgina which only indirectly relate to Mann's bio, and misrepresented several of the sources. Firstly, the WaPo article of 2010-05-04 gave context and was specific about the demands, so I've expanded that accordingly. Secondly, "Mann has stated that subsequent investigations have validated his work and cleared him of wrongdoing." refers to the CRU emails, not to Cuccinelli's accusations. Thirdly, "Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said that the Attorney General's office was not investigating Mann's scientific conclusions, but said that it was prudent to look into whether fraud had been committed through the deliberate manipulation of climate data to arrive at a pre-set conclusion." misrepresents the rather convoluted statement by the spokesman that the emails "indicate that some climate data may have been deliberately manipulated to arrive at pre-set conclusions" and "Given this, the only prudent thing to do was to look into it," Gottstein added. "This is a fraud investigation, and the attorney general's office is not investigating Dr. Mann's specific conclusion." This convoluted claim would have to be put into the context of responses, and is best removed as adding nothing to the initial claims. If preferred, the whole paragraph could be severely trimmed as previously. The spin-off article also needs attention which I don't want to get into, but that also presents BLP issues. . . dave souza, talk 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I clarified. See my edit summary. Minor4th 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV tag per ArbCom probation restriction

There is currently a restriction on adding or removing POV tags to probation articles in the climate change topic area without first reaching a consensus. Summary reversion of addition or removal of tag against the restriction is the proper enforcement mechanism. Here is the restriction :

All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted.

Minor4th 18:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an Arbcom restriction. Probation for this article is the result of a community discussion. ArbCom has nothing to do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It's on the ArbCom enforcement page. You are apparently not questioning the validity of the restriction or the enforcement of it. Minor4th 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

1. "Second University Review Clears Climate Scientist". The Associated Press. July 2, 2010.
2. {{cite news|last=Donovan|first=Samantha|title='Climategate' scientist cleared by US university|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/02/2943806.htm?section=world%7Cdate=July 2, 2010|publisher=ABC News

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles