Talk:Steve McIntyre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oxford degree?[edit]

Does he actually have a master's? He's been pretty purposefully vague about his degree from Oxford. Says he "was educated"...which in my resume sniffing experience, usually means attended but didn't get a degree. Not making an accusation per se...just saying we don't seem to have any source, even McI for the master's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.134.132 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this short bio:
I was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT, but before doing so, felt that I should have broader social science background and studied PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at Oxford University on a Commonwealth Scholarship, graduating in 1971. For family reasons, I decided that I should stay in Toronto in 1971 rather than going to MIT and began work.
It's not clear here whether the PPE course was undergraduate or graduate, but it is clear that he finished it. Cheers, CWC 08:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford graduate is automatically awarded a Master of Arts seven years after completion of his undergraduate studies. If someone has graduated from Oxford University more than seven years ago, he/she will now automatically have the undergraduate Master of Arts title, providing the required fee has been paid. So, yes, if McIntyre put in his 3 years at Oxford, he would now be a Master of Arts. It's been like that for at least 1,000 years. Studying at Oxford is not like any upstart mid-west junior college! Santamoly (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In-universe" account of Heartland talk, comments requested[edit]

This edit failed to identify or indicate the position of The Heartland Institute in running the Fourth "International Conference on Climate Change" in 2010, and included unfounded damaging remarks about another living person put in Wikipedia's voice. It's based on, and extensively quoting, The American Spectator, a conservative organ evidently supporting Heartland's conservative and libertarian public policies. All very in-universe, promoting fringe views and with BLP issues, so removed it. . dave souza, talk 09:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the para in question, more conveniently available for comment, with Heartland's sponsorship made explicit:
McIntyre gave a talk at the The Heartland Institute's Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in 2010, a "compelling account of his adventures in trying to obtain temperature data and in successfully challenging Mann's work, but then left much of the ballroom disappointed" when he said Mann's scientific misrepresentations such as "hide the decline" weren't fraudulent. “I don’t even think in those terms,” McIntyre said. McIntyre received a standing ovation at his introduction, but applause was tepid after his talk. Source: Top Mann Nemesis: He’s Not a Fraud by Paul Chesser, The American Spectator, May 17, 2010
I disagree with editor Souza's value judgements above, and believe this to be an interesting addition to the McI wikibio. Let's see what others think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, "successfully challenging Mann's work" is in-universe, McI has put up various spurious claims that have been rejected in the scientific literature, and nit-picked on one specific statistical technique that was no longer in use, and made at most a marginal difference to the results. Mann's "scientific misrepresentations" is both a falsehood and a BLP vio, and "hide the decline" has nothing to do with Mann so another BLP problem. Which is shat might be expected from the source which is a political organ, not a scientific source. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, these are your personal opinions, as an avid partisan (imo) in the debate. And it is a debate, even though many still like to claim that "the science is settled". So watch it, OK? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven vs. Stephen[edit]

An oddity: McIntyre, in his brief online autobiography that we cite, spells his name "Steven." (He goes by Steve at his blog and elsewhere.)

But, in at least some of his publications, his author name is given as "Stephen".

I'm not proposing to do anything about this, just noting it for the record. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard[edit]

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) 17:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steve McIntyre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC Expert Reviewer[edit]

I added a brief mention that McIntyre was an expert reviewer for IPCC.https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/ This seems like an obvious relevant fact for assessing his credentials. Maybe someone should flesh it out; the only source I had is kind of roundabout. MikeR613 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone reverted my statement that his tenure was "controversial", so I'm leaving that part out. Again, maybe more details should be added. MikeR613 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, added some better references from AR4 itself. He is listed there as a reviewer. MikeR613 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all WP:PRIMARY sourcses so you can't really use them to say more than you do already. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being an expert reviewer" is not notable; anyone can be an expert reviewer. The process is given at https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/ William M. Connolley (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not sound that way from the link. "those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification. Sometimes the Working Group or Task Force Bureau concerned will also invite specific individuals to register to take part in the expert review, for instance if they have a particular area of expertise to contribute." So obviously has "relevant qualification", and in this case was actually invited, implying a "particular area of expertise to contribute".
In any case, if it means little, the reference does little harm and is accurate. Leaving it off obviously does harm, by subtracting a relevant impressive-sounding qualification. The only reason I could see to do it is if that's the goal. MikeR613 (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. The problem with adding it is demonstrated by what you said: an obvious relevant fact for assessing his credentials. Because, it isn't. I note that you're totally unfamiliar with this area, so your ability to interpret primary sources is in doubt (summary: you're wrong: the IPCC lets anyone be an ER). If you want this text in, you need relaible secondary sources that consider it important to him William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far you have provided one source to support your claim, and it didn't. So an obvious relevant fact for assessing his credentials remains true. And, I mentioned something beyond "the IPCC lets anyone be an ER": He was actually invited to be an expert reviewer ("You have been nominated to serve as an Expert Reviewer for the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis."), so your point is misplaced.
In addition, the last link to my post made it clear that this privilege of editing was something that could have been revoked, and some were in favor of revoking it in McIntyre's case. Not because of his lack of qualifications - no one claimed that there - but because he was making some reasonable-sounding requests that were annoying some of the scientists involved. MikeR613 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed pretty unfamiliar with the details of the science. But claiming that being invited by the IPCC, the premier government organization in the field, to be an "expert reviewer" on their flagship report, that that is not relevant evidence of expertise: well, that sounds ludicrous. It sounds at least as impressive as anything else listed there. MikeR613 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Souza has reverted again, giving the reason of the link involving a blog rather than a reliable source. That doesn't justify removing the whole sentence, so I undid and took out the blog reference. MikeR613 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The above was posted while I was adding my comment below, datestamped 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC). My edit at 18:23 was my first revert to this contested sentence. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that the main article should also include a reference to his being expert reviewer for AR4. Maybe even a short section on the controversy there, though I don't know if there were reliable sources discussing it. MikeR613 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undone, as misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources and blog WP:ABOUTSELF which promotes WP:BLP claims about others. As pointed out by others, it's no big deal to be an expert reviewer, deliberately so that governments can get a wide range of input. Your idea that it's "impressive sounding" is unusable original research. The stuff about him "he was making some reasonable-sounding requests that were annoying some of the scientists involved" is his blog making BLP accusations about others, completely unacceptable. This is a topic area subject to sanctions, don't reinsert it. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Your idea that it's "impressive sounding" is unusable original research.' And of course it wasn't put in the article, it was my own impression. If readers find it impressive that is their business and is a natural conclusion. On the contrary, your claim that "it's no big deal" is really your original claim and has no relevance to Wikipedia. "his blog making BLP accusations about others, completely unacceptable." Actually it was emails from the people involved, quoted in his blog; that sounds pretty reliable. You're saying that his blog has no relevance, but oddly enough there is a section about it in this article, complete with quotes from it! But that link could be left out if necessary; it's just local color, unlike the main sentence that you-all keep deleting even though your reasons shouldn't lead to that.
'This is a topic area subject to sanctions' That sounded like a threat. Perhaps it is your group that should hesitate before repeatedly undoing a very reasonable addition. MikeR613 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there have been four reverts of the same sentence, and of the four, two gave reasons that did not justify removing the sentence (but instead changing some detail like one of the references). Nevertheless, 4 for 4, whole sentence gone. MikeR613 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Consensus is required: you're still misusing the IPCC list without a secondary source showing its signficance to McI, if any. Please discuss constructively instead of reverting back to your wording higlighting what other editors consider a minor non-notable point. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MikeR613, you were given notice a decade ago about Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Procedures may have changed a bit, so I'll put an update on your talk page. Also note, this "your group" stuff looks rather WP:BATTLEFIELD, please remember to assume good faith. I look forward to seeing what secondary sources discuss McI's IPCC Expert Reviewer status. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Souza, I don't understand your request for secondary sources. A primary source can be used if it is reliable and secondary sources are not available. To demonstrate that McI was an expert reviewer for IPCC AR4, I think the IPCC AR4 list of expert reviewers is clearly acceptable. What is your problem with it? We are talking about maybe the most important climate publication in the world (for some audiences), and being an expert reviewer and one who was actually invited to participate is clearly a notable accomplishment. And a quick look at the list of reviewer comments (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/ar4wg1_ch06_sor_commentresponses_edist.pdf) shows that McI had hundreds of comments on dozens of issues; he wasn't a bench-warmer. Some were accepted, most were not. He doesn't seem to be middle-of-the-road in his field, but anyone reading down the list will see the level of detail of their discussions.
I hear the assume good faith issue, but see my point of view. I make an addition that anyone would see as obvious and non-objectionable, three different people show up within minutes to revert it - five times now - giving at least three or four different reasons, some of which are not reasons to revert but only to modify. What is your goal here? Why do you care if an obscure article notes an undisputed fact? I am getting a non-good-faith-y impression. MikeR613 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2021 (UT
@MikeR613, both William M. Connolley and myself have pointed out that if you want this text in, you need reliable secondary sources that consider it important to him. You've started from the misconception that it's "an obvious relevant fact for assessing his credentials", which is wrong: "having been a registered expert reviewer does not by itself serve as a qualification of the expert or support their credibility in a different context."[1] Your impression that it's "a relevant impressive-sounding qualification" merely shows that putting it in the article out of context would mislead many readers.
You now assert that "being an expert reviewer and one who was actually invited to participate is clearly a notable accomplishment", but you've only got McI's blog to support that claim, and he gets it wrong. He says he "was invited by IPCC to act as a reviewer", but then quotes the IPCC as saying "You have been nominated to serve as an Expert Reviewer". They had invited organizations to make nominations,[2] and these are often government bodies. So, we don't know who nominated him, but this occurred during the George W. Bush administration, which had already been caught fiddling an EPA report on the topic, and now Joe Barton was promoting McI's claims. His self-published list of reviewer comments is irrelevant.
You still need a reliable secondary source directly describing this as a "notable accomplishment", and you've clearly not got consensus for inserting this point out of context. . dave souza, talk 14:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_McIntyre&oldid=1211961462"