Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Archive 9

Editor opinions on Booker
Whatever Booker's past sins might have been, chapter 4 in his book is an exhaustive and detailed account of how the graph came to play a central role in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. At the risk of repeating myself, he quotes at length from the report itself, Mann, Science and Nature magazines, McIntyre, Greenpeace press releases, etc. etc. I wish that I had the time to write the complete list of references (there are fifty in all, covering a 30 page chapter) or that another editor who has also viewed this chapter, the references, and how Booker put the whole thing together, would corroborate what I am saying: it certainly does not come across as the work of a lunatic maverick operating on the fringe but an excellent well-sourced account of this particular controversy that would be appropriate to reference in the section (i.e., the hockey stick controversy sub-section of the Criticism of the IPCC section) of the article in which it originally appeared but was deleted.Jprw (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given his track record, there's every reason to doubt Booker. The number of refs doesn't really help, since the past accusations against him include that he misrepresented sources.  So at the very least, we'd need an expert source that attests to the reliability of his reporting in this case. Guettarda (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the case, I refer you to my awnser above. mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If he had made a hash of analysing the Hockey Stick controversy The Guardian, in what was an extremely negative review, would have picked up on it (since it is one of the cornerstones of the book). At this time, chapter 4 of his book may be the best reference we have for this section.Jprw (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was The Observer, not The Guardian, and it describes the book as uncritically stating all the one-sided criticisms ever made opposing the scientific majority view on global warming (I paraphrase). It hardly needed to list all the fringe allegations in the book, which might also be "cornerstones". . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that re: the hockey stick, isn't it now the scientific majority view that it was misleading/flawed, and all Booker did was provide a thorough account of the incident? The antipathy towards Booker is in my view clouding certain editors' judegemt re: this issue.Jprw (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After carefully perusing the discussion in the section above, I'm seeing a lot of attacks on Booker's credibility, but no links to any RS which support those attacks with any evidence. Booker's book qualifies as a reliable source, but we can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard if we need to.  The guys at that board were apparently a little peeved when some of the AGW editors rejected the NYTimes as a reliable source awhile back, but this is a book, not a newspaper.  Anyway, a short section with the author's criticism of the IPCC's involvement with the famous hockey stick graph seems fine to me.  The text should make clear, however, that it is Mr. Booker's opinion that is being given. Cla68 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also check Infotrac and NewsStand next chance I get to see if anyone else has criticized the IPCC over the hockey stick graph. If so, then attribution may not be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats a nice reversion of WP:BURDEN. The onus is on those who want to include it, to demonstrate weight and notability - not the other way around. Booker is not considered an expert on the subject, and the book hasn't been described as a good description of the topic by secondary reliable sources. The book is less notable than a whole slew of other popular science books written by political commentators (ie. An Inconvenient Truth and other books of that character), we wouldn't want to include those either, since they aren't A) expert sources B) are partisan political commentaries C) aren't considered authoritative/notable on the topic by secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone complains that there are no reliable sources impeaching Booker's credibility as a scholar, and particularly on proper treatment of sources, he has only to look at our own article on the man. The main reason not to include a link to that book no this article, however, is that he is a quite open, self-declared, partisan. We must not represent his polemic as a useful source of information, because it is irretrievably compromised by its author's bias towards a fringe position. --Tasty monster 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that criticising the hockey stick isn't a fringe position. Jprw (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No? "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." . . .dave souza, talk 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why is there a controversy at all?Jprw (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because those denying human influence on climate change, like Booker, write one-sided polemics which are widely publicised. Perhaps, as the source states, because "Republican senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who calls global warming a "hoax", repeatedly attacked the Penn State University professor's hockey stick graph." It's a political controversy based on fringe views and to some extent on minority scientific views, and so should not be given undue weight in this article. . . dave souza, talk 12:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why did Ball say in his review "It is now mostly accepted that the analysis that produced these data was wrong", and, while we're at it, why don't we delete the entire section?Jprw (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the article says, the NAS "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M, but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result." Your second sentence looks rather pointy. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think someone just deleted the link to the book article from the "see also" list as "non-notable", which is an interesting take since the book appears to have enough notability to justify its own article in Wikipedia. Fortunately, however, we don't have to decide who is right and who is wrong.  We just report what the sources say, in a fair and neutral manner.  As I said previously, I'll do some searching around in the library and see what I find about this hockey stick graph controversy and we can take it from there. Cla68 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, you should remember that little thing about not giving undue weight to minority views. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability doesn't inherit.... A book on a particular subject might be notable enough to merit an article, but that doesn't translate into the book being notable in the article on the subject. An Inconvenient Truth (the book) or Hell and High Water (book) are other examples that aren't useful either in the See also section. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The undue weight point is valid. This isn't the only time Booker has taken the contrarian position. It is a position of long and even respectable lineage amongst English intellectuals of the right. But it is, always, a conscious and knowing effort to expose minority objections to mainstream thinking. It is not a mainstream analysis and should not be linked uncritically into this article. --Tasty monster 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:undue Took a while for that to get wheeled out :) From undue Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each Fail to see a weight issue here. mark nutley (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What a shame you stopped reading there, mark. Next sentence: "Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Note that non expert political support does not affect the majority expert view. dave souza, talk 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you do not see the weight issue. Booker openly adheres to a fringe conspiracy theory that even mainstream skeptics spurn. Due weight means we should use more balanced sources than this. Edit warring in these circumstances can only make things worse. Including Booker here is rather like including a history of evolutionary thought by Ken Ham in the article on Evolution. --Tasty monster 15:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This book is getting far too much coverage on WP, since someone here decided to read it, and then create a whole article just on it. How many books have been published on climate change in the last few years? A quick search on Amazon just got me '36,926 results'. For some people buying a book and reading it right through to the end may seem like a big event that needs its own Wikipedia article, but in the light of the sheer bulk of sensible publications out there, this concentration on one book is extraordinary and inherently wrong. --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ dave, since when was being sceptical of AGW a minority view? @ tony, there is no fringe conspiracy theory here, just the facts of the hockey stick usage by the ipcc, this book covers it very well. @ Nigel, how many of those books are sceptical of the AGW theory? Also this concentration on one book is extraordinary and inherently wrong is a point of view i`m afraid. mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ mark, if you mean being sceptical like all good scientists, the overwhelming majority of those scientist consider AGW to be significant and worth trying to reduce. If you mean being "skeptical" like AGW deniers, that's a fringe view in scientific terms. Of course, like creationism, it has considerable political support in some countries. There's probably a scientific minority view that AGW is contributing to global warming to an extent that is not well proven, but the most vocal opponents of action are not scientists. Since they seem to be arguing that the CRU analysis is wrong, perhaps you'd prefer the GISS analyisis? See how they compare. . dave souza, talk 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Nigel: how many of those are bestsellers; how many have upwards of 75 4.5 positive reviews on Amazon; and how many have been reviewed by the vast majority of the country's leading media? How many have been cited as a book of the year by a prominent environmentalist, or a "definitive manual" in the field by a detracting voice? This is a very prominent book in the UK, perhaps the most high profile book from the sceptics' camp. It would also help if some of the editors here were to get hold of a copy and look at chapter 4 and the fifty references at the end, instead of automatically assuming bad faith. On this particular issue, it does not remotely to me seem to be a case of "Booker openly adhering to a fringe conspiracy theory that even mainstream skeptics spurn" (to quote TS above.) As long as it is not included, the article will be missing an excellent source for the HS sub section; In his 2009 book The Real Global Warming Disaster, Christopher Booker gives a detailed account of how the graph came to prominently feature in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report looks pretty innocuous to me. Jprw (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Jprw: Not according to the mainstream review in The Observer which describes it as showing all the anti-action claims without showing the majority scientific views on each claim. It may be a good source for fringe views, but these have to be shown in context and don't need to be shown in the main article. Better accounts are available, and properly belong in the detailed article on the graph. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ dave, link please to the observer, thanks. In the meantime lets see what other reviewers have to say The Spectator Christopher Booker narrates this story with the journalist’s pace and eye for telling detail and the historian’s forensic thoroughness which have made him a formidable opponent The Herald For all its ubiquity, the “hockey stick” is bogus, a politically inspired gumbo of suspect data and dud methodology; Mann’s software was set up to mine for the desired result. So the speccie says he is a very good researcher and author, the herald mentions the hockey stick. These papers are mainstream as is the Observer mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ mark, thought you'd have seen The Observer's review, the right wing Spectator is unsurprising, claiming it's a left wing plot. Bit disappointed with the Herald's uncritically regurgitating the views of "Christopher Booker, Britain’s most vocal sceptic". Certainly doesn't give any indication that these views are scientifically accepted, on the contrary it makes the bizarre assertion that "The only answer is to free science of political control. At that point, the global warming “consensus” will evaporate and the world cool down again." Oh, so NASA has been under political control over the last decade, and the world is cooling down when it reports that the last decade was the warmest, with 2005 the warmest year and 2009 the second warmest. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have faith that wp:rs and the RS notice board will simply clear up all the prejudiced original research presented here on this issue so we can avoid the secondary drama. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/N doesn't comment on WP:UNDUE which is the issue here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Content_noticeboard could be a solution to the weight obstruction. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unsurprising that right wing sources that think the UN is a left wing plot like the book, but this is a scientific issue and the views of reputable journals and scientific societies should be taken into account in determining weight. Back to scientific consensus. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is here: Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ.  Additional sourced material should be added to balance the POV, its really simple for folks that want to build NPOV content without OR opinionated fights.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take it up on the main article on the issue, and keep undue weight and giving "equal validity" in mind. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources about Booker's book

 * Refs referring to Booker and his book:
 * "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?" Publishers Weekly, 256.47 (2009): 50- "Much of the book will be familiar to readers of climate-change-hoax literature: climate change research relies on flawed computer models; the "hockey stick" graph of temperature rise, made famous by Al Gore, is based on inaccuracies; the costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be huge, the political difficulties of realizing them untenable, and the results inadequate. Booker's stated purpose is to put all the "complex arguments" on both sides of the debate into chronological context, but his treatment is anything but balanced, and his credibility may be undermined by previous controversial claims, such as that white asbestos is identical to talc and secondhand smoke does not cause cancer."
 * Delingpole, James. "The global warming lobby, and the terrier who won't let go." Spectator 31 Oct. 2009: 31.- Long, positive review. [I wasn't aware of the British global scientists' antics at the 2004 Moscow conference.  That episode might be worth its own article].
 * Steve Connor. The Independent. London (UK): Feb 10, 2010. pg. 6.- Discusses Booker's book in relation to Sir John Houghton and his views on warming.
 * The Scotsman. Edinburgh (UK): Dec 5, 2009. pg. 1. List of recommended reading from books published in 2009. "Whether you agree with Booker or not, this is an important, brave book making and explaining many valid points."
 * Christopher Booker. The Sunday Telegraph. London (UK): Nov 8, 2009. pg. 35. Booker references his book in his column.

Sources about hockey stick graph controversy

 * Infotrac refs about hockey stick graph:
 * Brumfiel, Geoff. "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph." Nature 441.7097 (2006): 1032+.
 * "Leaked emails mark dangerous shift in climate denial strategy." Europe Intelligence Wire 23 Nov. 2009
 * "Media Release: Australian Climate Science Coalition." MediaNet Press Release Wire 29 June 2009.- "The government used data from the widely discredited 'hockey stick' graph that even the IPCC no longer uses" said Professor Bob Carter, science advisor to the Australian Climate Science Coalition."
 * "'HOCKEY STICK' GRAPH CORRECT." World Entertainment News Network 2 Sept. 2008
 * "Hockey stick in play again.(Perspectives)." Business and the Environment Sept. 2006: 4+
 * "Statisticians blast Hockey Stick." America's Intelligence Wire 23 Aug. 2006
 * "Climate changed." Australasian Business Intelligence 4 July 2006
 * "Hockey sticks." Global Markets 3 July 2006: 1
 * "Cooling the hot air." St. Louis Post-Dispatch [St. Louis, MO] 29 June 2006
 * "The Hockey Stick Controversy: New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise; NCAR Paleoclimatologist Available to Comment." AScribe Science News Service 11 May 2005
 * "Too stormy for hockey?" Global Environmental Change Report Dec. 2003: 6
 * In addition to the above, I found 177 references to the hockey stick graph in NewsStand, and decided not to list them all out of space and time consdierations. I think it's clear that there is sufficient controversy and supporting sources about this graph to merit a discussion in this article, if not its own, stand alone article.  I think that enough reliable sources have established Booker as a legitimate source for opinion on the controversy, but it can be noted in the article that he is a skeptic.  Discussion welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Hockey stick controversy is certainly notable, which is why we have an article, and are summerizing it here. But that doesn't have much to do with Booker - does it?
 * As for the refs to Booker: #1 negative review, casts doubt on veracity. #2 Op-Ed by political partisan (and collegue at the Telegraph). #3 negative review, points out directly false information in book (fabricated info) #4 casts doubt on varacity ("barely credible in places") #5 is by Booker himself, and can't be used to verify anything about notability or veracity of book. And all of these aren't about the hockey-stick or relevance to the IPCC. These may be of interest in the Christopher Booker article or the one about the book though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your references on Booker as any kind of authority are far short of convincing--I think even you would hardly claim that James Delingpole is in any position to judge his expertise, for instance. The article on the book also considers some of the references you cite above in more detail, but I'll spare you the embarrassment here.

On the Hockey Stick, of course its methodolgy is flawed and its implications controversial. However its shape has been independently corroborated so many times that only a tiny amount of mileage can be wrung out of it. The fact that the IPCC depends on all those corroborations--which lack the flaws identified by McIntyre--makes it bomb proof, but I would be surprised if Booker's analysis admitted that. Finally, there's still the problem that Christopher Booker is well out on the fringe. There are plenty of non-fringy writers whose books we can write up and pop into the "See also".

We'd have to be pretty desperate to pick Booker, whose propensity for perpetrating the most basic schoolboy howlers in the course of his vendetta against mainstream science has made him notorious. White asbestos ""chemically identical to talcum powder" (no of course it isn't). It poses "no medical risk" (not true).  Then there's "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and Modern evolutionary biologists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions" (to say nothing of a wealth of independently corroborating evidence).   Not to mention his endorsement of a charlatan he described as "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science," until aforesaid expert was convicted under the Trade Descriptions Act for lying about his professional qualifications. --TS 01:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From howler: (Especially in British English, a howler is a mistake so egregious that the person catching it howls with laughter.) --TS 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of personal opinion in your statement, but some of it does appear to be supported by sources, which is our bar for relevancy:
 * I think you mean that the references to Booker's books are mainly book reviews. This is a valid point, but see my final point below.
 * You admit that the hockey stick graph is controversial but has been affirmed by scientists. That is a valid point, and that, of course, would be included in an article about the hockey stick controversy.
 * All the rest of your statement is unsupported personal opinion. If you know of other books that criticize the hockey stick graph but which you find more credible than Booker's book, please list them here along with the RS's that support their credibility. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Booker
Constantly bringing up his past errors is beginning to look like a non-sequitur. Can we just focus on the work he did in relation to this issue? People didn't dismiss Principia Mathematica because the author had dabbled in alchemy, did they?Jprw (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they dismiss Booker's book because it's one sided and inaccurate, as above. . .dave souza, talk 09:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you or they read it? Jprw (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to: I looked him up in Wikipedia and found his track record: Dangerously wrong on asbestos, dangerously wrong on tobacco smoke, dangerously wrong on BSE and CJD, quoting nonsense from a later-convicted scientific fraudster, wrong on intelligent design and evolution... It's amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia. There's no need to to give him uncritical airtime elsewhere, especially not in this article as he is no kind of respected expert source in this area. --Nigelj (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

His previous alleged errors are a non-sequitur here. Let's deal with this particular point and how it may relate to this particular sub-section. What you are in fact saying is that you feel authorised to dismiss a well researched and referenced book without having read it, and that Booker is guilty until proven innocent – this would appear to clearly be in contravention of WP: NPV. Also "It's amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia" is clearly sarcastic and in contravention of WP:CIVIL. This page is turning into a swirling cloud of poison and antipathy directed at Booker and Wikipedia in my opinion deserves better.Jprw (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel free to dismiss the polemic of an author who has been proved non-expert, irrelevant, unhelpful and wrong on several other important topics in the past, and has shown no particular previous knowledge or expertise in this area of science either. That's how a critical reader chooses what is worth the time and effort when a simple search shows more than 30,000 current books on Amazon that have an input to this debate (far more than anyone would read). "It's amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia" is clearly a reminder to us all that when we state facts or connections in this website, other people, when exploring outside the limits of their own expertise, will expect to learn from what we write, not be fed biassed or ill-informed opinion. There are no notable connections between what this author may think and any significant aspect of the actual history or work of the IPCC unless other reliable sources tell us that the IPCC have decided to take his analyses and advice to heart. --Nigelj (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling that list, Cla. I do hope you've read them all to check whether each one supports the significance of Booker's work or dismisses it as fringe nonsense. I don't see that you've shown the book to be particularly significant in relation to this article, but do think you support the general point that arguments over the "hockey stick graph" have some relevance to the IPCC, which is what this article is about. You'll be delighted to find that there's already a subsection dealing with the limited relevance it has for the IPCC. Hopefully your research can contribute to the main article on the hockey stick topic. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list ... seems like time to work on proposed wording to add appropriate IPCC related content form these sources, and others. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What you are in fact saying is that you feel authorised to dismiss a well researched and referenced book without having read it, and that Booker is guilty until proven innocent - no; the book is a polemic by a polemicist, and has no place in this article. Stop pushing it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * William, your opinion is noted, but Booker's book meets our standards of RS. Fortunately, we're in a position in which we don't have to decide who is right and who is wrong, we just, neutrally, report what the RS are saying.  All we need to do is attribute his opinion, "In Christopher Booker's opinion, the hockey stick graph..." and let the reader decide on its veracity and credibility.  As I add more references supporting Booker's credentials as a journalist, perhaps you can help Tony out in finding and posting a list of sources that contain criticism of the hockey stick graph that you feel are better than Booker's book? Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is also noted, but your arguments are wrong. Booker is a RS for his own opinions, but his opinions are of no interest to this article - try global warming controversy or other misc stuff instead. There are plenty of other people with opinions on the IPCC, including you, and their opinions are of no interest or value either William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I established above that the hockey stick graph controversy is significant with a mention of it in almost 200 RS. Booker's book is relevant here because he, apparently, extensively discusses the history and use of the graph by the IPCC.  Again, William, please list sources that criticize the hockey stick graph that you feel are more credible than Booker.  Sources, please, we need sources. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and again the HSC is already summarized here. But Booker strangely enough isn't mentioned in that article, for rather the same reason that we've turned around here again and again: Booker's opinion is not notable in that context . You are making a classic fallacy here: HSC is notable; Booker is notable; Booker writes about the HSC; Ergo Bookers opinion the HSC is notable...... Sorry but we would need substantial secondary reliable sources that state that Bookers opinion on the HSC is notable, and it does need to be rather substantial, since as you've shown (and we already knew) there are thousands of references on the HSC. (and hundreds of notable people who've stated things about it). Do please try not to reverse WP:BURDEN --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked WP:RS, and nothing you just said is contained in that policy. Please go check my FA articles on Guadalcanal Campaign.  I suspect that if I looked up most of the author names of the sources I used for those articles, I wouldn't find anything that proves that they have particular expertise on World War II, the Pacific campaign, or the Battle of Guadalcanal.  Their books, however, do meet the definition of a RS, becuase they were published by reputable publishing houses, as is Booker's book.  In summary, WP's policies allow the use of Booker's opinion because his book is an RS. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you check WP:RS, when this is about due weight? Again: What secondary reliable sources consider Booker's book and opinion on the HSC interesting and notable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Booker's opinion is a fringe or significantly minority viewpoint? If so, we can debate whether that is true or not, and, if true, whether that necessarily disqualifies his view from being discussed in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is Cla, that we haven't got any secondary reliable sources to guide us, any which way. It doesn't matter what we think, that is the whole point... On the other hand we have loads of reliable sources on opinons on the HSC, that have been weighted in secondary reliable sources. Bookers has not - thus is a non-notable source. Simple as that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Booker's book "isn't notable?" I see nothing in WP:RS that says that a RS has to be "notable" before it can be used.  Where did you get that? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable on the topic. Notable here used in the regular english sense. And for a description of that, we turn to WP:WEIGHT. Which tells us that when we have to chose between references/opinions/whatever we have to be guided by what secondary reliable sources tell us are the notable mainstream, minority or fringe opinions on the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will you summarize for me what Booker's opinion is on the HSC and why that is a fringe theory? Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mu. (try reading what i'm writing). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess. In your opinion, is Booker's opinion incredible, not because of what his opinion is, but because Booker is not a notable climate scientist? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When you have to chose between loads of scholarly references, several academic assessments, books and articles written by expert (or inside) sources to the controversy - where do you think that opinion books by political pundits come in, with regards to weight? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, judging by the sheer number of articles that I'm finding about Booker and his work, he is a notable journalist. What makes his opinion more notable, IMO, is that he is not a career climate change debunker.  He writes on a number of different subjects, therefore giving him the status of an independent observer.  It sounds like you're saying that the elements of his opinion aren't fringe, but that he is unqualified to give an opinion in the first place.  Am I correct that that's what you're saying?  Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are back to the same fallacy as before. Had you been talking about Bookers opinion on various Euroscepticism subjects, then you may have had a point. (since that is one topic, where Bookers opinion is considered interesting). But on this particular topic, where a multitude of scientists and other notable sources have written about the topic - it gets down to weight. And thus we must turn to what secondary RS's tell us is notable on the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, are you saying that Booker's opinion is fringe (WP:V) or non-reliable (WP:RS)? Which one? Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do i have to repeat myself? I just answered that question above, not 10 minutes ago. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, will you summarize for me what Booker's opinion is on the HSC and why that is a fringe theory? Is his opinion on the HSC significantly different from other critics who you, apparently, find more reliable but which you have not yet named? Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Can anyone summarize Booker's opinion on the HSC and it's relation to the IPCC and why that opinion is so fringe that it doesn't merit any mention in this article? Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, if I can summarize where we're at right now. The objections to Booker appear to be, not that he isn't a notable journalist, or that his book doesn't meet the definition of a reliable source, but that his opinion isn't notable because no other sources support the contention that his opinion on the subject is notable and his opinion is therefore undue weight.  As I see it, there are several problems with this position:
 * Wikipedia policy does not require that level of stringency in allowing information or opinion from a reliable source. If the book is an RS, it is allowed, subject to WP:Fringe, but see below.
 * There is definitely a controversy about the hockey graph, as we have a separate article on it, and the graph, as the sources show, is related to the IPCC since that organization has used the graph in their publications. So, the contention that the controversy surrounding the graph doesn't belong in this article doesn't seem to carry much weight.
 * WP:Fringe states that singular or outlandish theories must be supported by stronger sourcing. No one has been able to demonstrate here that Booker's opinions on this subject meets this definition.  In fact, when asked, none of the editors who were objecting to Booker's opinion could even summarize what it is.
 * So, since the controversy is real and notable, and Booker is a notable journalist and has written a RS on the subject, and no evidence has been presented that his opinion is singularly incredible, his opinion can be used. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused by this whole debate. What does any of this have to do with this article? This isn't an article about the hockey stick. So why is Booker's chapter about the hockey stick a notable source for this article? Guettarda (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Booker goes into extensive detail about the history of the graph and its development and use by the IPCC in its publications. Could someone with the book confirm what I'm saying or not?  I guess I need to buy this book. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (a) Does that belong in this article? Doesn't an extensive discussion of the hockey stick create undue weight issues? And, (b) umm, isn't that the sort of thing you establish first, before debating all this stuff?  Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, did this book really have a notable impact on the hockey-stick controversy itself, one that would require mention in a one-paragraph summary of the topic? (Note that this is different from just being a notable book on the topic.) If not, then why bother mentioning the book at all? Lots of books have been written about lots of things; that doesn't mean they merit name-dropping in a Wikipedia article.&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what do we have - and 80-100,000 bytes discussing adding an opinion of dubious merit to a 179 word, 1151-character section of the article. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the dramatic nature of source supression, not even moving forward on productive content to honor to the sources. There is bad faith going on around these sources and we are all suffering the extrema view to discard them based on the POV a few editors hold dearly. Simply attributing the text could work wonders here in a collaborative environment, absent that, attribute the long discussion to the negative obstructions denying reasonable sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing I've been trying to figure out. Where does anyone make the case that this source is in any way relevant to this article?  It seems to be an extremely long-winded attempt to make the case for an irrelevant source.  Guettarda (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument from irrelevance is particularly persuasive. Why is the view of Booker, a fringe critic known for his extraordinary, quite perverse and frequently contrafactual statements on science including climate science, relevant to this article?

If people want to know the opinions of cranks on this subject or any other, they can choose from thousands of blog sites. --Tasty monster 08:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cla68 for clarifying above where we are at. The basic point I have tried to make above is that Chapter 4 of The Real Global Warming Disaster (which is a prominent publication in the UK) contains a blow by blow, extremely well sourced, chronological account of how the hockey stick graph came to feature prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. On this particular point Booker carried out an exhaustive and well researched work that would IMO merit a reference (one very short sentence). What has been happening on this page is that editors have been so blinded by their prejudice towards Booker (based it seems on his alleged past errors) that they cannot countenance anything of his appearing. This despite the fact that, as a founder (and contributing editor for nearly fifty years) of the magazine Private Eye (in the UK this is a very high profile current affairs magazine, see the Wikipedia article on it) Booker perhaps may have been well qualified to expose and carry out an investigation into any wrongdoing and dubious activity that led to the Hockey Stick controversy in the first place.Jprw (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * a blow by blow, extremely well sourced - no: this is only your assertion. And you're forgetting "hopelessly biased" as a further part. exhaustive and well researched work - no; again, this is only your assertion, and it is false. Bookers association with Private Eye obviously doesn't qualify him to write about science; expose and carry out an investigation into any wrongdoing and dubious activity - ah, at last we come to your actual motives in this; which is to impune the professional honesty of MBH et al.. Now that is clear, your argument collapses William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Was the hockey stick controversy about science or reporting methods? If it was the latter, then Booker is perfectly qualified to investigate it. "at last we come to your actual motives" is just paranoid nonsense please retract it.Jprw (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * About science: Yes. About reporting methods: No. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your "wrongdoing and dubious activity" i have no idea where you get that from, especially since there have been two thorough investigations, and subsequent senate hearings, into MBH98 with no hint at all at any "wrongdoings" (or for that matter "dubious activity"). The controversy was about statistical methodology, which by now is rather irrelevant, since all later reconstructions (by a have given basically the same results. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "wrongdoings" and "dubious activity" I should have written "flawed methods/inaccuracies in reporting" or whatever it was that led to the controversy in the first place. I am willing to retract my choice of words -- is William M. Connolley willing to retract his vicious and repeated ad hominem attacks on Christopher Booker?Jprw (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What "inaccuracies in reporting" are you talking about? The Hockey stick controversy has nothing to do with such. Do please explain. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source with a bad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In accordance with WP:V, Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, [including] publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. Booker's work clearly lacks a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and is questionable. It is acceptable only as a source on his own views, to be put in the context of reliable third party views. . . dave souza, talk 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Bob Ward – complaint that an article by Christopher Booker headlined "Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told'" published in The Sunday Telegraph on 29 March 2009 was inaccurate and misleading. Booker's article contained a number of inaccurate and misleading statements, including that sea levels had dropped around Tuvalu in recent decades, when the scientific evidence indicated that they had, in fact, risen (this was repeated in a second article published on 25 July 2009). His article had also inaccurately stated that the satellite-based evidence of the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had been altered to show a global sea-level rise based on the findings of a single tidal gauge in Hong Kong. In fact, this alteration had been scientifically justified, and the final conclusion on the global sea-level rise was based on multiple measurements from satellite altimetry and tidal gauges based around the world. The Commission stated that have the right to publish controversial or minority opinions, but they are obliged to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. The article was presented as a comment piece, but did not make clear the basis for the statement that sea levels been falling around Tuvalu in recent years. It appeared to be the case that the claim relied upon a particular piece of research from 2001, which has since been updated (to suggest that sea levels were, in fact, rising between 1993 and 2003). The Sunday Telegraph initially refused to publish a letter correcting these errors, but at a late stage offered to publish such a letter, and this offer was held to be sufficient.
 * Robin McKie on Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North | Books | The Observer – the book claims that the entire solar system is warming intensely due to solar warming, on the basis of a few news stories. It repeated misquotation of Cambridge astrophysicist Nigel Weiss sourced to Canada's Financial Post, which had already posted a retraction and an apology, under legal threat from Weiss. Booker and North also allege passive smoking is safe, speed cameras cost lives, and BSE was never a threat to UK health. They misrepresent a National Academy report, and "say the 'hockey stick' graph commonly used to show Earth's rapidly rising temperatures has been discredited and dropped from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last assessment report. In fact, it appears on page 467."
 * Booker's Notebook article claimed that white asbestos "poses no risk to human health and is chemically identical to talcum powder." Timothy Walker, Director General, Health & Safety Executive, responded Booker's claims are irresponsible - Telegraph saying "White asbestos, particularly in the commercial chrysotile form most commonly found in buildings, is accepted by most worldwide scientific opinion to be a proven carcinogen." Booker continued to claim it was safe, and was rebutted by the HSE.
 * George Monbiot: The Guardian – "The Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has published 38 articles about asbestos - and every one is wrong". Booker promoted the claims of John Bridle, who fraudulently claimed qualifications. Booker said that white asbestos cement "poses no measurable risk to health", and misrepresented a HSE paper to support the claim. When the BBC reported on the issue, Booker called it "a concerted move by the powerful 'anti-asbestos lobby' to silence Bridle". Booker also made an incorrect claim about Mann's 2008 study showing support for the 'hockey stick' graph, and in February 2008 wrote a piece titled "So it appears that Arctic ice isn't vanishing after all" saying that September 2007, he reported, "sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings" which showed that, having shrunk in the summer, the ice cover had increased again. He did not seem to realise that it had increased in the winter.

Superb work by Dave Souza. I think we've established convincingly that Mr Booker's expression of fringe views is tainted even further by his reputation for exceptionally poor scholarship on the subject at and as well as in other science-related subjects. Piere are plenty of reliable works on this subject, none of them written by Christopher Booker. --Tasty monster 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. All those cases listed above have nothing to do with the subject under discussion, as discussed above. Jprw (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at WP:V? WP:V is a fundamental policy and if Booker is renowned for anything it is for being a questionable source: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties". Not a circle; the end. Please don't try to restart the same discussion over and over, enough time and effort has been wasted on it here already. Try getting your thoughts included into the Christopher Booker article, where they may be more relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, looks like this work would be beneficial elsewhere. Jprw is correct, the issue specifically at hand is the IPCC citations. Perhaps actual content would help make this issue real and have less circular motions. Then maybe other sources could arrive on point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that i really can't make heads or tails of your comment here. Could you please explain what you mean by "IPCC citations", "make this issue real" as well as "arrive on point"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what he means is that the issue at hand is being skirted around by focusing on non-sequiturs. I intend writing a synopsis of chapter 4 on this page at the weekend and then we might be able to more accurately judge if it represents the work of a "lunatic maverick operating on the fringe".Jprw (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you, focusing on working specific content will be the best path here. We must have faith there may be other sources to corroborate Booker's IPCC points, which appear to be "likely" right now.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought, at first, the section subtitle referred to the IPCC report itself. It certainly doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking (2350 / 2035), but it may still have a record for accuracy.  The scientific judgment is not yet in.
 * Still, IPCC's criticism of Booker is self-serving opinion, and should be ignored. His errors in other scientific matters seem relevant; however, if he is criticizing IPCC methodology, rather than results, the relevance seems only marginal.  It still doesn't belong in this article, if not in the hockey stick article, itself. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, IPCC's criticism of Booker - pardon? IPCC has never heard of Booker. What crit are you talking about? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I misread one of the criticisms as coming from IPCC; apparently it was from you. Still, a criticism from one of the scientists criticized has minimal weight, even if notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Again - why is this being discussed here? Booker's chapter appears to discuss the hockey stick. How is that relevant here? 1151 characters. Here. No indication of how the source could possibly be used here without creating major problems of undue weight. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This question can be better answered by examining proposed content. As for IPPC hockey stick relevance, this Booker source may help  I am certain the IPCC hockey stick issue can be substantiated beyond Booker, then this thread won't just be about Booker, but about the IPCC content for this article.   Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Booker is shown by independent sources to have a reputation for inaccurate reporting, and you quote him in support of himself? As for his claims about the Amazon and his credulous reporting of "Dr. North", note that the BBC reports expert opinion that "The IPCC statement is basically correct but poorly written, and bizarrely referenced", and if anything it understated the dangers, shown by massive tree mortality in 2005. More on the issue from someone well qualified in Media and Communications. . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ZP5: (a) that's not an article about the book, so it says nothing about how you propose the book be used here, (b) that's not a proposed addition, and (c) once again, how do you propose to add material, sourced to the book, to this article, without creating undue weight problems? Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fix any perceived problems with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as a guide. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Content Again
Restarting on content discussion to property meet ATTRIBUTEPOV. Please propose appropriate changes to meet this guideline for inclusion here.


 * "A detailed account of how the graph came to be prominently featured in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report was presented in The Real Global Warming Disaster, a 2009 book by Christopher Booker." ,

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already determined that he advocates a fringe position, is famous for intemperate attacks on mainstream science, and was found to misrepresent sources by the PCC. Tasty monster 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source specific to the "graphs" discussed here that the IPCC included? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, in the above, when I refer to the PCC of course I mean the Press Complaints Commission. Tasty monster 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." per WP:V. Zulu Papa 5 is quoting two articles by Booker to support the significance of Booker. Epic fail. . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5, I do hope you're not going to argue that this follow notorious for getting the facts wrong even on matters of schoolboy chemistry may be treated as a reliable source on scientific matters. Tasty monster 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope this thread stays focused on the producing content with sources, start another one or contribute else where OR is an appreciated distraction. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Find reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and remember that Booker doesn't meet that standard. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this IPCC article will be based on a reliable, third-party, published source. Booker meets that, attempting to redefine it to exclude the source won't look good, it will be transparent  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See above, and note that undue weight should not be given to Booker's writing as it is an unreliable fringe source. If you want similar views included in any articles, find reliable sources not written by Booker. . . dave souza, talk 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know this prejudice will no stand appeal given the source and Booker's existing status in Wikipedia. (Unlike the IPCC, Wikipedia has an appeal process for source suppression or improper attribution issues.) You have my permission to escalate this dispute to the appropriate notice board. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"A detailed account of how the graph came to be prominently featured in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report was presented in The Real Global Warming Disaster, a 2009 book by Christopher Booker". That's your choice of text? How is a plug for Booker's book notable? Why don't we add a plug for Schneider's book? Or any of dozens of other books? And how does dedicating 15% of the section to a plug for Booker's book not give undue weight to this? Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for focusing on content, as said above, the sentence intended to ATTRIBUTEPOV please feel free to do a better job on it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me as it is ZP5, slap it in :) mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This source will make it better with specific Hockey Stick info. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, several reputable sources listed above show that Booker has no reputation for fact checking and honesty, and the source you find to support him is the similarly contrarian James Delingpole, noted more for his blog than for his weekly column in The Spectator which you cite. It's a political magazine, a very questionable source for science. He does share a reputation with Booker, as "Prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change", and indeed has uncritically promoted Plimer's disreputable claims about climate science. Very dubious support. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I take a try at updating the proposed content's attribution with your findings? I am still having trouble with the specific hockey stick relevance, but have faith it can be worked in. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now blatantly obvious from the above (to some of which I contributed from my Tasty monster account via cellphone) that there will never be consensus for inclusion of the proposed content as it stands. The chosen source, Christopher Booker, is far too prone to opinionated excess and to embarrassing errors of fact, to be widely accepted as a serioua scholar of science. To cap it all, he represents a fringe opinion. Please select an analyst with a better track record of scholarship. --TS 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, this book meets all wp requirements for use as a source, plus this is not about "climate science" this is about the controversy and how the ipcc used the hs. This is a wp:rs weather you guys like it or not, end of. mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's becoming obvious this article has a double standard, while the source is accepted in other articles, there are some editors who would denigh a relevant (carefully attributed) passage in this article. This is a serious cause for concern.  I am considering Probationary Enforcement request on "good faith" to Wikipedia WP:RS; however pursuing the reliable source notice board would seem to be first in order after a content addition.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me know which other articles it's accepted in. I'd like to review the appropriateness of those references.  Any article on Booker himself, and the book, would be fine.  Beyond that I'm not so sure.  Also, anything in any Wikipedia article that represents Booker as a widely accepted scholar of science would be cause for concern. --TS 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again the attributed content says "A detailed account of how the graph came to be prominently featured in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report was presented in The Real Global Warming Disaster, a 2009 book by Christopher Booker" QUESTION, what source did you get " Booker as a widely accepted scholar of science" from? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why else would we want to include a reference to a work by a highly opinionated person with fringe views in this article? If you have another reason that isn't negated by WP:UNDUE, I don't believe you've used it above. --TS 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That proposed text reads like, and is, nothing more than an artificially inserted advertising link for the book. If I found anything like that in any normal article I would remove it as WP:BOOKSPAM. --Nigelj (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for sounding like a broken r record ... fix it if you like with your sources. It is intended to attribute the POV which would not include d an d editors OR. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I often don't understand what people mean when they use lots of jargon. What does the following phrase mean? "It is intended to ATTRIBUTEPOV which would not included an d editors OR." --TS 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does it mean to you? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

IPCC errors ... Addressing Undue
Obviously, I've attempted to have folks provide content to balance the POV in the above proposed text to their liking. Regarding undue weight, which can also be addressed with attribution, best I can tell Booker holds the "majority opinion" on the IPCC hockey stick errors issue. Don't see any what could be fringe about attributing the errors in the text under proposal? Really, are folks trying to dispute the many reliable sources that claim these errors exist? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over poor sourcing, over which thousands of words have been written--some of them by you. Go back to your sources, select an unimpeachably reliable one, and move on from there.  You cannot require other editors to support your poorly sourced content by providing sourcing that you cannot be bothered to provide. --TS 00:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is duplicity about this, some say sources, some say undue (others say anything they want and show little faith in our duty to work on content). I've pointed to three relevant sources from folks with an editorial process.  They consistently publish on this topic, they may have a few errors, but then so does the IPCC, would you discredit the IPCC and ignore them for their errors?  I have faith any errors can be corrected with future sources. Besides, no one sought to correct errors in the proposed content but me. Would you agree that its time to take the source issue to then next level outside of this talk page? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make whatever edit you want from reliable sources with attention to due weight. But you mention three sources, whereas I thought we were just discussing the attempt to get a particular unreliable source into the article, firstly in "See also" and then in a reference that read like a rather blatant advert for a book. If you have some other edit to make, make it.

Perhaps a distinct new section should be opened on this page to discuss these new sources.

Please don't use words like "duplicity" unless you know what they mean. I assume you do not know what the word means, else you would not have used it. --TS 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (and sorry, yet another reminder that I am the same editor who uses the monicker "Tasty monster". I'm going to fix the sig of that user.)


 * Here this content proposal "A detailed account of how the graph came to be prominently featured in the IPCC's Third  Assessment Report was presented in The Real Global Warming Disaster, a 2009 book by Christopher Booker." ,  , .  In plain language, you may attribute the sources to address your undue concerns. For clarity, I am attempting to have relevant, notable and reliable sources included while facing accusation of two offenses (RS and Undue). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, the first two sources were written by the author himself, and are therefore unreliable, and the third is a columnist for a right-wing publication, also not particularly qualified to judge the factual content of the book. Second, I still don't see what the purpose of the proposed content is, other than a plug for a book.&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So the "three relevant sources from folks with an editorial process" you are referring to, Zulu Papa 5, are Booker, Booker, and Delingpole? Is DroEsperanto correct?  I do hope you realise there is a distinction between verifiability and this watered down version..."folks with an editorial process" rubbish.  These chaps are opinion columnists.  They're entitled to their opinion and the newspapers that employ them are entitled to pay them for broadcasting it.  Their expressed opinions are reliable sources for those very opinions.  In that they are mere pundits, that doesn't go very far. --TS 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the content purpose serves wiki, with new and valuable IPCC information that is relevant to the article, and can not be found elsewhere, while reinforcing the majority opinion on the IPCC hockey stick errors with multiple reliable sources without attributing editors original research or systematic source bias/prejudice. What's the purpose of not moving this dispute forward, off this talk page now ... can we agree on that next resolution step without distractions? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'll say it again, your personal opinions on the authors of the sources are irrelevant. We don't do that.  Wikipedia policy does not support that.  We just report what the sources say..e.g. "Booker says that IPCC erred in its use of the hockey stick graph by [whatever he says], but Paucheri has countered by stating that the basic science behind the hockey stick is sound."  or something along those lines.  We give a neutral presentation of what the sources are saying.  Anything else is contra policy.  Now, I think I asked you before, if you have better sources of hockey stick graph criticism than Booker, please list them here.  We don't need more personal opinion on Booker or anyone else, it's not getting us anywhere. Cla68 (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:WEIGHT hasn't suddenly been turned off. At all points in any editorial process on Wikipedia we must weight which sources that represent mainstream/minority/fringe viewpoints and chose accordingly. You can check Hockey stick controversy for various references - which is the section that is summarized here per WP:SUMMARY. Booker's book is relatively unknown, it is not written by a subject matter expert, in fact it is written by a political pundit, who (even according to Delingpole) has a conspiracy outlook on the subject. And we have good references to show that Booker has an abysmal grasp on science (see above). That very much indicates that the reference belongs in the tiny minority/fringe category. So adding it here (even attributed) is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE (not to mention a break of WP:SUMMARY) - and do notice that weight is a central concept of WP:NPOV.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, more personal opinion on Booker, which is inappropriate and probably a violation of our BLP rules. Actually, however, I'm coming to agree with you that if Booker's book is used anywhere on this topic, it probably needs to be used in the Hockey stick controversy article first.  I'm going to purchase the book, and in due time you may start seeing citations to that book starting to appear in various AGW articles.  The book meets our definition as a reliable source and it sounds like it has a lot of good information on several of the controversies  surrounding the AGW theories. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, your personal opinion that Booker's book is a reliable source even though evidence clearly shows him as a is noted, as is your determination to insert his fringe views into various articles. Please take care to comply fully with relevant policies regarding the weight to be given to such questionable sources, and the presentation of fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dave, but remember that: (1) no one has been able to show that Booker's opinion on the hockey stick controversy are fringe, in fact, no one here has been able or willing to even summarize what his actual opinion is, and (2) it's not my personal opinion that the book is a reliable source.  Please read the policy again.  The book is published by a reputable publishing house.  That's all that is required.  In this case, moreover, we also have it established that Booker is a notable journalist, having his own entry here in the 'pedia, thereby making the source even more qualified as reliable.  Cheers! Cla68 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you see the fallacies? Climate change is not a matter of 'opinion'. It really doesn't matter what a notable journalist's 'opinion' of a 1,000-year temperature graph is. If he was a notable scientist, then the results of his research, calculations and analysis may be important, but where did people get the idea that climate science is so easy that we can all have a go at improving it? Journalists and political pundits do not contribute to scientific research, and their opinions should not be put into a context where it appears that they do. --Nigelj (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that only scientists can be involved in controversial scientific issues? Please read this article, including the footnotes.  In that incident, US Navy scientists determined that a gun turret explosion was caused by a man-made chemical or electrical detonator.  Investigative journalists (such as Booker seems to be in this case) helped expose some inconsistencies in their investigations and methods.  Other scientists from Sandia National Laboratories got involved and their investigation produced a different conclusion.  The Navy then tried to bury the whole thing, but another investigative journalist wrote about what had happened in a book that was published by a reputable publisher, providing some much needed transparency into what had taken place.  Science and investigative journalism definitely do mix, and that is one reason why our reliable sourcing guidelines probably read like they do.  Remember, we just report what the sources say and leave it up to the reader to check the sources and decide on their own what amount of credibility to give to them.  We don't care who is right and who is wrong, we're neutral.  Right? Cla68 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

<- Having scanned through that other article, it appears that the rebuttal of the Navy's initial position resulted from "50 hours exploring the ramifications on a Cray supercomputer" and various experimental investigations that concluded in May 1990. The book you talk about was published in 1999. So a similar timeline here would be (a) IPCC publish rubbish, (b) media (inc Booker) question the rubbish (c) IPCC withdraw all previous statements and Booker is proclaimed investigative hero (d) Someone else writes a book describing how Booker overthrew Communist plot. (d) is the book that we would cover in the same way as Glimpse of Hell. Of course this is all fantasy, and we are not at (a) yet, let alone (d). --Nigelj (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just ordered Booker's book (along with a Robyn Hitchcock and a Pixies CDs). After I read it I'll decide if it has any useful information to add to any of Wikipedia's articles.  If it does, I'll add the information, in compliance, of course, with WP:NPOV.  If that occurs you'll be able to see what I mean by investigative journalism being a useful source of information on a controversy, whether it's science-related or not. Cla68 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

May I congratulate you on your choice. Of course, Surfer Rosa remains their great masterpiece. Jprw (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How many staff members does the IPCC have?
I thought that they were a large organization with (at least) hundreds of staff members until I read this: "The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group. The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world who contribute as authors or reviewers to the completion of the IPCC reports. IPCC errors: facts and spin (RealClimate 14 February 2010 )" How are these 10 full-time staff persons spread around among the working groups and the national green house gas inventories group. Do we know the names and qualifications of these staff and the process through which reports are finalized?

Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "we"? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I was using the "royal we". I mean, are the names and credentials of 10 full-time staff persons published somewhere? And is their spread around among the working groups and the national green house gas inventories group published somewhere? Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Go to the IPCC homepage (www.ipcc.ch). Click on "organisation". Click on "secretariat". There is one fun bit there I hadn't noticed before The government of the developed country Co-Chair assumes the primary responsibility for funding the TSU... William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker's sources
At the risk of repeating myself, chapter 4 of Booker's book specifically deals with how the HSC came to be an integral part of the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report. All chapter 4 is is a chronological, very well-sourced account of the controversy which I found to be meticulous, impressively put together and extremely informative. It certainly did not strike me as a fringe piece of work that was extreme or in any sense 'wacky'. The various comments above (ad hominem attacks that in my view are extremely unhelpful and gross violations of WP: BLP; and the exclusive focus of only criticisms of Booker in the media – no mention at all of the investigative journalism he has done; for example, for Private Eye, for close on 50 years, or the positive reviews that TRGWD received – must call into question the neutrality of editors) re: Booker therefore would not only seem to be misplaced in the present case but a deflection from the work that he did in this chapter that could serve as a useful, relevant, and valuable reference in the relevant sub-section of the article. (Does any other editor know of a 30 page account with 50 references on this particular controversy? Anyone?) Of course, the author is coming at it from the point of view of climate change skepticism (we all know that) but the overriding impression that I have is that it is a thorough and competent piece of investigative journalism. I invite editors to assume good faith (on my part) when I say that all the chapter is is a chronological, very well researched account of the controversy that is written from the point of view of someone who is skeptical of the real extent of man made global warming. Anyway, I've decided to list below verbatim Booker's sources for this chapter. I also invite editors to again assume good faith and say honestly whether they believe the list of sources below, which support a 30 page chronological account of this controversy, strike them as being the types of references used in the work of a fringe lunatic – or do these sources strike them as being scholarly, authoratative, exhaustive, and wholly relevant to the topic? Here are the sources:

1.	Ross McKitrick, 'What is the "hockey stick" debate about?', APEC Study Group, Australia, 4 April 2005.

2.	Ross McKitrick, op. cit.

3.	Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch (1999), '1996 survey of climate change scientists on attitudes to global warming and related matters', Bulletin of the Meteorological Society, 80, March 1999.

4.	'Survey of State Experts casts doubts on link between human activity and global warming'. Press Release, 1997, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Washington DC.

5.	BOOKER COMMENTS: Although the graphic in the 1990 FAR report had been credited, inter alia, to Houghton, it appeared to be largely based on the work in the 50s and 60s of Professor Hubert Lamb, a distinguished British paleoclimatolgist. See Lamb's 'The Early Mediaeval Warm Epoch and its Sequel', Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatogy, Palaeoecology 1, 1965 (available through Climate Audit website), Lamb's later 1967 paper enlarging on the first book Climate, History, and the Future, 1977. Although much of Lamb’s study was based on data from Central England, he was clearly convinced that his 'Medieval Warm Epoch' was a much wider, probably worldwide phenomenon. Houghton et al said nothing in 1990 to contradict this.

6.	Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, p.66

7.	This was the point argued by Schnedier and Rasool, op.cit, as early as 1971.

8.	The third IPCC report (TAR, 2001) accepted that between 1900 and 1940 the world had warmed by 0.4 degrees C, that between 1940 and 1975 it had cooled by 0.2 degrees C (the little cooling) and that from 1975 onwards it had warmed again by 0.4 degrees, thus giving an overall warming trend for the 20th century of 0.6 degrees.

9.	David Deming, 'Climate warming in North America: analysis of borehole temperatures', Science, 268, 1576-1577, see also McKitrick, op. cit

10.	Quoted in McKitrick, op. cit

11.	Shapoeng Huang, et al., (1997), 'Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in worldwide continental heat flow measurements', Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 1947-1950. See also McKitrick, op. cit.

12.	Mann M.E., et al. (1998), 'Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the last six centuries', Nature, 392, 779-787.

13.	Mann M.E., et al. (1999), 'Northern hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations', Geography Research Letters, 26.

14.	BOOKER COMMENTS: SAR (1996) had predicted a rise of between 0.9 degrees C and 3.5 degrees. TAR (2001) gave a range between 1.4 degrees and 5.8 degrees. FAR (1990) had predicted a rise between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees. Thus, despite tens of billions of dollars spent on research funding, the range of uncertainty had widened on each occasion.

15.	Holland, op.cit

16.	Robert Foster, 'The Third IPCC Report: An Imagination Block', supplementary submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the Kyoto Protocol, April 2001.

17.	R. Watson, 'Report to the Sixth Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 20 November 2001'.

18.	Testimony of Rochard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee, 1 May 2001.

19.	BOOKER COMMENTS: At a press conference in April after the report had been published, Robert Watson denied that there had been any substantial disagreement among the scientists on the IPCC, or that there was any split within the scientific community as a whole over the human role in global warming. 'It’s not even 80:20 or 90:10', he said, 'I personally believe that it's something like 98:2 or 99:1'. Houghton on the same occasion claimed that there were not 'more than 10 scientists' in the world, versed in the arguments, who 'disagreed with the notion of human induced climate change' (UN expert: climate change skeptics a 'tiny minority', Reuters, 5 April, 2001, quoted by McKitrick, op. cit).

20.	Schneider, S.H., 2001. 'What is "dangerous" climate change', Nature, 411, 17-19. These 'scenarios' had originally been published in 2000 as a 'Special Report on Emissions Scenarios' (SRES).

21.	'Bush kills global warming treaty', The Guardian, 29 March 2001.

22.	'Bush firm over Kyoto stance', CNN, 29 March 2001.

23.	'Bush secedes from Kyoto, establishes rogue state’, TheGully.com

24.	‘Bush's Kyoto stance angers UK scientists', THE, 6 April, 2001.

25.	'Presidency conclusions'. Goteborg European Council, 15-16 June 2001.

26.	Greenpeace press release, 16 June 2001.

27.	Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999 P. 0001-0019).

28.	Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999 P. 0001-0019)

29.	'Climate Scientist Ousted', BBC News, 12 April 2002. BOOKER COMMENTS: Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and other environmental groups claimed that the Bush administration had only campaigned to get rid of Watson in response to pressure from ExxonMobil (see Greenpeace press release, 22 April, 2002).

30.	Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 'On the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market' (Official Journal L 283 of 27 October 2001). 31.	BOOKER COMMENTS: Apart from a handful of countries such as Switzerland and Norway that had mountains large enough to allow extensive use of hydroelectric power.

32.	Large Combustion Plants Directive, 2001/80/EC, OJ. L 309/2, 27 November 2001.

33.	'Our Energy Future: Creating a Low Carbon Economy', presented to parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, February 2003. Cm 5761.

34.	E.g Professor Ian Fells of Newcastle University, who dismisses the White Paper as 'reckless' ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2795073.stm BBC News website).

35.	Ross McKitrick, op.cit

36.	D.A. Graybill and S.B. Idso (1993, 'Detecting the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric co2 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies', Global Biochemical Cycles, 7. See also Singer and Avery, op. cit., chapter 5

37.	BOOKER COMMENTS: Mann and his colleagues did seem to acknowledge this when, in their second paper, 'Global-scale temperature patterns' was changed to 'Northern hemisphere temperatures'.

38.	National Research Council (2000), 'Reconciling observations of global temperature change' (National Academy Press).

39.	Roy Spencer, 'When Science meets politics on global warming', Washington Times, 3 September 1998. BOOKER COMMENTS: Spencer's skepticism over the IPCC's reluctance to refer to satellite temperature data was to be abundantly confirmed on pp. 28-29 of its Technical Summary, where a small graph based on his satellite data was dwarfed by yet another large colour reproduction of the 'hockey stick', covering more than half the page opposite. 'Like a magician misdirecting the audience's attention’, as McKitrick was to comment, this 'sleight of hand' was obviously designed to draw attention towards Mann's graph and away from the graph of satellite temperatures which told such a different story (McKitrick, op. cit, Fig.1).

40.	W. Soon and S. Baliunas, 'Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years', Climate Research, 23, 89-110, 31 January 2003. BOOKER COMMENTS: The journal's decision to publish their paper so enraged the advocates of the global warming lobby that this provoked a major internal row, resulting in half the ten editors resigning. An account of this episode by one of them, Claire Goodess of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, is published on the website of SGR (Scientists for Global Responsibility).

41.	S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, 2003, 'Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy database and northern hemispheric average temperature series', Energy and Environment, 14, 752-771. BOOKER COMMENTS: In the analysis of McKintyre and McKitrick's work which follows, reference will also be made to their later paper, McKintyre and McKitrick, 2005b, 'The M & M critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere climate index, Update and applications', Energy and Environemt,16, 69-99, and also to McKitrick (2005), 'What is the "Hockey Stick" debate about?', op. cit.

42.	BOOKER COMMENTS: This account of the 'hockey stick' saga is based on several sources, in particular Ross McKitrick's paper already cited 'What is the "Hockey Stick" debate about?' (2005), and his evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, 'The Economics of Climate Change', Vol. II, Evidence, 2005. See also David Holland, 'Bias and concealment in the IPCC Process: the Hockey Stick affair and its implications' (2007), op. cit.

43.	McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit

44.	Ibid.

45.	McKitrick (2005), 'What is the "Hockey Stick" debate about?' op. cit.

46.	Ibid.

47.	McKitrick, House of Lords evidence, op. cit

48.	Holland, op. cit., p. 957.

49.	McKitrick (2005), 'What is the "Hockey Stick" debate about?', op. cit. p. 11

50.	Nature, Vol. 430, p. 105.'''

Might it just be possible that the article is missing an excellently sourced reference for this controversy?Jprw (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are indeed repeating yourself, but your sources are revealing: McK as the first two? And so many more refs to McK? McK isn't even the competent one - that is McI. And are you pretending this is balanced? Incidentally ref 5 is very revealing - see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports for a more accurate version William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that Booker has been using fabricated quotes in his book William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, the made-up John T. Houghton quote. Amazingly, I actually did a tidy-up on that article after somebody wrote about Houghton's debunking, but somehow it escaped me that a major deployment of this false quotation was in Booker's own book. --TS 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As usual you are both wrong, Read This mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Err no. As usual TS and I are right, and you're on the other side of the fence. Booker has been using fabricated quotes, and your source doesn't address the problem. Even Booker admits this: Like many others, I was misled by the internet into assuming the quote, attributed to a book written by Sir John in 1994, was genuine, and that it must have been removed from the later edition I used when compiling my own account of the global warming story. Naturally, in the face of Sir John's insistence that he never said it, we shall all in due course take steps to correct the record, as I shall do in the next edition of my book. . Even Booker has accepted reality - when will you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Even that blog piece stops short of claiming that Booker's attribution was correct. I leave the arguing over whether Houghton's own words are similar enough to those attributed to him to those who enjoy that kind of thing.  Booker got it wrong.  Houghton did not say what Booker says he said in the book to which Booker attributes those words.  Booker's scholarship, once again, is impeached.  And less of the personal attacks, please. This isn't a free-for-all on a forum. --TS 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work guys. If Booker has repudiated the use of a quote in his book, then that particular quote shouldn't be used in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, Bookers comment on the Hockey-stick in the same opinion column, does tell us that Bookers opinion on the HSC is WP:FRINGE. He is directly contradicting the NAS panel (as well as all other subsequent independent research on paleoclimate) that examined the graph and its validity. So much for Booker being able to provide an "accurate" account of the HSC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who disagrees with the NAS panel is "fringe"? Is that what you're asserting? Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you're no longer reading what people are writing (I've remarked on this on your talk page). Kim adds "as well as all other subsequent independent research on paleoclimate".  At least read the arguments being put, so you will know what you are supposed to be responding to. --TS 00:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the science? Absolutely. There were two independent reviews of the HS, one of these only looked at the MBH (Wegman), and the other at all reconstructions available (NAS), both concluded that there were methodological flaws in the MBH paper, but the NAS panel confirmed that the results were consistent, across all reconstructions. As far as i know - there has been no scientific contradiction of the NAS panels result. That means that there isn't even a tiny minority scientific basis for Bookers claim. Which makes his statements fringe.... Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, could you please list sources of criticism of the hockey stick graph that you don't consider to be "fringe"? I've asked Tony to do so a couple of times, and hasn't been able or willing so far. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a whole article about this: Hockey stick controversy. But the basics is this: MBH had some methodological flaws, these had no real impact on the result/graph, which has been confirmed by subsequent research and reconstructions. Ie. all subsequent reconstructions have found the same basic features, some with a bit more amplitude, but all within the error-envelope of the MBH study. This resulted in the Sphaghetti graph (which you can find at File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png), which is the current state of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions over the last 1K years. The HCS article is a blow by blow and detailed description of the controversy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't respond to Cla68's request because it seemed to be irrelevant to the question of whether Booker's work is an adequate source. As he has himself referred to one such,the NAS study, my impression that it was not a serious question is confirmed. --TS 02:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comfirming Booker as a reliable, third-party, published source and the accurate fact-checking reputation. You may have spared the notice boards a unnecessary disruption on this obvious issue for a single sentence. The IPCC should be less likely to make errors than Booker, however they still both do. We can have faith that Wikipedia's interests for content creation will be served well above an exclusionary POV to let the reader decide on the attributing errors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Er Zulu Papa 5, this person you say has been confirmed as a "reliable, third-party, published source and the accurate fact-checking reputation" has just admitted that he read some nonsense on the internet that contradicted what he could see with his own eyes in his own edition of Houghton's book, and went with the nonsense he read on the internet. And that's after he was given a good ticking off by the Press Complaints Commission for another bit of bad research on climate change. This is hopeless.  Give up. --TS 00:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks .. it's confirmed he checks his facts for accuracy. The quality process is not perfect but it exists for continous improvement.   We can have faith in it to be reliable.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reading a book and I find that, try as I might, I cannot personally confirm a claim I read about its contents on the internet. Of course I reject the evidence of my own eyes and assume that the internet is right.  Months later somebody else notices that the claim, which I reproduced, is false, and so of course, I blame the internet for tricking me.  And that's me checking my facts for accuracy, is it? --TS 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Happens all the time here in Wikipedia with WP:V. Fortunately, wiki can change quicker than the IPCC or Booker, and Wiki has no vested interests in their missionary work, like those other POVs.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not going to use as a scholarly source somebody who has been ticked off by the Press Complaints Commission for publishing nonsense, and who openly admits getting other nonsense from the internet. --TS 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, your opinion is not supported by our policies. Booker's book remains a RS according to our policy.  Again, we don't decide who is right and who is wrong.  We're neutral, right?  We just report what the RS say.  Remember, the IPCC's 4th report was found to contain nonsense, videlicet, the Himalayan meltdown prediction and the amount of land in the Netherlands that is below sea level.  Will you now go on record as rejecting that document? Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep coming up with arguments like this. On what basis do you claim that the Booker work is a reliable source?  On what basis do you write off the many independent impeachments of Booker's scholarship as my opinion?  On what basis do you propose we ignore the fact that Booker espouses a tiny fringe minority opinion in the book? And don't try to side-track this onto a discussion of the WGII errors.  Being neutral does not mean that we misrepresent sources. Our policies absolutely require us to use only the best sources, which Booker's work certainly is not. --TS 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Our policies require us to use only the best sources?" Where does it say that, because I'm not seeing it in the policy.  All that is required of a book is that it be published by a reputable publishing house and that the citation be complete.  That's the reason that we cite sources, so that the reader can check the source for themselves and make their own opinion on the veracity and credibility of the information.  We are not allowed to do that for them when it comes to RSs, except for BLPs.  It's verifiability, not truth, that we seek.  The reader decides if its true or not.  If there are reliable sources that dispute what Booker says in his book, go add them to his article, it doesn't bother me any as long as they're presented in an NPOV manner.  Then, when we cite his book, the reader can click on the book article and read more about it.  If someone disputes Booker's opinion on the graph in question, we give the other opinion as well.  We don't care who is wrong and who right, right?  And you didn't answer my question about the errors in the IPCC report.  Do you agree or not that they discredit the entire IPCC report? Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, just read the verifiability policy. A reliable source is one that "[has] a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A questionable source is one that has "a poor reputation for checking the facts." This is very basic Wikipedia policy. Guess which side Booker falls on. Ticked off by the Press Complaints Commission for misrepresentation, ticked off by the Health and Safety Executive for spouting nonsense about asbestos, and openly admitting that he does his research by reading stuff that some guy wrote on the internet. He actually says he was "misled by the internet", and describes how he had the book in front of him but still reproduced the nonsense from the internet even though he knew that he could not verify it from the evidence of his eyes.

"All that is required of a book is that it be published by a reputable publishing house and that the citation be complete." Oh yes, so if a reputable publishing house publishes a book on people who have contacted little green men, we'll just pop on over to exobiology and cite the anatomical descriptions from the book, shall we?

You claim that we can put any old rubbish into the article subject to your extremely lax interpretation, then the poor old reader has the job of making some kind of sense out of the mess that results. That is no part of our verifiability policy. We sift the sources and we only use the best. We don't care about what's wrong or right, but we do care about what is verifiable. A book written by somebody who we're never sure has bothered to do his homework is not verifiable. We might as well cite the Mayor of Casterbridge.

We also care very much about due weight. We do not cite fringe sources except where we are writing about those fringe opinions. --TS 08:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered my question about IPCC #4. The IPCC obviously did a poor job at fact checking their report since at least two significant errors ended up in it.  So, does this discredit the entire report?  Please look at this list of books here.  Some of those are better than others.  Some of them contain errors.  Some of them are better written than others.  Some are used as single sources for some of the assertions in the article.  Was any of this an issue in writing that article, which is featured?  Nope.  The reason is because our RS and verifiability policies aren't as stringent as you're trying to make them out to be.  All that matters is verifiability.  Booker's book is a verifiable, reliable source, end of story.  I'll have the book in hand shortly and I'll see if it provides any useful information to help in improving any of our AGW articles.  Perhaps we can get the hockey stick controversy article featured, which is something I'm sure you'd support, for it sounds like Booker's book has some valuable information on the history of that graph. Cla68 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've told you I won't be diverted from this question by straw man arguments. We have no consensus that Booker's work is reliable, and exceptionally strong evidence that it is not.  Moreover it is a fringe source that has been criticised by mainstream reviewers for overemphasizing the importance of the MBH reconstruction to the IPCC's reports. Read Verifiability policy, and you'll find a lot of policy about this kind of situation.  For further reading, also study the Neutral point of view policy, particularly the section about due weight. --TS 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that various editors zero in on the one or two references (but all the same 'McK isn't even the competent one' is just your opinion) that are suspect, and then ignore entirely his other (45+) references, which are relevant (and presumably you would agree authoritative) and which support his chronological account of this controversy and provide ample evidence that he performed painstaking investigative work in putting chapter 4 together. As for the bias, which is obvious, I said that he was coming at it as a sceptic, but that doesn't mean that this isn't still a valuable reference for this particular controversy. It's also interesting that no-one can answer my question "Does any other editor know of a 30 page account with 50 references on this particular controversy?" Yes, I realise that I am repeating myself a lot – but that is only because of editors continuing extreme hostility to Booker, never giving him credit when credit is due, pronouncing him guilty until proven innocent (actually you are just saying that he is guilty and will stay guilty and that he won't even be given a trial). The main thrust of your argument (Questionable source with a bad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) does not stand up to an analysis of his work on this chapter. You may be able to use it for his other pronouncements, but not here. I'm therefore going to reinstate the quote in the article: I've read the chapter and I see no reason why overall it shouldn't serve as a valuable reference for interested readers, perhaps the best one currently available. Jprw (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jprw, please be patient. Just because nobody responds to your questions doesn't mean your arguments are unanswerable.  As far as I'm concerned the number of references Booker lists is irrelevant.  His reputation for inaccuracy and his open espousal of an extreme minority position are the crucial issues.  --TS 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with TS. The list of refs is irrelevant. COnsider State of Fear William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is irrelevant here is both TS and WMC`s POV of booker, the sources prove beyond a shadow that it is well researched. I fully support the inclusion is this into the article. Perhaps jprw a RFC is in order here? The usual suspects will continue to focus on Booker and their pov of him is less than flattering as can be seen from what they have written, they will never accept him as a source due to this. mark nutley (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Booker as a Questionable Sorure ... sorry doesn't fit. He's has a good reputation for checking the facts and has editorial oversight. It's not a website or a publication expressing extremist, or promotional views (they are the majority views from other sources) and the primary sources presented do not rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Frankly, claiming Booker is a questionable source ... is itself highly questionable OR given the sources surrounding Booker's work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that claiming Booker is a questionable source ... is itself highly questionable is itself highly questionable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep that up to infinate regression and by Mathematical induction you will see the orginal claim is plain bad faith. Booker deserves good faith here in Wikipedia like anyone else. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't go through the details again, because they're in his biography. Numerous reputable, independent authorities have reproved Booker's misrepresentations, both in this field and in other fields of science.  The more technically qualified reviewers of his book (a science writer and an environment correspondent, both with excellent reputations and both well within the scientific mainstream) clearly identified this work as an account written from a fringe viewpoint and each of them criticised serious failings they identified in his work.  More recently Booker has admitted he relied on unverifiable sources from the internet for some of the content, and openly states that he was "misled by the internet", an error we would laugh at if a high school student made it. All we're doing here is repeating the same arguments.  I'm pointing to the evidence that Booker is a fringe source with a poor reputation for fact checking, and you (and Cla68 to some extent) are saying the evidence either doesn't exist or doesn't make any difference.  This involves either ignoring the evidence or the verifiability policy or both. --TS 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)