Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Robbins quote

That doesn't seem precisely sourced, but is certainly strong:

"Robbins concludes, "The evidence against man-made global warming is growing and the Hockey Stick Illusion stands as the definitive account of a pivotal point in climate change science."

A brief search of Robbins at the Courier does not display on obvious emphasis on science. Can anyone with local knowledge offer an assessment of Robbin's credibility when he says "The evidence against man-made global warming is growing..."? That, at least, is not exactly mainstream science.

Basically, is he a knowledgeable science writer, or a reporter of local news in a midsize town? But at least, give us an actual reference, rather than link to the Courier. Their internal search engine seems broken right now.JohnMashey (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Robbins is identified as a business reporter.[1] He covers local business, but also crime, court cases, accidents, and, rarely, the sport.[2] He may have been the only reporter available to interview the local blogger/author, Montford,[3] but does not appear to be competent to judge Montford's work.[4] On second thought, Robbins, a business reporter, may have been an entirely appropriate choice to interview Montford, an accountant.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for finding the actual reference. Robbins interviewed Montford, but whether he actually knows anything about the subject or even read the book is unclear. He has a definite viewpoint.JohnMashey (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An extremely slanted viewpoint, I'd say; there's a copy of the article here which is full of loaded language and inaccurate claims - e.g. "His work resulted in the Hockey Stick being discredited as an accurate temperature record", which is simply false. I think we have to be very careful in the article not to give a false impression about the state of the science. With that in mind, I've done a bit of refocusing of the quotation from Robbins to highlight what he says about the book itself, rather than his distorted view of the science. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there ever was doubt that it is a conspiracy book, then that review certainly makes it certain. I wonder who those "thousands of scientists" are? (wonders if i should check for the Oregon petition - lol). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I slightly disagree (not with the general idea), but: did Robbins read the book? Did he actually *study* it? This still reads a lot less like a book review than like an interview, which sometimes blurs line between Robbins' own opinions and Montford's. See the several sentences after "Have to change". When Robbins writes, without quotes: "AGW climatologists are notoriously reluctant..." is that Robbins speaking from experience or just channeling Montford? Maybe someone can contact Robbins and see if he's read the book. I'd emailed Kottke, but that's already gone, so yet-to-be-received answer wouldn't matter.JohnMashey (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we could use responses from individuals as reliable sources, unfortunately, but you have an interesting point about how much this is a review versus an interview. I struggled a bit to find book-related quotes - as opposed to general statements of opinion or interview passages - before I found this one which I added to the article in place of a general statement of opinion that wasn't really on-topic. The Robbins piece as a whole is, needless to say, just as tendentious and inaccurate as the book it reviews. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting using a response from an individual as a reliable source, EXCEPT if the answer to "did you study the book?" came back, "Yes", nothing new would be known, but if the reply was "No not really, or "I took a quick look", then it was not a review. We don't really have a lot of actual reviews in this.JohnMashey (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to condense a book review-type article into two sentences or so which captures the spirit and main points of the review can be difficult. If the reporter feels that the book made its case and gives a reason why, then why not state that in neutral language? Such as, "Robbins, reviewing the book for The Courier, felt that, in his opinion, 'The evidence against man-made global warming is growing and the Hockey Stick Illusion stands as the definitive account of a pivotal point in climate change science.' Robbins added that, "[whatever else he said]". This way, we aren't agreeing or disagreeing with Robbins, just stating what he thinks and says. Cla68 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Robbins' view of the state of climate science is particularly relevant - after all, the article isn't about Robbins' opinions, it's about the book he's ostensibly reviewing. A statement by Robbins that "the Hockey Stick Illusion stands as the definitive account of a pivotal point in climate change science" is relevant, since it's about the book; a statement by Robbins "The evidence against man-made global warming is growing" is not, since it's about Robbins' opinion on the issue tackled by the book. As a hypothetical, suppose Robbins had said "The evidence against man-made global warming is growing" but then gone on to say that THSI is a shoddy, factually inaccurate polemic? I think we need to focus on information about the book itself - that's what this article is supposed to be about, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't supported combining the 3 articles because this silly mess may provide a wonderful case study, which might profitably run a few more months. It can perhaps lead to refinements of Wikipedia policies. For example, I'd suggest that before someone adds a "book review" to a page, it would be nice to think that: a) In fact, the reviewer actually has some competence in the subject and b) The reviewer has actually read and studied the book, not just interviewed the author and glanced at it. In the accumulated history so far, it's pretty hard to find many claimed reviewers who come even close. Kottke? Gilder? Robbins? Booker? JohnMashey (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Passing mention in Daily Express article

Marknutley added the following line:

Adrian Lee, writing in Daily Express said, "The hockey stick illusion, by scientist Andrew Montford, tells how the figures don’t stack up and reveals how lone researcher steve Mcintyre exposed the myth. in fact the hockey stick, based on a computer-generated model, ignores natural climate fluctuations in the past" ^[1]

The problem is that the piece in question isn't a review of the book and it is just mentioned in passing: "New book The hockey stick illusion, by scientist Andrew Montford, tells how the figures don’t stack up and reveals how lone researcher steve Mcintyre exposed the myth." [5] That one line is the entirety of the mention of the book, and its inaccuracy is obvious (I suspect even Montford wouldn't describe himself as a scientist). It's a trivial passing mention which adds nothing to this article, so I've taken it out. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Montford is a scientist, do your homework. You seem to think the removal of reliably sourced material is ok if you think it is "Trivial" It`s a review, that`s what that section is for. Please self revert mark nutley (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it's a trivial passing mention in one line of a much longer article. The article isn't a review of any kind, it's a lengthy (and hopelessly inaccurate) polemic against climate science from a UK tabloid with a notoriously bad reputation for factual accuracy. You need to take a more selective approach to sourcing; passing mentions simply aren't good enough, because they don't tell us anything useful, and tabloids with a reputation for making things up are not a good source for anything. As for Montford being a scientist, this article says he's a chartered accountant. That's not a scientific profession. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your constant removal of well sourced material from this article and the Bishop Hill article is wp:disruptive i`ll ask you again, self revert mark nutley (talk)

O nad he has a phd in chemistry, so yes he is a scientist mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How about addressing the substantive points I raised? You have a bad habit of ignoring what people are saying to you. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not have any points to address, it is a review as he has a review in there. You have a bad habit of removing reliably sourced material and perhaps you should stop doing that. As another editor seems to think it is fine and you have reverted it out again makes me think you are wrong, again but would rather edit war the material out than allow it mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, the article wasn't proofread. If it is restored, "The hockey stick illusion" in the quotation should be followed by "(sic)" to indicate the omission of italics and capitalization in the original. It begins with "This newspaper has been vociferous in challenging the wisdom of the powerful climate-change lobby which insists humans have put the planet in peril." It ends with an advertisement for the Booker book. I think our readers deserve sources with more claim to objectivity and accuracy. While on that topic, why don't you add citations from the professional literature, e.g., science or history, to the article? Failing that, I think it may be appropriate to mention that the article topic has not been reviewed in professional journals. That would be consistent with my reading of the NPOV policy. Currently, the article seems to give undue weight to a few plaudits from the like-minded while not commenting on its neglect by serious scholars. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Should you wish to engage in wp:or then go ahead and add that this book has not been reviewed in professional journals. But why do you think a Book based on a controversy would be reviewed in journals? Which journals do you refer to? What you think out readers deserve is neither here nor there, we use what the sources say. Just because this source does not agree with AGW does not mean it can be discounted mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What OR? Google Scholar, which indexes most of the professional literature, finds only the barest mention of Hockey Stick Illusion.[6] You've said many times above that this is a "history book" or a "history of the hockey stick". Perhaps it is appropriate to mention that no reviews of this "history" may be found in journals of history and that it is not a "history" in the sense of, say, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician which has been cited in the scholarly literature and reviewed by Borrowman in Rhetoric Review, Volume 27, Issue 1 January 2008 , pages 93 - 99.[7] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This OR, you have no ref to actually add such a thing. mark nutley (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, how do you expect a book to be written about this book in such a short period? mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Montford is a scientist, do your homework - bollocks. He is an accountant or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice, perhaps you should also do your homework, he has a PHD in chemistry mark nutley (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whichb is irrelevant. Obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What a lovely way to admit your wrong, Now do you have anything to say with regards to this source? mark nutley (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A PhD. doesn't make you a scientist, and Montford most certainly isn't one. Its of course a biographical information that should be there - but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley; Montford says that he is Andrew W Montford, BSc, CA.[8] Please note that he does not list PhD. An individual with a PhD who has not published in the peer-reviewed literature recently would not generally be considered an expert in that field. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Montford's (presuambly) wife Lesley has the PhD in chemistry, which doesn't necessarily imply that she is a working scientist either, but in any case, the evidence is that she isn't [9], which in fact is a reference (I think) added by marknutley, 08:52 20 April 2010.JohnMashey (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, that`s his mum. And yes i did add that reference, is there something wrong with it? mark nutley (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, "dude" is an informal expression that seems out of place in a serious discussion. Please be kind enough to address your fellow editors appropriately. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This stopped being a serious chat a long time ago, for me it was when people started in with such ad hom`s like "Anti Science" [10] it`s hard to take things seriously when that happens mark nutley (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2010(UTC)

The reference is fine, but one would expect that someone who adds a reference has read it. It is useful to know she's his mother, I guess. However, having a mother with a PhD doesn't make one a scientist either.JohnMashey (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Several problems with this.

Adrian Lee - how do we know that it is this Adrian Lee?
"Express yourself" is (as far as i can see)? A free for all forum in the Daily Express. Where you can write just about anything, for example a funny essay on DIY-exorcism
And of course the (already pointed out) usual - only mentioned in passing.
Factual inaccuracies (almost all facts are wrong)

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Self published

Is the "article" in question even an article? The poor capitalization makes think this hasn't been even copy edited, and the fact it's in the "ExpressYorSelf" section of the website only adds to my concern. And, I'm not sure, but it looks like this all might be part of the MyExpress section of the website, where you can "Have your say right here at the Daily Express website. With MyEXPRESS you can create your own unique space all about you, your views and opinions, completely free. Your thoughts can be seen by anyone who visits the Daily Express website, so what are you waiting for!" In short, this may not even be a WP:RS. I'm also not sure that the author Adrian Lee is this Adrian Lee, and attributing the article and its views to him may be a WP:BLP vio. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Learnmore mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The author

I cut this section, it seemed pointless. We link to him anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that Bishop Hill (blog) and Andrew Montford be merged here. AM seems to have no notability outside the book or blog. The blog seems barely notable, and the book too, but maybe all three added together are. Note: MN has proposed the blog for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Hill (blog) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Nsaa (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I am here due to a request to close, which I declined. Remember There is no deadline; please attempt to discuss with your fellow editors and find common ground. Closure of this because there is a simple majority is not the same as finding consensus. The most that can be said right now is that "no consensus for merge has been found" - but that could change, and opinion is still very much divided. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

support

as proposer William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
support - all 3 articles (book, author, blog) are basically drawing from the same material - which is already exceptionally weak. And what sparse reference there is to (author/blog), are side-remarks in various article that aren't about the (author/blog). The only reason for instance that Montford is getting interviewed (for <2 minutes in the BBC) is that the book has made him an interesting sceptical subject on the Hockey-stick and CRU debacle. None of these are notable in and by themselves, and together they barely are.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Kim neglects to mention the other interviews, such as A Live debate in The Times Channel 4 Environmental writer and blogger Andrew Montford looks at some of the questions the University of East Anglia's climate boss could face from MPs over the climate data row. The Times Andrew Montford, a climate-change sceptic who writes the widely-read Bishop Hill blog There are more, if this is in the wrong place please move it. mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  - How does this change the idea that they are "exceptionally weak"? These are also very weak examples. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    - How exactly is being interview for Channel 4 a weak example? Or being Interviewed by the times? Or being part of a live debate with Bob Ward and Ben Webster? mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
support I can't imagine that these articles, considered separately, have any lasting encyclopedic value. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
support this constellation of closely related topics seems best handled in one article. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
support per my comments below under the section "references" Thepm (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Support per my reasoning in the AfD. Montford makes the most sense to me as the unified article, but here would be fine. Thepisky (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we merge the AfD discussion here? It seems a bit silly to have two simultaneous discussions of the same question. Thepisky (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The AFD has run it`s course, it`s a keep as there is no consensus for a merge or delete mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

oppose

mark nutley (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Both are notable enough for there own articles
Strongly object the book is very well sourced and stand on it's own. The same can we say about Bishop Hill (blog). The article about Andrew Montford describes the person (and all the wp:blp issues that follow), with small section about each of the topic he is best known for, the blog and the book, with articles outlining these two widely different things. Nsaa (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Some merging might be a good idea but I am not convinced this is the right proposal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. I think there are enough sources to support having the blog article separate from this one. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose no need to merge anything, I think, but certainly not all three into one. ATren (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Book and person/blog are different subjects. Would support merger between Montford and blog. Slowjoe17 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Agree book and person are entirely separate.--Martin Audley (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: this is this users only edit. Canvassing, anyone? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: You fail the guidelines of "Assume Good Faith" and "Do Not Bite The Newcomers" with that innuendo. Please withdraw it.--Martin Audley (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And that is your second edit. You aren't being honest here: you are a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Either launch a sock puppet investigation or retract your claim. SkipSmith (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I protest this accusation. I don't know enough about Wiki to know a mechanism to directly link my Wiki name to my person other than to log in under that name which is the entire point of registering in the first place. I've edited Wiki previously via just an IP address and yet when I registered under my own name (specifically so that I'm open about my identity for voting purposes) I've been immediately accused of being a sock puppet both here and on my talk page by William M. Connolly, within 2 minutes of my post. This is not even an "In my opinion this is a sock puppet" type statement of belief - it's a direct accusation by WMC. I protest again: This is not Assume Good Faith and not Do Not Bite The Newcomers. I can be found pretty quickly via web under my name for anyone making an effort. My name is my name - UK Google it - the first page is mostly me. I don't know yet how to make Wiki admins aware of this personal attack, which (in my opinion) is libelous and certainly against Wiki principles as previously stated. Edit wars=Bad, so I won't protest indefinitely after this.
Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. --Cable-tv of our forefather's (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The book is logically distinct from blog and person and the attempt to shoehorn too much author/blog info into the current version is making a mess of the current article. Let an article about the book be focused on the book. --Blogjack (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Book and person are entirely separate. Timg156 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: this users only contributions are to this talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Both are notable. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain this basis for this? The blog fails our general notability guidelines and webpage-specific notability guidelines, and the book is borderline. What are you using to conclude that these are notable? Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN jumped the gun on the tags. I've restored them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Help:Merging, this should probably be closed by an uninvolved admin. Also there's little sense in closing this while the AFD is still ongoing. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The blog is discussed in several sources, including BBC and Guardian. When talking about the blog the press rarely mention the book, and the blog has been mentioned specifically for it's role. Looking at the article histories and talkpages, it would seem that this nomination could be for reasons not to do with any necessity for merging. Regardless of the nominators motivations, the press coverage afforded each of the three elements separately - book, man, blog - means that all three deserve an article. Oppose merging. Weakopedia (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comments

As we can see from the above, the majority want no merger, so i figure to make a small comment on the merger proposal. A blog article has no place in an article about a book, and as such should not be merged into this article. Montford the person is notable in his own right and under policy qualifies for his own article. The book is also notable enough to have it`s own article and as such should be left as is. The only issue i can see is with the blog, which has just survived an AFD, so it to qualifies for it`s own article. Does anyone disagree with the above assessment?

If there is to be no discourse then i figure the merge proposal be scrapped mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Last chance before the merge tags go mark nutley (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Hockey Stick Papers

Someone added the standard talking point about other papers which have are claimed to have confirmed the results of the hockey stick.

The book addresses this claim and points out why it is true but extremely misleading claim. For that reason I propose a change from:

More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.

to:

When confronted with the criticisms of the hockey stick supporters of the IPCC view claim that the conclusions of the hockey stick paper have been confirmed by many other studies.[8] Montford explores the complete context of this claim and points out that many of the other papers suffer from flaws as serious as the hockey stick or do not actually go back to the MWP.

Timg156 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Your proposed edit seems to state that "many of the other papers suffer from flaws as serious as the hockey stick or do not actually go back to the MWP." Per WP:FRINGE this article needs to make the mainstream perspective clear, and clear that it's the mainstream. The mainstream perspective is that the hockey stick is, and was right, and is confirmed by further studies. Hipocrite (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are so incredibly wrong it stuns me, name one paper which backs mbh98 that did not use the same proxies mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years." Hipocrite (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of those "dozen studies" get their flat shaft from the same relatively small set of tree-ring proxies, proxies which (a) probably don't reflect long-term trends and (b) tend to "diverge" in recent decades, suggesting they might also have done so in the past.(support) The first batch of studies relied on the Graybill bristlecone pine series which NRC said "should be avoided"; later ones shifted to rely on Polar Urals or Yamal. (Moberg is arguably an exception; not coincidentally it shows more variance than the others). --Blogjack (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So what? The point is the book lays out an argument that shows why the claim of 'other papers' is misleading/wrong. Simply stating the mainstream view that 'other papers' support the HS without mentioning that the book refutes that view introduces bias into the article. My edit makes it clear that the view being refuted with the view held by supporters of the IPCC. It is not up to WP to pass judgement on who's view is likely correct. Hipocrite's edit is trying to do that by omitting the text which makes it clear that the book specifically addresses that claim Timg156 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The book may "show" that. But mainstream science disagrees - more specifically the NRC report. And while we (WP) can't judge - we can judge whether this book or the NRC report is the more reliable source on the subject, and which one that carries more weight. (and that isn't difficult) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NRC did *not* explicitly disagree with the premise of this book. It didn't even consider it. The NRC report identified specific issues with MBH and alluded to other studies in determining the MBH findings were still "plausible" yet made no effort to determine the degree to which the other studies shared the same flaws as MBH. In short, there is no contradiction between NRC and this book. So you don't need to decide which is "the more reliable source on the subject". --Blogjack (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The NRC study did quite a bit more than "allude" - it examined the field in general, and concluded that while there was some issues with the methodology of the MBH study (it also noted btw. that the methodoly wasn't wrong per se - just badly chosen), it was confirmed by other studies that the results held. "Plausible" in the NRC's terminology meant (2:1) odds in favour - which is the roughly the same confidence as both the MBH and the IPCC report assigned to it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is it also plausible that the MWP was warmer than today. The NRC document was a carefully written polical document designed to save face without saying anything that was scientifically wrong. This means it is necessary to read between the lines to understand the true statement. Also "plausible" has an English meaning and that meaning has no probability associated with it. Assigning a 2:1 probability to the word is an abuse of the English language which suggests an intent to deceive. I do not belive that was the intent of the NRC report and they used the word because it was the only way the could say something that would be positive and true.Timg156 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. You just showed that you can't differentiate your personal POV from reality ("read between the lines", "save face", "carefully written political document") . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Am not the one making up self-serving definitions for the word 'plausible'. The word has an english meaning and that meaning is NOT 66% probable. If the report really meant to say that they would have used the word "likely" which is the IPCC term for 66%. Timg156 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"likely" is just as made up as "plausible" - as long as there is a quantitative definition along with the word - it doesn't matter. That neither makes it "political" or something to "save face" nor in any way make it "political". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To be meaningful the quantitive definition has to match the standard english meaning of the word. I could arbitrarily decide that the english word "likely" means >10% probability but that would simply confuse readers. The english word 'plausible' does NOT mean 66% likely. At best it means that no probability is known. In many cases the word is used to say that theoretically possible but the speaker is skeptical. The authors the NAS report would have known this and would have never used the word 'plausible' if they really meant to say 66% likely. I believe the word was choosen because there was no agreement amoung the authors about the likelyhood of the results being true.Timg156 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think there is no need to explain the mainstream view in detail unless Montfort's counter argument is explained in detail as well. The only information that needs to be conveyed is: mainstream view is the HS has be verified with other studies Montford disagrees and explains why the 'other studies' fail to do what the mainstream claims they do in the book. Timg156 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - but that is what WP:NPOV requires. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about a book. Putting in a claim about the 'mainstream' view and then refusing to make it clear that the book addresses that specific claim is unacceptable bias in this context. Either remove the claim about the 'mainstream' view or put the claim and counter claim in. My reading the WP:POV policy is putting Montford's claims in this context is perfectly acceptable as long as the claims are attributed to him (e.g. Montford says, Montford argues...) and are not represented as the mainstream view. Timg156 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When presenting minority (or fringe) viewpoints, then we must describe the majority viewpoint as well, and in such a way that the reader is aware of which is which. Thats a basic tenet of WP:NPOV, no matter if it is in an article about a book or anywhere else. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why don't keep the original text and append the following sentence to it: "Montford claims that many of these papers suffer from flaws as serious as those he alleges the hockey stick graph suffers from or do not actually go back to the MWP." Yilloslime ^T_C 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is what Tim suggested up above but Kim seems to disagree with this idea mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really show the mainstream version of the statement does it? We can of course put in such a sentence - but that also requires us to describe that it is a tiny minority/fringe position. Since Montford's claim is far and away from the mainstream on this. As far as i know, there are no reconstructions that doesn't show the MWP as warmer than the last part of the 20th century. (not even Loehle, after the corrections). Montfords position that these other studies have the same or similar problems are necessary for his narrative ("The MWP was made to disappear"), and thus aren't surprising - but it is a tiny minority/fringe position. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC) [nb: I have nothing against stating something like this - but it has to be contrasted with the mainstream science position - otherwise we are dodging NPOV --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)]

This is an article about a book contesting the mainstream POV. That requires that the opinions in the book be given more promenence than they would in other contexts. Timg156 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And we are giving it much more prominence than it deserves on its merits. But we could triple the amount of coverage given to the mainstream, and still be giving this view far more coverage than it deserves. What we need to do is to present fringe views in the proper context - a context that doesn't mislead readers into thinking that this is anything other than a fringe view. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read and understand WP:NPOV, specifically the section on undue weight - here is an excerpt: "...In articles about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained..." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...is this an article about a minority viewpoint...or an article about a book? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as an article on a book attempts to state something about the science, per WP:FRINGE, we are required to place that statement in context. In this case, every time one of the fringey amateur skeptical statements is made, the position of nearly every informed professional needs to put along side. If you'd like to remove every statement of fact the book purports to make, feel free. Hipocrite (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...that doesn't really answer my question, now does it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that these are seperate concepts? Depending on how the book is presented, it becomes a statement on a minority viewpoint, and that is just what has happened. For instance when we present Mendes' book on how he thinks that the Chinese discovered America - we also present the mainstream view, per NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read it but I also understand that common sense applies when applying such guidelines. In this case, this article is about the book therefore any reference to the mainstream view should simply place the book's arguments in context. It is NOT article about climate science in general and it makes no sense to apply guideline in the way you wish to apply it. Timg156 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is now so carefully hedged and trimmed of skeptical claims that the *other studies find* claim is not relevant and I'm inclined to remove it. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT would only apply here if Montford's view *were actually being presented*, which it is not. All this article says now is that Montford-who-is-skeptical wrote a history of the HS from a skeptical perspective which so far has been well received. Which needs no rebuttal. The article doesn't tell us anything about what the book *actually claims* - what montford believes or why he believes it - so there's little need to reiterate the mainstream view as a bulwark against those claims. More to the point, *guesses* such as this by people who *haven't read the book* as to what might be telling counterarguments against it are unlikely to be useful or successful. --Blogjack (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

rm Curry

I removed Curry from the article[12]. While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've never heard of this web site before, but generally speaking, web sites which do interviews are considered reliable for the interview unless there's some reason to suspect the interview isn't legit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Collide-a-scope is a blog/discussion site operated by Keith Kloor, a well-respected journalist and former editor of Audubon Magazine. His resume is here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.

Please note that Prof. Curry is commenting on the book, not the author. Thus BLP concerns are peripheral here. Good try, though. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't source Curry's opinion (Curry is a living person) to an unreliable source. It has nothing to do with the book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's not reliable, per my post above, plus what Tillman said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:V: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer - this is about a third-party, Curry, it is self-published by Kloor. (WP:BLPSPS states this rather harsher). I do agree that it is a grey-area though - since i'm rather convinced that this is Curry - but the medium (the blog) isn't reliable for such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...there may be a disconnect between what the policy says versus what editors are actually doing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interested thought experiment. What if Curry posts something on her blog (assuming that she has a blog) confirming that the interview is legit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the interview is legit, this is one for the RS noticeboard, you`ll never get any agreement here on it mark nutley (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken above about it being an interview. It appears the original source of this is a comment she made to this blog post.[13] Can anyone confirm this account is hers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark is right, re RS noticeboard. It's too late tonight here -- I'll post it there in the AM. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now posted this query at the RS noticeboard here. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

This sentence in the lede: "Many subsequent scientific papers have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original Mann et al. (1998) hockey-stick graph using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records.^[2]" appears to be a violation of WP:SYN. As far as I can see, that Guardian article does not mention this book. Any objections to removing it? Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually got a reason? mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your so not funny, give a reason for allowing wp:syn in this article mark nutley (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that we should William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A straight answer please, stop wasting time with stupid games mark nutley (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC, if you don't back up your objection with a valid reason why WP:SYN doesn't apply here, I'll be removing the sentence myself. Please, the podium is yours... Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While you gather your notes, perhaps you could answer a question. WMC, do you have of have had an off-wiki personal and/or professional relationship with Dr. Mann, one of the principal authors of the hockey stick graph, such as founding and contributing to a blog with him that defends his research? Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant, exactly? Knowing or having worked with someone, or having opinions on something is not a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, you're fishing. If you want to try to drum up a COI issue, then put it on the COI noticeboard, but be sure to look up the previous cases first where the obvious has already been discussed. William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, this article has to comply with due weight policy, as has already been discussed at #Other Hockey Stick Papers above. While the paragraph in question isn't perfect and can be improved, the point remains that "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Without this well sourced statement about the graph which is the subject of the article, this policy would not be met. Have you suggestions for improvements which would comply with policy? . . dave souza, talk 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we can follow policy like you say and avoid the synth currently in the article. If you have a source which says what you want in the article then please present it mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"It should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view" No, it should NOT always be clear. We're here to report back what reliable sources are saying about this article's topic. If no reliable sources about this topic have made this connection, you are engaging in original research, specifically, synthesis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes it should, weight is a core policy. Is the topic the hockey stick, or just the book with no comment on the hockey stick? If the latter, how do you cover the book with no comment on the hockey stick science? . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So, just imagine, if we had two conflicting policies, what should we do? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV demands that we present a minority view as such, and present the majority view as well, so that the reader has no doubt as to which is which. Apparently that conflicts with WP:OR, when the book in question has been ignored by the majority/mainstream. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting WP:NPOV. If no (or even few) reliable sources have said such a thing about this article topic, then to include it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Remember, the point of WP:NPOV is about editorial bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." -- WP:NPOV --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

<ec> And I think A Quest For Knowledge is ignoring or misinterpreting the clear statements in NPOV policy, and thus you're justifying a misleading article on the grounds that the book itself is too fringe to have been analysed in detail, though the topic of the book has been analysed by reliable sources. No original research is needed in that it's obvious that the book is about the hockey stick graph, and reliable sources cover the mainstream views on the hockey stick graph. Does AQFK claim that the book's about something else? . dave souza, talk 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a minority viewpoint, it's about a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a book presenting a minority point of view - the view of the "citizen scientists", specifically those that frequent the website climateaudit. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean we throw WP:NPOV and WP:SYN out the window. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim do you have a source saying this book presents a minority view about the hocky stick controversy? If not then stop saying it. Adding content to an article which is not referenced to the article subject (in this case a book) is wp:or and wp:syn mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question several times. I'm tired of it. It has nothing to do with OR or SYN. If you are not aware by now that this book is presenting a one-sided view of a controversy - specifically the viewpoint as presented by climateaudit and McIntyre - and if you are also not aware that the McI/climateaudit view is a minority one in comparison with the scientific mainstream - then i'm sorry to say that there isn't very much that can be done. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered the question do you have a source which backs your claim it is a simple yes or no question. And the book, which you have not read presents both sides of the case, it present the facts and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. Why are you making presumptive comments over something of which you have no knowledge? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it is the case with fringe/tiny minority viewpoints that it seldomly elicits a response from the mainstream (the thing Curry actually is saying - if you'd bother to read it). That is not an excuse to present a fringe/tiny minority view as if it was mainstream.

As for not having read the book - i have read enough of it to verify that it indeed is written from a minority viewpoint - and i have presented this on this talk-page before. Go back in the archives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC) [here is one example where i pointed this out before [14] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)]

You're still missing the point about editorial neutrality. And you have not addressed the OR/SYN issue. You were the one who made the point against SYN at The Gore Effect so I am simply following your lead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry AQfK - NPOV is quite clear on this - and it is not about only "editorial neutrality". You've been pointed this out before in various threads (for example the POV tag one in archive one). You cannot write about a book in an "In Universe" style, especially not when that book is presenting a tiny minority viewpoint. That is to fool the reader. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I have seen this "In Universe" argument before, were is the policy about it? And again, please provide a ref which supports your assertion that the book represents a (what has now become) a tiny minority viewpoint Seems to become smaller with every post. No ref to support your claims then all you are doing is wasting time mark nutley (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim: No, you're the one who keeps getting NPOV wrong even though you've been repeatedly told you are wrong, including by Jimbo Wales. Please be constructive and provide your sources as has been asked of you repeatedly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Wow! Where did Jimbo ever tell me about this? Ever heard of WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem? And No, I've not been "told repeatedly" that i'm "wrong". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've been told repeatedly and you're still having difficulty with this policy. Now, please answer Mark's question, do you have sources or don't you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No i haven't been told "repeatedly". Sorry. Repetition does not equal reality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole article full of sources: Hockey stick controversy. You seem both to be advocating the viewpoint that "We can ignore what the book is about - because fortunately the book has been ignored by the mainstream" - sorry but that view flies directly in the face of WP:NPOV. If someone writes a book about the earth being a triangle, and no scientist reviews it, can we then present it as if it is true? (that is the "In Universe" thing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Can you try again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim NPOv says "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view". Note the bold parts please mark nutley (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. This article is about the book, not about the hockey stick controversy. So, the illegal synthesis goes. I'm removing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see any sign of consensus for removal of that text; your action appears precipitate and I've reversed it. Please have the patience to argue your case here, if you really think you have one William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Are`nt you on a 1r parole WMC? Please self revert mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please have the patience to read the discussion above you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is synthesis. NPOV is clear - fringe views, even when they are the subject of the article, should not be presented without the context of the majority viewpoint. Without presenting the full context, this article is little more than an inappropriately weighted puff piece. StuartH (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a minority viewpoint, it's about a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with above. The article is relevant, and it is a whole other question what the book is about. This book is written by one of the leading climate sceptics and it have been exposed in media. Strict presentation and info is relevant, even if people here dont like the topic of the book. 110.49.204.11 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy stands, and while the article is only supported by cites from in-universe fringe proponents, at least one points to the scientific consensus they oppose, so that's a basis for showing the majority viewpoint. By the way, two sources used didn't mention the book, so I've removed them as synthesis. . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave were is this His assessment goes against the scientific consensus as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the temperature record of the past 1000 years is supported by other recent studies.[2] in this ref? [15] mark nutley (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

POV tag back - see archives and talk

(edit conflict)I'm restoring the POV tag - since we are now back at the same position as we were previously. Please see the archives where this is explained in long discussions.

The problem here is simple: Editors are presenting the book In-Universe, and are ignoring that the books presents a well-known controversy, described in Hockey stick controversy. The book presents the viewpoint of Stephen McIntyre who in this is a minority viewpoint, but since the book has been ignored by the scientific mainstream, they argue that a description of the mainstream scientific view can't be done (per WP:SYN) - but this clashes with WP:NPOV which states that we must describe a minority viewpoint as such.

This has (as said) been discussed Ad Nauseam in the archives before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If readers want to know more about the Hockey stick controversy or global warming, they can simply click on those links and read those articles. I see no reason why we should be violating WP:SYN here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the book, not about the controversy. Readers are free to click over and read that article to learn more about the controversy itself. If someone reviews this book and discusses the controversy itself as it relates to this book, then that is another matter. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tiny minority and fringe views are by definition ignored by the mainstream. That doesn't mean that we should treat them as if they were mainstream, because that is an NPOV violation. Again: Read the archives. This is something that has been discussed Ad-Nauseam, and by removing that part of the article - the old POV violation resurfaced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you haven't produced any sources that say that this book's author's views are "tiny minority" or "fringe". Actually, if you had such a source, then you would be free to use it. Furthermore, this article doesn't present the book's views as mainstream. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And i see no reason to violate WP:NPOV here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, NPOv is not being violated mark nutley (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a presentation of, and info about, a book, and nothing else. It is really not easy to understand why strict presentation and info should be considered "POV". If KimDabelsteinPetersen dont like this book because of the topic (we all know KDP is pro-AGW), it should be much better if he argue against the article on relevant grounds. If he really have some, I mean. 110.49.204.11 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the article [16] doesn't describe any opinions about AGW, not even opinions about AGW found in the book. If Montford presents his opinions about AGW in the book, then the article should describe them to our readers. In that case, we should note what the mainstream opinion is and mention how Montford's opinion relates to that (i.e., that Montford's view is fringe or minority or whatever). But if the article doesn't, as it now doesn't, include statements about POV, then there is no justification to include a description of the mainstream POV. I disagree with comments saying that since this is an article about a book the WP:FRINGE requirements don't apply: they apply wherever we describe POVs, regardless of the overall subject of the article. It's kind of like WP:BLP applying throughout the encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This can't be such a big deal. All know, and it is common knowledge, that climate scepticism is a fringe opinion, and Wiki is clear on that point, including the references to other Wiki-pages in this article. Pro-AGW editors exaggerate this to be a very big problem, when it really is a very small problem, or perhaps not a problem at all. 110.49.204.16 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Background

By the way, didn't there used to be a background section in this article, explaining how Montford came to write this book? What happened to it? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've used the book itself in two other articles to source background sections, including here and here. Now that I finally have the book, I'll try to write another background section for this article as soon as I have a chance. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Souza's edit to lede

I don't understand that this sentence is referring to, "His assessment goes against the scientific consensus as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the temperature record of the past 1000 years is supported by other recent studies." What assessment? Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he is refering to this The IPCC has taken refuge in saying that other recent studies confirm the hockey stick but, if you take those studies apart, the same old bad data sets keep popping out: bristlecone pines and all which is nothing like what he has written and totally misrepresents the source mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as contentious, and also CE'd out the "home-based" bit, which is irrelevant & could be considered (mildly) pejorative. Discuss here please. Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, WP:WEIGHT requires us to show the majority expert view and how this fringe publication differs from it. Looking again at the very dubious non-expert source,
"If this had been a drug trial done by a pharmaceutical company, the scientific journals, the learned academies and the press would have soon have rushed to discredit it—and rightly so. Instead, they did not want to know. Nature magazine, which had published the original study, went out of its way to close its ears to McIntyre’s criticisms, even though they were upheld by the reviewers it appointed. So did the National Academy of Sciences in the US, even when two reports commissioned by Congress upheld McIntyre. So, of course, did the IPCC, which tied itself in knots changing its deadlines so it could include flawed references to refutations of McIntyre while ignoring complaints that it had misquoted him.
The IPCC has taken refuge in saying that other recent studies confirm the hockey stick"
So I've modified it to "He describes Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the scientific consensus as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the temperature record of the past 1000 years is supported by other recent studies." Of course we can make necessary assumptions as the current scientific understanding is well supported in the linked article. The source included the point about him being home-based, but I don't have any strong feelings about that. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AS pointed out above we are not required to show the majority view here, and again please show your ref saying this book is fringe. What you have done is misrepresent a source mark nutley (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark is right. I'm pretty tired of hearing "fringe" when all that's there is I DONT LIKE IT. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the ones saying "I DONT LIKE IT", WP:WEIGHT requires that "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." Even your inexpert source admits that, in science, the book is promoting a minority view. . . dave souza, talk 23:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Were in the ref does it say this is a minority view? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about a minority viewpoint. It's an article about a book. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a RS that says what you want to say, fine. WP:OR &/or WP:SYN won't pass muster, and this is (only) an article about a book, as Mark & AQFK keep pointing out. OK? We went through all this at Plimer's book, if you were involved there. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you did misrepresent what the source is saying with the sentence, "He describes Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the scientific consensus as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..." The source doesn't say that at all. It says that the book describes McIntyre's criticism of the hockey stick graph, not the IPCC's consensus on global warming. I haven't seen anywhere, in any source related to this article, that says that Montford in this book, or McIntyre, is saying that the scientific consensus on human-caused warming is wrong. What they're saying is that the research by Mann and his colleagues which went into producing that graph is deeply flawed. Two separate issues. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While we should certainly point out that the book promotes a fringe view, the best way to do that is to use high quality book reviews pointing this out. TFD (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Books promoting a fringe view are generally ignored by scholars. Reviews of The Hockey Stick Illusion have not appeared in the scholarly literature.[17] Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this personally, but I think your point might be fallacy of composition (or is it fallacy of division?). Because no journals have reviewed it yet doesn't mean that the book holds a fringe view. Anyway, if a scholarly journal, or any other reliable source, reviews the book, either positively or negatively, we can add it to this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You can tell a lot about the quality of a book from its reviews. The reviews in this article show that it's not a reliable source for articles about climate science. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Says Viriditas, but it's not true that "it's not a reliable source for articles about climate science.". Nsaa (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an exaggeration to say that the reviews show positively that it is an unreliable source, but on the other hand they do not show that it is a reliable source. Most of the "reviews" are just passing mentions by opinion columnists. All of them are from supporters of the fringe POV promoted by Montford. It's comparable to creationists commending a creationist book, or moon landing conspiracy theorists commending a moon landing conspiracy book - indicative of opinion in a section of that fringe community but in no way illustrative of mainstream scientific opinion. It's significant that the book has been all but ignored by mainstream scientists and reviewers and hasn't received any reviews from anyone who doesn't already agree with Montford's POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception II

It has been suggested by several editors in the above section that the Reception section displays undue POV by ommission of reviews contrary to that perceived POV. The editors have been asked for sources to show those contrary reviews, but have not yet provided any. Are there any sources to show this different POV or not? If not, the POV in the article must reflect the coverage in reliable secondary sources. If that is not true, however, there must be specific sources to show that, or specific concerns with the quality of the current sourcing. Perhaps the editors who think that section shows undue POV could list their specific concerns so that they may be addressed. Weakopedia (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda - you said "Are you saying that the reception was entirely positive? If it wasn't, then the section is misleading.", but the article does not claim that the reception was entirely positive, it just lists some examples of the reseption it received. If you dispute the sourcing used, you could change that. But it is only appropriate to say that the reviews present do not represent the views in general if you have a source saying different. You must have seen such a source to have the opinion that the reviews here are unrepresentative, so could you please list that source, either in the article, or if you do not wish to edit it in directly, here, for other editors to work on. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this article before today, and I was surprised at the "reception" section, not seeing any critical reviews. I'm sure there must be some. However, while I can find a non RS critical review in Amazon, I'm not finding much. Surely there must be some.--SPhilbrick T 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

None as yet, and i have looked on a regular basis for new reviews, weird huh, you`d think at least Monbiot would have had a go at it :) mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a problem with the dutch reference in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. The reference given points to the webshop, where they sell the book, and there is a little story accompanying the product the webshop. Therefore I would say that the statement that "Erwin van den Brink, writing in the Dutch magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek" is false, unless there is a reference actually pointing to an article in the magazine itself (which I can't find). I doubt this section in the Reception should stay. (WijzeWillem (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Also the article pointed to is in Dutch, so the apparent quotation is not in fact in the text. Given the large number of well sourced positive reviews I can't see any harm in removing this one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is also true. The translation from Dutch not brilliant, in any case. The 'review' is btw not positive as I read it, stating that the core of climategate has not been laid bare, and that it seems like McIntiry is like a pensioned old mathematician, on a revanche for a briljant acadamic career he has missed since his childhood. Anyway, unless anyone objects, I'll remove it shortly. (WijzeWillem (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

I object, why remove reliably sourced material? mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Full translation here btw [18] mark nutley (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's not a noteworthy 'review', it's a comment to promote a product in a webshop! I don't know why this should be in, given the already quite large number of reviews in the list. (WijzeWillem (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

As a further comment, I don't think many books will have the 'Amazon product review' as a reliable source on the reception of a book. This is exactly the same thing.(WijzeWillem (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC))

Agreed; I have removed it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RC review

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a great RS, being both a blog and published under a pseudonym, but we really do need to find a critical review somewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Tamino would help, if a suitable publication record in the field is available it would be expert opinion and appropriate as a WP:SPS giving an outside view of the claims in the book. . dave souza, talk 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Montford's initial comments on Tamino's review are here. Tamino doesn't have a good record (ime) in getting things right in this area. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RC is used as an RS. It isn't at all clear why we should be guided by Tillman's views on Tamino William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Its unfortunate that this is written by Tamino - since that invalidates RC as an RS in this particular case. (it no longer is covered under the expert clause of SPS). On the other hand it is interesting, since this is the first review of the book we have that is at least somewhat supported by scientists (under the assumption that the RC crew agrees with Taminos analysis). But imho not usable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 July 2010

Who actually is Tamino? Does he have any relevant expertise? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tamino is *probably* "Grant Foster", one of the scientists quoted in the Climategate letters. In which case he has relevant personal and professional expertise. But because it's a pseudonym, there's no way to confirm that. --Blogjack (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, RealClimate is a self-published source. I'm removing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A lack of relevant expertise didn't stop Christopher Booker! --ASmartKid (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I self-reverted, because I remembered that all the involved parties in the current ArbCom case are supposed to have voluntarily topic-banned themselves. Do you have a reason why using a source that violates our RS guideline is ok here? Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I too have self-reverted. Obviously it's unfair that Booker's inane views can be credited but this scientific rebuttal can't be. But I can see the point of the ban on blogs ("Anyone can create a website"). I wasn't aware of that rule but am now. --ASmartKid (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@JAJ: I don't know, which is why i'm saying that the expert clause in WP:SPS can't be used, and thus this isn't a reliable source. Its an interesting one - and if it had been underwritten by any of the regulars at RC, it would have been an RS. But that is water under the bridge, and thus the ref can't be used without consensus to do so (which i doubt we'll get). Fwiw. i support the removal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (nb: the Guardian may still repost it, as they've done with other such articles, which would then change things again - but we'll worry about it then) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

If the Guardian reposts it, then I think we should give serious consideration to including it. Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that the piece's writer is using a psuedonym? Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

tamino's real identity (along with that of Eli Rabett) are among the worst-kept secrets around. Are people unable to read? His website http://tamino.wordpress.com is rather obvious, even if you didn't already know whop he was. I'm sure he prefers not to be deluged with email rants or dead rats on this doorstep. He certainly is an expert on statistics and time-series, which should be self-evident to anyone who has followed his blog for any length of time. JohnMashey (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, does anyone here think it is appropriate to list a critical review of this subject by a writer using a psuedonym? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a clear violation of policy. mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not a wish to get tamino's review included, as it is not an RS under the rules. I do believe this particular case may, in the long term, be helpful in sharpening Wikipedia's views on the nature of reliable sources, not an easy task. tamino's article is *not* a RS, no matter what his track record on Open Mind is, no matter that RC published it, no matter that his identity is actually well-known, and that 2 of the RealClimate authors have been coauthors with him on a relevant peer-reviewed paper. Under the rules, virtual identities are not RS, no matter what. But the contrast highlight something far more interesting:

According to this article: George Gilder, co-Founder of the Discovery Institute, writing about climate for the DI's website, seems to be a RS, despite having apparently learned what he knows of climate science from Arthur Robinson of OISM fame. I'm sure a DI cofounder's work was heavily edited and fact-checked by the DI website, well-known for its insistence on good science.

Two business writers for local newspapers, including one who stated there is zero evidence of global warming, with no obvious expertise, are RS as they are real people, and if something is in a newspaper, it is a RS, although one might question the observed record of such papers in editing such things. A third business writer, writing for a newspaper with a long-demonstrated history of climate anti-science, seems to be RS. He's currently named in a serious libel lawsuit on a closely-related topic, and I've read the complaint, but he is innocent-until-proven-guilty. However, even if found guilty, I think (?) by Wikipedia rules he will still be a RS because he is a real person. As far as I know,

This case offers a very clear contrast. What happens to this particular page seems irrelevant, given that HSI will be overtaken by events anyway. But this whole process and its history offer a very useful case study, precious to preserve. Thinking about it may help Wikipedia in its constant, albeit difficult effort to improve the rules. JohnMashey (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

One might add that Judith Curry's comments on the book were also disallowed, on the grounds that she posted her remarks on a 3rd party blog -- see RS noticeboard here. The only climate scientist so far to comment on the book using her real name. That one is more of a gray area, and might have been salvaged, but for an over-zealous editor here who impersonated Curry to make a point [!!]. So I agree, the pendulum seems tohave swung a bit too far against non-"cut & dried" RS's. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: Josh at Cartoons by Josh weighs in: Fantasy Climate #2, "Tamino sees the light". Heh. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed in the comments section for Tamino's piece that Judith Curry posted a long defence of the book, along with a threaded rebuttal by Gavin Schmidt. Neither are reliable sources for information for this or the Hockey stick controversy articles, but makes some interesting reading for followers of the topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps people can comment on the HSI pp.28-29, specifically the Deming quotes. Do those come from Science, or do they come from JSE (The Journal of Scientific Exploration)? Where does it lie on the credibility scale, say relative to Science or Energy&Environment? Also, where does the whole discussion pp.23-30 most likely originate? Is there any problem for Montford regarding the Huang discussion? (All this is related to the RC thread, which is why it is mentioned here.) JohnMashey (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No takers so far? These are straightforward factual questions whose answers are exemplars for the scholarship of the book, not endless arguments over who is or isn't a plausible reviewer. Put another way, is Deming's story on pp.28-29 published in a reliable source, or not? Does the Huang story match reality, or not? Who is Deming, besides having published a borehole article? This material, after all is fairly key to Montford's narrative. Are they true, or not? Do they ignore any relevant other evidence, i.e., that might be called "Culpable Ignorance"? JohnMashey (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the e-mail about getting rid of the medieval warm period see here [19] I`ve not read the RC thread, is it the actual comments or foster`s article? What exactly is it you`d like verified? mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to verify that a) Deming is a credible commenter on climate science, that b) JSE is a credible publication, and that c) the Huang(1997) story makes sense. JohnMashey (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(c) No the story doesn't make sense according to [Huang(2008)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, I'd hoped MarkNutley would answer, but that hasn't happened. All the answers are in several of my posts at RC, specifically This one on Huang and This one, which corrects some links and has more and this one, including a fix on the sheep.. Basically,

a) David Deming is an Oklahoma petroleum geologist/geophysicist, even less credible on climate than most such, he's right with Inhofe.

b) JSE is a fringe/pseudo-science journal, many rungs below Energy&Environment. Some discussion can be found at Rabbet Run's ask-for-it-under-counter-in-plain-brown.wrapper. See JSE Wikipedia description, but some links are broken. If you want to sample it, many past articles are freeely available at the current current JSE website. For example, Hollander's article describes weighing sheep while suffocating them, finding an anomalous, but quantized weight gain at time of death. It's a great source for sciencey-looking papers like An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in Relation to Dog Behaviour Differences by Statistical Analysis and Compared with Human Characteristics, in which studies of 500 French dogs found that their behaviors are astrologically-driven like humans. I used to think the sheep were #1, but the dogs are contenders. Every once in a while a halfway-plausible-sounding article somehow sneaks through, but given the caliber of peer review displayed, who would ever know? Despite the description, this is NOT The Onion. It must be seen to be disbelieved.

It is hard to believe anyone not totally clueless would ever take JSE seriously ... oops, I see Montford quoted it twice. Sorry.

c) Huang is covered above. That was already sorted out in 1998, but the memes were passed along via McIntyre and McKitrick, ignoring everything that happened, and desperately trying keep Lamb's sketch used in teh 1990 IPCC alive, like claiming the world is flat because an old map is found, and ignoring GPS satellites. Huang(2008)'s complaint is likely directed to M&M, among others, or further back to Soon&Baliunas(2003). McKitrick quotes Deming in an obscure talk in Australia, and that seems the likely pathway for Montford to end up with 2 quotes from the ultra-obscure JSE. Anyway, this is a small sample of why HSI pp.17-30 ... are junk.JohnMashey (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

^ Lee, Adrian (January 27,2010). "GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT A CLIMATE CON!". The Express. Retrieved 2 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Fred Pearce (9 February 2010). "Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick' | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-08.

[Adrian_Lee-1] Lee, Adrian (January 27,2010). "GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT A CLIMATE CON!". The Express. Retrieved 2 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[Part_four_guardian-2] Fred Pearce (9 February 2010). "Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick' | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-03-08.

[1]

[2]