Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 2

Raymond, why delete my comment?
IIt seems odd to me that you delete my comment reminding Kim of his violation of WP:BLP and you delete my comment and leave his. Can you explain your behavior? RonCram 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * His comment didn't mention anyone by name; it seemed to be about a general principle rather than a specific case; and he doesn't have a long history of persistently making such accusations. To avoid any ambiguity I have given Kim a caution. Raymond Arritt 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, thank you. This is more in line with your character.  However, I disagree that an op-ed is automatically precluded from being an External Link.  The guideline does not say that.  Op-ed are often used, especially in articles about controversial issues.  This is the Hockey stick controversy we are talking about.  I still have not been given a good reason why this op-ed should not be a part of the article. RonCram 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been given good reasons but you choose not to accept them. At some point persistence crosses over into tendentious editing, and you're moving with all deliberate speed in that direction. Raymond Arritt 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, I believe I have presented a reasonable rebuttal to every reason put forward. I am not alone in believing the op-ed has merit and I have explained that it is the only one written by a non-scientist.  As I pointed out, the fact it is an op-ed does not rule out the piece.  So, what reason is ruling it out?  I think that is a fair question and completely non-tenditious.RonCram 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my above response to Kim. Raymond Arritt 01:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, the fact that the writer is not a scientist is neither here nor there. Indeed, one can make an excellent case that a non-scientist can be more objective in cases like this. It gives an "arms length" independent view. Therefore the only thing to find out is whether the editor has a respectable reputation and history. (I don't know myself, have not checked up). rossnixon 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you insist on this article if you are unaware of the editor's reputation and history? This editorial is much too slanted to provide encyclopedic value. --Skyemoor 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked Orson_Scott_Card and apart from being a Mormon and a Democrat, I see no reason to suspect him to be unreliable. rossnixon 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you need to meet WP:RS which this quote suggests you haven't read; "the fact that the writer is not a scientist is neither here nor there. Indeed, one can make an excellent case that a non-scientist can be more objective in cases like this. It gives an "arms length" independent view." WP:RS says "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. " --Skyemoor 16:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject was the fudging of data, not atmospheric physics. No scientist degree needed, just detective work / investigative journalism skills . Have you read the OSC article then? rossnixon 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news?
Some conservatives have been up in arms about the discovery of several Y2K-based goofs in the NASA/Goddard's GISS temperature record. Michael Mann has stated that "there is a 95 to 99% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years." The new rankings for the 10 hottest years in the US are in fact 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 [1st to 10th].

This is being discussed on hotair.com, coyoteblog.com, and michellemalkin.com- granted, a far cry from being reliable sources! I don't know very much about the content in this article or wikipedia policy. Should anything be added about this?

The specific figures are at 'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt'.


 * Ask yourself how a "Y2K-based goof" can affect the relative standings of years before Y2K. Raymond Arritt 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The other blogs claim that Steve McIntyre, on climateaudit.org, found "a Y2K bug" but don't go to any particular detail. I think that climateaudit.org is down. I don't really see your point; the GISS website explicitly denies that 1998 was the hottest year on record. 72.47.71.160 06:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Okay, www.climateaudit.org is indeed down. 72.47.71.160 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC) New User


 * Distinguish US and global William M. Connolley 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I attempted an "as neutral as possible" update and summary galneweinhaw 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting event, any recommendations on a better article to place the info, since you do not feel this one is appropriate? galneweinhaw 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You could try bloating instrumental temperature record even more if you like William M. Connolley 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what effect the errors have on the global temperature record. Although dailytech.com states that "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)", none of the blogs that broke the story say anything like this.

I agree that the info belongs on instrumental temperature record. Galneweinhaw, I made some additions and some superficial changes to your post there.

It now reads:

'Recent Adjustments to the U.S. temperature record' Anthony Watts and other bloggers noticed a large jump in NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperate record around the year 2000. Stephen McIntyre investigated the data and the methods used to calculate it. Given that NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to create their graphs, McIntyre reverse engineered the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data. He states in one of his first posts in which he begins to understand what is happening:
 * This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 - and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error. []

McIntyre details the distribution of the error and the problems with the USHCN temperature data on his website. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem affecting data from the years 2000-2007. NASA acknowledges the problem and issues corrected data. The old figures can be found here and the new figures here. According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 was not the hottest year in the United States. The new rankings for the 10 hottest years are in fact 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939- 1st to 10th. NASA has not yet made any statement explaining their changes to the relative standings prior to 2000.

It's unclear what effect the errors had on the global temperature record. Michael Asher at dailytech.com states that "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought)". 

72.47.71.160 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC) New User

Re: Breaking News
I do not have a wikipedia account, so I'm not sure if I have to sign my posts in some other way or not. I apologize if I violated wikipedia policy.
 * Just put four tildes at the end of the last line of your message, like this: ~ . It will then expand to give a time and signature when you click "save page." Raymond Arritt 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay 72.47.71.160 06:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) New User

General Comment
I have looked into the global warming debate full time over the last 4 months but came across this Wiki article only a few minutes ago. IMHO the current version is a verbose attempt to confuse the real history and current status of the MBH98 claims (including the graph). IMO the situation is as follows (and should be presented this way):

1. when Mann et al. published their work, there had been already an established scientific position which included in particular the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (nobody seems to deny the LIA since there is no ideological driver).
 * Please provide the evidence for an established consensus, assuming you mean majority opinion. If not, then what is the point? --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Accordingly MBH98 at the time reflected the odd position which however was promoted to "scientific consensus" by the IPCC which in itself is a political body. The IPCC allegedly has chosen Mann over anybody else because the hypothesis fitted into their ideological picture
 * Political speculation on your part; hardly encyclopedic material. You might consider a blog. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Harvard astrophysicists Soon and Baliunas have correctly put MBH back in their place in 2003 by re-establishing the validity of the older studies and proved that the MWP had been established as a global phenomenon. Surprisingly Soon/Baliunas are listed in the ref table but not mentioned in the text - not with a single word!
 * Proof? Please establish their findings as proof. Their 'findings' have been roundly derided. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

4. in 2003 a kind of a war was launched against Soon/Baliunas because of claimed bad science. But McIntire/McKitrick proved that the MBH reconstruction was deeply flawed in numerous ways. And the Wegmann commission explicitly confirmed that every point of the McIntire/McKitrick critics had been correct from the viewpoint of professional statistics.
 * Much of what you say is in the article, just not in the politically loaded manner you present here. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Wegmann also critisized that Mann was center person of a "clique" of 40 or so scientists who acted as authors and referees at the same time. Well, certain people of this clique seem to work on THIS article too!
 * The Webmann report has been shown for what it was; primarily a political hit piece. This last segment speaks volumes about the flimsiness of the 'evidence' presented. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

6. recent research (e.g. by Mangini) confirms warmer times in the past, i.e. further disproves Mann's position.
 * The NRC report covers this subject in much greater detail, and with many more involved. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also necessary to look at the broader context, which is in particular the CO2-hockeystick. IMO the IPCC curve is pure junk,
 * Your opinion means nothing here. Please see WP:RS --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

with the methodology of ice core analysis challenged by Jaworowski and Segalstad and finally disproved


 * "Disproved"? So Beck's analysis is now the consensus? If not, how do you determine the veracity of such a 'proof'?

for the short term by Beck (who re-visited all the older CO2-studies from the 19th and early 20th century and made precise assessments of the methodological flaws of some of them) and for the longer term my a number of paleo-botanists who investigated stomata in fossil plants (stomata analysis of birch trees during recovery from the last ice age shows CO2 approx. 80 ppm above the IPCC/Gore ice core history).


 * You would need to reference those paleo-botanists. --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On this page at least this other controversy should be mentioned.

Since the article is about a controversy, it should show all positions of the controversy correctly which includes at least a selection of those graphical reconstructions which show a MWP significantly warmer than temperatures today. Otherwise it looks like as if the article was censored a little ... --Kermecke 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. You have reached the same conclusion as any independent rational observer. The article as it stands is ridiculous. For example, Mann's 'uncritical parrot' remark is quoted twice (or should I say uncritically parroted twice?). The absurd implication is that expert statisticians abandoned their academic credentials because they were commissioned by a Republican. In fact the controversy now is between Von Storch and Mcintyre as to who deserves credit for debunking the Hockey stick. You can try correcting the article, but the fanatical clique will change things back again immediately, so there is little point. Fortunately, any reasonably intelligent reader will reach the same conclusion as you and I, that the article is a gross distortion of the truth. Paul Matthews 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The NRC report provides the most reliable examination of the topic, which has been carefully covered in appropriate detail. If you consider them a gross distortion of the truth, you need to provide evidence that outweighs their findings. Good luck... --Skyemoor 00:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed one of those parrots! Paul Matthews 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Recreated Shape Claim
From the article:


 * However, some have recreated the shape regardless of what is put into the MBH98 algorithm.

This claim is followed with the following reference: Now, let me be just clear that my opinion on the global warming debate is neutral, tending towards believing that global warming is real and is significantly man-made. What I fail to understand is why the claim quoted above has been slightly...shall we say...under-discussed, and is treated almost parenthetically. I'm quite prepared to believe that a scientifically credible and rigorous methodology might be created to show a hockey-shape graph, showing that the world really has gotten hotter because of man. But if the claim in that web page is true, then what we have here is an algorithm that is absolutely useless for any meaningful scientific inquiry about the climate. If I could put any arbitrary data into Mann's algorithm and still produce a hockey-shaped graph, then Mann is absolutely hokey! And if so, I don't see why this fact is not being made very clear at the very start of the article, and why Mann's findings are still being treated as if they had any scientific weight, at all. And if there is a flaw in the claim, why not state it in the article? This is not about politics or even about global warming. It's about the credibility of a scientist.

So...What am I missing here? No, that's not a rhetorical question. I'm not a scientist and I don't know how credible the above claim really is, so I am genuinely curious. focoma 09:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim is incompatible with the simultaneous claim that you only get a HS shape out if you include the bristlecone pines. To understand this, you have to distinguish between the shape of PC1 and the reconstruction as a whole, and the behaviour with different types of autocorrelation. See for eample William M. Connolley 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim is also not made in this generality. It is made for red noise, not for arbitrary data. And even in that case, while the general shape of the result is somewhat similar, the actual scale of the amplitudes is about a magnitude less than in the HS (and other, similar reconstructions). --Stephan Schulz 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks. Still don't quite understand your explanation (doesn't matter!), but at least I know that that claim wasn't just missed by the more knowledgeable Wikipedians. focoma 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Update section
I did a careful cleanup of this section this PM. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted all my changes, commenting that " Von Storch cannot by any goodwill [sic] be called "perifrial" [sic]"

As other editors can see, I removed a peripheral priority-dispute between von Storch & McIntyre, among other cleanup work. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You forgot my ";)" at the end. (and excuse me for making a elling-sperror). "All" your changes consisted of inserting a few "*"'s, a deletion of comments between Von Storch and McIntyre (both very much part of the controversy), and insertion of even more information on Wegman. The First part can be called "Cleanup work" - the latter two are specific edits. Can you explain the rationale of these - instead of just calling it "peripheral priority-dispute". I'd say that the whole ASA meeting section (which you expanded) is very much more of a peripheral thing - than an exchange between two of persons directly involved with the dispute. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because both van Storch & McIntyre are both involved is no reason to put their priority dispute in this encyclopedia article. If anywhere, it belongs on one or both men's personal pages. Other opinions?  Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kim, please stop reverting my edits until others can comment. See WP:EW. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Way too much Wegman. Also, you should not have removed the van Storch stuff, it makes the edit seem POV since you removed from one side of the controversy and added to the other.  I oppose any further addition of Wegman stuff, since, in my view, it is given too much space and it gives too much importance to what was, in my eyes, a political hit-job. Brusegadi (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * McI's name is used a lot. That a highly respected researcher like von S thinks McI has made little contribution is obviously important William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, let me put down my reasoning in detail for removing this paragraph, starting with "McIntyre was critical of this Nature blog entry..." The entire exchange is online here


 * 1) The proposed deletion is a rather unseemly squabble over who criticized the hockey stick first.
 * 2) This dispute has (imo) almost nothing to do with the actual hockey-stick controversy, except perhaps to demonstrate how rancorous this dispute can get.
 * 3) If we leave in the von Storch quote, to avoid POV we should note that von Storch was roundly chastised at the Nature blog for ignoring McIntyre's priority. Not one poster defended him.
 * 4) This whole exchange is readily available to any interested Wikipedia reader, one click away. Why reprise it here? This entry (imo) is peripheral and unencyclopedic. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to go over all this again, but I missed this, so to answer (1) this *is* the HSC article, (2)disagree (3) in fact, I defended him. But thats irrelevant; we don't report people simply because they respond to blogs by notable people (4) would delete vast quantitites of wiki content if taken seriously William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns Over Poor Quality
Why is the temperature reconstruction from Global Warming Art being used? Its intended purpose is to demonstrate that independent temperature reconstructions prove the existence of 'hockey sticks' thus nullifying the relevance of the Hockey Stick Controversy. However, of the 10 reconstructions the first 7 are by Mann himself or coauthors or direct collaborators of Mann, as is reconstruction 9. This graph should be labelled 'Other versions of the hockey stick by Mann and associates' so as not to mislead.

Reference here: http://www.climate2003.com/blog/hockey_team.htm

Mann’s group’s work surely cannot be used as independent validation of Mann’s work?

The graph is so confused it is almost impossible to read and the 2 probable independent reconstructions cannot be discerned from the Mann related studies because so many lines overlay each other. "Without using the bristlecone and foxtail proxies in the reconstruction, does a hockey stick even exist?"

This problem is acknowledged at the start, then not addressed directly. If one small proxy sample invalidates his research isn't this of far more importance that technical quibbles over methodology that is taking up so much space? Mann is prominently quoted as follows:

"More than a dozen independent research groups have now reconstructed the average temperature of the northern hemisphere in past centuries... The proxy reconstructions, taking into account these uncertainties, indicate that the warming of the northern hemisphere during the late 20th century... is unprecedented over at least the past millennium and it now appears based on peer-reviewed research, probably the past two millennia."

If this is true, can any evidence for this assertion be located? If the statement is untrue or cannot be verified, should it be given prominence?

Obviously, including the quote implies there is a factual basis for it.

"The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[39][40]"

I have reviewed footnote 39 and it defends the Mann reconstruction in part, but a defence of methods is not independent support, i.e., independent research that comes to the same conclusion. Footnote 40 also points to a paper that displays the same circularity problem. 8 of the 10 researchers discussed are Mann or Mann co-authors and collaborators. Nothing wrong with this, except where stating that there exists 'independently supported' evidence—when this simple check of the citation shows that this is obviously not the case. "However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[39][40]"

Again the defense of this statement are citations 39 and 40, which suffer from the circulatory problem as they primarily discuss Mann’s own research or research done by his coauthors and collaborators.

Question: If there is genuine supporting evidence by independent research groups as to the existence of Hockey Sticks, as asserted multiple times in this article, can links be added to these groups within the article?

Reasonably, an ‘independent research group' surely cannot include co-authors, collaborators or students of Mann? If this is allowed, what meaning does the word ‘independent’ now have? If there is no independent evidence, perhaps the article should be amended to remove such assertions or point out that such assertions have no factual basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Nitschke (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a better piccy, please draw it to our atttention. This graph should be labelled 'Other versions of the hockey stick by Mann and associates' - no, obviously not. You've been spending too much time at climate2003. cannot be discerned - indeed, thats part of the point. There is a lot of overlap. Mann is prominently quoted - thats wiki for you, read the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but how does statements such as "obviously not" constitute reasoned argument? You state in your profile that your association is with the Realclimate web site, who are supporters of Mann. I have no association with any climate change advocacy group and my primary concern is over the propagation of propaganda generated by any group in this field. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify that your views appear to be biased before implying that others have biased views? If you have a useful contribution to make could you please address the technical points raised? With regard to a 'better piccy' I have already added numerous suggested links to the discussion page associated with that image. Could you please check that before asking for information that has already been supplied for consideration. However your comment misses the point in this context as the picture is a good one and should be left there as it is illustrative of how 'objective science' gets politicized. This should not surprise anyone. It happens all the time in science, as it does in any human endeavour. The problem is not with the graph but its mislabelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.159.251 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When you said The graph is so confused it is almost impossible to read... I assumed you were criticising it. If you're not, great. No, I'm not biased :-) of course; yes climate2003 is. Obviously not: read the author lists. Most of them are not-Mann. CHecking elsewhere for your input: unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments more carefully as I can see from your reply you have not understood them.

Academy affirms hockey-stick graph
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

The Current Version'
 * McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph." Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al."; Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph." 

is misleading. It gives the impression that, when all is said and done McIntyre and McKitrick are refusing to accept a clear cut case while Roger A. Pielke (Mann et al) are being modest in victory.

But when the sub heading is added things are not so clear cut
 * McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. Nature reported it as Academy affirms hockey-stick graph. But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used. Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al."; Nature (journal) reported it as Academy affirms hockey-stick graph. But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.

I think the sub heading should be added in both instances Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Error bars
Wow I see that my contribution on error bars was zipped out in record time. Yet it is a fact that the error bars of MBH were never explained they were just postulated without source. Now Wahl and Ammann (after severe pressure, see below) confirmed that the R2 error was approximately zero, from which follows that error bars are infinity. Recently Steve McIntyre had an elegant solution to this problem called Brown's inconsistency. Hans Erren (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hans, I agree with you. The problem with the error bars is a notable part of the controversy.  False precision is common in pseudoscience.  A true scientist does not just pull error bars out of thin air. Your entry should be restored. RonCram (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wahl and Ammann 2006-2008
This overview is missing an overview of publication history of the Wahl and Ammann papers Bishop Hill has a consise overview but this won't pass wiki censorship. Hans Erren (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a blog. If there is an original paper, why not bring that forward and then we can talk. Brusegadi (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the blog tells the history of publication of the Wahl and Ammann papers. The alternative is the entries in climateaudit, which is also a blog(!) Hans Erren (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPS for a guideline on when and how self-published sources (such as blogs) can and cannot be used on Wikipedia. The general guideline is: blogs cannot be used. The exceptions are when they are written by experts, that have already published on a subject, and when the SPS doesn't provide original research. (WP:OR) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK according to this definition Roger Pielke is a valid expert. Thanks, I'll add him to external references Hans Erren (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Joliffe rejects Mann's "decentered PCA"
This is significant for two reasons. 1. Joliffe is a recognized expert on principal components analysis. 2. Joliffe has been misquoted by some of Mann's defenders who said Joliffe supported Mann's approach. Joliffe wrote up a nice rejection of decentering and asked it to be published both on Tamino's blog and on Climate Audit. If I remember correctly, decentering was the cause of the Artificial Hockey Stick (the fact Mann's method would produce a hockey stick even if trendless red noise was used as data). RonCram (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If our page said "Joliffe supports Mann" then that should definitely be removed. But it doesn't. It doesn't mention J at all. We don't seem to have considered his supposed support to be notable. You have misrepresented his comments: he has disclaimed *support* but saying he "rejects" M is wrong. So I don't see why he should be mentionned now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it isn't true that the method produces a HS from red noise (else why the ho-ha over the Bristlecones) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

William, not true. MBH had multiple problems. Von Storch and Zorita agreed with M&M regarding the Artificial Hockey Stick but said it didn't "matter." I emailed Zorita to ask why it didn't matter and he said it was because MBH had so many other problems the Artificial Hockey Stick was just not that important. One odd feature of the hockey stick produced by decentered PCA on red noise is the fact the hockey stick may angle down instead of up. RonCram (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [responding to WMC] IMS, much of the substance of M&M's criticism of MBH was that Mann's "bent" PCA mines for "hockey sticks" from the multiproxy data they used, ie overweights the bristlecone data. This is nicely explained by McKitrick at . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs)
 * Your link is broken. But if its by McK, its probably junk: McI did all the work William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- try . McK has a nice, clear writing style, which McI often doesn't have. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Read it before, skimmed it again. First lies I noticed are around his fig 3 - see Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports for something more reality based. Boreholes: more twaddle, but there is an underlying mystery: see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_borehole_mystery.php. Centering: I still don't believe McK, no matter how glibly he may write: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/mbh/ William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And has just come out, about the boreholes. Splendid timing. McI loses again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to weigh in. Regardless, this is an update, with a notable participant weighing in on the appropriate use of PCA other than standard.   In case it becomes something to put up, I've whipped up a short bit on it.  Needs much work of course.
 * Ian Jolliffe, an authority on Principal Components Analysis and author of one of the standard books on the subject was recently referenced as supporting the use of non-centered PCA in MBH98. His response was that "...there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’." Specifically about MBH98, Dr. Jolliffe said "...given that the data appear to be non-stationary, it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA." and in conclusion "It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical."


 * To the supporting/rejecting argument, there is this quote:

http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/itj201/RecentTalks.html It certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago. Furthermore, the talk is distinctly cool about anything other than the usual column-centred version of PCA. It gives situations where uncentred or doubly-centred versions might conceivably be of use, but especially for uncentred analyses, these are fairly restricted special cases. It is said that for all these different centrings ‘it’s less clear what we are optimising and how to interpret the results’.
 * Sln3412 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias
75.30.129.205 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Wow. Any Wiki article about environmental issues that gives any weight to Joe Barton is seriously biased. The entire article is presented from a skeptical viewpoint regarding the possibility of human impact on climate change, despite and overwhelming consensus amongst scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.129.205 (talk • contribs)


 * The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia verifiability, not truth. Barton is as far removed from reality as you can be. But we do not present his opinion as fact. We discuss the controversy. And please note that the hockey stick, while impressive, is not a major piece of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Scientists understood the mechanism (more green house gases -> warmer) long before the paper was published. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Schakowsky described Mann's seminal paper as:"....this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study"
Why are you guys teaming up to prevent the Public from viewing the Democrat Congressional Member Schakowsy's considered opinion that the Mann paper was false or inaccurate? Unless you have another source, then these remain her actual words, and they were not "ironic" unless there is evidence to show so.MarkR1717 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the original source. There is plenty of evidence to show so. If you don't agree, that shows the problem with using primary sources. The consensus is obviously against you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is plenty of evidence of irony, then produce some, otherwise that is an empty claim.MarkR1717 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. At least three people disagree with you and recognize the irony. So far, not one supports you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you said the words were ironic, but cannot show any evidence. The burden is on you to establish irony.MarkR1717 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mann et al. (1998) was neither false nor inaccurate; the United States Congress does not get to decide that, and particularly one member does not. It's now 10 years later, and Mann is still publishing the same story. You can read that as either that he was basically right 10 years ago, or that there is a multi-national, scientific, Communist conspiracy intent on world domination which hinges on one made-up graph. Adding this quote to the article gives it undue weight. -Atmoz (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am citing a verifiable, authoritative source to give balance on controversial topic.MarkR1717 (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what you are doing is cherry-picking. From the entire sentence (without interuptions) its quite clear that she is paraphrasing Stearns. It's his question - not hers. As Stephan said above - if you can't tell the difference, then you've just discovered why primary sources are bad sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's her statement, and she is characterising in her own words her verdict on Mann, "your question wanted to reinforce the notion that this was based on this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study". So let's put the entire sentence in and then the readers can make up their minds.MarkR1717 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You as a group are obviously prepared to go to any lengths to prevent, without good reason, readers from seeing a fair and true comment made by a Congressional Member, whereby Ms. Schakowsky described Mann's seminal paper as: "....this false or inaccurate Dr. Mann study". You and your group are "ganging up" to prevent other points of view. You claim a majority. I say Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Therefor I will change the text again. If you revert it I will take it up the complaint chain, as it is clear you have abused the edit process.MarkR1717 (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Stephan Shulz comment on reversion: "No again. Primary source, contentious, unreliable." Aren't you supposed to discuss this here before your repeated reversions. How is this unreliable? It is a quote from the Congressional record. It may be contentious to you, but it is a factually correct quote from an authoritative source. What is wrong with quoting from a Primary Source?MarkR1717 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * She was clarifying the comment of another Congresscritter, as shown by reading the full quote. They say lots of things, almost all of them will not be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. Congress is not a reliable source for scientific information. -Atmoz (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she was clarifying (wrongly as it turns out) that the Gore Graph was not based on the Mann Hockey Stick. Her comment about the nature of the Mann Hockey Stick stands alone, and was fully informed by the evidence before the Committee, which was specifically set up to examine the matter.MarkR1717 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said everything that needs saying above. Everyone but you (MarkR1717) apparently agrees, including the crew at WP:ANEW. If you don't get by now why this addition is not useful and very likely misleading, I cannot help you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. If you have no further reasoned objection, I will edit to include the quote.

43 coincidence?
Anyone noted that the section footnoted 43 is about a group of 43 scientists who have close ties to Mann? This just a coincidence, or a plot to destroy us all? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regulation of comments
Is it reasonable that discussion relating to this subject gets removed from the discussion page, even when it is clearly on topic, polite and accurate ? In particular for example, the comment from last night that William M. Connolley's statement "McI loses again" in reference to the borehole paper is quite plainly wrong. Figure 2 in referenced by Connolley himself shows an extremely clear MWP (check it yourselves - there is no excuse for not doing so); something that was missing on the original hockey stick of MBH which instead had a long rather flattish shaft where the MWP should have been. The idea that one cannot point out even on the discussion page that this supports McI's criticisms of MBH is lunacy. Particularly when the claim is made that it explicitly contradicts McI and that claim is allowed to stay.

Look at figure 2 from the link, can you see a large bulge at 0.5 to 0.7 ? If the answer is yes, then it supports McI's claim that there was a MWP, something that was conspicuously absent from the hockey stick:. Btw, the response that the borehole reconstructions do not have enough spatial coverage to be more than local climate variations and are therefore NOT proof of a MWP also implies that the statement "McI loses again" must be wrong. Clearly if it is only showing local climate variations it can't disprove McI's claim that MBH did not accurately represent the historic global temperature trend. 87.61.237.244 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)David
 * And here is the authors conclusion on fig. 2:
 * None of the reconstructions show MWP peak temperatures as high as late 20th century temperatures, consistent with the conclusions of both National Research Council [2006] and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2007] about the warmth of the MWP. The LIA temperature minimum shows an amplitude about 1.2 K below the MWP maximum, and about 1.7 K below present-day temperatures.
 * Which is shows us that its important to read and comprehend - rather than glance and assume. (notice the wording: consistent with) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I did read and (to a degree) comprehend. The point of contention was that MBH98 had NO noticable MWP, whereas the borehole study DID have a significant MWP. This reinforces McI's criticism that MBH98 inaccurately showed historic temperature variability. Being consistent with IPCC 2006/2007 is very different from being consistent with MBH98 - see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png - MWP temperatures are rather comparable with the reconstructed temperatures to the middle of the 1900's. 87.61.237.244 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)David
 * Sorry but your assertion is wrong. The Spaghetti graph (which originated in the NRC report, and is included in the IPCC) includes the MBH reconstruction. And as you can see in that one, all reconstructions are pretty much in agreement. Its btw. incorrect to state that the MBH graph doesn't have an MWP. Btw. you are making exactly the mistake that McI did earlier - its specified in the Borehole reconstruction, that you cannot compare it to the instrumental record. The claim that the current warming episode is outside the variations in the last 1K years - still holds, just as the claim that the MWP was colder than now. (just as a sidenote: in the Spaghetti graph, the MBH (blue) reconstruction of the MWP is actually one of the warmer ones) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what I mean by MBH not having a MWP. The MWP is regarded as a time of significantly increased warmth. For there to be a time of significantly increased warmth, it must have on one side or another a reasonably large region of significantly cooler temperature. The MBH hockey stick is criticised so much not because of the uptick in recent times but because of the lack of temperature variability on the "shaft". Saying that it was "warm" in the MWP in MBH, and therefore it has a MWP is incorrect. If you look at the MBH98 paper, figure 5b, between 1400 and 1800 there is maximum temperature variation of 0.3 degrees. Is a 0.3 degree change in temperature indicative of a significant warm period and change in climate ? The HPS2008 borehole paper referenced above shows temperature drops of over 1 degree on either side of the MWP - that is a real MWP.
 * Your trouble comes from your interpretation of "significantly cooler"/"warmer". 0.4-0.8DEGC is significant on the global/nh scale. Thats in all of the reconstructions. The borehole data shows a bit more amplitude - and it has exactly the same fast warming in the 20th century. I think you miss McK's point which argues for a warmer MWP than 20th century - something which is entirely unsupported in all reconstructions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aware the MBH graph was in the graph I linked to, anyone looking at the graphs can see that there is a MUCH larger degree of temperature variability than MBH shows for probably all of the other reconstructions. They all however roughly agree on the temperature around 1000 years ago as being only a couple of tenths of one degree below temperatures given by the proxy reconstructions for the mid/late 20th century.
 * Yes - the MBH also has the MWP a "couple of tenths below the mid-20th century. So whats your point. (not one of the reconstructions (including the borehole one) put the MWP much more than a couple of hundreds of a degree from MBH....). If i had to guess, the Moberg and the borehole reconstruction are pretty much the same for hi/lo extremes (albeit not reconstruction)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of "making the same mistake as McI". I have no idea what you are talking about - I did not compare the instrumental record to the borehole reconstructions, I explicitly said "MWP temperatures are rather comparable with the reconstructed temperatures to the middle of the 1900's" (referring to the multi reconstructions image I had directly previously linked to). Additionally, unless you can point me to a reference I'm unaware of, McI has never said MWP was warmer than present. What he has done is point out, as a matter of analytical interest, that removing the dubious bristlecone and gaspe series from MBH's own calculations resulted in a reconstructed MWP higher than the reconstructed later 20th century temperatures (this was something MBH had done, but not reported). 93.161.57.174 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)David
 * Sorry - i did mean McK. But McI doesn't actually do a reconstruction - so the rest of your points are moot. And no reconstruction agrees with your interpretation of McI (that the MWP should have been warmer).
 * But i suggest that we stop discussing - because this section is already in breach of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But i suggest that we stop discussing - because this section is already in breach of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the guidelines on editing others comments on talk pages, and have reinserted three portiojs of text. See bullet point 3 under editing other user's comments, which says inappropriate behaviour includes "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". rossnixon 03:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that's the third bullet point under Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you are right! I misread. Sorry. I don't know if I agree with the policy, as it seems open to abuse/censorship. rossnixon 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Side remark: Question is wether one should focus on the actual graph - what has been presented so far momentary is not much more than a diagram on a blog. Better to look on Pielkes sturdy pointing out that global temperature models and values are void and useless for regional risk assessments. A statement like ""McI loses again" is preposterous - McI has been essential and globally important in enhancing the role of blogging in scientific discussions, among the results among others - the likes of realclimate. I personally miss this aspect in the article more than any quick shot on the newest content on climateaudit --Polentario (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by 70.234.173.145
Somebody editing from IP number 70.234.173.145 added the following statement to the lead:


 * The hockey stick controversy is a typical example of cargo cult science where unverifiable results are used in lieu of experimental validation to support a deceptive presentation of data under the appearance of scientific objectivity.

The source given was Lying With Statistics, an article on the website of the Physics Department of Southern Methodist University. The article itself introduces the basic principles of how to recognise the misuse of statistics as presented in How to Lie with Statistics, the famous 1954 book by Darrell Huff. As such it doesn't discuss the Hockey Stick graph, and the most charitable interpretation I can find for this edit is that the statement above is 70.234.173.145's own personal opinion. In other words, the edit is Original research.

I've reverted it as such. --TS 20:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hockey Stick" now proven not to exist
Just passing along some news for those watching this article. I'm actually surprised it's not already in the article, as it's causing some waves in the media.

It's already been mentioned in the article that the original authors of the Hockey Stick were withholding the data used to generate their graph. Since this data has been released at last, the graph has been recreated with a fuller, less-biased set of data. It appears to be definitive proof that the results of the "hockey stick" are incorrect, using the broadest tree ring data available. The methodology is well documented in lots of technical detail. Here is a link to the report: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

Original Research Alert: I personally would go so far to say that the resulting graph seems to demonstrate that tree ring temperature extrapolation looks like a noisy signal. Here is some background on why using tree ring data is problematic.

Cnadolski (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You want . Or for a less serious view . Or Talk:Global_warming (no, don't go there). Or... William M. Connolley (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Denial Depot looks like a WUWT parody. The RealClimate post was mostly snark and sarcasm, along with comparisons of the tree ring regression to unrelated charts such as borehole temperature regressions.  The only rational rebuttal was from Briffa's response, though I would have liked a more thorough explanation why Briffa's choice was superior to McIntyre's choice aimed at people who are not dendrochronologists. The lack of respect and rational debate is what drives me further and further from the AGW camp to the skeptical camp. Cnadolski (talk)


 * I am sorry to be the bearer of sad news, but you must have been affected by the industry sponsored propaganda. Such a shame... --192.94.73.1 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is propaganda? The vast majority of climate research is funded by governments, who outspend private research in climate by several orders of magnitude.  If climate scientists assume "the science is settled" when it pertains the issue of global warming, yet continue to be funded in massive amounts by governments worldwide, I can only assume that is propaganda as well.  When everybody has an agenda, it would be advantageous to audit every article and scientific paper published, and attempt to falsify every hypothesis, as it should be in every scientific endeavor. Cnadolski (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Activism will always prevail because falsifiability testing is boring and will never make the headlines. Insisting on the use of common sense will only damage your wiki reputation. I hope you realize what and who you are facing here.--192.94.73.2 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC) the preceding edit by user:192.94.73.2 was deleted by user:William M. Connolley at 11:48, 6 October 2009


 * "Propaganda"...you know - the kind that involves insinuating that the scientific community is part of a vast conspiracy. Government-funded research has indicated smoking is a cause of lung cancer.  Good thing we have independent "audits" by tobacco companies, with support of "think thanks" like the Heartland Institute, challenging those claims.  Else, those anti-industry lies would go unchecked.  Good thing the Heartland Institute also organizes their own objective scientific conferences that have absolutely no agenda other than the objective goal of exposing the global warming hoax.Gmb92 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since smoking and global warming are unrelated topics, I won't address that. I don't indulge in conspiracies, but there are some interesting coincidences in the Global Warming meta-drama. For instance: scientists involved in geology and meteorology (who depend on private funding) are generally skeptical of catastrophic warming.  As are scientists who are employed by governments in developing countries (e.g. China, Russia, India). Scientists employed by developed countries typically believe that CO2 is the primary driver for climate. Then there are other issues of stifled debate and loss of employment when not following the consensus--for instance, there was a recent scandal involving an expert on polar bears (who had data indicating their numbers were stable) being ejected from the Copenhagen debate because he is an AGW skeptic. Cnadolski (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Opposition to the science on smoking/cancer and global warming has followed the same path with many of the same players. Petroleum geologists are indeed more skeptical than your average scientist...some clear "loss of employment" issues there.  Meteorologists less so.  Those working for tobacco companies tend to be more skeptical of the harmful effects of smoking.  Funding from fossil fuel interests is entirely dependent on results.  Lindzen wouldn't have gotten big checks as a consultant from Exxon if he supported the scientific consensus.  Government employment and funding is not dependent on results, as many skeptics (examples:  Lindzen, Spencer) have received government funding or worked for government agencies.  Like it or not, there will always be a need to study climate change, regardless of the magnitude of the human effect, so someone arguing for a low climate sensitivity isn't going to be worried about losing his job.  Lastly, don't believe every conspiracy theory you read.  Engage in some skeptism.  [] Gmb92 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would anyone be driven towards a camp that regularly seems to spend more time engaging in potentially libelous rhetoric in blogs and opinion pieces of supportive media outlets than discussing science? Example (of many): []  The Real Climate post in this context appears to be a bit too courteous if anything.  One shouldn't be implying or making assertions of fraud and then act surprised when such behavior is called out.  Honest skeptism is a good thing.  I wish there was more of it in climate science.Gmb92 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't think an accusation of fraud was made by McIntyre, the case can be made that Briffa's methodology was extremely sloppy. Cnadolski (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Before this becomes yet another tedious re-run of the usual suspects, have you noticed yet that the Yamal series wasn't used in the HS paper? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The HS paper didn't have a hockey-stick shape. In fact, it was quite "flat".  Your point? Cnadolski (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was to ask you a question. You haven't answered it. Have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If by HS you mean Hantemirov & Shiyatov, then yes. If HS is to mean "Hockey Stick", there are many hockeystick graphs. The one from Mann uses Bristlecone Pine data, which has been discredited.  The one from Briffa uses Yamal data (among other sources), and it is still used in many publications.  That RealClimate post pointed out some more hockeystick graphs from non-tree ring data (though it's arguable if all are hockeysticks--some do not extend past the Little Ice Age, while others don't show that extreme of an uptick in the 20th century).  It would have helped if your question was more clear.  Is my answer satisfactory? Cnadolski (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Using HS to refer to two relative unknowns would be very odd. The usual meaning, especially in the context of a page with the title of, errm, "HS controversy", is, errrm, Hockey Stick. So good: you now know that MBH didn't use Yamal at all; that makes the title of this section incomprehensible. The question, reallly, is are you talking here just for fun, or do you actually want any of this to lead to changes in the text on the page? If the latter, you'll have to actually be serious William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While Cnadolski was incorrect about which data was included in the original hockey stick paper, the Climate Audit page he linked to is about the more recent Briffa one including the Yamal data, which to my understanding is included in many or most temperature histories going back that far. Since that depends on the Hantemirov & Shiyatov paper it seems reasonable to be precise when talking about it.  The Climate Audit page doesn't say that the hockey stick is wrong, just that the data is not good enough to make valid estimates of what the temperature was like in the 1500s or before.  That seems germane to this article, and to the Global Warming section, the Temperature record section, or the Temperature record of the past 1000 years article.  Specifically, the confidence interval issue is not mentioned in any of these articles, which seems like it could be a good point to expand upon.  However, I don't know what papers there are on this, if any.  Perhaps it is too technical for an encyclopedia article, but to me, dealing with estimates and statistics all day long, a point estimate is meaningless without some idea of the confidence. Ignignot (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want CI's, then try fig 2. I don't know if it would be useful for this article though William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ug... those graphs seem to be 95% confidence intervals for any given year. More interesting would be the 95% bounds for the betas used, and the corresponding climate series.  I have a feeling they are much tighter than those yellow bounds, because otherwise it would be cause for model rejection. Ignignot (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion is likely to get lost in the noise. I don't know what you mean bhy betas, or indeed by "corresponding climate series" William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of the paper you linked, the models appear parametric and past temperature variation is based on a group of explanatory series. By betas I am using a shorthand for the model parameters.  For example, a tree ring model might have T ~ B_1 * W * e^(-B_2*t - C), where T is the temperature variation, W is the width of a tree ring in the year, t is the time in years since some epoch.  B_1, B_2, and C are all model parameters, and their values can only be estimated.  If we know their confidence interval, then we can determine over what period the model is significant.  Since there is an exponential term (and from what I have read, there is an exponential term in interpreting tree ring data related to the age of the tree) the confidence intervals become bigger and bigger the further away you get.  Intuitively this makes sense - we're pretty sure what's happening now, our certainty slowly decreases as we go back in time, and our certainty rapidly decreases as we predict the future. I would expect any confidence bands for a climate variation model including an exponential term to exhibit an expanding CI. I was wondering if there were any papers looking at things this way, since even if I wanted to make one myself it would be 1) more than I can probably do 2) even if I succeeded it would be wrong, and 3) original research Ignignot (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe, and indeed sincerely hope, that Denial Depot is an intentional parody. It's an amusing read. "If you are afraid of harrowing diagrams look away now", indeed. --TS 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is further coverage. Gigs (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vair good. Let me repeat myself: Before this becomes yet another tedious re-run of the usual suspects, have you noticed yet that the Yamal series wasn't used in the HS paper? We don't use El Rego as a ref for science, of course. And despite its name, this page is about science William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dumb question, does "HS paper" mean Hantemirov & Shiyatov or Hockey Stick? Q Science (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually it means "Hockey Stick", errrm, as in the title of this page. H&S is minor, I'm not aware of HS being commonly used to refer to them. Who suggested that? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the discussion was about the "Hantemirov & Shiyatov paper", and because you refer to the Mann, et al. paper as MBH, it would be logical to assume that you were referring to the Hantemirov & Shiyatov paper on Yamal as "the HS paper". In addition, Cnadolski hot linked the phrase "HS paper" to the Hantemirov & Shiyatov paper. As a result, I was confused and just wanted clarification. Q Science (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another article covering the subject, appearing in the Financial Post. It's written by a scientist directly associated with the controversy (Ross McKitrick) in case the above The Register article isn't sciencey enough for some. Cnadolski (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, an opinion piece in the FP, one of the hallmarks of science journalism. I might be interested if he publishes his criticism in PNAS, or Nature, or J. Climate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reason why he has to publish in such a limited number of publications? I would say this article is notable because the author is directly involved in the controversy. Cnadolski (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Any respectable peer-reviewed journal would do, there are many of them out there. McK's involvement in this matter is negligible, and he is an economist not a scientist, as his page sez William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can think of several good reasons authors prefer the "popular" press
 * In some journals, it costs the writer $2,000 to $5,000 to publish a peer reviewed article (They actually charge by the page and by the graph. Color will cost you more.)
 * Once you submit the article, you give up the copyright and are not allowed to publish or discuss it on your own site
 * It takes 6 months to a year for an accepted article to get published
 * It takes almost as long to get rejected
 * Once it is published, people will have to pay to read it
 * Peer-reviewed journals make sense if you have a grant that will pay the cost and one of your billable tasks is to publish your results. It is not an appropriate avenue for controversies that politicians will vote on next month. On the other hand, without a peer-reviewed paper, well, that is a real problem. Q Science (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Few journals have page charges nowadays. Those that have are usually Open Access, i.e. free to the reader. Some journals require copyright transfers, but most of those grant you back a license to publish the paper on your own web page. For those that don't I've always added this as a write-in clause to the copyright transfer form, and had never had any problems with it. Discussion of the paper is, of course, not affected either way. Some journals have an embargo requirement, but other require you to put a preprint up on arXiv or a similar service before they will even look at it. Many journals make accepted papers available online before they appear in print - again, the 6-12 month time frame is not unusual, but you can also find journals that are faster. And, of course, that time is where the quality control happens. So yes, there are reasons to publish in the popular press, but there are no good reasons not to publish in the scientific press. McK's piece in the FP is pure fluff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk section has diverged wildly. I acknowledge that some of it my fault: I wasn't aware at first that Briffa's hockey stick was different than Mann's. Not everyone is intimately familiar with the difference tree rings, Bristlecone Pines, and Siberian sub-fossils. Would anybody be interested in expanding this article to include other hockeysticks that have been used as a basis for climate research, or possibly narrowing down the title to something like "Michael Mann Hockey Stick Controversy"? Cnadolski (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already discusses other reconstructions William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mining Executive
What adjectives, if any, should be used to modify the main protagonists in this article? I think best would be no adjectives, since they all (?) have their own Wikipedia pages. Certainly, a phrase like "former mining executive" is solely designed to discredit. David.Kane (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If any, I would use statistician, since that is the knowledge he applied to the problem, not his mining company knowledge. Ignignot (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with mining executive? It describes what he was.  Was he a professional statistician?  If not (and his biography suggests he was not), then that's an inappropriate label.  His main job, for 30 years, was in mineral exploitation, hence the use of the term here.  That might make some people think that he's an industry stooge, but that's not really relevant here.  Many people may read his experience as highly appropriate given the subject at hand.  Calling him something he is not is highly questionable, but leaving him unlabelled would be unhelpful.  --P LUMBAGO  19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mining is somewhat relevant, but his degree in math, and work in statistics and programming is the most important aspect I think. When you say mining executive, contrasted with economist, it makes it seem like he is a PHB venturing far afield from his expertise.  I'd rather call a duck a duck.  Ignignot (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm? A BS in math before a 30 year career in mining is rather irrelevant. He is neither a matematician nor is he a statistician - the only reasons i could see for stating that he was, would be to give a wrong impression. His profession was as a mining engineer (or mining entrepreneur if you prefer that) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A mining company has executives of a broad range of types - while, yes, it does include people in HR or insurance or whatever, it also includes people who's job it is to deal with huge amounts of information brought in and to draw conclusions from it. Just looking at his blog makes it obvious that he is an expert at linear algebra, statistics, and programming.  An alternative would be to call him an amateur climatologist, I suppose. Ignignot (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - but that is your opinion, as opposed to the fact that he was a mining engineer/entrepreneur. And i rather doubt if he is an "expert" anything (how btw. are you able to determine that? Are you an expert?) - your alternative is not acceptable since he doesn't do climatology (at all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Information not about the subject of the article belongs on the respective article's page. Putting it here is clearly NPOV. And BTW, I am an expert on mining, so if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that he wasn't / isn't employed in the mining field, but that isn't particularly relevant when compared to his climate audit website, which is clearly about climatology. Even if he doesn't do new research, verification is a part of the scientific process, and while he could be wrong, he is certainly attempting to verify professional climatology findings, which makes him at the very least an amateur climatologist.  Also, yes, I am an expert at statistics and programming and linear algebra, but you don't need to be one to see that he has a deep understanding.  I am not as familiar with his programming language of choice, R (or more probably, S plus), but I can follow along. In any case, why do you think he isn't an expert at anything? Ignignot (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Expert. An expert is not defined by mere proficiency on a subject, but rather on how your peers regard you. Is he considered an expert by any of his peers within this particular subject? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would venture to suggest the people who keep inviting him back to give talks at American Geophysical Union conferences regard McIntyre as "an expert" on the subjects he talks about, as do his various collaborators and coauthors on papers and conference talks. --Blogjack (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAME -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine - I'll come back after a day to see if I see the error of my ways. However, I think I'm being reasonable here.  He's the main person on one side of the Hockey stick controversy, so we should probably call him by something NPOV. Ignignot (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the essence of NPOV is to treat like objects the same. There are five people specified at the start of the article: Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Jerry Mahlman, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. We should either provide all of them with job adjectives or none of them. (I vote for none.) Second, if we are going to provide descriptions, they should be as NPOV as possible and as relevant to this article. "Former mining executive" is neither. It is clearly intended to (or, if not intended, as the effect of) causing the reader to take McIntyre less seriously. David.Kane (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the foregoing, I would agree with David.Kane that labelling two of the actors while leaving the rest undescribed seems a little odd, and does tend to lead the reader somewhat. I guess the defence for this is that, unlike (many of?) the other actors, they are away from their areas of expertise — neither is a climate scientist.  But if this is the case, perhaps a more straightforward statement to this effect could instead be used (especially if a reliable source addresses this)?  That's not really satisfactory either, but I think it's better than unexplained references to some actors' job descriptions.


 * I also agree that labeling some but not all is a little odd, but I think a reference should be made to M&M's non professional status. I think that's what mining executive was implying, but we should just go out and say that they are amateurs / whatever people think is appropriate.  Ignignot (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In passing, I notice that the article currently ends on a reply to Mann et al. by McIntyre & McKitrick (which tends to imply some sort of definitive statement). However, Mann et al. responded to this noting that, for instance, "McIntyre and McKitrick's claim … is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature", "The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre", and "In summary, their criticisms have no merit".  Can someone with appropriate editing privileges fix this?  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite its dismissive tone if you read it carefully I think you'll find that the PNAS reply to which you link actually *confirms* the criticisms mentioned in the last sentence of the wiki article. For instance, read the sentence immediately *after* the "The claim...is bizarre" comment; it is: "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors." What does that mean? That Mann *agrees* it is possible for these methods to mechanically flip their input data in such a way as to turn a disconfirming relationship into a confirming one. We could try to summarize the substance of the reply, but there's really not much there there.--Blogjack (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what it means. Mann does not agree that the methods could "mechanically flip... to turn a disconfirming relationship into a confirming one."  What Mann means is that if you multiply an explanatory variable in a multivariate regression by a scalar (not zero), the regression estimates and ANOVA are unchanged except for the coefficient for that particular variable and its associated confidence interval.  I suspect something is wrong with the last sentence in the wiki article as well - my own guess is that they mean the series has the wrong kind of relationship with the final data (like, increasing tree ring sizes is correlated with cold weather) which means the series should be thrown out.  I think Mann and M&M are kind of talking past each other. Ignignot (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strikeout: I reread M&M's comments, and they are literally talking about an explanatory variable multiplied by negative one, which really doesn't matter at all. Ignignot (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unstrikeout: oops. I was right the first time.  I don't read much on CA but was curious if there was a longer explanation available somewhere. Specifically, 'These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can "get" a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be "avoided" in temperature reconstructions - and that was before Ababneh's bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be "bizarre", but it is true.'  Ignignot (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case, does the article need expansion at the end to include further work. It sounds like the Mann et al. response, which I mentioned above but which doesn't appear in the article, is not the final word that I took it to be.  Are there later papers that address this Tiljander data and its importance for the Mann et al. temperature reconstruction?  If so, can we summarise and cite them to put this issue to bed?  Hitherto, my understanding was that, in spite of minor statistical errors, the central Mann et al. result is robust, even to the removal of datasets.  Has something changed?  --P LUMBAGO  16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should probably wait a little bit since this is all based on a very short journal comment and some (probably) partisan blog posts on CA and RC. This stuff literally happened just yesterday.  Maybe let some time pass for a more in depth response. Ignignot (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the argument is on neutral point of view. This chap is a former mining executive, and we say so, and it certainly speaks to his financial interests. So where's the violation of neutrality? --TS 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because something is true does not mean that it violates neutral point of view. The issue is relevance. Do you really think that an Encyclopedia Britannica article would be written that way? There are many true things about McIntyre (or Mann or anyone else involved in the dispute) that we could include. Maybe he is a Yankee fan or a supporter of Obama or a Gemini. Unless it is directly relevant, it does not belong. This is all the more so since he has a Wikipedia article just a click away. Again, why would you insist on an adjective for McIntyre but not for Mann? David.Kane (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I apologize if you are offended at all for moving your comment to the appropriate topic. However, I wanted to respond to it without continuing discussion in the wrong section.  Now, to the point: he is indeed a former mining executive, but it only implies a financial interest where none may exist, or could be completely opposite to what you are assuming.  We have no idea what his personal investments are like, and while he works or did work for a mining company, they could very well benefit from any means of emissions reduction.  (For example, if their mining techniques emit less carbon than other companies, or if the material they mine ends up used in CCS, etc.)  The unspoken implication that he is a liar because it will make him money is what seems NPOV.  In addition, he specifically repudiates it on his website, although if you think he is a liar then I suppose you would not believe that either.  So my suggestion is that his description becomes explicit instead of innuendo.  Ignignot (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I think a reasonable point is that, by only identifying the professional background of two actors (from a much larger cast), the article is needlessly drawing attention to them. And that since their professions are tangential to climate science (and/or occasionally antagonistic in the case of mining), this may lead readers to conclude (obviously incorrectly) that these actors are irrelevant or even discreditable scoundrels.  How best to resolve this is up for grabs, however.  We certainly shouldn't avoid mentioning M & M's "outsider" status, but I can't think of a good way to introduce their "special" expertise.  How about: "The issue was originally raised outside of the climate science community by Stephen McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, and by Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph"?  Or am I bending over backwards a tad too much?  --P LUMBAGO  16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. While I disagree with your argument that there is an implication of dishonesty rather than bias, I do agree that identifying him in this way may require assumptions to be made that go against the grain of verifiability and may encroach to some extent on original research.  We have to address such concerns.


 * I'm trying to work out how we handle this on the creationism and evolution articles. I think there it's a lot simpler--nobody questions the notion that it would be relevant that someone who promoted skepticism of evolution was an ordained minister in a Christian sect known for extreme literalism, or that a scientist expressing skeptical views was a fellow of a group that expected its members to put aside the science when it conflicted with interpretations of scripture.  Could that principle or something like it apply here?  Perhaps, but this is probably relatively new ground and we should tread carefully. --TS 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the most significant difference with creationism (at least for our purposes) is that here the contra-mainstream side has representation within the scientific literature (albeit not a huge amount). Though extremely vocal in the popular press, creationists have no representation within the scientific community since their "heresy" is simply opposed by too much evidence.  Here, things are a shade less clearcut on science grounds.  Anyway, perhaps my suggestion above could be trimmed to "The issue was originally raised outside of the climate science community by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick"?  That avoids any reference to their environmental-eyebrow-raising professions, while making it clear that they are "outsiders" to climate science.  Readers can, of course, follow the linked names to find out more, but aren't distracted here by labels that may cause prejudice.  --P LUMBAGO  16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with TS and Plumbago that M&M's position is more nuanced than simple creationism vs evolution, or even global warming vs no global warming. I think leaving the complicated nature of their relationship to the climatology community to their own articles is appropriate.  It is certainly a distracting mouthful to say, "Stephen McIntyre, a former mining executive with a background in mathematics, and who has a possible bias against global warming science because of his previous employment, although he has made useful contributions to climatology, ..."  Ignignot (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not just have no adjectives at all? First, articles like this one benefit from some trimming. We should cut words that don't advance understanding. Second, this is all the more so everyone involved has their own Wikipedia page. Third, it will be hard to come to agreement on what adjectives are appropriate. I would certainly object to anything along the lines of "outside of the climate science community" since they have published a peer-reviewed article. (You can certainly argue that their view is a minority one, but that is a different thing.) So, by default, the best choice is no adjectives at all. David.Kane (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Publishing a single (and short) item that touches on a statistical detail of climate science does not gain you admittance to "the club" [*]. (Among other things, you have a swear a blood oath to Al Gore, agree to cast aside all data that run against The One True Consensus, and promise your first-born to Jim Hansen.)  By publishing in the peer-reviewed literature on climate science they have gotten themselves a place at the table (as opposed to the innumerable bloggers and pundits who merely "discuss" climate science), but it would be difficult to construe them as anything other than "outside the climate science community".  Among other things, stating this allows readers to distinguish those contrarians who actually do work, day-to-day, within climate science (e.g. Richard Lindzen).  M & M do not fall into this category (as far as I am aware).  Anyway, my POV is that for readers to understand this topic, it would be helpful to know that the (ultimately low significance) objections of M & M are not from scientists whose bread and butter lies in studying the climate system.  As I've noted before, I do agree that we should avoid loaded terms like "mining executive" (which is only loaded because of the dubious activities of other mining executives), but it is obscurantist to imply (through omission) that M & M are just the same as those scientists whose work they're questioning.  --P LUMBAGO  08:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [*] Of course, they've published more than a single item on this topic, but their oeuvre is extremely narrow — which, of course, is to be expected, since they are not full-time climate scientists.

Prot
The prot seems regrettable. The reverting looks to be mostly the responsibility of Kane, whose contributions don't support a knowledge of this area, and Bluefield, who is blocked for 3RR  William M. Connolley (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not require a vast knowledge of climate science to know that labeling McIntyre as a "former mining executive" violates NPOV. Would you disagree? David.Kane (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're in the wrong section. You want the one above William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict; now I'm in the wrong section too!) But it is what he is (or was).  That it has connotations of shady dealings is, unfortunately, because many fossil fuel mining interests have engaged in precisely such underhanded activities.  (Which, of course, is hardly surprising given their financial interests.)  As for how to proceed, I would agree (and have done above) that labelling only two of the actors in the article does rather lead the reader somewhat.  I think it is important that the "outsider" status of McIntyre & McKitrick is clear to readers, but how that's done is up for grabs.  And (as noted above), extending the article so that it reflects that Mann et al. responded to M & M's recent(-ish) criticism would be good.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the request for prot, but we were at something like 8 reverts in a day. Ignignot (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're actually sorry about it then withdraw it. If you aren't, don't say so. I think its a poor show for an admin to protect a page and not even bother say why. Similarly I think its rather poor to go off to requests-for-prot without mentionning it here (in fact you actually said Fine - I'll come back after a day to see if I see the error of my ways which now appears rather deceptive) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I said I was sorry because you said it was regrettable. I was commiserating with you - I would have preferred that it was not necessary.  I don't see anywhere on requests for protection or protection policy where a protection for an edit war has to be discussed, only requested.  It could be customary and if so, I apologize for the omission - but there was definitely an edit war and protection let some people (myself included, although I never edited the main article) talk it out without constant reverting making everyone mad.  As for the "I'll come back tomorrow" comment - I initially thought that the LAME tag was related to the discussion that we were having on the talk page, so I figured I would leave for a bit, but after a few minutes I realized it was almost certainly in reference to the edit war going on.  Since it involved registered users, I requested protection.  I don't see what is particularly deceptive about realizing that not everything is about me.  Afterwards I thought about removing the hasty comment but figured I would just do what I wrote, and come back the next day.  Normally I reread what I write a few times to make sure I'm not making an ass out of myself, or insulting someone, but sometimes I hit save page a little too early anyway.  I guess it happens to everyone. Ignignot (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead addition
Shouldn't an article about the "hockey stick controversy" mention, in the lead, McIntyre and McKitrick? After all, they started the controversy. I will add this, but, before I do, want to see if I am missing something. Comments? David.Kane (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This does not seem unreasonable to me. M & M started this (ultimately low significance) digression after all.  So long, of course, as readers are made aware that M & M are "outsiders".  :-)  --P LUMBAGO  13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This would also make the argument above somewhat moot since people mentioned in the heading would merit a more in depth description. Ignignot (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, wouldn't this make things moot in the other direction? The lead currently has "the particular reconstruction of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes . . ." My intial plan was to add McIntyre and McKitrick in a similar, no-adjective fashion. (More detailed descriptions of all involved could be provided in the body of the article. But perhaps this is what you meant. David.Kane (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant. Ignignot (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor Corrections or Updates
Broken external link to: "Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications by David Holland, Energy and Environment, 2007". But you can find a copy of the article here: http://www.diekreide.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/holland2007.pdf. Thanks, RexClev (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of term "hockey stick"
Can I request that the term "hockey stick" is explained more clearly in the lead section. "coined ... to describe the pattern" is not sufficient IMO, and it's possible to read all the way down to "Discussion of the MBH reconstruction" and not have the faintest idea what hockey sticks have to do with anything. I think the explicit explanation there about the shaft and blade should be elevated to the lead section. 86.136.194.122 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

The "Updates" section
I have removed the "Updates" section fro the article. It reads as follows:

Updates 19 November 2009: Investigative blog What's Up With That reports data stolen and published from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit exposing lead scientists involved in trickery to make temperature graphs appear to be rising radically.

In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (ref Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759–762; 1999) (ref ) and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article." Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion." He has further suggested that the criticisms directed at his statistical methodology are purely political and add nothing new to the scientific debate.(ref War of words over new climate change report, 'hockey stick' model)

Paleoclimate findings by the IPCC before and after the Hockey Stick Controversy:

Before: 2001 (page 2)(ref http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf)


 * " proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year."

After: Current SPM statement from 2007 (page 10)(ref IPCC Summary for Policymakers)


 * "“Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR.”

In May 2007, Hans von Storch reviewed the changes in thought caused by the hockey stick controversy writing:
 * In October 2004 we were lucky to publish in Science our critique of the ‘hockey-stick’ reconstruction of the temperature of the last 1000 years. Now, two and half years later, it may be worth reviewing what has happened since then.


 * At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable.(ref Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita on the Hocky stick effect)

McIntyre was critical of this Nature blog entry because von Storch did not acknowledge the role of McIntyre and McKitrick;(ref Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » von Storch and Zorita blog on the Hockey Stick) however von Storch replied (ref [http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html#comment-86863 Hans von Storch) that:


 * This was on purpose, as we do not think that McIntyre has substantially contributed in the published peer-reviewed literature to the debate about the statistical merits of the MBH and related method. They have published one peer-reviewed article on a statistical aspect, and we have published a response – acknowledging that they would have a valid point in principle, but the critique would not matter in the case of the hockey-stick ... we see in principle two scientific inputs of McIntyre into the general debate – one valid point, which is however probably not relevant in this context, and another which has not been properly documented.

As a lot of claims regarding the hockey stick revolve around statistical aspects, the American Statistical Association held a session(ref 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings online program) at the 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings, on climate change with Edward Wegman, John Michael Wallace, and Richard L. Smith(ref Richard L. Smith). E. Wegman presented the discussion of the methodological aspects of PC analysis by MBH98, and his view that Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science. J. M. Wallace outlined the NRC report and its cautious conclusion that the claims of unprecedented temperatures in the last decades can be considered as plausible (2:1 odds in favor). R. L. Smith (U. of North Carolina, Statistics) analyzed statistical methodology behind the CCSP "Report on Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere”(ref Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors, 2006. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.) and shared his vision of the role of statisticians in the process. The session was summarized by R. L. Smith in ASA Section on Statistics and the Environment newsletter (ref ASA Section on Statistics and the Environment Newsletter, Spring 2007).

In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia. (ref name=mann08 )  This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. Similarly to the original study, this work found that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset. In a PNAS response (ref Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick), McIntyre and McKitrick made various claims, including that Mann et al. used some data with the axes upside down. Mann et al. in reply say that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre".

In my opinion the notion of having an "updates" section in a controversial article is asking for trouble. If something is worth adding to such an article, it should be integrated, not as an afterthought. --00:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I was a little surprised to return from my penning an article on Wikinews to find updates protected? I added a discussion section above questioning such a quick move before I saw in the page history your message. Sorry, feel free to combine the threads.


 * In my experience it is not uncommon to have an updates section for a current issue, and I think it fair to say that the Hockey Stick Controversy is still a current issue - especially in its relationship to global warming and in light of the recent news regarding its background. Given that it will take some time to fully determine if the breaking news is accurate and in fact referring to authentic primary resources, I think the most we can do is list it in an updates section and integrate it into the main article when we know near enough the truth. Even if it turns out the hack is a fraud, that is still worth noting and integrating into page, I'm sure you'd agree - but for now it can only be a note to an update of a current event. Hope my points are acceptable, or that you see fit to reinstate an updates section and perhaps add a current event template. Regards Leighblackall (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is copy pasted from what was another section before I saw this section had been started:
 * Hi, I recently added a link to a story breaking that the CRU network has been hacked and data stolen that possibly reveals trickery in the graphs used to depict the Hockey Stick. I will probably not go much further than the Wikinews article I posted, but when I came back here to update with a link to that article, I was surprised to find it protected for established users. I'm not sure what it takes to become such a user, I have authored a number of Wikipedia, Book, Versity works, but it appears I am not able to add the link. Needless to say I'm a bit put out by this exclusion from my wanting to contribute considering a have some track record via my user page. Nothing new for speed of Wikipedia admin I guess. Anyway, could someone with more privilege add an update to the Wikinews article? Its my hope that the Wikinews folk will investigate this story and document some form of truth, which again could came back into the updates here. All the best Leighblackall (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)