Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 6

IPCC TAR hockeystick graph
I recently added a bit to this caption.
 * This version of the hockey stick graph, with a relatively flat "shaft" and sharply-uptilted "blade", is similar to those in MBH 98 & 99, the versions criticized by McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman and others.

Dave Souza reverted and replaced this with,
 * Adapted from the MBH99 graph which Jerry Mahlman nicknamed the "hockey stick".

Dave, I have no problem with your addition, but what didn't you like about mine? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [added later than Kim's comment below] See my edit summary, "out of sequence commentary". The article shows a historical sequence and the image illustrates the use of the graph in the 2000 TAR: by then the HS had been nicknamed, but the (one-sided) critiques you added were well in the future and are covered in later sections of this article. . . dave souza, talk 05:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't particularly like it either. You are using graph caption as content/discussion. Graphs and pictures are supposed to be illustrations of the text - and not as another place to discuss issues. Short concise descriptions of what the graph/picture is - is what is supposed to be there. Discussions that relate to the image/graph should be in the text, where there is ample room to cover all aspects of controversy, confidence, uncertainty etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't think we really discuss the bit I added, so I'll work through that part of the text as time permits. Although Dave's add is also similar to mine, though shorter, and I don't think your suggestion is a hard-and-fast rule....


 * My point, really, is that there are hockey sticks -- a la MBH 88/89, with a straight "shaft" -- and there are the contemporary recon curves, which put back the LIA & MWP that MBH suppressed. The current curves are more like the old AR1 Lamb curve, but more quantified. Pretty sure I've seen a review paper for this, that we don't cite now. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, rather than adding unsourced discussion about the differences between them, why not add this review paper you're talking about? Surely that would be simpler. Guettarda (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Pete's caption is easier for the lay reader to understand. If people are concerned with its neutrality, we could drop 'the versions criticized by McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman and others' as readers should be able to gather that from the article, but emphasising that MBH99 is flatter and has more blade will probably help readers follow the article. On the other hand, I can't see that the name of the person who nicknamed it the 'hockey stick' needs to be in the caption. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're getting this out of historical context – this is something to discuss in the context of later reconstructions. Saying "Adapted from the MBH99 graph which Jerry Mahlman nicknamed the "hockey stick"." informs the reader where the graph came from and how it got the nickname, which subsequently became more common – saves readers from referring back to the previous section. Agree that later reconstructions show more variability in the central shaft, generally in a deeper LIA and always within the MBH99 grey zone of uncertainty iirc, but you're wrong about the blade as that keeps increasing as the modern temperature record. This is something to relate to later reconstructions where we have reliable sources making that point – any proposals for sources? . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And while I'm on the subject of helping the reader to understand things, why is the graph at the top the 'spaghetti graph' that replaced the MBH 'hockey stick graph' in AR4? Isn't that a bit confusing? Would anyone object to me swapping them around? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alex, I object to your suggested swap as the TAR graph specifically illustrates the IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001 section which describes the context and use of that graph. It's not a free image, so we have to limit its use and only use it where it's specifically discussed by the article. The actual "hockey stick graph" is in MBH99, the graph at the start of the article shows that figure in the context of other "hockey stick" graphs. . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why aren't we using the MBH graph at the top then? I would never work out from this article what the graph is at the top is, or where it comes from, and probably would conclude it is the hockey stick graph itself. By the way where did it come from? Mann says in the climategate emails (1108399027.txt) that William Connolley made it himself. Is that true? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the hockey stick graph"? If you read the article, you'll see that there are many, which is sort of the entire point here. As for any contributions by WMC - as you well know, he is not allowed to discuss these issues on Wikipedia, so why ask questions you know cannot be answered? More to the point, of course, unless you have a reliable source, it can't be used in the article, so what's the point of asking? Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be common knowledge where the graph came from. Anyway I don't want to hijack the thread with this, so I'll stop now. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you know where it came from (consider it "common knowledge") then why ask? Trying to induce an editor into breaking their topic ban is disruptive, Alex. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I think Alex has a good point: since the article is about the Hockey Stick Controversy, it would seem better to lead with a version that is actually controversial. The present spaghetti graph should be relocated later in the article, in historical context. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, Pete, so you're saying that MBH99 and the dozen other graphs that replicate the hockey stick aren't controversial? We could have a very short article about the TAR, then, and move all this useful content about all the graphs into an article about the hockey stick graph :-) The TAR graph is explicitly referred to in the text about that topic, and readers need to be able to see it in context. The "spaghetti" graph, as you call it, gives a reasonable representation of the extent of the political controversy, and of the various scientific reconstructions that opponents deny. The historical context of that particular graph covers the period from 1998 to 2005, the main period of controversy – it would be nice to extend it to the present, but the spaghetti would get rather congested (if tasty). . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the average Wikipedia reader, I'd suggest the spaghetti graphs easily mislead them. We have 3 fundamental problems: statistical, scientific and visual.
 * Statistical:the reconstructions (like MBH99) normally come with error bands, and eyeballing 2 lines (without the error bands) and declaring them same or contradictory ... is statistical innumeracy. I'd guess that many readers simply do not notice or understand the wider error bands earlier in the MBH99 chart.
 * Scientific: experts know perfectly well that NH proxies with different balance by latitude and ocean-vs-continental OUGHT to have different curves, even if exact same methodology is used. One expects more/stronger jiggles further from equator and further from shore.  Given the different mix of proxies, it would be *astonishing* if Moberg(2005) didn't jiggle more than MBH99. Experts of course understand the issues, but people seeing a spaghetti graph naturally think that the lines represent the same thing.  They don't.
 * Visual: it is hard to show this on a printed page, and it does take more sophisticated graphics, somewhat akin to interactive scientific visualizations. Human eyes naturally see the extrema, i.e., the envelope, but that isn't really representative of the ensemble.
 * Improvement. See AR4 WG I, p.467. I would claim that Fig 6.10(c) is a *far better* representation of the uncertainty and agreement than the Fig 6.10(b) spaghetti chart from which it was derived, although I could wish for an interactive visualization.  For a longer discussion, see pp.140-142 of (non-RS, but cites mostly RS sources), which overlays various graphs and error bands.  As I wrote, amusingly, MBH99 actually allows for a higher NH MWP than many studies.   If one actually wants to explain all this for a general audience, getting a current graph like Fig 6.10(c) included and explained, would be a great service.JohnMashey (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These are good points, so far we've continued with the graphs available. Someone has uploaded a copy of the TAR WG1 Summary Figure 5, use of which is restricted as fair use. Our "spaghetti graph" was generated in 2005 by Global Warming Art using public data, and is available under a free license as it's not a copy of copyrighted graphics. If we could get someone to produce an update similar to what you suggest, that would be ideal.
 * AR4 WG I 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years makes a number of points which we should summarise in this article. Figure 6.10 has the visual problem that while 6.10b and 6.10c have the same X-axis scale, they're plotted to different scales of Y-axis, so 6.10c is vertically compressed and doesn't look as though it includes all the height of the spaghetti, which of course it does. Arguably we could extract 6.10c on its own as fair use, which at least would be clearer than trying to explain all three graphs in very brief outline. It's interesting that there's a pale spike at 1000 AD which suggests an outside chance of temperatures then exceeding the modern measured temperature record as of 2005. Something to review in the context of the words of WG I 6.6.
 * @ John Mashey, your analysis certainly highlights how much of an outlier MM were, but I thought (from memory) that they claimed to be demonstrating the inaccuracy of their version of the methodology, not actually putting forward a reconstruction of their own. A useful get-out. . dave souza, talk 09:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with John Mashey's points and I suspect that's why AR4 shows 6.10b & c together. However if the proposal is to use 6.10c without b accompanying it it isn't going to make any sense on its own. If they were placed together the same way as in AR4 then this is certainly a big improvement on our present spaghetti graph. Comparing the graphs I note another problem is that our spaghetti graph doesn't show the spike just before 1000CE that all reconstructions seem to track. Whichever graph we use, though, the bigger problem is still that people are going to reasonably assume that the HS controversy is about the spaghetti graph simply because of where we have placed it and of course it is not (per se..). It may be (as Guettarda said) that you all want the reader to understand that there are many hockey sticks and feel that that's all that is important, but this article is not an article about the 1000 year temperature record. It is supposed to be about the historical controversy and that was about the MBH reconstruction specifically. What we have is thus completely confusing. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By "historical controversy" do you mean it's in the past? . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to stop playing 'gotcha'. A large part of it is in the past, yes. What about my point? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A just as large part is about the MWP, and the CWP. And as far as i know, the sceptics have "attacked" every reconstruction - so it started with MBH - but it certainly hasn't ended there. If it had - then the controversy would have been over, a loooong time ago, and you yourself agree that it hasn't. MBH is scientifically irrelevant by now. 6.10b+c (or b alone) are a good replacement for the current spaghetti-graph though, even if it would be even better to get a newer one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John Mashey's (and Alex's) points about clarity for the average reader are good ones. The Spag-graphs are confusing to newcomers, and it would also make sense to present the HS graphs in rough historical order, since MBH98/99 were the first to draw widespread criticism (ims). I'll also try to find the review I mentioned upthread, and perhaps other graphics that we could use to make the article clearer. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * MBH is only part of the controversy. S&B is about whether the MWP>=CWP, M&M+Wegman is about MBH, Storch is a modelled reconstruction response to MBH, but is about the last 1000years in general, NRC is about reconstructions in general. So the controversy can be summarized (as we already do), as being about reconstructions of the last millenium. Thus the graph we already have is correct for the lede, but 6.10c might be better - though i'd prefer b+c. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the spaghetti graph has value for a general audience, if correctly explained (i.e., that those lines had error bars, and they sometimes were derived from proxy combinations that one would expect to look different) and then *add* an equivalent of Fig 6.10(c), derived from the data in the specific spaghetti graph shown. Lacking such a chart, I suggest other options.  It might be nice to reference [Error_Bar] and explain the  implications, since many people are not used to this. The original MBH98 black-and-and-white graph had prominent error bars, the MBH99 camera-ready version had an intense yellow error band, but the journal printed it greyscale, and for whatever reason, that carried over into the TAR. Scientists expect error bars everywhere, but for readers unfamiliar with this, the grey error band really doesn't register, they focus on the line.  (That is one of the reasons this was a political controversy, not really a science controversy.  Anyone who's ever seen data analyses like this knows people are trying to extract signal from noisy data, sees big error bands and lots of curves whose bands overlap, and doesn't get real excited. But other people draw very different conclusions from bandless spaghetti graphs.  So even without getting an equivalent of Fig 6.10(c), the article could be improved for the general audience.  Explain that the gray error band is expected in science and is actually important.  Explain that the lines in the spaghetti graph not only use different analysis techniques, but sometimes use proxy combinations one would expect to look different.  Then, link to IPCC page that has Figure 6.10, and explain why people should look at Fig 6.10(c).JohnMashey (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * John, I am sympathetic to explaining some of the technical issues to the reader. Indeed, the point about MBH being one of the first analyses to actually add error bars deserves mention. Out of interest do you have the same concerns about graphics of the Instrumental temperature record not showing the error bars? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Same concerns? No. See Hansen, et al (2010) pp.14-17, for example.  If the error bars are "large" and/or change importantly across the interval (as they do for MBH99), then they absolutely need to be on the graph.  If the error bars are "small" and don't change very much, all they do is make lines a bit thicker and clutter up graphics without adding much information.  Of course, credible text would discuss the issue, as Hansen, et al do. In some cases, it's a judgement call, depending in part on the publication medium (black&white, greyscale, color, interactive, how many charts practical in print.) William S. Cleveland has a good discussion of error bars in his classic "The Elements of Graphing Data," 1994, Hobart Press, which I strongly recommend along with his "Visualizing Data."  Of course, interactively I'd like to display or suppress error bars or see them in different forms, but in static displays, especially for general audiences,one has to make tradeoffs.JohnMashey (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Slightly OT, but we should probably have a discussion of McShayne & Wyner 2010 regarding that paper's (and its responses) bearing on the HS controversy, and in particular on the value (if any) of tree rings as temp proxies. John, you may have comments on that. M&W, you will recall, concluded they seem too noisy (at today's state of the art) to be of much help.  Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update of MM 2005 section
I cleaned this up, removing some clumsy phrasing and POV bits, updated some dead URLs, and made other minor changes that should be (I hope) uncontroversial.

For the MM 2005 paper itself, I added a quote from the paper, to show their contention that the HS shape comes solely from inclusion of the bristlecone pine data. I think we need to add an additional quote from the McKitrick APEC paper (already cited), from p.12 of that paper:

Recounting MM's analysis of data from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site, McKitrick writes,
 * [Mann] did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results....

I'll work up a specific proposal for this later. We also need to add MM's rebuttal of the Wahl & Amman paper (last para), and probably some history of that paper. This was analyzed at some length by Montford in his book The Hockey Stick Illusion. An early version of that chapter is online at Caspar and the Jesus paper. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The APEC paper is an invited (i.e. not reviewed) presentation to a political conference. It is in no way a reliable source for any factual claims, but only for McKs claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Similarly MM's claims of "rebuttal" need proper mainstream third party context, W&A has stood up well. Noting the hidden comment by Pete, The Hockey Stick Illusion is blatantly unreliable and the fringe claims of Montford should not be given undue weight. Also note, I've restored carefully sourced statements based on Pearce and Weart, and removed a template: a book can't be a "dead link". . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re HSI, Dave wrote: " The Hockey Stick Illusion is blatantly unreliable and the fringe claims of Montford should not be given undue weight. "
 * Dave, what you meant to write was, in my opinion, dah dah dah. Unless someone has put this through RS review?
 * I wish you fellows would give up on this "fringe" business for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A book that's been enthusiastically recommended by a well-known climatologist, and gotten good notices from other well-known scientists, can't be dismissed as "fringe", and you should know this. Stop doing this, please.


 * Dave restored this bit,


 * In 2004 Stephen McIntyre blogged on his website climate2003.com about his efforts to get an extended analysis of the hockey stick into the journal Nature, but he was unsuccessful and it was not until 2005 that he and Ross McKitrick got their paper into the less prestigious Geophysical Research Letters. In their renewed attack on MBH98,....


 * Dave, first, "In their renewed attack on MBH98..." looks like spin and POV-pushing to me. What does it add?


 * And the long intro bit re "McI blogged dah dah dah" -- who cares? No substance, looks like stale Recentism or POV to me, albeit sourced.


 * Finally, Dave restored this:


 * In an immediate public relations campaign, the Canadian National Post for 27 January 27


 * Dave, it's a dead link -- try it please, and fix it. This also looks like spin to me: If you really want it, best make it a quote from Pearce, I think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hockey Stick Illusion is blatantly unreliable and the fringe claims of Montford should not be given undue weight. Who is the "well-known climatologist"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Judith Curry has quite an interesting discussion of HSI at her blog, scroll down to "JC’s message to Mark Lynas". She writes, "I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting Climate Etc., I engaged mainly at ClimateAudit). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion..." Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! Using Curry to make an Argument from authority again. Once more: Curry is not a published expert on this topic (not even remotely), so her comments are irrelevant . They are don't come close to WP:RS status, nor does her comments embue something else with WP:RS status. You don't get points from quoting some random climate scientists name, and something they said. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[ to clarify thread ]
 * Kim, please stop doing this. Curry is a professional climatologist, and head of a respected university dept. Do you really suppose her specialization is so narrow she can't judge a book like this? Shame! --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, please don't mess up threads, and you comment is to your shame rather than reflecting on Kim. As I've noted below, Curry has displayed her ignorance about this particular topic. She has evidently been unable to see past the misleading satements in the HSI, and her vague blogging about the book carries no weight here. . . dave souza, talk 03:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, I strongly disagree with your statement, and admonish you not to publish unsourced innuendo about living persons at Wikipedia. Please desist. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[ resume thread dave souza, talk 03:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC) ]
 *  As I recall, the HSI has been discussed and discredited as a reliable source for facts. Pete, have you had a look at the claims it makes about the IPCC 1990 understanding of the MWP?
 * Quick inital response - Will come back with chapter and verse later, but these statements accurately reflect the writings of the secondary sources on the topic. Pete, how do you get a book reference to be a dead link? . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, by clicking on it? Maybe a bad template? MAC OS-X/Firefox.
 * I've not seen HSI, keep meaning to.... Have you read it? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, a bad wiki template for the cited book, sorted. How can you recommend HSI without reading it? As your quote indicates, Judy Curry went around recommending it, then when trying to defend it against criticism showed herself to be hopelessly ill-informed, to the extent that McIntyre helpfully explained that she'd misunderstood or misremembered the HSI. That did a great deal to damage her reputation, unfortunately. The book is very deceptive, so her confusion is understandable. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like you fixed the Pearce template, Dave -- thanks! Don't know if it's yours, but there's another stray at the bottom of the reflist: Tingley, M. P et al. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pete, my typo of cit instead of cite, fixed. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think much good can come from arguing that the HSI is a RS by Wikipedia's definitions. That is never going to fly. :) Alex Harvey (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

bias in S&B section
At the beginning of the S&B section we have some snarking in the article:

"The first significant published attack from the minority of scientists denying that global warming was a real problem[25][41] was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas published in the peer reviewed but relatively obscure journal Climate Research on 31 January 2003, edited by sceptic Chris de Freitas."

The first problem is the editorial bitterness communicated by the underlined text. It is not a good look at all and a fairly obvious NPOV violation.

The second problem is that it's not accurate at all. If you take the words literally (rather than as snark/sarcasm) it says that Soon & Baliunas and those associated with this controversy make up the whole of 'the minority of scientists denying that global warming was a real problem'. Obviously that is not true. For instance, Lindzen had nothing to do with this. Neither did Singer. Neither did anyone else other than ... S&B. I suppose the writer is trying to say that there is a shadowy, coordinated secret society of deniers and that S&B are members.

The third problem is that it is just waffle and adds nothing other than 13 unnecessary words to make the sentence boring and clumsy. In other words, it's bad writing.

So can we just remove it? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that, Alex. Yes, needs CE to remove the snark & POV. I'd also strike the "peer reviewed but relatively obscure" bit and the "sceptic" tag on Freitas as "piling on" POV. Policy is to drop such tags if they tend to add POV. Readers can click on the links provided for such details. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the paper was accepted by Freitas against the recommendations of the reviewers has to be in, however. Otherwise we mislead the reader. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment from June 13 on de Freitas and CR. The idea that S&B was the first significant published attack on the hockey-stick is simply wrong, historically. It was there in de Freitas' 2002 paper and Essex&McKtrick. People can argue whether or not these were significant, but Essex&McKitrick were invited to Washington to talk about it.  In any case, it is probably a waste of time to obsess too much over the wording, as interesting new material on this topic should appear in the next few weeks, or if someone wants it earlier, they can dig through CR archives, which ofcoruse is RS about itself.JohnMashey (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John, do you think either of these is notable enough to add to the article? Neither rings a bell with me offhand. Did either spark 3rd party discussion, and do you have a RS discussion of your "Essex & McKitrick were invited to Washington..." bit above? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I already pointed to the pages in CCC, pp.162- that reference the RS sources, specifically FOIAed emails. So, we have a book funded/supported by 2 conservative Canadian foundations, written by Canadians at universities I'd guess most Americans do not know, who get sponsored by a front Group (CHC) and a conservative thinktank (CEI)to speak in the Senate's Everett Dirksen Building, on climate science, although neither author was a climate scientist.  The email's author Hillary Sills was a lobbyist for electric utilities, and her email list was interesting, as it included 2 of Inhofe's staffers, Hogan & Wheeler.  Her later email lists were even more interesting, with folks from ExxonMobil & Peabody.
 * All this bears rather strongly on the question of political controversy. Much of it goes back to the 1998 GCSCT project sponsored by API (CCC p.82, p.19), which included Fred Singer's wife to represent SEPP, Jeff Salmon from George Marshall Institute (previously a Dick Cheney speechwriter), Myron Ebell, Randy Randol (ExxonMobil), Steve Milloy, and others. The proposed funders and allocators are an interesting list. There are links to the RS sources. One of the key tactics was "“Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.” The problem they had was that people already recognized folks like Singer or Michaels or Lindzen. They needed new faces.
 * Somebody was warning me from saying anything about petroleum-driven conspiracies, which I hadn't intended to mention, but since issue has been raised, much RS is there in CCC, from the ExxonMobil, Koch, and Scaife funding (RS from 990 forms) of GMI and CEI, to API-sponsored GCSCT (its plan is online, RS), to GMI's CEO O'Keefe being veteran executive of API before coming to GMI (GMI's own website, RS about itself). CCC pp.62-66 covers data on GMI history, funding and politics.  From RS records, of political donations by its directors, 96.5% went to Republican/Libertarian candidates.  So, CCC is certainly not RS, but anyone is free to start from the numerous RS sources it identifies. I think an independent discussion for the main page on role of GCSCT plan, API, GMI, CEI, Inhofe, Barton, and their staffers in recruiting new voices to attack hockeystick and supporting them in every way possible, including OpEds in WSJ ... would be quite appropriate. That might settle any arguments about science controversy versus (fossil-funded+political) controversy. Back to work.68.122.13.171 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was obviously me.JohnMashey (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Spencer Weart, as a historian with an excellent reputation as a specialist in the climate topic area, writes: "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century.(48*)" That footnote includes the statment "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal (Climate Research) was Soon and Baliunas (2003)." Thanks to John Mashey we have examples of earlier attacks by other members of this minority. It's a significant well sourced issue which should be properly covered, so deletion is inappropriate. In light of the additional sources from John, I'll review the wording, other proposals welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave: I respect Spencer Weart, and have recommended his Discovery of GW to others. Nevertheless, he's not writing for us, and we can't run POV stuff, except as direct quotes -- which doesn't really seem appropriate here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By "POV stuff" you seem to mean a well established mainstream view of the issue: see weight policy, which is part of NPOV. Further equally reliable mainstream sources on the initial onset of criticism of the graph will be most useful. . . 22:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, by "POV stuff" I mean the rather overheated rhetoric used by a particular commentator. We can retain the substance and trim the snark, I believe. Agree with your second comment. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be maligning the considered view of a reputable historian, please take more care. If the brief description of that view is inaccurate or poorly phrased, we can improve it while continuing to accurately reflect the source. . . dave souza, talk 22:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete is correct. It is disappointing that Weart has written this. He is entitled to his opinion but we can't present it as fact. This is merely an assertion by Weart with no evidence supporting it. What we can do is write at an appropriate point in the article, "According to the science historian Spencer Weart, the work of Soon & Baliunas was part of a coordinated attack by a 'dedicated minority', although he does not provide further details." Of course, BLP says we must proceed cautiously and we have a good opportunity here just to omit this as it's not interesting or necessary and simply makes Weart sound like a conspiracy theorist. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, your minority POV is showing, and your reading is obviously wrong: Weart said no such thing. Please accept that weight has to be given to majority third party expert views such as Weart's historical assessment. Your lack of interest in the origins of the political controversy is irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right in that Weart didn't actually say 'coordinated'; he just hinted that. On the rest, I am quite happy to give weight to Weart, in so far as I have no objection to the article mentioning that Weart said this. But it isn't acceptable to present his opinions as fact -- even his historical opinions. The wording, as I already pointed out, is implying the very silly idea of a single, dedicated minority in secret communication behind the scenes, sort of Knights Templar stuff, and that they organised the 'attacks'. Obviously that didn't happen, and Weart didn't present any evidence of it. We can't present it as fact. Here in the real world, what happened is S&B just published a crap paper and some politicians latched onto it just as they later latched onto the von Storch paper. Let's leave the conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Let's leave the conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia." Indeed. We had quite enough of that at another CC page recently.


 * Dave, even Jove nods, and two editors think Weart got a bit carried away on this one. As Alex says, it's not a substantial point, and makes us look silly as published now. Alex, do you want to make a specific proposal to fix this? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Let's leave the conspiracy theories out of Wikipedia." A splendid idea, we can start by cutting out all the undue weight being given to fringe theories that the hockey stick graph has been concocted by all those climate scientists and disproved by a mining executive. A good first step will be renaming this article "hockey stick graph".
 * If the wording fails to adequately reflect Weart's expert view, we can improve it to do so. That's a good representation of majority expert views, sources would be needed if you're proposing that a significant minority view differs. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganisation of controversy section
The change from Political controversy to Controversy lost the significant issue of the onset of political controversy, but since some of the issues covered such as the Moberg and von Storch papers are about scientific discussions, the overall Controversy heading works reasonably well. As discussed above the perhaps over-terse reference to two sections of Weart's overview appears to have led to some confusion. This and to overcome this I've introducing a new Origin of political controversy subsection covering the campaigners' use of the hockey stick image to raise awareness of global warming, and his point that "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations." As also discussed, some more context about these prompt attacks will be useful, and my intention is to use reliable secondary sources to provide that info in this new section. . . `dave souza, talk


 * Dave, this isn't going to work. You can't present opinions as facts. "the minority denying that global warming posed any problems attacked the statistical methods..." isn't even remotly NPOV. Denying, attacked is clearly inflammatory wording. If you want some quotes from Wearts, try them, but this won't do. Sorry, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Pete, you clearly misunderstand WP:NPOV policy: we give due weight to majority views as expressed by reliable academic sources such as Weart, and where sources show significant minority views we show them in the context of how they've been received by the expert majority. Your reversion of a careful rephrasing to closely match the reliable source looks like battlefield behaviour, please undo that reversion. If you've got properly sourced proposals for improvements, please discuss. . .dave souza, talk 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the referenced content as I see no valid reason to remove it. Vsmith (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not happy about this at all. It looks like the article structure has now been completely broken so that some reliably sourced POV from a footnote in Weart can now be given its own section. And with the new article structure, the reader is still given the misleading impression that the controversy was purely political. We have section "Controversy". Fine thinks the reader. Then immediately subsection "Start of the political controversy". Oh, this controversy is a political controversy, thinks the reader. So we took one small step forward, and Dave's edit takes us several steps back. The structure which was previously confined to scientific disputes as it tends to be in the reliable sources (e.g. Pearce's book adopts a structure like this) is now quite rambling, and a misleading impression is given. It's disappointing. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure now is historically accurate, noting the point at which the existing political controversy over global warming focussed specifically on this graph. Pearce's book is explicit that the controversy is mainly, if not entirely, political, and the article gives plenty of space to scientific arguments over aspects of the reconstructions. Note that scientific disputes are normal, and are not "controversies". Perhaps you think that the chapter heading "Scientists in the firing line" suggests that Pearce's discussion is "confined to scientific disputes", have a look at the first couple of paragraphs, which include: "Some of the most vocal sceptics, however, are not interested in the science. They have more commercial and political agendas, furthering the aims of their employers in undermining calls for action against greenhouse gas emissions. The scientific sceptics are few in number but the power often lies with the people from this political end of the spectrum – the fossil fuel companies and rightwing thinktanks and newspaper proprietors – who are keen to publicise their views." We have to be careful not to give undue weight to those few, or show their views out of context. . . . dave souza, talk 09:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of fallacies in the arguments above. First, nowhere does WP:NPOV state that we can only use sources that are themselves ambivalent about facts or issues. It says that we must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. If the vast majority of serious academic commentators share a single view of a subject, then that is what we reflect - of course noting if certain individual politicians or bloggers have also strenuously tried to oppose it. Secondly, if we are here to represent the reliable sources without expressing our own bias or furthering any agenda, how can there be talk about steps 'forward' and 'back'? Surely such talk assumes the writer has a personal or implicit goal in mind. Wikipedia will never be 'finished', there is no end-point that we are supposed to have divined and be measuring our progress toward, other than to represent all the most significant sources in the most accurate way possible. --Nigelj (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Nigel; NPOV says, in no uncertain terms, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone". So if, hypothetically, we did agree (as we should), that Weart's language is not neutral (because it is not), and we recognise that Weart likes Mann and as such is biased (because he is), NPOV says that we don't cite where his bias shows. To give an example designed for your sensibilities, Lindzen's textbook on middle atmosphere dynamics is doubtlessly a reliable source for atmospheric dynamics. But, if we found a page where he theorises in the vein of his discredited Iris hypothesis, we would discard that passage as unreliable, but continue to treat the work as a whole as reliable. NPOV does not require, or even allow for, thoughtless automata. In this example, as Pete correctly pointed out, 'attacked' is unlikely to be neutral description of something, unless the 'something' is one person hitting another. And in the context of the climate change debate, 'deny' is a term loaded to connote 'climate change denier', which many of our readers and many Wikipedians themselves find offensive. So in repeating Weart's non neutral language, we have violated NPOV (yet again). @Dave, it is nonsense to say that scientific ideas are not 'controversial'. It is no secret that science is rife with a nasty politics of its own and there are as many controversies in science as there are in politics proper, if not more. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex is correct. We both went through a very unpleasant experience with a refractory editor who insisted on inserting global warming conspiracy in the lede at the Climategate page, and various other opinions presented as fact elsewhere there. Interested (and very patient, or bored) editors may peruse the Talk pages there for the policy discussions, which remain unresolved.


 * To me, policy is crystal-clear on this.             From WP:NPOV:


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. [emphasis added]


 * This appears to be exactly what Dave is trying to do, and it is specifically against policy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources, please, Pete and Alex. We have reliable scholarship by an accepted authority on the matter, and should show that without trying to censor it on the basis of our own personal opinions, as you seem to be doing. As the cited sources show, it's clearly factual that this controversy has been promoted by those with commercial and political agendas, often supported or with links to the fossil fuel companies and rightwing thinktanks and newspaper proprietors. That doesn't apply to all those raising issues about the graph, we have to follow reliable sources for each case. Also remember, avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion, and ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Putting a clear majority view as quotes from one author is unacceptable as it implies parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view. At present it seems to be so tiny a minority that you haven't even provided any sources, just kept repeating your own original research which you should know is unacceptable. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a single of this has any bearing or is related in any way to the objection that was raised. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Define the difference between fact and opinion, please. My operational definition for Wikipedia is "no red flags, reliable source, no reliably sourced diverging statement, stated as a fact -> fact". What's yours? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that looks like an ad hoc definition and I doubt it is robust, but in this case there are obvious red flags being raised, so I would reject the text even if I accepted your definition. Weart's apparent proposition is that there existed a single, dedicated minority that denied global warming and that this minority attacked Mann's hockey stick through a paper by S&B. In other words, it is a conspiracy theory, given without evidence. Moreover, Weart's statement diverges from Pearce's account. And as John Mashey pointed out, it's factually inaccurate and S&B were not the first to attack Mann's conclusion, which suggests Weart probably hasn't even researched this closely. Lots of red flags, and a history diverging from Pearce's. So by your test, it fails as a fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which text are you talking about? I suggest you take a look at this. If you drop all qualifiers from a statement, the fact that the unqualified statement is dubious is not the original writers problem... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comic. Weart wrote: "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century" . Taken at face value, it implies a single group in behind the scenes collaboration; a conspiracy that would include Soon, Baliunas, McIntyre, & McKitrick. I ddoubt Weart actually believes there was a conspiracy and suspect he is just simplifying the story for a lay audience. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, you seem to have a reading comprehension failure there. A dedicated minority doesn't imply a single group, it implies a few who are united in denying that there's a real problem. For example, that minority does include the names you mention, all of whom have overtly political connections to the George C. Marshall Institute to a greater or lesser extent. Of course this minority seems to be united in claiming that 97% of climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to hide the MWP. Will look at the issue of attacks before S&B, none of which had anything like as much significance. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section in another attempt to make it NPOV, by using Weart's arguments as a quote, and by adding Pearce as a source. See what you think. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, above. Which is it - are you saying am I misreading something because there is no conspiracy and because Weart doesn't posit one either, or are you in fact saying I am reading it correctly because Weart does posit a conspiracy and you agree that the conspiracy is real? Everything after your initial polite suggestion that I have a reading comprehension problem suggests I did in fact read it correctly, and that you agree with my interpretation. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spencer Weart was originally a physicist, but has been a credible science historian for 30+ years. In no way is he a participant in the hockey-stick controversy. He is interested in the history of the science, and thinks that the attacks on the hockey stick were mainly spurious technicalities that had little effect on the real science. So, his AIP website (of which the book is a subset/snapshot) tends to pay little attention to the fake stuff, and he leaves the study of the politics/PR and underlying machinations (i.e., the conspiracies) to those who do that. Hence, it may not be very useful to argue endlessly about a few words in his book.JohnMashey (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For myself I am satisfied that Pete's changes have resolved the NPOV problems, and if no one is objecting to his changes, that would make this discussion moot. However, I do feel strongly that the new section breaks the article structure. If we do need a new section, it should discuss the promotion of the MBH99 graph in the media, to explain why it became a target of skeptics. Otherwise I can't see why the next section wouldn't be S&B, followed by MM03, and probably after that would be the right place to discuss the related political controversy. That structure makes a lot more historical sense to me. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

- [Response to Nigel's adding two words to Weart quote] I think that's a good add -- makes clearer that Weart is a partisan, in this case anyway. Which has kinda been my & Alex's point. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Pete, rather shows that you're a partisan. Very naughty quoting one sentence of Pearce's page out of context, I've shown the next sentence and amended the title accordingly, since someone changed the title without noting it in the edit summary. Gotta rush, will be back with more detail. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted this as Pete's is a neutral presentation of Pearce, whereas the 'contrarian' sentence is out of context and presents just one small part of the article. If you want to add a balanced look at the Pearce article then we need to extend this to the Briffa vs Mann dispute. Meanwhile Pete's decision to turn 'the' into 'a' was, I think, very polite and fair to Weart. Nigel has restored the appearance that he is a conspiracy theorist. That said, I completely agree with Nigel in that Pete's change did indeed change the meaning. If Weart says 'the dedicated minority', he implies behind the scenes organisation; a merely logical grouping by shared belief or ideology, as you suggest above is Weart's meaning, can't actually do things in the real world, so it can't attack calculations via the S&B paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of order, your idea of neutral is hiding mainstream views of these fringe and contrarian views. The Briffa v. Mann dispute is already covered in the previous section. You also appear to be misreading Weart again, who says nothing to support your unsourced allegation that this reputable historian is a conspiracy theorist suggesting a behind the scenes organisation. Of course there may well have been behind the scenes organisation, but we need other sources for that. There's also the point of quoting rather than paraphrasing, this is currently very poor so I'll aim to improve it. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dave here. Alex's edit strips the sentence of its essential context. Come on, everyone knows that this is manufactured "controversy". It isn't our job to quote-mine our sources to make fringe views look less fringe. This isn't even WP:GEVAL, this is outright twisting of what the sources say. Not acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Come on, everyone knows that this is manufactured "controversy"." G, I think your POV is showing rather seriously here....


 * We do need to add in the McShayne & Wyner stuff -- their (somewhat controversial) finding is, the tree-ring temp data, if any, gets lost in the noise. And we all need to try to stay encyclopedic despite our personal beliefs -- me included, of course. It is encouraging that the current curves restore the MWP & LIA -- not that they ever really went anywhere, except for in the early, "flat" MBH curves. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, our cited sources clearly show that this was a political controversy manufactured with the use of widely publicised criticisms by a tiny minority of climate scientists and criticisms by non-scientists. Your personal beliefs are showing, you've yet to provide reliable sources supporting your contentions, despite being requested earlier to do this. As for your comment that the "current curves restore the MWP & LIA", that shows you've failed to notice that even the original publication of MBH99 "supports earlier theories that temperatures in medieval times were relatively warm", and more recent curves all fit within the two standard error limits which the MBH study emphasised. As the spaghetti curves show, even the central smoothed MBH line isn't out of place. . dave souza, talk 06:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * G, Come on, everyone knows that this is manufactured "controversy". I am not impressed by your false accusation that I am 'quote-mining the sources to make fringe views look less fringe'. I have just read Fred Pearce's book and his conclusion is that the hockey stick controversy was anything but a 'manufactured controversy'. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not impressed by your false accusation that I am 'quote-mining the sources to make fringe views look less fringe' - you removed context from a statement in order to make the fringe view look less fringe. That's quote mining. Further down this page you've done it again - taken a statement out of context to try to undermine a source you don't like. I don't care whether you are "not impressed" with me calling out your behaviour - I am, however, surprised that you would continue to do that so soon after being called out for it. Just stop playing these silly games Alex. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: McShane&Wyner: are you willing to claim that in your opinion, that paper is a credible effort, as of mid-2011? (I.e., not whether it stands up over the long term, but whether, right now, it seems a credible effort.)  If not, it shouldn't be in, if so, propose some words.JohnMashey (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

G, I think your POV is showing rather seriously here.... - what, NPOV? Sorry Pete no - this is a manufactured political controversy. If you had any understanding of the scientific method, you'd understand that no one doing science actually expects to be perfectly correct on all aspects. There's nothing surprising if people get different results based on different data. That's why people continue to work on their area of interest, continue to refine things. And when you get a consilience of results you focus on what the data is telling you. So sure, there appear to have been problems with Kettlewell's methodology in his peppered moth experiment. But only creationists out to manufacture a controversy continue to harp about it because whether there were flaws in his methodology or not, later work has found that his overall conclusions were accurate. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

proposed article structure
We have somehow ended up with the following structure:

1 Origins 2 Hockey stick graphs published 2.1 Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 2.2 IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001 3 Controversy 3.1 Origin of the controversy 3.2 Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation 3.3 McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 3.4 Hans von Storch 2004 3.5 McIntyre and McKitrick 2005

It doesn't make any sense to me and I propose the following structure and suggestions for additional material.

1 Origins 2 Hockey stick graphs published 2.1 MBH98 2.2 MBH1999 2.2 MBH in TAR 3 Controversy 3.1 Soon & Baliunas 3.3 McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 3.4 Hans von Storch 2004 3.5 McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 3.6 Moberg et al 2005 3.7 Political controversy

'Inhofe' doesn't deserve to be in a section heading; it gives him too much prominence. He was jumping onto every paper he could to throw doubt on the consensus so it makes no sense to associate him in the mind of the reader with S&B just because they happened to be first. By moving Political Controversy to 3.7 after exposition of the various scientific controversies, it becomes possibly to present a sane discussion of the political controversy, how various politicians used these papers. I also think Al Gore's film belongs in this section and fail to see why it is instead a subsection of 'Congressional investigations'. We also should add a section for Moberg et al. because their paper seems to restore the MWP. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the MBH 2004 Corrigendum should have its own section and more detail. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you fail to see the sense in a historical sequence highlighting the shift from debates within the scientific community to the introduction of political controversy inflating minority criticisms at the same time as serious research refined and essentially reaffirmed the central findings of the MBH study, despite its flaws. Your proposal would result in a series of one-paragraph sections, and would take controversy out of context, failing the WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV policy by "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself". Your POV assertions show your continued attempts to mislead others about the significance of events. Inhofe's initial attacks, which were contemporary with and intertwined with the S&B debacle, are highlighted by severaly reliable secondary sources. Al Gore's film was screened in the middle of the Congressional investigations, after they'd been commissioned but before they'd reported. As discussed above, the MWP never went away, and as our spaghetti graph shows, Moberg et al. deepened the ice age while reaffirming the broad MBH estimate of NH medieval temps. More variability but the same general conclusion, no reason for this paragraph to be a section on its own. . . dave souza, talk 06:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remove the personal attacks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. In historian circles, calling a historian "partisan" is a serious attack on their professional integrity. Do you support Tillman's characterization of Weart as "partisan"?  Will you do so if/when he shows up here?  Just out of curiosity, may I assume you and Pete have track records equivalent to Weart in researching and publishing history of science?JohnMashey (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mashey, isn't that something to take up with Pete Tillman? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any apology for the personal attacks. But how about explaining to me why you think having an 'Origins' section and then later an 'Origins of the controversy' section is logical. Happy to raise an RfC if you'd like some outside opinions. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
I think the Kaufmann section should be edited to include that a correction was made to this paper, that corrected for the same item for which McIntyre accused Mann of using upside-down axes, and to which Mann said the usage is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.36.50 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 06:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pearce Guardian experiment not RS
I don't believe this source is reliable:. If we read the disclaimer, ''As well as including new information about the emails, we allowed web users to annotate the manuscript to help us in our aim of creating the definitive account of the controversy. This was an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth.'' In other words, it is much the same a source like Wikipedia and not a reliable secondary source. This would explain why certain sentences diverge so much from Pearce's book. Can we please remove text based on this source? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a RS as s news report, the interactive aspect more than meets the allowable standards of WP:NEWSBLOGS. From my look at the book, the sentences cited recently are the same in the book: please give page numbers of specific sentences you wish to query. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal. I say that I don't believe Pearce used a sentence like the one you quote in the book, and you want me to give you the page number to prove it. Perhaps you need to give me the page number where he does say this? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which sentence I quote? You're still too vague, and surely you should be able to find sections of the book relating to topic areas. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, you said you checked the book and found he said exactly the same thing in the book. I don't know what you checked; you tell me. What page numbers did you check to make this conclusion? I don't believe anything in his book is biased and loose like the sentence you added to the article. So I can't give you the page number, because I don't think such a page exists. You claim the source is reliable, so you need to provide the page number here. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex - scroll up a bit, read the statement just above Fred Pearce's picture. Users could annotate the article, not alter. Those words mean different things in English. And their annotations are visible if you click on the bits of the text highlighted in yellow. Read the whole thing, don't pick bits and quote them out of context. Hmmm...I have this feeling of deja vu. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Origin of the controversy" subsection: comments, questions, recommendations
In general, this is an improvement except for the title: "IPCC graph enters political controversy" appears yet another attempt to portray this as dominantly a political controversy, rather than (as I see it) as a scientific controversy that became inextricably entwined in politics, with contributions from both the "pro-" and "anti-" HS factions. I'll see if I can come up with something better, and will now outline what I see as other problems and omissions. I only have a few minutes now, so will return with sources and actual edits later. So bear with the following impressionistic essay, please.

The most important omission is the rationale the HS graph gave to the case for "unprecedented" warming, and thus for political action to avert "dangerous" AGW. No serious critic (or proponent) argues against the fact that the earth's climate is warming -- as I see it, only politicians and scientific illiterates argue against any current warming. The real questions are: 1) is the warming natural, man-made, or a mix; and 2) is the warming "unprecedented", or within the range of previous "natural" warmings.

To answer the second first, I think it's clear that the earth's climate was much warmer, and (likely) warmed significantly faster, during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which to a geologist is semi-recent history. (The PETM peaked at about 50 mya; we see things differently.) Our article says that "Global temperatures rose by about 6°C (11°F) over a period of approximately 20,000 years", which would exceed the threshold for "dangerous natural climate change". So we should have a brief note in the article re this, I think.

The reason the straight "shaft" of the early MBH graphs was politically attractive was that it enhanced the appearance of the dramatically-rising "blade" of the current warming, presented by grafting the recent instrumental records onto the fundamentally-different (and scientifically flawed) proxy-reconstruction graphs: As journalist John Tierney once remarked, "The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom." E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science. This might be a quote to include here, and indeed our Climatic_Research_Unit_documents section has other info that should be included here. I also note we omit any mention of the "hide the decline" controversy here -- a misuse of the HS graph that drew sharp criticisms from many scientists, as well as uninformed posturing by various politicians.

I'll stop here for now -- out of time -- but will reiterate that I think I can provide RS's for all my assertions, and will of course do so before proposing any actual article changes. I'll add that working on this article is so tedious and frustrating that I wonder why I do it at all. One answer is that, as a professional earth scientist, what I see as the misuse of science in the atmospheric sciences, an allied field, puts my own profession into an unflattering light.

I apologize if anyone is bothered by my starting a new section, but the discussion upthread has gotten so convoluted that this seemed the best approach to me. Comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we need a general reference for the geological context of climate change, the Geological Society (UK) has a nice primer here, which doubles as their CC policy statement. Looks pretty good at first glance. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The revised title: "IPCC graph enters political controversy" was carefully considered to deal with the point that this was a pre-existing political controversy about global warming, and in particular about the Kyoto protocol. The graph was taken up by both sides in that dispute, and much of the "skeptic" criticism is openly tied to or inpired by that political dispute. Whether there was also a "scientific controversy" is a matter of semantics, is every scientific dispute a controversy? I think we can agree that there have been both scientific disputes and political controversy, they are entangled in that continued harping on minor defects in earlier papers is characteristic of political controversy. Comparing reconstructions to the modern temperature record is inherent in the method of reconstruction, did not begin with the hockey stick, and is described by North as a natural and obvious thing to do. The MBH studies were innovative in emphasising how much uncertainty this meant in the earlier reconstruction by comparison with the temperature record. Obviously this sort of refinement can be missed by laymen, and indiscriminate stripping away of the uncertainties is described by North as "very misleading, in fact downright dishonest", as noted in the article. The Jones WMO graph is descibed in the article, it shows the difficulties in simplifying science for laymen and does not appear to have been controversial at the time. The inflated controversy over "hide the decline" is very recent, and the article hasn't yet reached that period. My aim is to bring it up to date, but I seem to spend a lot of editing time on the tak page ;-) The Geological Society statemtnt looks well balanced, and says nothing to contradict the "hockey stick" graphs generally or the MBH studies in particular. My aim has been to take care to find sources that specifically mention the MBH studies or the "hockey stick", or are cited in secondary sources as relating to the topic, and as far as I can see the statement doesn't make such a reference. The PETM is both interesting and a subject of recent research, have you a source that relates this to the "hockey stick graphs"? . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave wrote: "I seem to spend a lot of editing time on the talk page ;-)" Heh. Noticed that myself. OK, back to RL chores for me.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding to the last thoughts, "unprecedented" in the context of the graphs has always meant "unprecedented within the last thousand years", or whatever relevant period is specified in the study. Sometimes the phrasing of this has been less than ideal, but there has been no dispute that earlier periods have probably been warmer. We have particular reason for being concerned about deviation from that recent relatively stable temperature range, as discussed in the SciAm article linked in my last post. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave: you raise some good points, some of which I'll have to think about. However, as you & I both note, the scientific and political controversies (or disputes, or whatever) have become inextricably intertwined, so I think we need a neutral title. How about, "The hockey-stick graph controversy begins" ? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that they're entirely intertwined, there are continuing refinements such as Mann08 and Tingley, Huybers (2010) which modify and debate the understanding within science, and a separate debate which is largely political or economic, ranging from the continuing ill-informed "hoax" claims to technical disputes about statistics or the like, which tend to be parlayed into claims that they refute the science. Two strands, with some overlap. "The hockey-stick graph controversy begins" is stating that the previous debate in science wasn't a controversy, in which case it might work better to rename this article by moving it to "Hockey stick graph". There's also the point that the controversy over global warming was already in full spate, and the hockey stick graph became an iconic feature of that pre-existing controversy. . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, if you claim that "50 mya" is "semi-recent history", you are adopting a very unhelpful stance for climate discussions. 50 million years is long enough that the configuration of the continents changes dramatically. 50 million years ago there was no Drake Passage, no Himalaya, and no Isthmus of Panama. Indeed, 50 million years is more than 10% of the time we have complex life on land. And of course, 6 degrees over 20000 years is about 20 times slower than global warming even during the 20th century. "In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephan, geologists really do think differently about time. Which is one reason we (as a profession) are better aware of the constant change of climate over time -- and the patent absurdity of seriously considering positive feedback as a control of the climate system, when the earth's climate has been (basically) stable for a billion years or more. Barring the odd Snowball Earth.... a reminder, of course, that Natural climate change can also be hazardous to your health. 


 * I mentioned the PETM specifically as it has been used as a "cautionary tale" by climate-change activists. But Dave S. has a good point, upthread, that this is tenuously connected to this controversy. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, re your edit summary; "Time! Time! Time! — we must not impugn the Scripture Chronology, but we must interpret it in accordance with whatever shall appear on fair enquiry to be the truth for there cannot be two truths." (John Herschel) Your statement that "the earth's climate has been (basically) stable for a billion years or more" sits rather uneasily with paleoclimatology, and indeed I'd be rather uncomfortable here (in the country I'm writing from) before the holocene climatic optimum as it was under a great deal of ice around 15,000 years ago. (It seems odd that as a geologist you'd be unfamiliar with the dramatic changes postulated by Louis Agassiz ;-) Agreed that early humans were able to live further south, but our society has developed considerably in the more stable climate of the last two thousand years, and a temperature spike like the PETM will cause considerable disruption to our way of life, as well as the usual mass extinctions which have been quite frequent over the last billion years. The last two thousand years are more open to detailed study, despite the uncertainties and sparse proxies, and have been the focus of these graphs for good reason. . . . dave souza, talk 07:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the relevance of this PETM discussion to the article but I think Dave's new material is quite good and probably has justified the creation of the new section. If it's clear that the section is about the HS graph in the debate about Kyoto maybe Kyoto deserves specific mention in the heading? That's just a suggestion. Meanwhile, my only remaining concern is that the contentious Weart material is incomprehensible in its present setting. We quote two sentences verbatim. The first one refers to 'calculations', but the reader has no idea what calculations he is talking about. The second one refers to 'two scientists' and the reader has no idea who the two scientists are. I respectfully suggest we delete this material; it is now redundant. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Weart's eminence as a historian and the point he makes that "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations." it's certainly not redundant. While it would be ideal to find our own wording expressing this point, in the interim I've moved it to a more suitable position, and have omitted the sentence "For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century." as that issue is already covered in the next paragraph. We should of course remain aware that Weart considers S&B to be examples of "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem". Note also that the political controversy predated Kyoto, which saw a continuation of the earlier dispute. . . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could even put it in boldface: The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations, Alex! Look, it's still POV, it still hints at an organised conspiracy, it's still vague, it's boring, but I'm going to drop for the moment and return to it another time. The article has far bigger problems. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By "it's still POV" you evidently mean it accurately reflects the mainstream majority expert view on the topic, and your conspiratorial reading remains inaccurate. If you want to return to this topic, please comply with talk page guidelines by providing proper sources for the alternative views you want presented. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Dave, you seem to have the curious idea that an "eminent historian" can't have a POV, and we should assume that we can use his thoughts as the Received Wisdom of the CC Anointed Majority  Well, pal, I'm here to tell you, there like a**holes, everybody's got one....

But Wikipedia's not supposed to. Alex, we may have to go to a RfC on this, but I don't have the time (or energy) at the moment. We're getting smoked out her in N. NM, my wife's asthma is killing her, so may have to bag it to A/C. So much for pure mtn air. Bah, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, sorry to hear that you're having some personal difficulties, not very clear to me what's the problem. Wikipedia is supposed to show majority expert views, and where the majority view is contested by a significant minority view covered in reliable sources, it should show that view while giving due weight to majority views of those minority objections. Can discuss further if that's not clear enough, . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to portray this as dominantly a political controversy, rather than (as I see it) as a scientific controversy - Problem is that, despite your assertions, there is nothing to support that point of view. You've cited zero sources here. Alex has cited zero sources here. I mean - all we have here is page, after page, after page, of you and Alex making unsupported assertions. There is a political claim is that there is a scientific controversy. But just as we don't pretend that creationist claims of made-up scientific controversies in evolution are true, we also don't pretend that these political claims are true. So please, support your assertions with sources and stop abusing talk pages. Guettarda (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Some" contrarians
In this edit Alex inserted the word "some", claiming that the statement was an over-generalisation. However, by adding "some" he introduced a meaning that was not present in the original source. Saying "some contrarians did x" means that only a portion of the group did this, and that a portion did not. That assertion is not supported in the source. At the same time, claiming that "contrarians did x" is an over-generalisation is untrue. Saying "all contrarians did x" or "most contrarians did x" would be an over-generalisation. But saying "contrarians did x" is (a) what Pearce says, and (b) simply the use of a collective noun which, in English, makes no claims about whether it is "few", "many", "most" or "all". The addition, whether intentional or not, is a clear example of the misleading use of weasel words. Hence my revert. Guettarda (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have raised the matter of whether or not we should be using this sentence in the first place at WP:NPOVN. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written to me and confirmed that my interpretation of the reliability of this passage was right. I reproduce the correspondence with permission below: Alex Harvey to the Guardian: Subject: Fred Pearce: Climategate series From: Alex Harvey To:  Date: 2011-06-29 15:59:21 Dear Sir/Madam, This message is intended for Fred Pearce. I am a Wikipedian and I have read and particularly enjoyed his book, The Climate Files. I share the view of others that it is the only balanced account of the Climategate controversy or indeed the hockey stick controversy in existence. In Wikipedia, however, a group of editors sympathetic to Michael Mann's version of history have seized upon what may be one loose sentence in the following Pearce article: The sentence, which I think they have taken completely out of context anyway, is "The contrarians have made [the hockey stick graph] the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists ." I do not think this statement is entirely accurate, and especially the underlined part, in so far as I do not think that the primary motivation behind Steve McIntyre's 'audit' of the hockey stick was to destroy the credibility of climate scientists. I also do not think it was the primary motivation of the many other technical bloggers who support him. Certainly, it would be true of some of his readers, and true of some other contrarians, but I very much doubt it is true of all of them. Moreover, I don't think The Climate Files takes a strong position like this, suggesting to me that this may not be the considered view of the author. I would very much appreciate a clarification on this and if possible an indication of whether or not I would have permission to reproduce the reply in the Wikipedia talk pages. Kind regards, Alex Harvey Sydney, Australia

Fred Pearce to Alex Harvey: from Fred Pearce to date: 30 June 2011 05:06 subject: FW: Guardian RE: Fred Pearce: Climategate series mailed-by Alex, Thanks for this. I certainly think some "contrarians" have such motivations. While I cannot quote you chapter and verse, I have seen that kind of view expressed. Nonetheless, I agree it is a rather bald over-generalisation. Attribution of motive is always dangerous, a point I make a number of times in the book. I am sure that is why, in the book version, I changed it to "Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." By the way, I suspect that in fact the original version as quoted was not my own words. I have just gone back to the draft of that article on my computer and the sentence does not appear. On a daily newspaper, things happen along the way. Editors rewrite sometimes to convey a point more directly. And sometimes they lose, shall we say, nuance. I am not "accusing" editors of doing that. But these things happen. You are, of course, welcome to quote me on this anywhere you like. Regards Fred

Can I assume we will consider this settled now that the sentence Dave Souza found is not reliable on the view of Fred Pearce? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going to this effort, Alex -- and of course thanks to Fred Pearce for replying. Nice guy, my high opinion of his work is supported. Wish we had more like him! Agree we need to use the book's version in our article. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the first step would be to find some way to verify the reliability of this. Nothing personal, but we can't just take the word of some anonymous person on the internet. Obviously you already know that. So...where is the Wikipedia-reliable source that supports this? Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Guettarda, I see a few ways forward from here: (1) I can write back to Fred Pearce and explain that despite his disavowal, Wikipedia intends to use the text anyway unless the Guardian publishes a formal retraction (I am quite happy to do this if only to shine some more light onto what editors like myself have to put up with here in Wikipedia); (2) you can send me a private email and I can forward you the correspondence (true, that will not prove the authenticity of the correspondence); (3) you can write to Fred Pearce yourself! ;-) (4) you can look up the text in Pearce's book and confirm that he uses a different wording, which admittedly involves admitting that I already told you this; (5) you & Dave can both man up and admit that my observation (i.e. that The Guardian wording was an over generalisation) was self evidently true and as such we shouldn't have needed to spell all this out to the author in the first place. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, having an author do your homework for you doesn't invalidate Wikipedia policy. Dave asked you to specify page numbers in Pearce's book. You refused. Now, Pearce has pointed you to a specific quote in the book. And yet again, you don't want to provide page numbers. If you won't specify where in the book the quote is coming from, we can't use it. "Because I say so" isn't a reliable source. "Because I can quote an email" isn't a reliable source. A reliable source is one that is verifiable. If you can't say where in the book Pearce discusses it, then it's not a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Guetterda: We do use editorial discretion here, and we are attempting to choose between two versions of the same author's work. We don't need the same level of verifiability as for establishing a RS, as we are choosing between the book & the newspaper, both considered (generally) RS's. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No Tillman, that is not what this is about. Alex was asked to specify a page number. Had he come up with one, Dave (or someone else) could have double-checked, verified the context, and we could be having an editorial discussion here. Instead he came up with an email that he would appear to want us to use, in lieu of a specific source. It's sort of like, I dunno, using a blog comment, and claiming it to be reliable source. The only way we can even consider the book as a source is if someone bothers to track it down and look at it. An unverified quote from an email, allegedly by the book's author, cannot be used as a source for the specific wording in the book. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * G, I don't have the book handy unfortunately. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, do you also wish to press on or can we consider the issue resolved? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But you see, that's the problem. We can't work off an author's "what I meant to say...". Sometimes our sourcing policies seem onerous, but they tend to do more good than harm. The point is that we need to report what sources say. We can't deviate from what the Guardian article said based simply on Pearce's say-so. It's not like an editor altering an article is news to anyone - that's just part of the way newspaper articles are written. And we can't substitute the book as a source if someone doesn't actually consult the book, look at the text, in context. Because unless we quote the book directly (which we can't, because it appears that none of us have a copy), we need to paraphrase. And you can't paraphrase accurately without reading and understanding the entire context of a statement. If we shift away from what the article says, we're misrepresenting it. We can't source anything to a book none of us has read. And we can't use an email (especially not an unverified one) as a source. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem Guettarda, I will write to Fred Pearce and explain that you require a formal retraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't stop you from saying that, but that is, of course, not what I said. Not even close. How you get from me saying "we need page numbers" or "we can't use an email as a source" to "[we] require a formal retraction" is mind-boggling. But in the interest of assuming good faith, I will assume that it's not an intentional lie. But if your command of English is that limited, I would strongly advise that you ask people to explain what they're saying. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble following the debate above, but if it helps I can confirm that page 41 of The Climate Files (second paragraph of Chapter 4) includes the phrase "Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." If you need a bit more context round the statement just ask. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Does the context of the paragraph differ substantially from the Guardian article? Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of differences that might be considered important. The book paragraph says
 * The IPCC put the graph in the summary of its third climate assessment, published in 2001. Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The sceptics have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade. Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists. And in the man who first drew the hockey stick, a young paleoclimatologist called Mike Mann, they have found an angry, outspoken and sometimes vulnerable foe.
 * I have marked the main changes in bold. For what its worth I would suggest that the book is a better RS than the web page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jonathan. I am of course happy for the contentious text to be rewritten per revised wording in Pearce's book. Since most of my edits get reverted for one reason or another, Dave or Guettarda should probably do this. (Unless there are further objections...) Meanwhile, I would politely request that next time I say a sentence appears to be inaccurate, over generalised, or biased, editors like Dave Souza & Viriditas & Guettarda might consider that I am sometimes right and not assert that I am a fringe theorist pushing a fringe POV. Once again, as I say every so often, I do not consider myself to be a 'climate change skeptic' at all. And my next trick will be to write to Spencer Weart about this 'dedicated minority' business. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at this change; hope the text is OK. There is probably a case for analysing other sections of this page taken from the Guardian webpages and checking them against the book.  Given you strong interest in this page can I respectfully suggest that investing in a copy might well be £8.39 well spent?  It's usually better to prove that you are right by finding a proper source rather than just asserting it. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, I have a copy of the book... but not here... May I suggest respectfully that you have completely missed the point. In most cases where biased, unreliable, or inaccurate text is selected from otherwise reliable sources there is not going to be a revised and updated book to appeal to. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the article text, better to summarise the book's text as quoted above. The book says two distinct things:
 * The sceptics have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade.
 * Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.
 * By shifting a word along, i hope this edit makes both of these things clear without labouring the point. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nigel, I'm undoing your edit because it changes the meaning of the passage as recorded 7:45, 1 July 2011 by Jonathan. Yopienso (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CRU founded 1971 or 1972?
According to Weart the CRU was founded in 1971: "...The second important group analyzing global temperatures was the British government's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, founded by Lamb in 1971 and now led by Tom Wigley." Our article on the Climate Research Unit has 1971 as well, although other sources go with 1972. The source Dave has now linked says it was founded in "1971-2". So what do we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source added, written by Lamb and two other directors, states it was founded in 1971–72, and he was founding director 1972–78. By going with the second description we avoid the issue of when CRU was founded, which is more appropriately dealt with in the Climatic Research Unit article. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Minority denying global warming was a problem
Dave after removing the contentious text yourself to another part of the article you have now made this change. So we have the article now repeating Weart's 'dedicated minority' four three times. Please revert it. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Alex, it's bad form to use editors' names as section headings, so I've altered the heading to discuss the text in question.
 * With this edit Alex removed the earlier compromise, changing "The first criticism of the hockey stick graph to have significant political impact" to wrongly call it "The first peer reviewed criticism of the hockey stick graph". Alex's edit summary correctly notes that Weart "doesn't talk about 'political impact'" but omits the clear context that this was "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal" and came from "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem". Taking that on board, I've carefully summarised the context and shown the source referred to by the footnote. Agree that the earlier compromise was unsatisfactory, the wording now doesn't repeat in the body of the text but does show the context in our footnote. Any alternative wording that accurately shows the context of Soon and Baliunas's roots in denying the implications of climate change will be welcome. Monastersky in the cited source also notes that Soon and Baliunas received funding from the American Petroleum Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, a recent Reuters article discusses the former in relation to their 2003 paper, perhaps we should mention it. . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex:
 * This edit changes the wording from "first peer reviewed" to "first published". Weart clearly says "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal". He does not say that theirs was the first to be published. In fact, that assertion that no one published anything critical of it before Soon and Baliunas seems highly unlikely. Regardless, your edit misrepresents the source (which is a very bad thing).
 * This edit changes "obscure" to "relatively obscure", and again uses Weart as a source. Two problems - one is that "relatively" is meaningless fluff - all scientific journals are relatively obscure. More importantly, once again, you are attributing material to Weart (or more specifically, his footnote) which he doesn't say. Again, misrepresenting sources is a serious problem. Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guettarda, your points are correct. The article itself shows previous criticisms published in peer-reviewed journals, and indeed there were earlier attacks as John Mashey has noted in earlier discussions. Must clarify that.
 * The wording used by Weart is shown above, the Monastersky source used later in the paragraph says "When the two researchers finished writing their report last year, they sent it halfway around the world to Chris de Freitas, an associate professor in the school of geography and environmental science at the University of Auckland, in New Zealand. He is on the editorial board of Climate Research, a relatively obscure journal owned by a small German publishing company, Inter-Research." Monastersky doesn't say relative to what, but it's pretty clear from the context that Soon and Baliunas, who had previously "voiced skepticism about humanity's role in warming the globe", went out of their way to find an obscure but sympathetic journal. Given Weart's clearer statement, we don't have to go into arguments about the relative obscurity of Climate Research which appears to be best known for the Soon and Baliunas controversy. . .  dave souza, talk 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These points have been discussed at great length above, and a prior consensus existed for a change to the wording. Indeed Dave himself proposed the new wording, and the edits Guettarda complains about were intended to restore Dave's original wording. To the extent that Dave & Guettarda want to fight the same fights over again, this is disruptive. Weart's language in this section is emotive and non neutral, and NPOV is very clear that we are not allowed to use such wording. I will return some time to raise this as an RfC. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not allowed to use sources you don't find neutral? What happened to "all significant viewpoints"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, you cannot claim that sources say things that they don't. That's a matter of basic honesty, which is a minimum baseline for editing Wikipedia. If you can't abide by that simple premise, you need to find something else to do. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan, the point I am making must be very subtle, but I have not objected to the reliability of the source. I am simply (a) applying the NPOV policy; and not to mention (b) applying common sense. Once again, the policy says, The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Later it says, ...statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. To describe a paper critical of your work as an "attack" is a long way from a neutral description of events. As for the "minority who denied that global warming is a problem", who are they exactly? To illustrate the absurdity of this sentence I might ask the question: Is Richard Lindzen part of the "minority who denied that global warming is a problem"? Now you'll quickly see that it is a trick question. Because if you say, "no he is not" then you assert that Lindzen is not a climate change skeptic, which is clearly wrong. But if you say, "yes he is" then you assert that he attacked the MBH hockey stick, which is also clearly wrong. So what Dave Souza wants is to repeat four three times that Spencer Weart has penned a vague sentence that hints darkly of an organised conspiracy. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the relevant part of NPOV is just above, where it says, "we merely omit them [minority views or extraordinary claims] where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Denying that global warming is a problem may have been fashionable in US politics at one time, but it is no longer a seriously tenable intellectual stance. We are describing a historical controversy here, not a current one. --Nigelj (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, why are you disparaging a reputable historian in this way? Weart is specific, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you he states "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century", and provides footnote 48 defining who he includes as examples of those few scientists, starting with Soon and Baliunas. He also mentions McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) but it would be an exaggeration to call them scientists, though they did attack the calculations and do provide support for the minority view that global warming isn't a problem. No mention there of Lindzen, another reliable source would be needed to examine his position. As has been pointed out to you before, Weart isn't among "participants engaged in a heated dispute", he's a reputable third party scholar. If you think his expert scholarship is disputed, please provide reliable secondary sources showing that dispute. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not disparaging anyone. I am stating a fact, that Weart's sentence is not clear. On the other hand, you are making an attack against McIntyre & McKitrick in clear violation of BLP. Above you tried to argue that the 'dedicated minority' is a logical grouping, which would be the set of all people who are dedicated (presumably) and deny that global warming is a problem. Clearly, Lindzen is dedicated, and he (arguably) denies that global warming is a problem. Thus, he should be in your set. But now you want to say it is not a logical grouping after all, but it is in fact a physical grouping, i.e. an organisation. If it refers to an organisation, what is the organisation and please tell us who are the members of the organisation. You mention McIntyre & McKitrick. If Weart means that, then he has got his history wrong. McIntyre & McKitrick had no connection with Soon & Baliunas at all. So who else is in the dedicated minority? As the person arguing that this sentence is clear, you need to explain what the 'dedicated minority' is that is allegedly referred to clearly. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the source with more care, your failure to understand Weart's expert scholarship doesn't invalidate it as a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question, rather than asserting "I am right". Alex Harvey (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What question? You misrepresent things I've written, and state that you find Weart's scholarly writing unclear. I find it perfectly clear, and think most reasonable editors will agree with me. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Until Alex accepts that misrepresenting sources like he did is unacceptable, I see no value in debating minutia with him. There's no useful resolution to a debate with a person who doesn't accept the most basic principles of sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Guetterda, this looks awfully close to a Personal Attack to me. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fascinating, because if you believe that it's a personal attack to comment on an editors actions, I'm curious why you'd think it acceptable to comment on my actions. That said, I'm also curious why you insist on misspelling my user name. Please stop doing that. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, answer the question please. What is the 'dedicated minority' that Weart is referring to? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote from Weart, not a paraphrase. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Very good. But that is an answer to a question I did not ask. To repeat, What is the 'dedicated minority' that Weart is referring to? You are claiming that Weart is quite clear. If so, it should be very easy to explain what Weart is referring to. Please no more I didn't hear that. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, please read more carefully. It's the "dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem". For further clarification and context, see the whole page by Weart that quote comes from, and the other pages in his history linked from that page. An interesting exercise, but given your repeated refusal to read or accept the wording before you, not something to debate on the personal basis you suggest. WP:NOTAFORUM. . . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can read the words and I've demonstrated above the reference is unclear. He posits a 'dedicated minority' but then fails to explain who is in it. The only two people who are certainly in it, from reading it in context, are Soon & Baliunas. So maybe he means a 'dedicated minority of two'? You tell me. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Alex, Nigel puts it well below. Weart names four authors as examples, if you think there's any serious doubt that at the time there was a "dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem", it should be easy for you to produce sources disputing Weart's expert assessment. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There may have been a 'heated controversy' over this in US politics in the early 2000s, but there was not one in February 2011 when Weart wrote this. If there is any hair to be split over the possible meanings of what he wrote, it is so obscure that it is of no concern to us or to our readers unless it is supported by even more recent, third party, references that dispute or challenge Weart's statement. This is a summary of an event in the past by a science historian; it is not for us to create or imply loose ends where there are none, and where there is no reliable evidence of any. To do so would be to create a false balance between established scholarship and unreferenced fringe views. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)