Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 5 February 2010 (→Notification of article probation: I strongly suggest that you change your mode of interaction at "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BLP

Do not re-insert material that has been challenged on the basis of being a WP:BLP violation, as you did here. That sort of behaviour can get you blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I'm simply informing you of the risks you take when you choose to insert material that violates BLP. As an active editor on the page, I would not block you myself. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read the discussion of the article's talk page. More to the point, when something has been removed as a BLP violation, you need to stop and figure out why. If you believe that the policy was invoked in error, then you need to explain your case for why it does not violate the policy, and gain agreement from the involved parties. It's a policy we take very seriously, all the more so in a case like this where there have been death threats. Guettarda (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP is taken very seriously. It's one of the few policies which was mandated by the Foundation. Guettarda (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail news, special investigation

(Macai, in case you're no longer reading the voluminous Wikilawyering on the Climategate discussion page, I'm cc:ing this here for you).

The Daily Mail has a news Special Investigation with an excellent analysis, including an excellent description that references among others McIntyre's analysis of the "trick...to hide the decline" which I previously submitted above. So this is an unquestionably RS that describes that analysis. The graph and a summary of the description should be included in the article. Here are some excerpts:

Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.

There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical - and much more significant...

Briffa knew exactly why they wanted it, writing in an email on September 22: ‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ But his conscience was troubled. ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple - I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’...

Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.

According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

This is the context in which, seven

weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ - as simple as it was deceptive.

All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.

On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

...as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

Flegelpuss (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Do you know Nightmote (talk · contribs)? Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I read about him on AQFK's page, but I've been largely uninvolved with arguing on the Climategate article the past few days. Why? Macai (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He reminds me a lot of you. I thought the two of you might be friends. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit that you made to the page SCUM Manifesto has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)