Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

I've taken all the discussion off this page and onto the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. This was because I strongly dislike having the same war in two different places (or indeed the same peace: its the duplication that annoys). When I did that, I found that it was almost entirely duplicated. If you feel skeptical, you are of course feel free to check. William M. Connolley 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Duplicating?

Much of the "controversy2 here duplicates material on the temperature record of the past 1000 years and to a lesser extent McI's page. Some is wrong ([1] is described as being McI when its McK). Much is too personal (the papers are MBH, not Mann). I'd like to see a lot chopped out and ref made to the T rec page William M. Connolley 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the plot in question (figure 8, footnote 16) credits both McKitrick and McIntyre. --Spiffy sperry 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But its in a talk by McK, so attributing it to just McI is odd. Also, McI has been at pains to point out that he doesn't believe any of the reconstructions (including his own). All this has been discussed elsewhere; yet another reason to avoid duplication William M. Connolley 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hockey-stick controversial

We have a link to the controversy page, but nothing here about the controversy, which seems odd.

Plus, Mann's list of publications seems far too long. Needs pruning to the 5 or 6 most important, to be consistent with similar articles, IB.

Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a POV-section tag for precisely this reason. NPOV requires a fair accounting of controversies. The controversy is notable enough to have its own article; an orphan link in the Mann article means that the issue has been whitewashed here. A sentence or two is sufficient, but there's absolutely no mention of the controversy itself. -- THF 12:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Then add something rather than just tag-and-run William M. Connolley 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick is controversed, both from its statement and its sublying method. At least it was at the time of the publication. In addition, it is still now in spite of IPCC claims.

It is essential for the understanding of this important controverse, would it be a breakthough or a falwed work, would it be solved or still debated, to mention that historians have reported a warm Middle Age througout the humanity, with sure data about agriculture and about freezeing dates. The human records available to historians state the Middle Age was warm. Mann has claimed the contrary, supported by the huge propaganda means of IPCC. One explanation would be that his method is wrong, e.g. from a flawed normalization technique. Another explanation would be that History holds data mostly only for the northern hemisphere, for a +2 or +3 degrees in the northern emisphere together with a very surprising simultaneous -? degree in the southern hemisphere, African equator and other places where writting was not at work. Adding a dozen of words on this essential controversy IS essential for understanding the scientific context when Mann work was published, would you support his work or not.

Therefore, I plainly restore this usuefull and legitimate dozen of words toughly deleted with no explanation by software engineer KimDabelsteinPetersen, whereas these words make reference to well known historical data collected by historians, e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.

( Furhermore, as a scientist specialized in the most sophisticated and advanced statistic data and processes, I state that statistic models on complex phenomenons are usually less reliable than historical records when these are available. Climate is undoubtfuly a complex phenomenon or, to be more explicit, a complex set of complex phenomenons. Therefore, if both sets of claiming clash although each seems to be consistant and produced from state of the art techniques, the historical records shall prevail unless sure explanation arise for explaining the clash in another way. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 May 2007

Yes - there is a controversy, which is covered in a whole article Hockey stick controversy.

I deleted your paragraph of text - because: 1) its unsourced 2) its written as POV 3) there is a whole article on it.

Please read and understand the following wikipedia policies: WP:NOT, WP:ATT, WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your pretention to censorship is just shocking.

Who are you related to Wikipedia for behaving just like a censor ?

The fact is that each of your 3 statements is wrong.

1) My statement is sourced in its 2d version which you have plainly deleted too.

Furthermore this simple mention of a conflict with data from historians is famous worldwide by all those reading seriously on the topic ; even IPCC explicitely mentionned it in its report by saying following Mann unique stick that IPCC supporters had to work for having warm Middle Age to be forgotten. Given the passion you seem to have spent against man-made-warming sceptics, your seemingly unawarness of this controversy is quite astonishing. Do you request sources for the birth date of people in Wikipedia too ? No, sources are requested on uncertain points, or controversed points. There is no controversy about the fact there is a controversy between Mann initial (and current ?) results and known historians data !

2) my statement it is not written as POV ; it mentions a controversy and explains in a dozen words what it is. This controversy was not explicitely mentionned nor its nature immediatly elucidated, although a link suggested that there was some ... possibly about some obscure phisicist subtility ? - not to be read by any standard reader ! This is why a short mention of the nature of this controversy at the time the work of Mann was published is essential, whether you believe in Mann results or not.

3) the whole article on the controversy will not be read by most readers whilst the nature of the original controversy is essential because it is not just between some groups of phisicists but between also with all historians. Therefore the hyperlink to the article on the controversy does not fullfill the need for a dozen words stating clearly and briefly the matter.

Given your controversy of my writting, I am going to re-write it in a very cautious way. In other words, any plain censorship from you against my words will be reported and officialized as a conflict.

If the edit in question is this [2] then its badly written. OK, the English can be fixed, but the POVness is harder. As KDP says, you want Hockey stick controversy (or temperature record of the past 1000 years) for this, but its already in there William M. Connolley 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not. What is there right now is a link on a non controversial page which contains many things ending by a short paragrah about the controversy with link on another page which describes the controversy. The first link is entitled "temperature record of the past 1000 years" "for more details and dispute", which suggest a complex scientific contest but does not render the fact that Mann hockey stick was a anyway a breakthrough whether right or wrong.

I agree that an article on Mann should not insert details on other topics, but the would-it-be-right-or-wrong breakthough of Mann opposite to previously known data especially from historians has to be mentionned because it is essential to the context of his work and publications.

- change suggestion will follow -

Here is the change I suggest :

1)

"He is best known for his paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions [...]."

-> "He is best known for his unexpected paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions [...]."

2)

removed from "Mickael Mann" general section :

"See temperature record of the past 1000 years for more details and dispute."

added to "Hockey Stick" graph" section :

-> "His 'hockey stick' reconstruction of the temperature record of the past 1000 years was unexpected because it negated the warm Middle Age known until then especially from historians (e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie) on the base of the written records througout the humanity, athough mostly from the northern hemisphere."

3) (since you refer to controversy between phisicist, here an explicit sentence about it)

...2)+ "Furthermore his 'hockey stick' reconstruction is controversed by some other physicists".

—added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2007-

You have an odd view of the history of all this, probably fom reading too many septic web sites. "unexpected" just doesn't make sense in this context. I suggest you try reading MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports if you're interested. Its wrong to say that everyone accepted the MWP was (hemispherically) warm -even before MBH '98 there were known questions/problems with this William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is quite funny. In a few monthes, the leading theory shifted from a warm Middle Age to a not especially warm Middle Age and Mann's work was the masterpiece of this shift. The previous curves from UN included warm Middle Age several degrees [notice added latter by author : wrong ! tenths of °C only according to later labeling of IPCC graph], warmer than nowdays temperature(s). Following Mann hockey stick supporters did claim that warm Middle Age had to be forgotten. To many people Mann's work appeared as a 'coup'. Now you pretend that "unexpected" would not make sense ! If "unexpected" does not fit you, then I assume that "controversed" should be restored, undboutful although rougher. —added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2007-

Since "controversed" isn't English, it certainly shouldn't be restored. But more than that, your view of the history of this is simply wrong. Try MWP and LIA in IPCC reports (correct link this time...) for some of it. previous curves from UN included warm Middle Age, several degrees warmer than nowdays temperature(s) is simply incorrect, but if you think you can sustain it please provide a link/reference to it, or admit that you just made it up or copied some septic propaganda William M. Connolley 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK 1 : "controversed" -> "controversial"

OK 2 : your article MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports graph mention tenths of °C of difference, not several °C as I read it too quickly. I must appologize for my wrong mention of this.

Not OK 1 : Nevertheless, unlabeled IPCC former graphs admited a middle age warmer than today.

Not OK 2 : Nevertheless, historical studies show Middle Age was several °C warmer than nowdays temperature(s), based on ice-blockage of seas, lakes and rivers, frezzing dates, agriculture, human made contents of glacier and more (mostly from the northern hemisphere). Books were written by historians before and after your publications. propaganda shall not be suspected from their source.

82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2007, updated 21 May 2007-

In addition to the minimalist change made a few seconds ago (insertion of "controversial" about "hockey stick graph"), I suggest a revamping of the structure of the article, which is made confused from useless redundancies.

Paragraph "He is best known ..." just before section ""hockey stick" graph" section should be spitted and inserted in this very section : first sentence after (or at the end of) paragraph "Scientific American..." , second sentence after the quotation paragraph about his statement on "consensus". - added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2007 22:59 GMT -

Since Mr. Petersen seems to act as if he was the personal owner of this article, or at least the guardian delegated by the owner, which to my knowledge is none of us neither Dr. Mann himself, here are some info on the minimal change introduced by me a few minutes ago, then deleted by Mr. Petersen, then restored, then deleted, then restored: 1- The hockey graph has always been deeply controversial since it negates the well-known most important periods of climate change in the past millennium: the warm Middle Age and the Little Ice Age, both of them too clearly written in the human History for being simply negated. 2- Although his work was, on the best, relatively small compared to the hugeness of the task of measuring the temperature throughout continents and centuries, he used his position in IPCC for enforcing his graph as a so-called scientific worldwide consensus in 2001 which it was certainly not. 3- The hockey stick graph was shown in the peer-reviewed literature as being produced from a flawed statistical methodology and also a doubtful choice and use of proxy data. Dr Mann has tried to deny this but many experts are far from being convinced by his arguments. 4- The hockey stick is withdrawn by IPCC itself in 2007 report. For each of these reasons, using "controversial" for his "hockey stick" graph is not a too hard word; for the conjunction of them it is probably strongly moderate. Therefore stating his 1998 hockey stick graph, used as 2001 IPPC graph, is "controversial" is not a POV but a moderate statement. - xavdr 14th July 2007 01:23 GMT -

All of that is total twaddle, but most obviously #4, since the HS is in the 2007 report William M. Connolley 11:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

All of what I have stated is right, including #4 in the meaning that HS has been withdrawn as the consensus. IPCC reconstructions graphs now restore warm Middle Age as well as Little Ice Age, therefore inflicting a denying to the "hockey stick" dogma introduced in IPCC 2001 as a consensus while it was a deep controversy. - xavdr / 82.243.22.25 14th July 2007 23:37 GMT -

Nope, its still twaddle, they HS hasn't been withdrawn, its still being used, and all of the other reconstructions used show pretty much the *same* MWP temperatures William M. Connolley 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to make this article honnestly informative, we have to add the following info inside this very article (not deported to remote articles) : 1- 1998 "hockey stick" graph, for which Mann is originaly famous far outside the scientific world, did negate (thorougly) warm Middle Age and (almost thoroughly) Little Ice Age, 2a- it was conflictual e.g. against the reports made by historians such as Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie from strong and numerous evidences, 2b- it has been stated by IPCC 2001 as a consensus, 2c- this consensus has been withdrawn by IPCC 2007.

(3) Furthermore, I state again that the current structure of the article is not proper so as it even triggers logical redundancies. In order to clean that the paragraph "He is best known ..." has to be dispatched into previous/next ones.

- xavdr / 82.243.22.25 15th July 2007 01:17 GMT -

Much of what you say is badly wrong. IPCC 2001 didn't say here was a consensus on HS. It used it, because it was the only figure available. 2007 didn't withdraw the HS, it used it and a number of other studies which had subsequently become available. You'll notice that the HS, and all the oter graphs, pretty well agree as to the MWP William M. Connolley 13:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear William I am so happy that you already acknowledge some of my critics on IPCC, MANN and the "hockey stick". Let us work on you forth for the critics you do not acknowledge yet following their formulation hereabove.

> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : IPCC 2001 didn't say here was a consensus on HS.

IPCC 2001 used outrageously prominently the “hockey stick” graph in the policymakers’ summary were it was the sole graph for such reconstruction. Some of its components were said to be “likely”. This meant that IPCC 2001 policymakers’ summary stated “hockey stick” as a state-of-the-art consensus although results would possibly have to be adjusted with future technological progress. Following IPCC magister, it was displayed as a consensus by media and explicitly used as such by politicians worldwide, with the implicit or explicit complicity of the alarmists “scientists” who promoted it.

On another hand, the related chapter of scientific basis displayed several graphs, although selected and/or truncated, thus acknowledging Little Ice Age but hidding a warm Medieval Period longer and warmer than 20th century. It seems that UN/IPCC is a traditional multi-level bureaucracy, each level pursuing its political agenda by cheating with the honest rendering of the reports from the lower level. By this way USSR had paper harvests double the real harvests.

> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : It used it [MANN's "hockey stick"], because it was the only figure available.

Dr CONNOLLEY ! Such a mistake ! How is it possible ?

i- [| IPCC 2001 / Scientific Basis / Chapter 2] displayed JONES et al. as well as BRIFFA et al. which kept Little Ice Age but had a mild Medieval Period. This display was a precursor of IPCC 2007 spaghetti multi-graph but only MANNs flawed-PCA (not explicitly known as such then) was furthermore prominently displayed individually, benefiting of a trend analysis, although it was from far the less credible since it negates the major climatic events largely known from History (cf. ii-) and for which amplitude of warmth and cold was measured via boreholes (cf. iii-). There was also a small balck-and-white display of a truncation of POLLACK et al. borehole-based temperature reconstitution(cf. iii-) thus hidding its prominent long Warm Medieval Period and its prominent ancien-time very long warm period.

Oops yes, assuming you mean [3], there were others available. But they look much the same. You're wrong about Pollack William M. Connolley 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr Connolley ! Such a mistake again ! How is it possible ? I am afraid I am right on Pollack too ! [4] --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

--> discussion pasted at the bottom of the page -proper procedure- please stop editingthe body of this text written in July. --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ii- There was the figure in IPCC 1995 report, similar to those provided by historians. This qualitative reconstruction showed a warm Medieval Period, warmer than 20th century average, and a cold Little Ice Age. With no compensation to the knowledge brought by historians this figure had disappeared in IPCC 2001.

iii- There was the one of HUANG, POLLACK and SHEN from 6 000 boreholes. This technology measures temperatures and tries to reverse-engineer the propagation of thermic waves in the geological layers. Therefore it is claimed to be exact in the temperature dimension although in the temporal dimension it becomes blurrier and blurrier then even badly melted for old ages. It showed a cold Little Ice Age and a warm Medieval Period, then another cold period and a one-block long warm period, coming out from a (???) 18 000 years-ago ice age.

Some other parts of IPCC 2001 were much more honest. For example the part dedicated to non-polar glaciers mentioned the fact that their recent decreasement has actually begun not later than ~=1850, thus conflicting with MANN et al. if we assume that the retreat of most glaciers would be due to global warming.

Even the part dedicated to reconstructions was not as dishonest as the summary for policymakers. At least it displayed the Little Ice Age from POLLACK boreholes reconstruction although truncating the rest of the graph, thus hiding the warm Medieval Period and the more ancient longer warm period. It mentioned JONES and BRIFFA although not highlighting them as much as the obvisoulsy unreliable MANN et al. So this part more or less acknowledged that “hockey stick” was against others consensus on Little Ice Age, but it was hiding that there was no new consensus on a no-longer-warm Medieval Period.

By the way, William M. CONNOLLEY, what do you have to say for your own defense about preventing the opinion to believe MANN’s “hockey stick” was consensus which it was not ? You have the double status of scientist on a politically-hot-topic and political activist. Only few people can endorse both without damaging their scientific reliability.

> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : 2007 didn't withdraw the HS, it used it and a number of other studies which had subsequently become available.

I understand IPCC 2007 hid it in a messy spaghetti multi-graph and stop using it prominently and suggesting it was a consensus. On one hand given its huge prominence in IPCC 2001, this was a repudiation. On another hand, IPCC seems to have refused to acknowledge “hockey stick” is an artifact of a flawed statistic technique (a flawedly normalized PCA ), so IPCC 2007 can not avoid a significant credibility loss in publishing it even among others.

Thus comes out the result of its sovietoïd bureaucratic life.

> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : You'll notice that the HS, and all the oter graphs, pretty well agree as to the MWP

You will notice that the key feature and prominent use of the “hockey stick” (a flat curve until industrial age) is completely wrong.

You will notice that the “hockey stick” denies the sequence Warm Medieval Period – Little Ice Age – Industrial Times, essential to the understanding of History.

You will notice that other reconstructions such as the one of MOBERG et al. display Warm Medieval Period warmer and much longer than average 20th century.

By the way :

You will notice that the PCA method used by MANN et al. for producing the "hockey stick" is flawed.

You will notice that without the flawed normalization in MANN's PCA method no dominating "hockey stick" shape appear (only a far residual with a small weight making it unsignificant).

You will notice that it is a beginner mistake in the use of statistic data analysis, and it seems to be a beginner mistake as well in the knowledge of plaeoclimatologic data since this shape is definitely atypical, so that a summarizing method such as PCA could not produce it as dominating shape.

You will notice that it is claimed with no denial to my knowledge that given the proxys used by MANN for MBH98/MBH99 and his "hockey stick" graph, when not using a small set of special tree-rings said to be unproper temprature proxy, correct PCA as well as his flawed PCA method produce no "hockey stick" at all.

For my personal knowledge can you tell me if this means that CO2 is so good for these special trees as their growth has flourished since the 19th century ? This would seem to be the main direct result of MBH98 to science. Or maybe the use of PCA was an original introduction in paleoclimatology ?

- xavdr 28 July 2007 3:28 GMT -

(

Oops yes, assuming you mean [5], there were others available. But they look much the same. You're wrong about Pollack William M. Connolley 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

) copied from the place inside of the body of xavdr's July text in wich William M. Connolley had inserted his August remark

Dr Connolley ! Such a mistake again ! How is it possible ? I am afraid I am right on Pollack too ! [6] --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_borehole_mystery.php William M. Connolley 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

This

• Environmental Science & Technology, 31 August 2005, "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton Celebrated a Global Warming Skeptic"

external link is dead - perhaps the article can be found elsewhere?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Its this one [7] (scroll down). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hockey stick - no image

Shouldn't there be an image of the hockey stick graph in this section? It's impossible to make it out in the spaghetti graph. -- 90.210.96.120 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected

please add appropriate icon on the article page. i cannot edit it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this is really odd that all the global warming and climate change Wiki articles are locked, even to registered Wiki editors, and nothing about Climategate is being allowed in these articles. These leaked emails that include Michael Mann are pertinent information, and if Wikipedia wants to be known as a timely source for information, that should be mentioned in this article. If it was anyone else, like Michael Jackson, then the information is added immediately. For some reason some gate keepers seem to be preventing information from getting onto Wikipedia. It's an outrage. JettaMann (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of recent reports

I've removed the section titled "Review of recent reports". A "latest news" item (which is what this is) is inappropriate to any biographical article. We aim to produce balanced articles that adequately reflect a subject, and this is particularly important in the case of biographies of living persons. The University says it's reviewing some of the leaked emails, so let's allow them to get on with it. If anything comes of the review that reflects on Mann, then we can decide how to integrate it into the article. --TS 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the item TS removed (with the title slightly improved):

Reliable Sources report satire of Mann and "Hide The Decline"

• "Meet the new Climategate counter-culture" at The Daily Telegraph

• "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science by John Tierney (scroll down), published: November 30, 2009 (ie, not his blog), NY Times.

• columnist L. Gordon Crovitz at WSJ (new 12/10/09)

I don't quite have the energy to write this up, but someone else might. Incidentally, the new Minnesotans for Global Warming video (link at the Telegraph) is very amusing. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can support adding this to the article as it is, because it would put undue weight on a bit of political agitprop. Mann is primarily known as a scientist. --TS 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony! I hope you're not in danger of becoming known as a Climategate humor denier?

You probly didn't like Gerald Warner's Phil Jones University crack, either? Tsk, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

i think it would fit nicely in 'cultural reference' section. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See also link to Hockey stick controversy

Separate point. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section suggests generally not repeating links there that are included in the body of the test. Since Hockey stick graph (which redirects to Hockey stick controversy) is in the lede, it would seem inappropriate to have it in the see also section. I would suggest changing the link in the lede to Temperature record of the past 1000 years (technically, what he did create) and keeping it as is in the See Also. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Mann’s Nature Trick

Could one of the self professed AGW experts explain to me what Michael Mann’s “Nature Trick” is?

<refactored, apologies, but see below>

The article doesn’t specify what the trick is or what exactly they are trying to hide so we should try and hash it out here and try to include it in the article.

Much thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a reliable source that discusses the trick, then this isn't the place to try to hash it out for inclusion. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for refactoring, but I think there is ample consensus that this doesn't need to be here. Issues are: (1) republishing potentially stolen material, (2) the lack of authenticity means the material isn't a reliable source for anything, removing the need to discuss it here, (3) even if there weren't ethical / authenticity issues, we should only be discussing it when it's covered in reliable secondary sources, since it's a primary source, (4) if it is a real letter, it would presumably fall under copyright protection, meaning that republishing it in full is potentially problematic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing, there are lots of them and thats precisely why this is the right place to sort them out. WVBluefield (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have different definitions of lots...and possibly also reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, so BBC News, Wired, The Examiner, the Telegraph, and the Guardian are not reliable sources. Fascinating. WVBluefield (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we need the text of the letter here to do that though. I'm not really familiar with the issue, so forgive if I make a mistake here. I just looked at the link you gave, and of the three hits, the first one describes this as a complete non-story (ie, there's no evidence that Climate change has been shown to be a hoax). Another story just dealt with the hoax. The newsbusters story does seem to allege that this is a bigger deal, but it also less reliable than say, the NYTimes or WSJ. If you wanted to include information on the hack, that would seem to justified, but I don't see enough to support writing much on the impact of the hack yet. (Presumably the main papers will cover this soon, or it'll all blow over, which would be indicative of this not being a big deal). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) could you post some of those links then? I didn't see them in the link you gave. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just saw some. The consensus of the ones I read WSJ Foxnews seem to basically summarize it as: climate skeptics smell blood in the water. That might be worth including, but it's different than them saying that global warming is now on unsound footing (ie, the scientific consensus has now shifted). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. These links, BTW, relate only to Mann and not the wider issue of the hacks. Wired, Guardian, BBC, Nature, The Telegraph, and UK Register.

What pisses me off so much is that the editros who were reverting me didnt even take the fucking time to read the information. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The ones I saw did seem to touch on the hack and it's implication. But you're right, they didn't address the "trick" whatever that is. I didn't see anything I would consider reliable (ie, blogs are right out) that mentioned that. Did I miss one? (Not being sarcastic, I just did a quick look). With regard to the post getting removed, I think removal was the right decision, but there could/should have more explanation in the edit summaries (or here). But I'm also not sure that rehashing that is likely to be terribly productive: I'd much rather address content issues to be honest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A small bit of addition to the above comment. I actually did explain why the text was removed on WV's talk page [8]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After the second removal you did provide a short and completely unacceptable explanation that was little more than a link to WP:TP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. There may be reliable sources that discuss this email, and that discuss that there is some sort of a trick. Are there any reliable sources that actually discuss the trick itself? It appears that most of the sources that speculate on the trick are blogs and forums. Your original comment appeared to be asking for discussion here to figure out what the trick was so that it could be included. --Onorem♠Dil 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see above. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@O: Well... if you consider RealClimate a reliable source (the subject of this page is an author of that blog), then the 'trick' is "just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear". -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing editing the thread? I though it was so offensive to you that it had to be deleted ASAP and wasnt worthy of any discussion at all. WVBluefield (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions that are unrelated to article improvement for this user, please use their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please strike, delete, or refactor that. I consider it a person attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WVBluefield (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So, to address the content, there's a nice summary of this by Nate Silver here. I probably wouldn't claim that's Silver's a RS, since he does admit to having slightly liberal politics, but I do trust his ability to do statistical analysis. He reads this as a tempest in a teacup, which would seem to jibe with what the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews links above seem to say. Basically, the 'trick' was how to jazz up a graph for impact, not tweaking data. I'm not saying that's the end of it, but that does seem to be the consensus of the reliable sources I've seen. If there are others (RS's that is, not blogs) out there with differing views, it'd be nice to see them.

There is an explanation of the 'trick' from the source here http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update but context still needs work. My understanding is it means pre-1960, the graph shows reconstruction/proxy data, post-1960, instrumental data. This is a well known 'issue' given some proxys diverge from the instrumental record after that point. This may not be the appropriate place to discuss the controversy though. To explain the controversy, Jones explanation should be used, along with an explanation of the 'MXD divergence'.

Otherwise, is there any oppostion to adding a section reviewing the data theft, and summarizing the reaction? For the reaction, I'd probably go with what I have above about climate change skeptics smelling blood in the water, but there being no net change in the scientific consensus. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There will absolutely eventually be a section in this article titled "Controversy" that will be well sourced and present NPOV information. Those who would not like to see this happen are wasting their time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.213.19 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my strong support to inclusion of the so-called "controversy" section -- it seems as if the only reason one would disagree with this is because they don't like what happened. Certainly using "non-encyclopedic" excuses as the editors have attempted to here, amount to nothing more than a feeble attempt at a scape goat. Strong Support jheiv (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article additions for when protection expires

Could the interested editors please "beta" test their proposed edits here on the talk page before the protection expires on the 14th? I'd like to see some consensus reached on the talk page so an addition regarding the controversy can be made. The alternative, I fear, is an edit war and an administrator full-protecting the page again and locking out important edits.

I would copy some of the edits from the history of the article, but it might be more appropriate for the edit authors to do so, as circumstances and facts have changed since protection. jheiv (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a change that was made and reverted before protection, you can briefly describe it in a new section and give a difference link to the revision. There is at least discussion above, so I hold out some hope that the consensus model of editing will be preferred when protection expires in a few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU hack, anonymous IP edit warring, etc

Guys, I am a climate change skeptic and I fully agree with William M. Connolley et al. that none of this CRU hack stuff should be appearing in Mann's or Jones' biographies, by appeal to WP:NOT#NEWS. If wrong doing has occurred, let's all agree that the dust hasn't settled, and it's hardly clear exactly what that wrong doing might have been, or what the significance is of it, at this stage. In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment.

I believe a better & more maintainable solution for Mann's biography would be to remove this hockey stick controversy section from his biography altogether and leave that argument for the article on the temperature record. See what we achieved at Ross McKitrick's page for comparison.

The article needs a bit of a clean up too.

Would anyone support me on this? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting covered in Climategate, which I just saw on NPP. Just FYI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the hockey stick section. I'm not sure that should have been done as Mann seems to be the primary figure in a notable controversy in his field of work. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me, and I know what you're saying. But it was mostly quotation, bad style, and unbalanced. I've left a link "See also: hockey stick controversy" and the whole thing is discussed over at that page. Why duplicate it here? The first thing this article really needs is some reliable sourcing for what's already in the article... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree that the HSC stuff should all be done centrally William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)a

It still should be summarized here with a sentence or two or a short section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN, that's standard WP practice. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User Alex Harvey writes "In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment." What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia merely states notable information. It is not concerned with "hacking" or any other "ethical problem". It reports sourced notable information. Thats it. If it is notable and sourced- it must be included in the article. Period. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there seem to be some very confused people such as Alex Harvey who don't understand that Wikipedia is about distributing information. The notion that Michael Mann's role in Climategate should not be mentioned for some spurious reason just baffles me. He is a central figure in Climategate and it is ludicrous to suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned on his Wiki article. This whole Climategate debacle is being treated very strangely on Wikipedia. This is the only time in memory I can recall timely data being pushed off the pages of Wikipedia. Usually Wikipedia articles change with new information almost real time, but people are locking these pages until mid December to try and suppress this information. It's baffling. JettaMann (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's because we've had an influx of sockpuppets and ranting newbies seeking to proclaim the incident as TEH GREATEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL EVER!!!111 and trying to turn articles into denunciations of Mann, Gore, "the liberals" and anyone else they don't like. But of course your own comments don't illustrate the problem, do they? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Also, of course, Wikipedia is not "about distributing information" - that's what a router is all about. Wikipedia is here to be a repository of knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful for editors to compare this bio for Michael E. Mann with the bio for Stephen McIntyre (particularly the discussion/talk page). There are undeniable facts: (1) there is a "Hockey Stick Controversy"; (2)Michael E. Mann is the subject of an investigation Pennsylvania State University which announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann; and (3) the data supporting the "Hockey Stick Graph" was dumped or otherwise destroyed. These simple and uncontroversial statements are not disputed and are verifiable through any number of qualified referenced articles, but are not included in the bio. Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least two out of three are plain wrong, and only "verifiable" for someone whose preconceptions strongly affect his reading ability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One month on, Schulz, like the famous Sergeant with the similar name, still knows and sees nothing. Notice he doesn't actually say what is wrong with those three statements, since of course there IS a hockey stick controversy, (just as there IS a Climategate controversy that Mann is at the center of), Penn State IS looking into his conduct, and the CRU did admit that unaltered source data was destroyed, and yes, this has been reported in numerous sources, including the NYT, LAT, the Telegraph, and several other sources listed in Wikipedia's infamous Reliable Sources.

• Also, of course, [sic] routers distribute packets, not information, but smarmy justifications for the suppression of knowledge in the repository are necessary. [If you're reading this, it means that Alex Harvey hasn't had a chance to erase it yet] 173.168.129.57 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Archives

There are the older Talk:Michael_Mann_(scientist)/Archive_1 and the newer Talk:Michael_E._Mann/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.145.96 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved them to /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 respectively. —WWoods (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'trick' email.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Neutrality is not optional. Use of language which is, taken away from its original context, prejudicial, should be avoided in all article edits.

---

I reverted proxy temperature data from tree rings with more accurate data from air temperatures to deal with a decline in tree ring climate proxy metrics which renders them unreliable etc.

Whether the method is an improvement or not is a matter of controversy. The original text simply states what was done without drawing conclusions as to the validity of the method, and should be -- I think -- preferred.

Edrowland (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I hacked this a bit more [9] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't hack it. You removed it entirely. Could you please explain your rationale for doing so. Edrowland (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly not refer to it as a "trick", since that is not how Mann describes it, nor is it appropriate for the formal tone that we are supposed to be maintaining in an encyclopedia. We should also not editorialise to cast doubt on the methodology. Since it's been peer-reviewed and used uncontroversially for some time, there's no reason to believe that it's controversial in any scientific respects (as opposed to the manufactured outrage of political activists). William, I reworded Edrowland's contribution to ensure that it was more accurate and neutrally worded; could you explain why you removed it entirely? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

'trick' is the word that Mann himself uses in the Time article referenced in the following paragraph. It seems reasonable. But I would accept a compromise of "statistcal method" if that makes you happier, provided the desription of the method used is left intact. Grafting an unrelated series as padding data is most definitely controversial in any scientific respect, especially if the purpose of doing so is to 'hide the decline'. But my proposed wording did not actually comment on the validity; it only described the procedure that was used. Edrowland (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Definitely controversial" seems to be your own POV, seeing as the method has apparently been in use uncontroversially since 1998, in peer-reviewed papers. See [10] for background (the para that starts "No doubt"). It has only been "controversial" politically; I've yet to see any scientific source disputing the methodology. As for the wording, colloquial terms like "trick" and "hide the decline" may work in a conversational context between two scientists who know exactly what they refer to and where there isn't any scope for misinterpretation or confusion. They are not appropriate descriptions for general public use. You wouldn't find them being used in a formal paper, for instance. We've seen how the terminology has been used to stoke confusion and controversy; it's important that we describe the methodology clearly and neutrally, without misleading the readers. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've restored the sentence about Mann being credited with the "trick". There was no good reason to delete it. Vividuppers (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It is grossly unencyclopedic. --TS 11:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The reasons were explained above. You have no goood reason to ignore that discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reasons were frankly bullshit. It's all properly referenced and I've attributed the term "trick" to Phil Jones (which as was pointed out, Mann also used). I also note you guys archived a discussion in 2 days in an attempt to pretend it is therefore "settled". Time to re-read WP:NPOV. Vividuppers (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your addition is not remotely neutrally worded and is seriously misleading, as explained above. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

VividUppers, please don't perform edits for which you know there is no consensus. Put your arguments here. "Bullshit" probably isn't going to convince, but I'm open to reasoned discussion. --TS 11:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK well likewise, "grossly unencyclopedic" isn't going to convince either. It's just saying "I don't like that". Anyway, it's obvious you guys are doing some serious gatekeeping and I've already been threatened with a block so forgive me if I see your offer of "reasoned discussion as a bit of a joke. You guys should be letting the reader decide rather than censoring properly sourced content. Vividuppers (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the biographies of living persons policy. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your edit does not contravene any of Wikipedia's policies. I am listening, but you have yet to convince me and other editors of this article that your edit is acceptable per Wikipedia's policies. --TS 12:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. As it properly sourced (BTW, here's another source the onus is on you to show that it violates BLP. Vividuppers (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the policy again. I draw your attention specifically to these two sentences where the onus is apportioned:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

Problems have been identified with this line of editing. To justify your proposed edit, you need to do rather more than find sources. --TS 12:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK what substantive problems are there? plz see new section. Vividuppers (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of this sentence is untrue/inaccurate/uncited?

In a widely discussed email found in the leaked files, Mann is credited by Phil Jones as the inventor of the 'trick' of padding smoothed temperature proxy data with instrumental temperature data in order to hide a decline in the temperature proxy data, Vividuppers (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still dancing around the issue. The problems are already identified in comments on this page. --TS 12:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK so cut and paste them here. I read some specious objections but nothing substantive. Vividuppers (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not cut and paste them here because they are already on the page. I refer you in particular to Chris Owen's summary of 08:25, 21 December 2009. --TS 12:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That was simply a justification of spin. The term "trick" and "hide the decline" are a key part of the climatgate controversy. It not up to us to do PR for or against, but to relate what the sources say. In your preferred version, Mann states his science remains sound, but it is hidden from the reader what he's responding to. This is not neutral. Vividuppers (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

We have reliable sources for what Mann did. The technique is described in the peer reviewed literature and has been used uncontroversially for years. Although some people have made an attempt to misrepresent this, we certainly should not take that as an excuse to slavishly copy that misrepresentation. If we presented deceptive statements as fact, then we would be breaking all of our policies. --TS 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TS, and also note that we need to be mindful of WP:WEIGHT. I argued vigorously for a mention of the recent events in the article (which now appear in the last paragraph in the article) but I don't think its appropriate to litter the page with interpretations of the leaked emails. This page is about the person and if we were to analyze individual phrases in emails, I fear it would be horribly "unbalance" the page. More detailed discussion of the emails are probably better suited for the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page, but certainly not this one. jheiv (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with the inclusion of the legitimatly sourced material, climategate still takes up a small part of his bio. If most of his mainstream notability comes from climategate, there's still a long way to go before actions in which he was involved have to be removed under WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources emphasize the word "trick," so we're no better. Its continuous removal is unacceptable whitewashing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the word "trick" is extensively discussed and the meaning extensively postulated. This article is about a person, not the email controversy, and more information on this page about the emails clearly violates WP:WEIGHT. More extensive discussion about the emails, and "the trick" should be left to the climategate page. jheiv (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Even with the inclusion of the legitimatly sourced material, climategate still takes up a small part of his bio. If most of his mainstream notability comes from climategate, there's still a long way to go before actions in which he was involved have to be removed under WP:UNDUE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, lets not get this article locked out again. I also do not see a reason to have individual e-mail extracts in this article. A link to the climate gate article is enough to cover that.

I do think however that the criticisms and evidence regarding the hockey stick should be included as it is an important part of this guys bio.

I will write up a proposed addition over the next few days and we`ll see how it goes :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't realize that this [11] had been removed until reading your comment and searching the history -- I would support a mention of the hockey stick controversy provided it doesn't give disproportional weight to the subject. Look forward to the proposal.jheiv (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy should be linked, but only if it is not already linked in the text, which it is. "See also" and external links are for items that aren't integrated yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Most" of his notability doesn't come from the emails - sorry. (where would you get that from?) Most of his notability comes from being a scientist (per WP:PROF), and he isn't a public person (per WP:BLP). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The suggested addition is much to irrelevant and indirect to go into this article. It's also arguably OR - Jones does not explain the "trick", he does not formally attribute it to Mann, and in the end all this is based on WP:PRIMARY sources (as reported, but not as interpreted in secondary sources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this will get confusing, i shall open a new section for the proposed addition mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

edit protected

please add a link to CRU. it is highly relevant.

[12]

93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You would need to show a consensus supporting addition of the link for an admin to do it. The dispute above shows no consensus which defaults to the current situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. No one needs consensus to add items. Consensus <> Fact. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When an article is protected, consensus is needed. Otherwise, protection is meaningless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposel for new section-Hockey stick controversy

As the whole hockey stick controversy is a major part of this guys bio i feel a section should be included about it. I will write it up over the next few days and post it here for discussion. Should anyone wish to contribute to this addition please feel free to do so. Should anyone have any objections please feel free to explain your reasons here. Kim you say in the talk above that it is already linked in the article, i`m sorry but i do not see it mentioned anywere in the article. --mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hockey stick controversy has a whole article - which is where the discussion of that is. Which is why we don't put descriptions, outside of a mention, of it on Michael E. Mann, Stephen McIntyre, Hans von Storch etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i know there is an article for it, but it is not linked to from this article.

It is a big part of manns life so i feel it should have a write up here in his bio.

Are there any legitimate reasons for not including either a link to the Hockey stick controversy ::from this page or to have a small write up about it here?

I would of course cite the sources as to why it was controversial and why there were setante hearings ::about it. --mark nutley (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It is linked in this article (click Hockey stick graph) in the lede/lead even. Most of the HSC is a back/forward discussion of various merits - and is discussed in-depth in that article. It is a central place for it, all it merits here, and in the other articles is a short mention. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim you say that all it merits here is a short mention, but there is no short mention. The hockey stick graph link does not say hockey stick controversy does it? In fact there is no mention of it anywere in the bio.

The hockey stick graph link redirects to the hockey stick controversy -- I could probably just as easily be piped -- but using the current phrasing, it wouldn't be correct to say that Mann "originated" the Hockey Stick controversy, but that he originated the graph. jheiv (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I will write up a short piece which i think is pertinent to this article and you can comment on it then, maybe even help improve on it. I think this would be the best course of action.

I know you do not agree with this being added, but it did make mann somewhat infamous did it not :) mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

To speak of a "hockey stick controversy" in a biography of Mann is a bit like speaking of an "evolution controversy" in a biography of Darwin. This is a loaded phrase and must be approached carefully. Mann's findings as expressed by that long, flat hockey stick handle are now accepted by the mainstream, having been tested repeatedly and extensively. So any coverage of scientific controversy must be informed by this fact.

There have been political controversies--Mann's findings are not popular in some countries, and there have been some rather silly attempts to twist his clearly understood and harmless words into something nasty. I'm against the idea that we should give emphasis to such attempts, because even though we're in the thick of it now in a few months we'll have a better idea about whether anything will come of it. We can afford to wait. There is no deadline. --TS 01:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just political tony, a great many in the scientific community thought mann`s work on the hockey stick was also controversial because he never released his raw data so the theory could be replicated.

It has become an important part of mann`s bio and definitely mentions a mention here.

Bad joke time, it would appear you are using a "trick" to "hide it online" :)

--mark nutley (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Darwin is actually an interesting example. If you had a reliable source (like this one: [[13]]) that said that more than half the population of England were skeptical of Darwin's theories despite their scientific acceptance, that would be perfectly legitimate to note in a biography. Public controversy about a scientist's work is a legitimate part of his or her legacy, and opinions do not have to be scientifically valid to be included in Wikipedia. On the contrary, WP:NPOV requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented, and fairly. In the case of Mann, any such information would have to conform to WP:BLP, which means it can't be original research, must be verifiable, and must be written in a neutral tone.

All that said, I agree with Kim on this; if it's to be included, it merits a short mention, linked to the main article, to avoid undue WP:WEIGHT.

--DGaw (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see tony has reverted to remove the See Also, at this moment on this article there is no mention of the hockey stick controversy.

This is spin and misdirection, even if you hover over the current link in the lead the popup says hockey stick, not hockey stick controversy.

There is no way anyone finding there way to this page would know about the controversy at all.

Does anyone here deny that this is an important part of mann`s bio? Of course not, so there should be a mention in the article. --mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the See also, it's still there and still points to all the same articles. I only removed a redundant link to a redirect that pointed to one of the same articles. --TS 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does say Mann "is best known for his controversial paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions..." but it doesn't say why the hockey stick is controversial, which seems inappropriate--Wikipedia guidance on controversial topics says that controversy should be described. Because this is a biography, anything included must be most carefully neutral and verifiable.

Here's a verifiable news story [[14]] that states that the hockey stick is controversial, and describes the controversy this way: "[T]he chart is controversial, because from 1981 to 1999, it doesn't rely on tree-ring data and other proxies -- it uses thermometer readings instead -- and those are the years for which the chart shows the greatest warming." While that can't be included verbatim for copyright reasons, it strikes me as potentially the right tone and length to address Mark's concern. Reworked, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGaw (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Journalists often get scientific controversies wrong, and the Chicago Tribune links is an example of this. What made the MBH98 reconstruction controversial was not the fact that it shows recent warming (that is already known from the instrumental record) but that it shows no sign of the Medieval Warming Period. The temperature reconstruction is almost flat up to about 1900. This confounded expectations and led to a lot of scrutiny on the methodology. The reconstruction has survived repeated scrutiny and has been found to conform with other, independent reconstructions. --TS 20:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be just as you say, but the source I pointed out is a verifiable source from a reliable publication making an assertion as to why the hockey stick is currently controversial. Do you have a source that indicates the use of thermometer data is not a reason why it is controversial? Otherwise, your assertion of what makes it controversial becomes original research, doesn't it? My feeling is our job as editors is not to judge whether any side of a controversy is "right" or "wrong," but to ensure that any relevant controversy is described both fairly and dispassionately.

Anyway, just to wrap up... I wouldn't object to some minor additional content on the public controversy now surrounding Dr. Mann's research--not a whole section, given the short article--but I'll leave it to others to write something up if they think it's worth doing.

DGaw (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that it is not up to editors to judge whether one side or the other is correct. But it is up to editors to consider the relative weight of a source. And in this case your reference sticks out as strange and unusual compared to the partity of sources on the subject (see Hockey stick controversy). If the controversy changes and suddenly becomes focused on the divergence problem, then we most certainly will note this - but the assertion of a single reference/journalist doesn't make it so. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the links from "Hockey stick graph" which was a redirect to the controversy article and added a link to the controversy at the end of 1st paragraph. Also removed the "see also" links as they are and were all linked within the article text. Vsmith (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I`m happy with this revision, it shows there is a controversy and is linked to that article. Everyone else ok with it? mark nutley (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Template link to portrait

Template:external media is commonly used for a direct link to a nonfree image, and placed in the same spot as a free image would be, for the reader's convenience. It's a fairly new, but useful, template.

Other examples of use:

• Harrison Begay
• The_Siege_of_Leningrad#See_also
• Vambrace
• War_against_Nabis#Preparations

etc etc

I think it's a nice innovation, and am surprised it would result in controversy. You never know, I guess.

Context: I added one of these (to a portrait of Mann, from his site, diff), Atmoz reverted (twice), then ChrisO reverted. We used to have a photo of Mann here, but it was deleted, for bad license ims. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody commented, I put the link-box back. Apparently the actual photo had a copyright problem, see here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen Template:External media used this way before. Typically it's used at the end of an article in the "External links" section; see John Walsh (scientist) for an example. The template simply lists certain types of external links. It's not meant to be used at the top of an article, above the infobox - since it's not designed for the same width as an infobox it looks horrible. I've looked at a large number of biographical articles using this template, and I've not found a single one that uses it in the same way that you are seeking to use it. I've therefore moved it into the external links section in line with the usual practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you asked for examples of prior uses, and I gave them. None of these are in the external links section, and the whole purpose of the template is to put it in the same place as a free photo. Now, it's no big deal, but please look at the examples above, and we'll go from there. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC) PS, the width of the template box is adjustable. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For third parties who may be confused by looking at the examples I gave above, editor ChrisO has methodically gone through and moved each of the templates I used as examples to where he thinks they should be. One might question such actions, and this puts a new light on his comments on use of the template, above. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably an issue for a MoS RfC I would think. jhe_iv (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so nobody takes this the wrong way, you are free to edit as usual. Just be civil, don't edit-war, don't go off on tangents in discussions and avoid discussing other editors if possible. JettaMann (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New RS for Mann

Climate expert in the eye of an integrity storm at Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2010

Interesting profile & news story, by veteran science reporter (& media hottie) Faye Flam. Happy reading-- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The thrust of the article is that he has had three official inquiries into his research and his work is controversial. Seems like good information to add to this article. JettaMann (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading your precis I read the article. It's pretty good, but it isn't the article you describe above. --TS 19:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you read the right one? The one I read says exactly what I stated above.JettaMann (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You are merely reading into it what you want to read into it. The article is much more balanced than your take on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye out...

The Collegian reports that Penn State will release the findings of their investigation later this week. jhe_iv (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - Are we ready to include Penn State's initial findings yet?

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf The University has decided that further investigation of Allegation 4 is required by a diverse selection of distinquished science faculty. I'm sure the page locking crowd will manage to squeeze in that they decided to not pursue Allegations 1 - 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.129.57 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Penn State Review

ChrisO - I've made a couple of changes to your last edit. Mainly I wanted to break it up a little, so I've split into two paras, being basically 1. Climategate emails released and Mann's reaction to them, then 2. Inquiry held and (initial) findings released. Also, I don't think it's fair to characterise the inquiry as "Clearing Mann of professional misconduct" as it has left open the fourth allegation. I also made the point that no actual allegations were made against Mann. Thepm (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me - thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good jhe_iv (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial Bibliography

I noted Atmoz removed the apparent Curriculum Vitaepartial bibliography [15] in the article and then Scjessey promptly reverted the edit. I plan on removing it again (and from any other scientists I find it on, so far only Jim Salinger and David Wratt) because I can't find the same dull section in an article about a scientist outside of GW/CC. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not about a scientist outside of GW/CC that has it, but rather that it appears with some consistency in general.)

I realize this sounds like I'm pushing an agenda, but I have consulted other researchers outside of GW/CC, specifically:

• Steven M. Bellovin
• Harry Nyquist
• Jay Wright Forrester
• Claude Shannon
• Paul Dirac
• John Stewart Bell
• Niels Bohr -- similar looking but note that these are books and a single article in a magazine, not a research paper in a journal.
• R. Stanley Williams
• Bruce Schneier

Readers who really are interested in the research papers my Mann are about 2 or 3 clicks away, I'd imagine, given the external links to the scientists' personal site. In general, however, I feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to the average Wikipedia reader.

Further, in many of these papers Mann isn't the lead author (I realize there is no brightline on this) and if these papers that are listed are really of any notability, that material should be merged into the appropriate section in the scientist's article.

I'd like to note one other problem I'm having with the section -- it was under the head "Selected Publications" -- my question is, selected by who?

jhe_iv (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: As Stephen Schulz pointed out, my terminology was incorrect. I wrote Curriculum Vitae when I really meant partial bibliography. My apologies. He also noted an exception to search, finding another article listing research works (Albert Einstein). Despite this, I still feel that removing the section cleans up the page and does not detract from the typical (or even most) user's experience. jhe_iv (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To add: For counterexamples, see Werner_Heisenberg#Publications, Søren_Kierkegaard#Selected_bibliography, Albert_Einstein#Publications, Stephen_Hawking#Selected_publications, List of publications by Richard Dawkins (with a link from the bio article), Donald_Knuth#Works, Stephen_Kleene#Important_publications, Kurt_Goedel#Important_publications. Note that most of these are "selected" bibliographies - as always, what to include is editorial judgement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems many of the selected / important publications of these scientists are books rather than journal articles (I could be wrong, I'm tired - please insert "It seems" before each of these)

• Heisenberg: does have a significant section of research papers
• Kierkegaard: Looks like mostly books -- I can't really find a journal article in the huge list -- but I really don't have experience with these titles and I spent about 30 seconds on the page.
• Einstein: a significant amount of research papers listed
• Hawking: looks like all books, possibly one article if I guessed wrong.
• Dawkins: a tremendous amount of articles (and its a separate page -- I actually like that idea)
• Knuth: Zero articles, all books
• Kleene: 2 journal articles
• Goedel 2 journal articles (and one is complimented with a link to a .pdf -- thats great!)

Given these links, it still seems as if Mann's bibliography is not in line with the majority of scientists surveyed. (In the fact that there is a very long list consisting only of research papers and no books and that Mann is often not the lead author. I still think it should be removed (or pared down to a few (no more than 3) articles. jhe_iv (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links -- I'll check them out -- another problem I can't get my head around is the fact that most of these articles are not available to a user who isn't subscribed to either the journal or to a consortium service that provides access. This doesn't make much sense to me -- as if they were links rather than just mentions, they would probably be removed due to WP:EL sections 6 or 7. jhe_iv (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Publications are the visible output of an academic's work, so they play an important role in his or her biography. Looking over the various articles, it seems like the trend (though not universal) is that more complete biographies do have a list of publications, usually selected. Publication habits change - books used to be the standard way to express ideas, and "learned papers" were of less importance. Due to the much faster publication cycle in the last 30 years and even more today, journal publications have become the most important outlet for most scientists. I think a reasonable compromise for contemporary scientists is to list only the most important publications, as evidenced either by citation count in Google Scholar or ISI or some other recognized index, or by attention in the popular press. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that reasoning, but would you agree that trimming down the section is desirable? Also, how would you suggest determining which articles are appropriate for conclusion? Specifically, 50 citations, 1000 citations? For some niche areas of research, having 50 citations is extremely desirable, while in others, 50 is nothing and something more like 1000 is reasonable . One of the reasons I removed the section was because attempting to determine that is like opening a can of worms in my opinion. jhe_iv (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I've done these, I try to go for the most-cited -- which, convniently, is the order Google Scholar puts them in. Does look like some pretty minor stuff here, and missing some major. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so there still seem like two open questions then:

1. How many articles should be cited?
2. Are we concerned if Mann is lead author? Do we differentiate between sole authorship and being named 4th? (I bring this up because, although I really don't have a ton of experience with GW/CC scholarly research, in my field, you get to see groups of authors who often list each other (their "friends"?) as authors and vice versa in attempt to help everyone's "paper count" -- which, when identified as such, makes the authors listed towards the end of the citation appear phony. Does anyone know if this is the case with GW/CC or specifically Mann?) jhe_iv (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• [outdent] Maybe WMC can help -- haven't you worked with Mann a bit? I also try to give preference to articles available online (or AL link to abstracts), and include "pop-science" works, for the general reader. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 21 selected publications -- say 5 is the selected number, here are the top 5 in Google Scholar, with .pdf links where found:

• Mann, M.E. and Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., "Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations", Geophysical Research Letters, 26-6, 759-762, 1999. [16]
• Mann, M.E. and Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries", Nature, 392-6678, 779-787, 1998. [17]
• Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D., "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia," Geophysical Research Letters, 30-15, 1820-1823, 2003. [18]
• Mann, M.E. and Lees, J.M., "Robust estimation of background noise and signal detection in climatic time series," Climatic Change, 33-3, 409-445, 1996. [19][20]
• Shindell, D.T. and Schmidt, G.A. and Mann, M.E. and Rind, D. and Waple, A., "Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum," Science, 294-5549, 2149-2152, 2001. [21]

jhe_iv (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I Restoried it (well, I added it originally) because the papers *are* the scientists work; the rest is fluff. You may find it dry and borig; so what? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it dry and boring. But I think it's a WP:BADIDEA, and it would be much better if these were somehow incorporated into the prose of the article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better if the articles, if of notability, should be included in the article prose. My question about who selected these articles still stands, as they clearly are not the most cited, nor the most recent, nor (from what I can tell) the papers Mann himself selected. If the bibliography is to be included, certainly there should be some criteria used to determine which articles are shown, as well as a limit for overall quantity. My proposal is to choose the 5 most cited articles (unless a different, agreeable selection criteria gains consensus on the talk page, for example most cited that also have publicly available full-text to be linked to ) with a limit 5 articles -- thoughts? jhe_iv (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing all recent pubs is a bad idea. You make him look emeritus. Recent pubs are a scientists lifeblood. One without recent pubs isn't William M. Connolley (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the point?

Why bother. It's obvious that several of the editors here will bend over backward to purge this article of RS facts based on the incredibly flimsy excuse of how "some people" will take it. Grant money confirmed by RS WSJ AND USF, on his CV, but no, no inclusion, because it's only the value of TS's house. The central product of Mann's work is the Hockey stick which the UN stopped using in 2006, but that's not worth mentioning apparently. Direct evidence from CRU email leak (let's not automatically assume it's a hacking incident, as those who wish to discredit what is astoundingly convenient an otherwise indicative of a whistleblower) that the tree ring data which supposedly accounts for 1000 years of warming doesn't accurately match up with the last 40 years of instrument reading, but no, the user has to find the article on their own for that. Proprietary code (source not released so it could be independently analyzed) was discredited by Steven McIntyre in 2003 when he ran red noise through it and still got a hockeystick, later the function that produced the artificial result was identified in the alleged source code analyzed by Eric S. Raymond, but no, that can't possible be newsworthy. Now we have Phil Jones admitting in the RS Daily Mail there hasn't been warming since 1995, (That's the past 15 years for anybody whose wondering how this jives with the CRU's claims up to 2007 that the temperature was never hotter), but no, I'm sure we'll figure out how this isn't relevant. Here's a head start for you: I added Phil Jones to the list of scientists that say global warming isn't happening, so run over there Atomz, TS, ChrisO, or one of these other apologist propagandists that claim to be editing a serious encyclopedia. Wikipedia: Great if you want to know specs on a Blue ray or what an imperative programming language is, but nothing but an elaborate hoax for perpetuating whatever bullshit is currently fashionable on the left in the face of overwhelming evidence. You're intellectual dishonesty is killing what should be a great resource for students. Yes, I am impugning your motives, and I don't care what rules and guidelines it violates because you are all frauds. Read this discussion page and tell me I'm wrong. You're a joke, but Goebbel's would be proud. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-nw-climate-science-questions2-20100305,0,5307439,full.story [22] >> "Media stories have claimed that Phil Jones, former director of the East Anglia climate center, stated there hasn't been global warming since 1995. What Jones actually said referred to the challenge of compiling statistically significant information applying to a relatively short period. In other words, it's difficult or impossible to determine now if global warming influenced the climate in that time frame. "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods," Jones said. Temperatures fluctuate from year to year. But multiple independent studies have shown the long-term trend is toward a warmer planet." 99.155.148.45 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip. --TS 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How dare you accuse others of what you so clearly practice, TS. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To unregistered user at domain:173.168.129.57 First of all register otherwise no one will take you seriously. Secondly, TS is absolutely right.Bill Heller (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Mann received over $500,000 from stimulus spending

I propose adding that Michael Mann received $541,184 in stimulus money in June 2009. In fact I don't see any discussion s on this here so I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here. JettaMann (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because this is the article about Michael Mann, and we're supposed to include noteworthy information about him here. Receiving over half-million taxpayer money is pretty noteworthy. JettaMann (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I say add it.Bill Heller (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a seriously warped story. What's so weird about a scientist receiving a government grant? The story seems to have been written from a press release from an organisation for people with very weird ideas. Needless to say that is in no way a reliable source. They're barking mad. --TS 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann, you may have overlooked the fact that the content you want to include (a) comes from a blog (specifically Newsbusters, from which the Murdochised WSJ seems to be lifting content for some reason - its origins are disguised by the attribution to the Media Research Center, the outfit behind Newsbusters) and (b) it's an opinion piece and a highly polemical one at that. He was funded for "his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming" - oh really? You have to do better than that. The source is garbage and unusable for any Wikipedia article, let alone a BLP. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here is wrong: (a) it would have been far better discussed *first* - are you in a hurry? and (b) the second part should have read please remove it if you disagree. Please do *not* attempt to imply a burden on editors removing material - it won't work, but it will irritate William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see William M. Connolley is indeed irritated - a full stop would have worked wonders there. ;-) Seriously though, as WP:BLP says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Where material is likely to be contentious, as this was always going to be, it would have been better discussed first. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite an over-reaction in my opinion. I added a fact that is backed up by a referenced link to the WSJ, which has a stellar record for accuracy. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a problem with links to the WSJ. If you think the information is too biased, here's a different link: I don't know if you guys are all millionaires or something, but half a million in grant money from the Federal stimulus plan seems noteworthy to me.JettaMann (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You added an Editorial/Op-Ed, and Opinion articles are certainly is something that Wikipedia in general has a problem with on BLP articles. Half a million dollars in a research grant isn't very notable, and it doesn't go to Mann personally (you do know that - right?), it is for research from 2009-2011 for 3 researchers. I have to say btw. that i doubt if this is from any "stimulus" package - since normally such grants are advertised up to a year in advance[23] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, part of the stimulus money was short-circuited to already applied-for research projects with a strong evaluation, but no budget. So its not impossible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not even an op-ed. It's a post from the Newsbusters blog which the WSJ has reposted for some reason. The second paragraph makes its origins clear, as does the attribution to Newsbusters' parent organisation: "As NewsBusters reported on November 28..." -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it turns out to be even worse sourced than I thought. It appears to come from the 9/11 Truther blog PrisonPlanet.com - see www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-scientist-received-over-half-a-million-from-obama-stimulus-package.html] for the original article. God only knows why the WSJ has chosen this as a source for its own website. Evidently Murdoch has driven it off the cliff faster than I had thought. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So it is your contention that the $541,184 figure is incorrect? I highly doubt that the WSJ didn't do some checking on this, and so far I haven't seen a retraction. It's been many days and Mann could have refuted this by now if it was incorrect. JettaMann (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that we don't know if it's right or wrong, since the source is a crank outlet. A post from a nutjob blog doesn't somehow become usable by being laundered through the website of the WSJ. As for "why hasn't Mann refuted it", have you seen the number of claims directed against him from anti-science cranks? If he spent his time trying to rebutt them all he'd never get anything else done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go, absolute proof from the NSF listing the grant to Michael Mann. Let's post it. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure is correct (its on Mann's CV). As for why he hasn't "refuted it" - let me ask you: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet". Refuting lends legitimacy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure its relevant -- its almost like saying that Mann enjoys going to the Dunkin Donuts on College Avenue... so what? At least my two cents. jhe_iv (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems almost to be an attempt to claim guilt by association - since the stimulus is a right-wing bogeyman (let's not mention Bush's role, eh?), than obviously Mann's allegedly receiving funds from it is a Bad Thing. I can see no real reason to report this other than an attempt to discredit Mann. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with ChrisO here. I infer the interest in including this fact is to imply in some way that Mann has a financial conflict of interest. If so, that's inappropriate. If Mann's work were publicly criticized on that basis in reliable sources, noting that wouldn't necessarily violate WP:BLP... but even then, given that Dr. Mann is perfectly entitled to apply for and receive legal government grants for his work, I'm not sure even that is noteworthy. --DGaw (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing is inferred. That's in your head. How can a fact be either "right wing" or "left wing"? It's just a fact, and a very notable one at that. JettaMann (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The grant was funded by the National Science Foundation. The fact that the right wing does not want science funded is not news, and is not an appropriate topic for this article. Mann has had many grants, this one is not special. -Atmoz (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Any controversy regarding this has nothing to do with the "right-wing" or "nut jobs" or whatever other adjectives you and a few others a throwing out there to denigrate anyone that would disagree with you. The story is that the stimulus funds were supposed to go towards job creation and retention, and from the looks of it, it is hard to see how this would fall under either. Now I am not saying it belongs, but it would be nice if the dicussion did not turn into absurd strawman arguments that the right doesn't want science, which is to say the least just plain stupid. Arzel (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Researchers are workers too, with families to feed. But I suggest that it was unwise and short-sighted to turn this into a partisan bickerfest. There may well be some local political peculiarities at work here but the main point is that the WSJ piece was picked up from some weird conspiracy-minded subculture or other. It's worrying that a usually reliable newspaper would do that, but not worth losing much sleep over. If they want to publish nonsense, it's their funeral. --TS 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure they cite has been confirmed, and it's up on the National Science Foundation website (link provided above). So I don't understand how you are saying it's nonsense and their funeral. The WSJ was correct as they usually are. JettaMann (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is just one problem with your argument.. no one to this point has disputed the amount or that there was a grant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, for the conspiracy-minded, the mere existence of this grant is proof of some horrible and nasty conspiracy to do something or other unspeakable. To the rest of the world, of course, it's just a research grant. Nobody who does not speak the language of conspiracy theory as a native has a hope of understanding what the conspiracy theorists are on about. --TS 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about UPenn, but AFAIK most US research universities immediately skim 50-60% off the top for overhead (which includes everything from lab rooms to office heating, computers, and secretaries). The rest will pay 2 PostDocs for two years or so - unless some expensive equipment is included. This is a very ordinary grant - I'm sure Mann has had several similar ones in his career, as has any reasonably successful established researcher. It's entirely non-notable ("Bob the carpenter bought a hammer"). BTW, are you aware of Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q14?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, whether or not conspiracy-minded people will think 'this thing or the other thing' is irrelevant. We're not here to interpret things for people. We're just here to present the facts. What they do with these facts is beyond our control and we certainly not going to hide facts from people because we are worried what they will do with those facts. This isn't the USSR, it's Wikipedia.JettaMann (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. Scientists apply for and receive government grants. If we focused on a particular grant without good reason that would be interpretation, which is covered by the original research and neutral point of view policies. If some people have their own reasons for finding it extraordinary that a scientist received a government grant, they're welcome to try to convince the world at large that it is significant. If they succeed (and to be honest, doing so would require a revolution in attitudes to science funding) then we'll routinely report these "extraordinary" occurrences. Meanwhile we don't, because it would be silly. --TS 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are one of the few people on the planet who does not find it interesting or notable that he received over half-mill from the stimulus fund. Tell you what, Tony. Let's put it up there in the article and see if anyone else (not the usual people here) object to this information. If we see large and general objections to this from people *other than* the usual group, then perhaps you have cause. But my feeling is independent Wikipedia readers and editors won't have a problem with this being there and will probably find it interesting. Lets take our discussion out of the hypothetical theoretical and let the results speak for themselves. JettaMann (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The half-million dollars that seems to be so impressive to you is actually the market price of my small, very cramped middle-terrace house in East London. I've been trying to explain to you why--at least with that sourcing--this isn't going to make it into the article. As I don't have any axe to grind on this, I'll just unwatch this page and let you see for yourself that I'm not the barrier to acceptance of that material. --TS 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The gullible, ill-informed and conspiracy-minded might find it "interesting or notable" if it's presented stripped of any context, which is how it's been presented by the anti-science contingent, but that would be a mistaken impression. To show that it is "interesting or notable" one would have to do what the anti-science mob have conspicuously failed to do: (1) demonstrate that the source of the funding is in any way unusual or different to how other scientists have been funded; (2) demonstrate that the amount is in any way unusual; (3) demonstrate that the fact of the funding is in any way unusual. As others have pointed out on this page, "scientist gets funding from government" is commonplace. The fuss made over this seems to be a very crude attempt to elicit a Pavlovian reaction from unthinking right-wingers: stimulus BAD! Mann BAD! Mann + stimulus VERY BAD! It really is at that level of demagogic nonsense. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's really quite a warped view on this information. Again, facts are not left wing or right wing, facts are just facts. And again, what people choose to do with the information and how they interpret it isn't really up to us. We just present the facts, we don't interpret facts for Wikipedia readers. JettaMann (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But the choice of which facts to present is up to us. We present the relevant facts, not irrelevancies ginned up by demagogues to stir up the rubes. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to that. I think there are very few people out there who think it is irrelevant that Mann received a large grant of Federal Stimulus money which will be paid for by the tax payer. People tend to find it very relevant when other people spend their money. JettaMann (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you either find, say, 10 articles of scientists in which ordinary grants are listed, or you try to add some ordinary grants to 10 other articles, just to show some precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your methodology that each article must have a cookie-cutter set of lists and information. Some articles have different requirements and different points of emphasis compared to others. The reason this piece of information is relevant here is because people are naturally wondering where the money comes from to fund scientists like Michael Mann, and how much do they receive? As it turns out, it's the NSF, which ties in nicely to other wikipedia pages. We can also link this statement to the Grant (money) Wikipedia page. You often hear AGW people throwing out the accusation that so-and-so must be on the oil payroll and oil money is making it lucrative to oppose AGW theory. This is bunk of course, as there is a tiny fraction of the funding available to skeptics compared to the generous tax-payer government grants. This piece of information, along with the source of the grant money and the dollar figure, is a very relevant piece of information about this scientist. (Although I do agree that it would be nice for all scientists in Wikipedia to have a list of their grant dates and grant values, I just don't have much say in that, and the information is likely spotty. But it would be a nice ideal.) JettaMann (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any rebuttals to my last comment. I also note that if you look up the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others it seems to have an emphasis on where the funding comes from with dollar figures, so there is precedent for this type of information belonging in Wikipedia articles. JettaMann (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)