Talk:J. Scott Armstrong

Autobiography?

This page looks like its a WP:AUTO, and probably a copyvio of http://www.jscottarmstrong.com/ William M. Connolley 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I, as the initial creator, of the page know Professor Armstrong - it was not written by him. All the information put onto the page was done with his permission, not violating copyrights to the best of my knowledge. Publishers have agreed to allow for his papers to be placed online in their original formats (usually not published versions). I encourage others to edit the page in the spirit of Wikipedia. Kxjtaz 22:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside auto for the moment, there needs to be some evidence that you have his permission to copy stuff into wiki - just your assertion here isn't good enough William M. Connolley 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind letting me know how to do so? Thanks! Kxjtaz 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Copyrights perhaps William M. Connolley 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will make a note on the page 130.91.25.68 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:AUTO. Writing an autobiographical article is poor practice. Writing one on your behalf of your boss is scarcely better.Craticula 08:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The awards look non notable. Are the publications notable ? --BozMo talk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it an auto when he said "it was not written by him [Professor Armstrong]"? mike4ty4 07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

May we should take note of [1] William M. Connolley 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

One assumes you meen the bits about "I just received word I’m in charge of publicity & generating some buzz". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.249.249 (talk • contribs)

Yes William M. Connolley 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how generating buzz for Professor Armstrong's challenge, written on my blog, relates to this Wikipedia page? I created the Wikipedia article months before I even heard about the paper or the challenge. As I have stated previously, I am only a Wikipedia newcomer who was not familiar with all of the rules, and in light of that would like to see the article go through the community editing process. Kxjtaz 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

May the 11th, to be precise, is when you started, which isn't quite "months". It looks suspicious. But we tend to WP:AGF if you're lucky. OTOH Prof A is aware of this page and uses it as a ref William M. Connolley 20:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete links to Armstrong's papers

The notability requirement WP:Notability (people) is a guideline to determine is a person should have a web page or not. Armstrong definitely meets the criteria for notability. However, some have deleted a link to one of his peer reviewed papers claiming the paper is not notable because it is only cited one time. I cannot agree with this deletion. If the article was overly long at this point and had to be trimmed back, I might agree. Length is not a problem and readers should have access to this paper, one of the first in the area of scientific forecasting. RonCram 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are too many papers there spammed in by his student. NN papers from way back with 1 cite aren't worth mentioning William M. Connolley 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

William, the paper discusses how physical scientists fail to consider information that is contrary to their theories. It appears you are deleting this paper only because you dislike the content or find it embarrassing. Since your deletion appears to driven by your POV, please do not delete it again. RonCram 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, annotated bibliographies are acceptable. In this case, I think it is helpful. RonCram 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron its an encyclopedia not a reading list, nor a CV or bibliography. We report what is notable about people/things etc. The current list is severely bloated - and should be cut down to around 5-10 of the most cited works. --Kim D. Petersen 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can the the Technology Review is not a peer-reviewed journal, but more of a popular technology magazine. Including this with real publications is at least misleading. --Stephan Schulz 16:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

For someone with JSA's claims, online refs to him that aren't directly sourced back to him are very thin on the ground: I've managed to find one only. Thus I am concerned that this article isn't well sourced.

OTOH, having looked up the papers, I'm quite happy that JSA *has* written a pile of papers many of them with quite high cite counts.

William M. Connolley 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed , the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods {International Journal of Forecasting (see International Journal of Forecasting, 1, 1985, p.1)} since a cite from 1985 cannot possibly establish it as the most-cited *now* William M. Connolley 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Somebody has again added the statements about "most frequently cited book", without even bothering to discuss it here. Therefore I removed it again. The statement is taken wordly from the website of Scott Armstrong and - surprise, surprise - he advertises his own books and journals there. This is not a reliable source for making such claims. Additionally I removed the statement "which has received positive reviews", because this text is only backed up by the Springer online book shop. Of course they will tell you only about positive reviews and not negative ones, and say that the book is great, because they want to *sell* it! Unless someone can actually prove these statements by none POV sources, it is not justified, to write them on wikipedia. BTW: A lot of this article is poorly sourced and POV. The whole article needs IMO a non-POV revision with reliable sources only. --79.237.153.128 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

External links

What's with all the links to papers and primary sources? This was so written by one of his students. (At least, I hope it wasn't Dr. Armstrong himself. I would think if he did it, having a PhD and everything, it would be less obvious.) Anyway, this article needs some serious clean-up. Rocket000 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PrinciplesOfForecasting.jpg

Image:PrinciplesOfForecasting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LongRangeForecasting.jpg

Image:LongRangeForecasting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV wording

The article currently reads: "Most recently, Armstrong appears to be unhappy that those interested in global warming, including the IPCC, completely ignore the literature on forecasting principles that Armstrong writes." This is clearly POV wording. Armstrong is not unhappy the IPCC has ignored his own writings as much as he is upset the IPCC has ignored the entire body of scientific literature on the subject. While Armstrong is a leader in this field, anyone can see the Journal of Forecasting has been publishing since 1982. Dozens of issues with close to 100 scientific papers have been published by dozens of different authors in that journal alone. The International Institute of Forecasting publishes three different journals: The International Journal of Forecasting, Foresight and The Oracle. Again, dozens and dozens of researchers and practicioners of the science have contributed to these journals. The IPCC has ignored all of this literature and is making "projections" on the basis of computer models which are untrustworthy. RonCram (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Kim has reverted my edit. Not only is Kim's preferred version POV, it is clearly wrong. Armstrong does not complain in his paper about his writings being ignored so much as he complains that ALL scientific papers on forecasting have been ignored:

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.

It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [2]

I have restored my edit along with this evidence. RonCram (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, A is self-promoting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron. A simple question here: What is the scientific literature on forecasting? How does Armstrong define this? Why is this not forecasting literature?

And now a bit more complex: If you read the paper you find that Armstrong is referring singularly to his own research on forecasting as being authoritative. Its an "audit" against Armstrongs list of variables. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, fair question. I do not know how Armstrong would reply to your question but I will take a shot at it. At first glance, the authors appear to be attempting to move toward a scientific forecast - which is commendable. Unfortunately, the authors show absolutely no acquaintance with the scientific literature on forecasting. 95 papers are cited but none published by any of the four leading scientific journals on forecasting. Does it not seem odd to you that authors wanting to move toward a scientific climate forecast would not be familiar with the literature? Look also at the "Acknowledgements" section. They thank a number of climatologists, but not a single expert in scientific forecasting. They appear to be completely unaware the field has been in existence for more than 25 years. For it to qualify as part of the scientific literature on forecasting, the authors would have to show some knowledge of the literature in their paper. RonCram (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again: Who defines the literature? Who defines the "four leading scientific journals on forecasting"? (hint: the ones that Armstrong is citing is primarily on economics). How do you know that someone is unaware if they do not cite specific papers? Does every paper on gravity cite Newton or Einstein? Why not? Are they unaware of the field? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I answered the last question only. Different people may define the scientific literature on forecasting somewhat differently. I would say the main body would be the four journals we have been discussing: the three published by the International Institute of Forecasting and Journal of Forecasting. Certainly other articles may be published in more general journals and still make a contribution to the literature, but the approach would have to be evidence-based. Climate modeling is not. Also, if an author in a general journal does not cite articles from these four journals... well how can they be expected to add to the scientific discussion or even be taken seriously by the experts in the field? RonCram (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, there is a huge "scientific literature" on forecasting in general, Armstrong writes specifically about one sub-set (business studies) which has only the most tenuous links to climate science. The idea that his work somehow defines or is central to the field is risible. There is a massive body of theoretical and practical work on Bayesian estimation and prediction, which is directly relevant to the climate science issue and is well-known to researchers in this area. FWIW, I work in this field (the climate science bit, not business studies).Jdannan (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jdannan, I am glad to hear you work in climate science. However, you are wrong when you write that "Armstrong writes specifically about one sub-set (business studies)..." Obviously your conclusion has more to do with your knowledge that Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing than it does with actual knowledge of Armstrong's writings. Armstrong has compiled a list of forecasting principles, some he has discovered and described himself and others have been described by others, that have selective applicability to all fields in which forecasts are made. Armstrong also conducts audits of forecasts made by others. One of the steps in his audit is to decide which principles are applicable to a particular field or forecast. He then determines if the forecasters followed all of the applicable principles. Forecasters can generally be divided into theorists and practicioners. Armstrong is both. Forecasters also join "Special Interest Groups" for different types of forecasts. Special Interest Groups exist for forecasts in Conflict & Terror, Crime, Health, Neural Networks, Politics, Public Policy, Rules Based and Software Estimation. Armstrong has written in most of these areas. He is obviously very involved in Rules Based, Public Policy and Politics. All of this information is available on the website www.forecastingprinciples.com and I think you would find the page very helpful. RonCram (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it tell you anything that none of these SIGs deal with physical sciences? And sorry, but I think your tone is somewhat patronizing, considering whom you are speaking to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, actually "Public Policy" touches on the physical sciences because physical science (like global warming and other environmental) issues must be assessed by policymakers. Also, (I am not certain about this but I believe) "Software Estimation" may be applied to physical sciences. And Stephan, you know me. I treat everyone the same. James is used to me being patronizing. I have posted on his blog. RonCram (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, there is not one single mention of the term "data assimilation" on Armstrong's site. This topic (both theory and practice, of which there is a lot) underpins the entire subject of model-based forecasting in the physical sciences. That includes, but it not limited to, the entirety of meteorology and weather prediction, which I hope you would accept is a large area of research (far larger than climate science, for example). Viewed in this context, his grandiose claim that his site "summarizes all useful knowledge about forecasting" is simply a joke. It's a classic case of someone sticking their nose somewhere where they don't even know how little they know. Your not knowing this isn't a crime, but persisting in pushing it on wikipedia simply discredits the resource.Jdannan (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

James, your concern over "data assimilation" shows you are wedded to computer models for forecasts. And yes, I understand computer models are used in weather forecasting .... and they are good for about a week. The problem, James, is that climate scientists assume they cannot learn anything from the scientific forecasters. It reminds me of Michael Mann thinking he could innovate statistical methods without checking with any statisticians. Computer models have their place and we can learn from them... mainly they us what we don't know about climate. But computer models have limited to zero predictive power. This is A&G's point and the point Orrin Pilkey makes in his book "Useless Arithmetic." Computer models inform the opinions of the experts but research shows that experts are no better at predicting the future than non-experts. I know the experts find this offensive, but it is well established in the literature. My "pushing" the A&G studies does not discredit Wikipedia, it makes interesting and desired information available to readers. I'm mainly hoping more climate scientists will read A&G's papers. They need to deal with the issues raised there. RonCram (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not "concerned" over data assimilation, I merely pointed out that the complete absence of any material on this completely destroys any claim by Armstrong (and you on his behalf) to speak for "scientific forecasting" in general. As for using computer models, reasonable predictions of climate change can be made with what are essentially back-of-the-envelope calculations using known physical laws - the fact that much more complex and detailed models support with these calculations (to a good approximation) is supporting evidence but hardly fundamental to the whole field.Jdannan (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

James, Armstrong's website may not discuss data assimilation but that hardly means it is not discussed in the literature. Journal of Forecasting has been publishing since 1982. Read Armstrong's book and see what it says about the subject. Or, if you haven't time for that, email Armstrong yourself and ask him. I have much more confidence in back of the envelope calculations than I do the GCMs. I just have more confidence in Schwartz's envelop and in Chylek's envelope than in yours. Scientific forecasting is evidence-based. Armstrong has the evidence on his side. For years, no forecast verifications have been done on climate projections. Just recently Pielke Jr. did one and that spawned a number of others. All of them showed the GCMs had significantly overpredicted global warming. Now that the PDO has turned to its cool phase, the difference between projections and reality will grow even greater over then next few years. You need to ask yourself, what will it take for me to be convinced global warming will not be catastrophic? When that happens you can join the Light Side. RonCram (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you should have saved yourself the embarrassment and simply searched for "data assimilation" in the journal. There is precisely one hit in more than 25 years of issues, and that is a review article which looks at a range of other journals and also discusses neglected areas (I don't know the exact context of the reference). I don't see what else I can do to convince you that their use of the term "forecasting" is simply not general and comprehensive. I have literally never heard of the Lancaster Centre for Forecasting (home of the author of that one article) which claims to be "the pre-eminent focus of forecasting research in Europe". I bet there are two order of magnitude more people working at the UK Met Office, the main goal of which is actually doing forecasting, and none of them will have heard of it either. All you demonstrate by your faith in Schwartz and Chylek is that you don't understand any of the science.Jdannan (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

James, you are assuming I embarass easily. I don't. It appears to me that you checked only one of the four journals we have been discussing here. I could be wrong, but you have still not proven your point to me. Given, for a moment, that you are capable of proving your point in the future, what have you gained? Have you proven that climate scientists cannot learn anything from the scientific forecasters? Not at all. Regarding Schwartz and Chylek, when you say I am ignorant - you are saying the same of them. I prefer to think of Schwartz and Chylek as knowing your envelope as well as you do, but they also understand the role of feedbacks and do not overestimate the cooling impact of aerosols. After all, the temp record is more in accord with their calculations than with yours. Back to the issue at hand. I would love to see you explain why it is acceptable for the IPCC to neglect the evidence-based principles identified in the forecasting literature and compiled by Armstrong. You could start with these three:

• Principle 1: Consider whether the events or series can be forecasted.
• Principle 2: Keep forecasting methods simple.
• Principle 3: Do not use fit to develop the model.

I would suggest you start by reading this [3] so you understand the evidence the principles are based on. Once you understand them, explain why these do not apply to physical sciences. I look forward to your reply. Actually, perhaps you should make your reply on your blog, because we are getting off topic now. When your blog posting is complete, just leave me a note here and I will come look. RonCram (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously gave you altogether too much credit in thinking that you might be embarrassed to see your ignorance so clearly displayed. I've learnt my lesson and will not bother trying to engage you in rational discussion again.Jdannan (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

James, please don't take your marbles and run away. Take the challenge! If you really believe you don't need to follow these principles, tell us why. RonCram (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some principles are so important that any forecasting process that does not adhere to them cannot produce valid forecasts. The following are three such principles, all of which are based on strong empirical evidence, and all of which were violated by the forecasting procedures described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report.

Clearly that empirical evidence does not include physics or engineering. Prinicples 1 3 and 2 do not make sense for models based on physics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Count, thank you for stating your viewpoint but a bald assertion does not move the conversation forward much. I take from what you said that you agree with Principle 3: "Do not use fit to develop the model." But why do you not agree with Principles 1 and 2? You cryptically write: "Clearly that empirical evidence does not include physics or engineering." Why not? RonCram (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually meant Principles 2 and 3 ). I work in physics. When I was studying physics and even before that when I was in high school, I used to work with my father who was an engineer (sometimes he would bring problems home and we would work on these if he thought it was something interesting for me). So, I know how physicists and engineers solve problems in practice and not just what the books say how they should work.

Principle 3 is clearly violated in engineering. Engineers will often develop models using empirical data and fit parameters of some (phenomenological) model. E.g., engineers knew for a long time that a theoretical equation for drag in turbulent flow did not give accurate reasults and they used a better empirical equation. Only recently (perhaps 5 or ten years ago, I don't remember exactly) was it discovered that the standard theoretical derivation was flawed and when the error was corrected one obtains the empirical equation.

Principle 2 is not used at all. What matters is that you don't want to make a model too compicated is a simpler model would suffice. But there is no requirement to keep models simple. Einstein said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Count, okay so you agree that forecasters should follow Principle 1, so we agree there. Regarding Principle 2, I think the scientific forecasters would agree with Einstein's description. In fact, I think that is exactly what they have in mind - so it appears we agree there as well. Regarding Principle 3, I think the engineering process you describe is somewhat different than fitting a model so it provided an accurate hindcast and then saying it had predictive power. In the early 90s, I bought a very powerful software program that looked at a multitude of different market conditions and relationships. I was able to tune this model by weighting different conditions and relationships for a specific stock or market index. Then I could do a hindcast and it see how well it did. With enough tuning, the hindcast would perfectly represent prior trading. The thing is, the model had no predictive power and I ended up losing a lot of money. The engineering process you describe is more akin to the approach Stephen Schwartz took. He looked at the fact the Earth did not warm as much as expected based on the equations then in vogue and he developed a new approach based on sensitivity to perturbation and relaxation time. He determined that climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 was only about one-third the IPCC estimate. It will be interesting to see how well Schwartz's climate sensitivity estimate holds up now that we have entered the cool phase of the PDO. I still think Principle 3 is valid. Using fit to develop the model is not scientific. RonCram (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Article much too long...and slightly POV

I am a skeptic...and a conservative. Not at all an AGW-lover. So when I slam this article, realize that. I don't know much...but I do know enough to know when I don't know much. I know Bayesian estimation at the most topical Phil Parker B-school, reading about hunting for the Scorpion type of level. But even that (plus general experience in science) is enough to see that this guy is pushing himself (or the student is pushing his prof). There's a lack of perspective on the general scope of estimation. Perhaps, Armstrong is right and AGWers are being Bayesian enough (Tradesports for temp anyone), but when this guy puts himself up as the leader in betting forecasting and the like...puh-leeze.

This should just be an essay from the student...or the website of the prof itself. I vote for article deletion or radical pruning. If pruning, we could make it of a length similar to other academics of similar reknown (use impact factor to judge). Somehow, I really DOUBT (would Bayesian bet) that this guy is not on the Nobel short list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Lots of the basic info is sourced to JSA's homepage. Is that acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it's obviously auto-puffery from staff at his institute, if not him directly, so it seems absolutely appropriate :-) Jdannan (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Major findings?

The vast list of major findings added by an anon [4] - likely connected to JSA - is inappropriate. I've removed it, again William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography

The anon resolves to hnt-up-dhcp-273.wharton.upenn.edu, i.e., the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Given that the subject of this article is a member of the Marketing faculty in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, I've added the {{autobiography}} tag. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

What's the rationale for this tag? I see a lot of edits from experienced editors, and it appears any disclosure of potential COI was made a considerable period of time ago. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 07:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What NPOV tag? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction, the autobio tag. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As the tag says, the article "has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." Seems plain enough. I'm curious as to why you deleted the tag, given that we know for certain that the article has been "extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a warning template, intended to be used when those edits have potentially resulted in NPOV issues. In this case, with a couple hundred edits on the article, made by a considerable number of people besides this particular editor, it's no longer necessary. Do you have any specific POV issues you'd like to discuss? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources, inappropriate tone, and so on give abundant evidence of the article's autobiographical roots. Let's leave the tag up until the article is more encyclopedic in tone and content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The issues have been addressed, thanks. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No they haven't. Please don't assert things unilaterally, but instead rely on consensus as required by Wikipedia policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have an issue, you need to discuss it. Drive-by template dropping is not helpful. Further, I brought up the issue two days ago, and no one has voiced any concerns. There is no "consensus" for this template. There are numerous, independent sources backing up the article, and I don't see anything resembling a peacock term still in the article. Please self-revert. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources (such as the college guides) are very shaky. If the statements are indeed correct, it should be possible to find better quality sources such as mainstream newspapers or magazines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The autobio tag is not appropriate in a case where one editor feels a source may be "a bit shaky". The sources are not self-published, and the fact is clearly verifiable: Armstrong has been called one of the "xx" most famous professors currently teaching. Please self -revert. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation

William, as per your many edits removing "blogs as sources" from BLP, I'm sure you realize the Annan claim can't stay here. See [5] for just one example. How is a personal blog a better source than an editorial in a 50-year national magazine? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on the blog. A comment by a scientist directly involved in the climate prediction is indeed far superior to a newspaper source by someone clueless William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A journalist who says someone is "squelching journalists" is not someone "directly involved" In the case I listed, the person cited had direct contact with the article's subject. In your case here, Annan's only presence in the article seems to be to poison the well. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 09:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Spam crazy CV

It seems nobody has been allowed to get a propper grip on this article which is far more of a personal CV than an encyclopedic article. Links to no less than 12 of his own papers hosted by his university and his other websites. Links to three of his own videos. Six carefully selected and very favourable news stories. And three of his external websites. This is completely over the top. This has to be dealt with as wikipedia is not an advertising forum for how great a person is. Polargeo (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The paper count is high, I agree that's a valid point. It's probably better to discuss it here and then trim it, though, rather than first slapping in an excessive amount of warning templates.

Regarding unfavorable news coverage, if you have something notable that you want to include, then be bold. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The templates are needed as the article has several peackock terms and missing refs. It is easier to point these issues out with templates than to try and list every single one on a talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The inline templates are fine. But slapping four message box templates into four sub-areas of one small area, looks more like well-poisoning, than an attempt to indicate a problem. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I have serious issues with those sections and correctly templated them. Templates can always be removed once issues are dealt with and these issues can be dealt with very quickly. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing all links to his youtube videos. Reducing info on external links to his own websites and placing them in an external links section. Also reducing the listed papers down to the 5 most cited (as was suggested some time ago on this talkpage). Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, trying to stay consistent on citing papers, a person like Joe Romm (who is far less scholarly notable in his field has 9 listed). But Romm is admittedly much more politically notable, which may counerbalance some of that. Tell you what, I'm going to take a stab at a version that addresses most of your issues, and if you don't like it, I'll self revert. Fair enough? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nine is excessive. I will leave the article alone and let you get on with reducing the CV like quality. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Climate Challenge Figure

Polargeo, you have misread the source. The terms of the bet are that each side place $10,000K in trust until the bet is resolved. Please self revert this one. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that is what is called a 10 000 dollar bet. But I admire the fact that you are not familiar with gambling Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Just leaving a few redlinks for now as someone may wish to start an article on these if they are notable. If you don't like the look of them or think an article is not viable then please feel free to remove them. Polargeo (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Polarrgeo, I think most of your edits look good. I disagreed on removing the quote entirely, but I did think it was a bit overlong, so I trimmed it down somewhat. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote does nothing for his notability you cannot assert notability through quoting from his own publication. But I will leave it in for the present. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking a break. ref no. 5 needs tidying up after WMC's edit as tags for this ref are still in other parts of the article. Polargeo (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on bet

A comment on the bet by a notable climatologist which was published on RC is perfectly justified. No conceivable BLP violations here. Please do not remove the comment again that was initially added by SBHB [6] and removed by FG [7]. Removal of reliable and verifiable comments by notable scientists whilst excessively relying on self-published information and fox news looks like extreme POV pushing. I have added this back in because I completly disagree with FellGleeming's rationale behind its removal. It is a verifiable comment by a notable scientist on a notable website which does not fall foul on any BLP grounds. It is also not directly criticising the individual. This article has been allowed to become a self glorification fest already. This is not in the interests of wikipedia in any way. Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleeming is now edit warring [8] with two editors (myself and SBHB) over this after I had started the thread on the talkpage. I disagree with his rationale for again removing the sourced information as the source is more than sufficient to back up the information given in the article. Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of the aggressive attitude, why not try to improve the reference? Why insist on self-published sources in one case, then claim they're invalid in another? I'm sure we can find the Schmidt claim in a RS; that would be much better than sourcing it to a blog. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You can`t use a blog in a blp, RC is only reliable for science related articles not idle gossip about bets :) mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

RC is a perfectly reliable source for the comments of a notable climate scientist who has published on it. Far more so than JSA's various websites are reliable sources for this article. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the information that is backed up by the RC source is not personal opinion on JSA it is scientific opinion on the bet from a climate scientist. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The ref in SBHB`s diff you have above leads to this RC post Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast I see no mention of a bet in that post? mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good find Mark! You're absolutely right. This has no business whatsoever here; it doesn't relate to the terms of the bet at all. William, please self-revert. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold the celebration. I can find it. You obviously don't wish to find it. Another example of not reading sources or simply getting what you wish to get from them. :) Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "find it"? Is the source you used not valid? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Polegro, were in that post does it mention a bet? For the life of me i can`t see it mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down and read to the end of the source rather than reading the first paragraph. :) Polargeo (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already noted on FGs talkpage concerns I have about not reading sources. The lack of reading sources seems to be a reccuring feature here, even in this article. I have removed several sentences where the source simply does not back up the claim. I understand FG has been warned about this already and I advise caution. Polargeo (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Found it :), Ok then so we have An opinion piece from a blog which uses The Climate Bet.Com as a source for it`s information? Would it be ok to use that site as a source for the bet? Or is Gavin Schimdt`s attack piece in the RC blog better for you? mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can use the Climate Bet site as a valid source for the terms. However, the statement reinserted contains original research. The actual quote is a bet on "year to year weather noise". That's fine. However, the editor used his own original research to add, "..and not climate change", adding an additional element into Schmidt's words. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research? Nonsense. Do we now have to directly quote every source letter for letter and everything else including basic clarification is OR?. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The CB site looks like a blog by JSA. It is an RS for nothing except his own opinions; and possibly not even for that. We'd need to establish that it *was* his site. But when I clicked on the "about" page I got this: This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress. [9]. Can you spell "shoddy"? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we can't prove RealClimate belongs to any person in particular either. Maybe it's all a scam, and Gavin Schmidt is fuming now over fake posts made in his name?

Plenty of sources have pointed out that TheClimateBet was setup by Armstrong as part of the wager. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay Armstrong's personal blog then and so should not be used for anything other than his own opinions and that must be clear whenever it is quoted from. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's the only way its being used. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. That certainly wasn't the case before I started tagging the article. I think we should hold the article very strictly to using his own websites and publications only for his own personal opinions. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Source is not sufficient

Appears we only have JSA's unreviewed word for the following claim "Armstrong has applied his findings about combining forecasts to political forecasting. It correctly forecast the outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and came within 0.2% of the actual election outcome" the two sources given are certainly not sufficient in any way for such a bold claim and the claim should be removed. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is the only source i concur, i`ll try and find some others and then we can put it back in mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the source. From the source itself, " On the morning of November 2, the Pollyvote had Bush winning 51.5 percent of the two-party vote, which came within 0.2 percent of the outcome (51.3%)."

Excuse me but are you seriously accusing me of misrepresenting a source? The quoted claim I gave above was from the wikipedia article. My contention was that the sources were not sufficient to back up this claim. Polargeo (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Did Bush win in 2004? I seem to recall he did. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

He absolutely did win and Cuzan, Armstrong and other (2005 minor conference abstract) seem to have claimed after the event that they accurately predicted it after the event. I have outlined my objection to this information being in the article below

Armstrong has applied his findings about combining forecasts to political forecasting. It correctly forecast the outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and came within 0.2% of the actual election outcome This is a very bold statement to make and appears to backed up by nothing more than an unreviewed abstract on which Armstrong is a coauthor. This same abstract is referenced twice to back up the statement, with links here and here. In the abstract it says Paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, January 6, 2005. In my opinion this simply has no place in a wikipedia article. Polargeo (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this isn't true at all. The Pollyvote site presented Bush as the winner for a full eight months before the election, giving continual updates over the entire period;

• http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com//index.php/pollys-archive/polly-2004.html

Further, as the WSJ reported, it also forecast Obama to win by a large margin before the election:

• http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-wisdom-of-political-crowds-425/tab/article/

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One self published other blog. Still object. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, commentary in the Wall Street Journal is not simply "one self published blog". Are you willing to take this issue through mediation? There seems a clear pattern of attempts to minimize and distort, for reasons of the subject's climate change views. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Again misrepresenting what I said. One self published other blog. Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway it is such a glancing comment on the 2004 result prediction but made years after and during the Obama campaign I suggest it is not really a reliable source. Looking at the article it appears the WSJ blog just lifted the info straight from Armstrong anyway. Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact the WSJ blog actually links to the Pollyvote page in the very sentence it repeats the claims. Polargeo (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So in summary nothing independent of Armstrong to back up these claims. Wikipedia shouldn't fall into the same trap as the WSJ blog and just repeat what it says on Armstrong's website. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What's your objection? The WSJ author felt the claim was credible. You do realize, don't you, that newspapers don't invent facts...everything they report about a person's action is ultimately linked back to the original person.

I ask again -- are you willing to go through mediation on this? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't removed the information on the pollyvote that appears in the article. I am just discussing the reliability of the claims on this talkpage. I will only remove this information if there is concensus to remove it. That doesn't mean I won't reword according to sources. What needs mediating in that? Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why mediation? I'm still AGF at this point, but numerous attempts by a crew of climate-change article regulars to minimize, remove, and raise picayune objections on trivial points is causing a concern. While your initial pass through the article a few days earlier certainly worked to improve it, recent efforts (and I'm not referring strictly to you in this case) are incontrovertibly not improving the entry. I think mediation will show that. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I thought you meant mediation over this one particular issue. I think if you wish for an assessment on what has happened to this article you will find it will come up with the answer that a shockingly poor article has gotten a little better and a little more neutral. If there is one thing that drives me crazy it is the use of wikiepdia for advertising or self aggrandisement. I simply came across this article after your related edits to Willie Soon, an article I had edited quite a lot and have some interest in. Polargeo (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify some issues

This "bet", which isn't a bet because it was never accepted, started running in 2008. It is for a period of ten years selected by Armstrong. Armstrong's website is doing year on year checks on who is "winning or losing" using satellite temperature records selected by himself and ignoring better science due to "climategate". Because Gore has never actually quantified exactly how he thinks temperature will rise Armstrong has selected a number from the 1992 IPCC report which should not be applied in this way anyway. Armstrong is keeping up a website blog on this and being a good self publicist has managed to get some low level partisan news coverage and now wikipedia space for this as well. Polargeo (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've thought this through at all. Despite your attempts at original research, the bet is notable; it garnered significant media attention. That's the only bar that matters.

Further, your analysis is flawed on several grounds. Armstrong did not pick random number; he's using the official UAH satellite temperature record. And while Gore may not have "quantified" exactly how much he believes temperature will rise, he's made multiple statements claiming it will be disastrous in nature, which certainly rules out any minor increase. Still further, Gore has been saying things like "we have 5 years to save the planet" since about 1998, so sophomoric quibbling over his never stating a precise numeric value is irrelevant; he believes it will rise, and rise sharply. Armstrong believes it will not. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said he picked a random number, where did I say that? You have now even taken to misrepresenting text right in front of you. If I wished to add my summary here to the article (I don't by the way) it could easily be sourced because I got it directly from sources already used in the article. Polargeo (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You also did not rebut any of the points raised above. I assume that means you're withdrawing your objection. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No hang on with that :) Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Armstrong selected the timeframe. He selected the method that would be used to judge temperature, he selected a number from an old IPCC report which should not apply to year on year data or even the given decade then he challenged Gore to a bet on these terms. The bet wasn't accepted, so there is no bet. The only person who appears to be keeping this running is Armstrong. I didn't say that the stunt wasn't notable. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't say it wasn't notable, why are you advocating its removal? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not advocating its removal just trying to clarify details that I may think about putting into the article so it is a fair summary. Just musing really maybe should just have done it in my own head. Polargeo (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Minimization attempts

Why the insertion, without discussion, of unreliable source tags on the hubdub and collegestats sites? I see nothing on the RS NB against them. Please explain your reasoning here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that they are reliable sources? CollegeStats isn't opening for me right now, but this is enough to conclude that hubdub isn't an RS. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better than this. WP:RS is a term that must be taken in context. Is Hubdub a reliable source is the only source reporting that Obama was actually born in Sweden, rather than Hawaii? No. Is it a reliable source for stating conditions laid down by a professor on a public web site? Yes. Also, as per WP policy, if you don't believe these sites are reliable, you have to support your argument. Random tagging and retagging, then walking away is not appropriate. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 14:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that Hubbub backs up is reasonable. Not a great source though. I think this is a case where sourcing to Armstrong is better because it is his bet played and assessed by his rules. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And on his website he seems to be clearly doing a year on year assessment of who has won. Which is nonsense as the RC comments mention. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I had the source at Armstrong originally. You tagged it, so I moved it to Hubdub. Now you say Armstrong is the better source. This is the pattern I'm referring to. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I tag sources when they don't are insufficient to back up the claims. I never tagged hubbadub. In fact you actually added extra information to try to counter the claim from RC and cited hubbadub as an extra source (this edit), you didn't change the source to hubbadub. Polargeo (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My tagging of self-published sources earlier on was to do with the fact that a lot of important statements were being made about certain things with only self published sources and we must avoid turning a wikipedia article into another Armstrong website, therefore overreliance on self pub sources earlier on was not good. You have mostly dealt with this issue now (a couple of outstanding exceptions). Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCV

Presently the list of pubs, websites, etc. is about as long as the rest of the article. How can this be made more concise? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on J. Scott Armstrong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308162252/http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf to http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)