Talk:Climate Research (journal)

UNDUE?
CR is a bit rubbish but does it really deserve to have 80%+ of its article about one paper? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but the paper seems to be the only thing that the journal is really notable for as far as I can tell. I assume the part of WP:UNDUE you're concerned about is "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I think that the content I added earlier helps to place the whole CRU hack incident in context and is useful. If you know of anything else that could be written about the journal then it would be great to add it, it's difficult to find anything on google though, as it is drowned out by this one paper. I'd be willing to change anything if suggestions are made. Smartse (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is looking very coatracky. If the incident itself merits an article, then we can move this one to reflect the content, because it most emphatically is not an article about the journal. --TS
 * I disagree, the information about this paper gives details about the general workings of the journal (like the peer-review process). As I said before this seems to be the only paper that makes the article notable, all other information that can be included, has been AFAIK. Smartse (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --TS 12:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've spun a lot of this article off to Soon and Balliunas controversy, so that the article isn't completely overwhelmed by discussion of that one paper. We should probably refer to that article in the article about the fuss over the emails. --TS 01:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU emails controversy connection
I just added a paragraph on the connection between the Climategate emails and the Soon and Baliunas controversy using climatologist Pat Michael's recent piece from the Wall Street Journal. It's not just about the S&B controversy, but also Michael's opinion on how the controversy has affected the journal's editorial content. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See preceding section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I connected it with some information, Michael's opinion of the journal's current editing attitude, that is related directly to this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I revised it to stay closer to the source and to clarify that this is Michaels's (sic) opinion rather than a statement of fact. "Retaliate" was a bit over the top and wasn't used in the cited editorial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor old CR doesn't deserve to have so much space taken up by controversies. S+B yes, though thankfully that now has a sub-page, but Michaels no: that was non-notable. Put it on Michaels page if you like, since it is all only his opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Revolt?
The most controversial statement in this article is there was a near revolt, and yet there is no reference to this event. Please provide a reference. Catch21 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded the sentence and added a citation from The Hockey Stick Illusion. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I've removed, per all the previous discussion elsewhere about HSI not being an RS, of which you're perfectly well aware William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that my citation had two sources included in it? One was not HSI.  Did you look at it before you reverted?  If not, I think it might be more helpful for all of us to remember not to revert others' edits so quickly.  I guess I'll add it back for you in case you're busy.  Anyway, even it was just sourced to HSI, it would still be ok. Cla68 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

removed Hockey stick illusion.
The text about Hans von Storch is unsupported by the text in the book. There is nothing about 4 editors, and HvS's editor-in-chief status isn't mentioned at all. It does mention that "Von Storch is a colorful character who once founded a club to defend Donald Duck against accusations of indecent behavious, and for some years was the editor of a Donald Duck magazine, Der Hamburger Donaldist." though. This is not-withstanding the contentious nature of using the book to present factual information.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Illusion doesn't have the level of detail that the Chronicle article has, but it still helps support the assertion that scientists resigned from the journal's board over the controversy. Why wouldn't it be better to have two references instead of just one? Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * HSi doesn't give any support to this assertion - since it barely touches upon it. There are a large number of alternate references that do go into depth on this, and one of those may be good as an extra reference - but then again - we have a whole article on it, which is wikilinked, so why bother?
 * The basics here is that you added HSi as a reference, despite that A) it is a contentious reference B) It didn't support the sentence in question. And that is a serious problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with both A and B Kim. If you'll check the article, you'll notice that the book has received numerous positive reviews, including one published in the journal of a learned society.  So the HSI source is solid.  Also, the book doesn't have the level of detail about the resignations of the scientists that the Chronicle article has, but it does corraborate that scientists did resign, which helps reinforce the veracity of the Chronicle's reporting. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many reviews the book has gotten. The facts in the statement that you try to use the book as a reference for aren't in the book . Therefore it doesn't "reinforce the veracity" of anything. It is rather obvious that you aren't trying to reinforce the content - but rather looking for a spot where you can place a reference to your particular pet book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And Cla is still puffing this thing: we've already been over the "journal of a learned society" bit and we know very well that is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is odd. Why use an iffy reference when there are plenty of high-quality references that say the same thing? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is very odd Boris, if these high quality sources say the same thing as you assert then that proves that the book is not actually iffy at all mark nutley (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it proves that it got one fact right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this edit correct?
This was recently reverted and i`d like to know if it is correct and if so why was it reverted? mark nutley (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect it was reverted because it's made from a likely Scibaby sock. Scibaby edits can be reverted without considering the merit - that's the nature of a ban. If you go to Soon and Baliunas controversy, there is a link to their E&E paper. Funding agencies, sponsors, and publishers differ in what level of disclosure they require. If there is an acknowledgment, you will almost always find it either as a footnote on the first page, or as a small section at the end of the paper, just before the "References" or "Bibliography" sections. In the case of the E&E paper, it's on pages 39 and 40 of the PDF (271-272 in the journal), and claims "This work was supported by funds from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-0194), the American Petroleum Institute (Grants 01-0000-4579 and 2002-100413) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NAG5-635), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Grant NA96GP0448)." The E&E paper is an expansion of the CR paper, so it may have different and additional sponsors, You need to go back to the original to find out about who sponsored its research, but I strongly suspect that it's the same group. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The original CR paper is online as well, linked from the same page. Will you check for yourself to get into the habit? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stephan, i am now curious as to why the article omits this detail and focus`s on the oil industry only? I`m going to revert the suspected socks edit back in as it is factually correct and certainly more NPOV mark nutley (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Nils Christian Stenseth, Nils Stenseth?
Is Nils Christian Stenseth, Nils Stenseth? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)