Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy

Rejection by four reviewers
"The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it.[13]" -- sourced or not, this is flatly false. None of the reviewers recommended rejection, all made suggestions for improvement (which suggestions were incorporated by S&B in the final version). -- Craig Goodrich 216.10.193.23 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable source needed. The existing claim is reliably sourced and I see no reliable source for you claim. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is directly contradicted by the second round of leaked emails, in De Freitas own correspondence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.120.71 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ 203.59.120.71, you don't cite a source for your assertions but I can guess where you got it. A reliable source would be needed, and there appear to be problems with your argument. Gavin Schmidt as an expert on the topic area replies to 483: [Response: Look at the date of that comment - 3 July 2003. Then look at the dates of everything else, including the resignations. They all happened afterwards - because the Kinne statement was not accepted at face value - and rightly so. Indeed, email 1719, reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. And since the final paper was clearly flawed (conclusions not following from the analysis among other problems), no-one involved was reassured by Kinne's statements. Especially not Hans von Storch (email 2106), and it was the refusal of Kinne to consider the draft editorial and new practices, that in the end led to his resignation at the end of July (email 3013). This is a story about scientists standing up for standards, however you would like to twist it. - gavin] That's not an ideal source, but it raises issues which your non-source fails to address. . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Stephan has it rght, a reliable secondary source is needed if we show anything contradicting the reliably sourced statement by Pearce, and the leaked email is a primary source. As shown above, it appears to be out of context and superseded by later discussions. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Time will tell. That's certainly not De Freitas's position, and he should have his say, for fairness & NPOV. We don't leave up inaccurate statements by usually RS's if there's good reason to doubt an assertion. Pearce might have gotten this one wrong -- or, more likely, presented only one side of the story. Which is a recurring theme around here....
 * Best to have Freitas from a 2ry RS, of course. And we know he's paying attn, so may not be long. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, for negative and inflammatory BLP information, when a primary source disagrees with an obviously biased secondary source, that is enough to remove the negative information. In this case, I believe that it is ok to leave the negative information as long as both points of view are provided. That way the reader will at least know that there is a disagreement. The current wording is an obvious BLP problem. Q Science (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When a reliable secondary source makes a statement, and unpublished speculation based on a primary source attempts to contradict that statement, the statement stays. We don't include "points of view" which only appear in blog speculation or in original research by WP editors. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From Climategate 1, via the EPA Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment et al, there is an email from Otto Kinne, the publisher of Climate Research
 * Dear colleagues, In my [June, 20 2003] e-mail to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask C[limate] R[esearch] editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
 * I am not sure how a source can be more reliable than the epa. In addition, there are no sources claiming that the quoted email is fake, including the person it appears to be from (Otto Kinne) and the people who appear to have received it. Q Science (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have your agreement that the EPA is a reliable source, but don't see how you think this is their view. The email in question was quoted by Peabody Energy as described on p. 49: "Peabody Energy then quotes a statement from the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, which attempts to defend de Freitas’ decision to publish the Soon and Baliunas paper", from E-mail file 1057941657.txt, (July 11, 2003) which also includes scientists' discussion of Kinne's email. The EPA analysis p. 51 notes "However, Climate Research publisher Otto Kinne later admitted in a statement published in the journal that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published, expressed regret that the journal had lost three editors due to the controversy, and promised to strengthen the journals’ peer review policies (Kinne, 2003)." That later statement by Kinne is dated August 5, so the sequence described above is well supported. . dave souza, talk 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that it was their view, just that it is a reliable source. I think that all of what you said should be included and that the current text (as recently restored by Stephan Schulz) is a BLP violation. BTW, simply saying that the paper is flawed does not mean that the reviewers pointed out the problem. If the flaws were pointed out after publication (as other emails indicate), I don't see a problem, that is how the process works. Q Science (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current position of this bit is out of sequence, the article as a whole is a bit of a guddle. Don't think it's a BLP vio, but it's out of context. Will try to sort it out in the near future, when time permits. . dave souza, talk 09:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the source instead of blindly undoing, you would see that Clare Goodess was on the editorial board of Climate Research at the time of the controversy and resigned over it. She affirms, 7 years before Pearce's article, that there were four reviewers "none of whom recommended rejection."  This was the original language and citation of this article until 10 Sept 2010 when some IP user (not unlike myself) changed it to "all" and inserted the Pearce citation.  Reaffirming Goodess' comments is this article in The Chronicles of Higher Education  which states, "Four of the scientists reviewed the paper. After the authors had dealt with the reviewers' comments, Mr. de Freitas accepted it for publication."  "Comments" are not recommendations for "rejection."  Again, this is 7 years prior to the Pearce article at the actual time of the controversy.  Are we to believe that Pearce, 7 years later, has access to some secret knowledge for which he provides no source?  Both the Goodess and Chronicles sources have held up elsewhere on Wiki for years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.22.219 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources contradicts Pearce. Monastersky only talks about comments. I don't know how many papers you review, or how, but I give comments wether I suggestion acceptance or rejection for a paper. And, from reviews of my own papers and the different PCs I've been in or organized, this seems to be the norm, not the exception. Goodess, on the other hand, writes, that the paper  had "apparently gone to four reviewers..." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest looking at "Pals" PDF attached here. I make no claim that it is RS itself, but it certainly cites RS sources that may be useful here. Arguing endlessly about the 4 reviews may not be productive.  de Freitas edited 14 papers by "pals" and 13 by others.  "Pals" papers averaged 194 days from Receive to Accept, non-pal papers averaged 261.  Soon&Baliunas got through in 140.  Recall that de Freitas' earlier paper had been reviewed by Soon and Boehmer-Christiansen.  If de Freitas wanted positive reviews for S&B, might he have figured out how to get them?JohnMashey (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * John: I think you just rediscovered human nature!
 * Regardless, thanks for this contribution, and all the others. Even if I seldom agree with them, you always "stay cool" and on-message. Best for hols, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We know no reviewers rejected this paper, so I have removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagged as inaccurate until such a time as this is removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we"? As discussed above, the sources being discussed don't contradict Pearce's assessment in his book that the board subsequently realised that reviewers had recommended rejection. When three resigned, Kinne admitted that the paper was flawed and should not have been published without revision. I've clarified that point in the article, more adjustments can be made. Please provide proposals on this talk page with appropriate citations if you want to differ from Pearce's published assessment: note that he clearly read the email from Kinne that the fuss seems to be about. . dave souza, talk 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen the e-mails, none of the reviewers recommended rejection, you are adding information you know to be false. Tagged again as not factual. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The emails" is not a useful reference. Which emails? I don't think the traffic between the reviewers and de Freitas is public, nor even the names of the reviewers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pearce was wrong. You are also using one persons opinion as a statement of fact, what makes you think this is reasonable? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Darkness Shines, you're using the blog Watts Up With That? to argue that a reputable journalist's published work is wrong: please take more care, WP:BLOGS are largely not acceptable as sources, as was specifically pointed out in the WP:ARBCC sanctions which apply to this article and topic area. What makes me think the point reasonable is that Pearce's book is a reliable source (note that I'm citing the book, not the online article which gives less detail). Even if we accept that the email republished on Watt's blog is shown correctly, note the date: 3 July 2003. Pearce mentions this email in his book, and then states that, [after von Storch had resigned on 28 July], "Kinne himself backtracked a few weeks later, admitting that publication had been an error and promising to strengthen the peer review process." Kinne's retraction was prepublished on August 5. So, Pearce's argument is reasonable, he was a journalist reporting on the topic at the time and had communications with those involved. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but we need a much better source than a questionable blog to determine the facts. . dave souza, talk 12:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am using an E-Mail from De Freities to prove a point, there is a difference. ?If you prefer to add information to in an article which you know to be false to support your religion more power to you, however I will not have lies presented as fact.  22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're using a primary source to present your own WP:OR which will not be accepted on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned the information is both true and well supported by a reliable source, but I'm open to examining alternative secondary sources. If you're accusing Pearce of telling lies that violates WP:BLP, if you're accusing me and commenting on my religion then that violates WP:NPA. You've already been reminded that this page is subject to Arbcom sanctions, please desist from such attacks, behave more carefully, and present proper secondary sources instead of asserting that your odd interpretation of primary sources is correct without further reliable evidence. Please be more collegiate. . dave souza, talk 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pearce seems to be the primary source for all accounts that says four reviewers rejected the paper (as far as my research can tell). We have Kinne's statment and de Freitas's as well contesting but I think Goodess' statement is the best since she has no reason for covering for both of them. Dave and I have edited the article to note an account by one of the editor's after the resignations. I am waiting to hear back from Pearce via e-mail, especially because I am interested in his evidence for 1) that a pre-print from Mann started the resignation scandal and 2) the editors found that the four reviewers had rejected S&B. The editor's account I linked does not mention any of these points in her overview. Thanks for the compromise Dave, I think it is an acceptable solution until we hear from Pearce (who said he will e-mail after the conference in Durbin), other mentions of this on other pages can be edited then once we solve the matter here. I have a copy of Climate Files if anyone needs information on its references and what it says, though I need to be careful not to break any wikipedia rules on breaking copyright! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good news, and these are good questions. I've commented on the sequence below at . `Hope to make improvements to the section shortly, using the sources we've got. It's ok as fair use to quote reasonably short relevant info from books on talk pages making it clear that it's a quotation, in articles we should either use quotation marks (or formatting in boxes) or, preferably, summarise what the book says using our own words. . dave souza, talk 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pearce asserts
I corrected this to: "Pearce asserts that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it". There appears to be no other evidence for this. The link to Pearce does not work.DLH (talk)
 * Pearce published his account in this article and this later article, and subsequently in his book as shown in the harvnb reference before the deletion of properly sourced material discussed below. . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pearce has admitted his error. I deleted the claim and rebuttal. "my statement that four reviewers recommended rejection of the original paper is almost certainly wrong. I have searched my files for any statement from any of the parties making that claim, and can find none. (The reviewers asked for revisions, but that would be normal.)... I cannot be sure, but it is certainly possible that I simply misread Clare Goodess's November 2003 statement that the paper had 'gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection" Jsolinsky (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Where has Pearce published this withdrawal of a statement he's made in three sources? . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He sent out an email to Montford et al today: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/10/james-padgett-on-wikipedia-and-soon.html Jsolinsky (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not his own blog, and as such is inadmissible. Do please ask him to publish it in a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Compromise

 * There was no response to my call to discuss the appropriateness of a paper-wide blanket 'disputed' tag, and my call to achieve consensus. So I took the liberty to remove the tag and insert text and the Goodess reference as disputing Pearce, regarding the "reviewers" and if they recommended rejection or not. This is a compromise solution, since two sources (Pearce and Goodess) are contradicting each other. If anyone finds von Storch' editorial (the one that was refused to be published) then let us know if it tells anything about the reviewers. Otherwise, it seems that we need to live with two sources, neither one can be discarded, but that are contradictory at this point.2meters (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have added a heading as this is getting more constructive. In principle I was thinking of something on those lines, but Goodess was writing in 2003 under constraints of peer review being confidential, it was much later that Pearce came up with his assessment of the topic. We know what's in the email from Kinne courtesy of the EPA's consideration of claims by Peabody Energy, we can show that and show what Goodess said later that year, then note Pearce's view. I've undone your edit back to your edit of 09:02, 22 December 2011, as the NOAA funding didn't relate to the Climate Research paper as you seemed to think. It is actually listed as a funder in addition to the other three in the E&E paper, which is why Soon was questioned about it in the Senate hearing. So that's two sources in addition to Goodess, and I think it's worth mentioning to be explicit about the detail. I'm open to suggestions for modifying the coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If it helps the dispute, Pearce now acknowledges that he used Clare Goodess as his primary source, that his comment "ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper" is almost certainly false, and that he misread Goodess' statement "The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection."  Will Souza continue to defend the inarguably libelous statement against a living person or persons using the "reliable resources" credo, when even his primary source has now disavowed that text?  Time will tell.   Clt510 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Where has Pearce published this withdrawal of a statement he's made in three sources? . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He sent out an email to Montford et al today: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/10/james-padgett-on-wikipedia-and-soon.html Jsolinsky (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the source for my statement:Bishop Hill, which includes the quote from Fred Pearce directly. Note I am not arguing over the position of whether this is a "reliable source" or "notable source" that can be used on the front page of the Wiki article, as if that's how we decide over the veracity.  First rule of journalism:  Make sure you know what you are saying is true first, then make sure you have good sources to back it up.  You don't publish statements you know (or common sense should tell you) are false using "well I have a reliable source for this false statement".  That's a very low standard of ethical behavior from my perspective.  That said, if you are made aware what you are claiming is both false and defamatory towards a living person (Chris de Freitas, in this case), you are engaged in libelous behavior.   I'm sure there may be one or two Wikipedia rules that are being violated as well. Clt510 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The first requirement of Wikipedia is reliable sources, you're asking us to go along with a fringe blog. Do please ask Pearce to publish it in a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your source for Bishop Hill being a "fringe blog" Dave? and why did you choose to use that term here, unless the intent was to derail conversation from the issue at hand? You'll notice I never made an argument to include Bishop Hill on the front page, merely noting that you now using a source 'in all likelihood" is wrong. Clt510 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is proposing that we use Bishop hill as a source for this article. The question is whether or not the Pearce sources are reliable on this point. Between the direct evidence that he is wrong, and his own personal admission that he is wrong, it is clear that the Pearce sources are NOT reliable on this point and should not be used. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind: this article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Is Dave is adhering to that standard by insisting on using a reference disavowed by its own author?  He is surely experienced enough to understand the intent as well as word of that guidance.  (Ironically, Dave's highly speculative theorizing aside, Pearce's three repetitions of the same statement is one source repeated three times, not three independent sources, and his "well sourced article"  hinged on nothing more than Goodess's original statement. Real shocker, that...) Clt510 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To remind you, this article is under WP:ARBCC which particularly cautions against using blogs. We don't have any statement from Pearce, we have two unreliable blogs saying that he made a statement retracting his own work. . dave souza, talk 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP guidance also says the article "has to be right". I also disagree with you on Montford's blog is particularly "unreliable", though I don't suggest it be used in in the article section of this blog.  To be blunt: there is no chance that your source is correct, and your speculation (all it was) on why it might be more authoritative is all wet: this source was nothing more than a secondary source relying on Goodess, which as primary source is now what you should be using in any case. Clt510 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave: "We don't have any statement from Pearce." We do have a direct quote purportedly to be from Pearce which does retract his work, and no logical argument presented for distrusting the veracity of the  direct quote on Montford's blog (other than Dave's unsupported opinion that the blogs are "unreliable").  If Dave wants to accuse Montford of faking this quote, he should say so directly.  And if he doesn't want to make such an accusation, he simply has no argument left, and he should accept that Pearce has a) withdrawn his statement, and b) Pearce used Goodess as his primary source (which Pearce then misread). Clt510 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Montford has shown himself to be unreliable, I have no view whether or not the purported email from Pearce is real, but we go by reliable sources. The Guardian online is good at correcting articles, no reason why Pearce shouldn't use that route or his own blog to issue a retraction. Note that if we're going by blog sources, email 1719 reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. As stated earlier this section is overdue for a rewrite and clarification. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting that we use Bishop Hill as a source on Wikipedia. We are using the statement by Pearce published on Bishop Hill to evaluate whether or not Pearce is a sufficiently reliable source to be used in a Wikipedia article about living people. The Pearce statement about S&B may be libelous. When dealing with potentially libelous material, we remove it from Wikipedia whenever there is a serious question as to the reliability of the source. We do this because the consequence of omitting questionable material are small, while the consequences of retaining actually libelous material are substantial. Pearce's statement to Montford is more than sufficient for us to remove the material. If Pearce subsequently claims that Montford is in error, we can add it back without any negative consequence. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what is the point of continuing to retain Pearce other than to impugn de Freitas? Overall it's an inconsequential detail, other than what it says about him and his handling of the S&B paper (which itself is a side note to the main topic). Given that there is a real conflict over what is true here, and the what-would-be defamatory nature of the sentence were it false, the most parsimonious action would be to strike the entire sentence, and then add back the appropriate version after confirmation or denial of the veracity of Pearce.  Regarding a reviewer denying that he gave a positive review--let him produce the review in that case!  Given how controversial this became, it could be career ending to admit you gave a favorable review, and given a choice between a reviewers potentially self-serving denial and Goodess, I would use Goodess as a more neutral primary source in the resolution of this conflict.  My bet is Dave's own POV will prevent him from ever admitting that the none of the reviews recommended rejection, even though that's strongly where the evidence now lies.  Clt510 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave you have a natural gift for this sort of thing ;-) .... how about throwing us a bone and providing one url pointing to Montford's site where he's shown himself to be unreliable. Just Montford's site, not to somebody else's hit piece.  Thx. Clt510 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have failed to note that I'm not edit warring to keep Pearce's statement, Goodess is indeed a reliable published source. As for Montford; going from his book, when was the Medieval warm period? . . dave souza, talk 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering a question with a question isn't the same as giving a url.  Montford's main topic was the hockey stick in his book and I have no idea what period he set as the MWP though I guess you disagree with him (anyway just forget about it & I apologize for derailing the topic).   Main issue: Is it a consensus view that the sentence in question and associated source be temporarily stricken, and if so who does the edit?   I'd rather somebody a bit more experienced that me do it, if we're in agreement on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clt510 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a bit behind the times, like Watt's blog. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am. Forgive me for having a day job. ;-) Clt510 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages: WP:BLPTALK
"Montford has shown himself to be unreliable..." Dave, unless you have a BLP-grade cite for this, really best to avoid violating WP:BLP, even on talk pages. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog. The choice of Montford is ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book... Montford is, at best, a clown whose shtick stopped being funny 5 years ago.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is really a wretched excuse of a review. And people complain about the tone of skeptics? Clt510 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Montford is, at best, a clown whose shtick stopped being funny 5 years ago." Stephan, this is an unacceptable slur and a clear  WP:BLP violation. I strongly urge you to self-revert. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's my personal opinion, reliably sourced to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephan, you really should read -- and heed -- WP:BLPTALK. I've gotten criticized for this myself, so I'm not just trying to make trouble for you. Please desist your clear BLP violations -- this isn't the place for such material. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did, and do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I make no comment about Montford's clownish qualities or otherwise, but note that my comment about his unreliability is based on the source given. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, Dave -- you are seriously using an op-ed by Bob Ward, a public-relations man, to justify your comments on Montford's reliability? Good grief!
 * Interested readers may wish to read Montford's response to Ward's "hit piece" (per Montford).  --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...because the London School of Economics is such a low-quality liberal socialist propaganda organization? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, Pete, that looks very much like a BLP vio against Bob Ward: please delete your nasty comment. And if you read above more carefully, you'll see that my source about Montford is Montford. . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be right -- Bob Ward does pull my chain, I'm afraid. Adjusted my cmts accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Following my request to them, Corrections and clarifications | From the Guardian | The Guardian. They've removed the sentence in dispute from the articles. . dave souza, talk 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. Good to see the record corrected, thanks to your efforts! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent article revisions, continued BLP problems
The article has been much improved by recent revisions and rewrites. Thanks to all editors involved, in particular Dave Souza and Mmorabito67!

There's still room for further improvements. In particular, editors working on this should be aware that the CG2 (and CG1) emails appear to contradict this article's "statement of facts" on a number of  points, and appear to show Prof. Mann organizing a substantial effort to discredit Soon & Baliunas. I've mentioned a number of these primary sources upthread -- and been roundly criticized for it. But there's a difference between using a PS as a cite, and using same to cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now. As I've pointed out, this seems to lead to WP:BLP violations against Soon & Baliunas. We won't be able to do a satisfactory rewrite until we get a good secondary RS analyzing the leaked emails -- Steve McIntyre has done some of this, but there is an influential group of CC editors who are adamantly opposed to accepting SMc's work as a RS. I haven't had the time or energy to fight this out at WP:RSN -- and in any case, by policy we are severely restricted in using blog-based material in BLP-related articles.

I'm very much concerned that Wikipedia is inadvertently contributing to damaging Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas's professional reputations, a WP:BLP violation of the most serious character. The Climategate 2.0 emails reveal  actions by M. Mann and colleagues to discredit Soon, Baliunas, and Chris de Freitas, their editor  -- see Climategate 2.0 emails above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be rather confused, Pete, the leaked emails are covered in a section that can indeed do with improvement but the issues are with the blog based interpretations of the emails being used to attempt to discredit Mann and colleagues. As you note these are BLP issues, and we need to use the best sources, not fringe sources like Steve McIntyre's blog. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dave, I think the real issue is the Mann and colleagues appear to have discredited themselves in the leaked emails, which are rather strongly discordant with their public positions.


 * And please -- lay off with the canned Fringe responses, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, your thoughts and unpleasant innuendo lack any reliable source, please desist. If you're just whining with no reliable source, this should be hatted or archived as unrelated to article improvement. . dave souza, talk 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dave, perhaps you might want to read Pat Michaels's   [blog about] his experiences with a Climate Research paper he published at about the same time as S&B. Even after applying the appropriate self-serve discount, it's disturbing reading. To me, anyway. See what you think, and try to keep an open mind, OK?


 * Yes, primary sources can be reliable, if not preferred, and are certainly appropriate for discussions like this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pat Michaels' BLOG Pete? You should know better. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No matter what you want to read into these emails, no, "Mann and colleagues" do not "appear to have discredited themselves". Rather, they do what all scientist do - debate published research, and, of course, if that research is bad, try to correct the scientific record. Moreover, no matter what you believe about Climategate, Mann, and the International Scientific Conspiracy To Make Us All Liberal Drones, the S&B paper was and is an embarrassment. The quality of the paper has nothing to do with the morals, eating habits, or hats of Mann. That you keep defending it does you no credit. Do you really think Hans von Storch would have made such a strong statement, in words and in action, if the paper had any merit? He is about as receptive to outside pressure as the base rock of the Matterhorn - i.e. "not very". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read  [blog] to the emails -- which are easily available by Googling "Climategate email" + msg. number given there. They are directly about the   Soon, Baliunas, de Freitas & Climate Research, and I hope you will agree   well, your  experiences have been much different than mine. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, you should know by now that BLP requires us to avoid original research and blog sources. Whatever you think, if you put your personal accusations about living people on a talk page you're contravening WP:ARBCC and so I strongly suggest that you should delete all your insinuations about Mann or any other scientist. . . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is relevant to the present article. . Many of Mann's coauthors and colleagues have done much better on this score. Its not appropriate to lump them all together. Each scientist should be judged by his or her own actions, and there is a broad spectrum over which those actions fall. In my personal opinion Stephan's comments about von Storch are exactly right. I have never personally examined the S&B work because von Storch's credibility in my eyes is persuasive. When climate scientists have failed to uphold scientific standards, von Storch has not hesitated to speak up (in both directions). Jsolinsky (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out to Pete above, WP:BLP applies to talk pages and reliable sources are essential for any accusations against living people. This is a specific requirement of WP:ARBCC which applies to this article. If you have reliable sources about Mann which specifically refer to the topic of this article, present them on this talk page. If not, then delete your comments about Mann. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there anything wrong in using the term "Climategate"? --mmorabito67 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um --- very long story. *Very* contentious name. Got some people banned, ims. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In the opening post in this thread, Pete said "there's a difference between using a PS as a cite, and using same to cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now." Pete, to which specific secondary source(s) are you referring? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. The primary sources, of course, are the actual Climategate 1&2 emails, which are voluminous, but available in 2 or more searchable databases. I think everyone here agrees that these are genuine, but use of them at WP is contentious. See WP:Primary for policy. The better secondary sources are mostly Steve McIntyre's analyses, which, in my opinion, are generally done in more depth, with more intelligence and with a far greater understanding of the topic than almost any other of the sources deemed "Reliable Sources" here -- and are better (imo) than many of the professional, peer-reviewed studies that WP prefers. It's a real pity that McIntyre has been demonized, both by the activist scientists and by their sympathizers here. There have been attempts in the past to get some of McIntyre's work "certified" for wikipedia use, but I don't think any were successful for his Climate Audit work.  Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, your adulation for the mining company chairman of directors is noted, but his "expertise" is at best questionable. His blog is clearly not an acceptable source as anything other than a primary source for his views, if reliable third party sources show the significance of these views to the topic and how those holding majority expert views have recieved his pronouncements. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed BLP violations. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is not to understand, Pete? In your opening post you opined it is useful to look at primary sources that "cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now."   If you can not articulate the exact secondary source you had in mind when you wrote that, then this thread starts to look like a backdoor way to talk about the emails themselves.  So what 2nd source "that we use now", in your words, were your referring to?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- misread your original question, my bad. The specific 2ry source I had in mind was Fred Pearce's book and columns regarding the absurd business about de Freitas accepting S&B over 4 reviewers recommending rejection, which was in our article until recently. If you weren't here for that, some editors were very reluctant to abandon use of Pearce's original, even after Pearce himself had said this was a mistake! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, your clarification was helpful since I am indeed new to the article and did not attempt to wade thru the debris of past battles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of blogs as supporting material for talk-page discussion
Dave Souza and other editors have objected (here and elsewhere) to the use -- or even mention -- of "blogs" such as Climate Audit on CC talk pages. I'll consolidate a reply here, and perhaps generalize a bit.

Re: use of climatologist Pat Michael's account that Dave objected to above. This is a directly-related discussion by an involved expert, as noted above, and should be useable at WP, though it's peripheral to this article and I'm not proposing to use it here. I mentioned it as another example of what Michaels believes was underhanded and unseemly maneuvering to discredit his paper, much as others believe may have happened to the S&B paper. Note that Michaels quotes and references a number of CG emails, which interested readers may readily read for themselves and draw there own conclusions. So the objection seems invalid to me.

Dave goes on to admonish me that "Pete, you should know by now that BLP requires us to avoid original research and blog sources.... (19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC) above). Dave, the reliable (but primary) sources you request are in the emails, as IB I've already pointed out. You made a previous complaint about this to one of the CC arbs, and I'd cross-ref it if I could find it.... Maybe you have it handy? Anyway, it was a "full and frank" discussion, as the politicians say. As before, in my view you are over-reacting. And again, I see, with your redactions above. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pete, as you should know by now the talk page is for specific well sourced proposals for article improvement, not your attempts to spread blog based smears about scientists. Please comply strictly with WP:TALK and cease your WP:SOAPboxing. . dave souza, talk 20:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

other misc edits
Dave, thanks for adding the add'l material from Pat Michaels WSJ op-ed, and the EPA petitions. Not quite so one-sided now.

I put HS controversy back in See also. Definitely pertinent: the Mann et al EOS has (according to McI) YA sexed-up HS graph to "refute" S&B. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body – so have removed that link. You should of course know that McI's opinions on this are worthless. As it happens, I relocated the Michaels WSJ op-ed rather than adding it, . dave souza, talk 17:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV problem in second sentence.
The second sentence used to read "The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and misuse of data from previously published studies,". However, I have changed it to "The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and what they claimed was its misuse of data from previously published studies,". The latter is much more neutral than the former. Soon and Baliunas have stood by their paper, and it is only the OPINION of opposing scientists that they misused data – it shouldn't be the opinion of Wikipedia. That is why I changed it. If anyone doesn't agree with my change, please don't revert, try to reach a compromise or consensus first. Cali11298 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your formulation is WP:WEASEL; your way, taken seriously, would have every such statement all over wiki rewritten. And if you know your changes are controversial, the polite way to deal with it is to discuss first, not to tell people not to revert: that's just rude William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been rude to anybody, anywhere. I haven't edit-warred (I only did 2 reverts), and I'm not weasel-wording anything. It isn't an established fact that the paper misused data, it's something that's been alleged by extremely opinionated global warming zealots. I politely created this talk page to ask people to REACH consensus or compromise. Cali11298 (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * extremely opinionated global warming zealots - ah, thank you. That makes everything clear William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true, my friend. There are a good number of alarmists on the global warming community who exaggerate the dangers of climate change (and in one case wrongly said Himalayn glaciers would melt completely by 2035 – an error which the IPCC admitted to and acknowledged was an unfounded claim). Anyways, Mr. Connolleyy, LOOK: I'm a reasonable guy. So how about we form a compromise with this sentence: "The paper's findings were rejected by mainstream scientists, who said the paper had a flawed methodology and misused data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper." ;) Let me know what you think. Regards,

Cali11298 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Silence? No answer? Well, I guess no one has any objections then; there is a grudging consensus. I'm changing the second sentence to my version. Adios, Cali11298 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your two posts claiming "silence" were 36 minutes apart. You might have a point if the period of silence was three orders of magnitude longer. Please note that edit warring does not require a violation of the three revert rule. VQuakr (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No one has yet debated me on the merits of my change. How about you, VQuakr. Do you have any objections. My sentence fully conveys the fact that the paper has been criticized, it just modifies it to let the reader know that it is only the OPINION of some climate-change alarmists that Soon and Baliunas got the facts wrong. It sounds personally reasonable to me. I won't revert the changes; I'm willing to compromise. Cali11298 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Half an hour is a very short waiting time. You have no consensus to change the wording. Michael Mann is the primary author of the assertion that S&B misused data, but the page linked to by current footnote 27 lists numerous co-authors. They are sufficient to form a consensus:
 * Michael Mann, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia;


 * Caspar Ammann and Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado;


 * Raymond Bradley, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts;


 * Keith Briffa, Philip Jones, and Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom;


 * Tom Crowley, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina;


 * Malcolm Hughes, Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona;


 * Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey;


 * Jonathan Overpeck, Department of Geosciences and Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona;


 * Scott Rutherford, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island;


 * Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.
 * Some free advice regarding politeness and Dr Connelley--don't taunt him unless your object is to rile him; it doesn't take much. He even calls your addressing him by his surname unpreceded by a title "incivility." YoPienso (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * your proposed change violates WP:WEASEL; your way, taken seriously, would have every such statement all over wiki rewritten. Re "climate-change alarmists," you should not edit topics in which your personal views are too polemic for you to write neutrally. VQuakr (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, why did you put quotation marks around the words "mainstream"? Did you think I gave the scientists too much credit? Maybe I did, lol. Perhaps I should change it to "activist scientists" or "ideologically-motivated scientists"? jk. But why the quotation marks. They seemed like mainstream to me, but, again, maybe I was wrong. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't agree that these scientists are "sufficient to form a consensus", since a good number of scientists have also defended the paper. Cali11298 (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * *crickets* *crickets* *crickets*....damn. Silence again. C'mon guys, no one wants to debate. Cali11298 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right; nobody wants to argue with you. List the scientists who defended the paper, including links to their writings.
 * Are you new to Wikipedia? These conversations are often punctuated by days of silence. Please stop complaining and prodding. YoPienso (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I can't list the scientists off the top of my head (there weren't that many) but I'm sure some have defended the paper's findings. Still, I think that my sentence is neutral and not weaseling, since it doesn't hide the fact that the paper was heavily criticized. What about you, Yopienso? Do you agree that my words violate WP:WEASEL? Because I don't. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're "being sure" is not a WP:RS. On the other hand, even the publisher has disowned the paper, as has von Storch, who was slated to become chief editor after the disaster. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so that's one lesson--everything at WP has to be verifiable. If the paper was heavily criticized by mainstream scientists, the criticism will be easy to document. If it was heavily criticized by fringe bloggers, it will be kept out of WP. "Fringe" doesn't necessarily mean people you and I would consider looneys, but people who lack mainstream scientific credentials and/or viewpoints. They could be bona fide scientists who buck the current trends, or they could be journalists out to cause a ruckus.

No, I wouldn't necessarily call your wording weaselly, but you need to accept that they are so considered here because they weaken the assertion that S&B are wrong. All things climate at WP are dominated by the apotheosis of Michael Mann. He is, in fact, one of the foremost scientists in the field, and probably the greatest activist on either side of the Atlantic. His opinions are unquestioned here; they are the gospel truth.

I'm being perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but you will become frustrated if you don't find out what the 5 pillars say and how they are interpreted and applied in climate articles. Always it's best to not fight. Anything truly erroneous is easily removed, although everything true isn't necessarily added. Ideally, it's because everything true isn't always significant in an encyclopedia article or accepted by the scientific community. Sometimes an editorial bias keeps out true things, but that is not generally the case. When it is, I find it's more productive to help produce the best possible article within the constraints of crowd-sourcing. I've purposely mangled a Ben Franklin quote on my user page that expresses my attitude about my disagreements with the editorial process. YoPienso (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quibble: apotheosis is rather over the top, no one claims he's one of your saints, e.g. M's opinions on extreme cold causing missing years in the dendro record seem to have had little traction. For some reason, real science like that doesn't raise so much discussion. . . dave souza, talk 04:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! He's one of your saints! and his BLP tends toward hagiography. NB: I admitted to "being perhaps a bit hyperbolic." (Cali11298--don't worry about this exchange; it's friendly and has a long history.) Best, YoPienso (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'll leave the wording as it is, since the consensus is obviously against me. Cali11298 (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good--that's how thinks work around here. Thanks for understanding. YoPienso (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to make a compromise suggestion on the two main issues under discussion. On the first issue (the way the article phrases the criticisms): I think Cali11298's objection probably stems from the fact that it uses an ambiguous phrase which could be interpreted in two different ways: it might be simply summarizing the criticisms or it might be implying that the criticisms were pointing out an uncontested fact. It says: "The paper was strongly criticized ... for its methodology and misuse of data...", which would be analogous to saying: "Bob criticized Fred for his sadistic tendencies", as if Fred is a proven sadist and Bob is just pointing out the known facts. The standard procedure at Wikipedia is to make it clear that any allegations of wrongdoing are exactly that: allegations. It's not difficult to reword it this way (at the bottom of this reply I've suggested an alternative). Regarding the second issue (whether or not the criticisms represent a consensus view) : the current wording says "numerous scientists" (as if it's the overwhelming majority) and Cali11298 oddly suggested boosting this to "mainstream scientists" which implies the same thing even more forcefully. Although there are undoubtedly many scientists who criticized the article, the above list of ten people doesn't prove an overwhelming consensus since you can always find at least ten people who will support literally any idea. Michael Mann himself has been strongly criticized by many scientists, especially for his famous "hockey stick graph" which essentially eliminates two major periods of natural climate fluctuation, the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age that followed it. Virtually all scientists (and historians) accept that there are regular natural cycles including the MCO and LIA, so I don't see how you can claim that Michael Mann represents a consensus view. Soon and Baliunas' paper basically just argued in favor of the MCO and LIA. Allegations of data errors are a matter of a dispute over complex data which is difficult to compile and interpret - thereby leading to differences of opinion - rather than the type of ethics violations which some critics are implying. So I don't see how Wikipedia can claim so forcefully that the critics are unquestionably correct or represent a meaningful consensus.
 * I would suggest rewording it as follows: "The paper was strongly criticized by a number of scientists who argued that it employed faulty methodology and misused data from previously published studies..." I think this wording makes it clear that the allegations are not a proven fact, and using the phrase "many scientists" instead of the alternatives would also hopefully resolve the second issue.  Ryn78 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally! Someone who understands. This article was saying that paper misused data as an uncontested fact, just because 10 scientists criticized it. I'm strongly in favor of Ryn78's suggested sentence. Anyone else want to chime in? VQuakr, Mr. Connolley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A few flaws with these arguments: firstly, contrary to your statement, MBH99 shows the MCO and LIA, very much in line with the continuing consensus: see the Pages 2k study, for example, and count the number of scientists involved. Now supply names of the "many scientists" and identify their papers which supposedly strongly criticized MBH99. Note: a mining exploration executive and an economics professor aren't "many scientists", and don't compare well with the P2k team. The flaws in the S&B paper are identified by numerous reliable sources as already cited, it's not just the criticism but, for example, the editor of the same journal who reviewed the numerous criticisms and concluded that S&B had "severe methodological flaws" and "the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented in the paper." You're trying to give "equal validity" to a tiny minority view, when the overwhelming majority view is clear from published reliable sources. . . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What Dave said. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the article should represent the opposing view to a greater extent than it currently does, which doesn't depend so much on the raw numbers on both sides (which I don't know offhand), but rather on whether there is a reasonable case for that opposing view in terms of mainstream science. This depends partly on whether Soon and Baliunas had reasonable cause to question the "hockey stick" graph or whether their opponents had reasonable cause to threaten boycotts unless the paper was rescinded. This issue in turn revolves partly around the MCO and LIA, which you agree are accepted by mainstream scientists.
 * You say the "hockey stick" graph might allow for the MCO and LIA in the sense that it does indicate a slight fluctuation including a small downward change in average temperatures between the 14th and 15th centuries, which I guess you think is supposed to represent the transition from the MCO to the LIA? Would this slight downward change be enough to account for the clear historical evidence of significant disruption to agriculture and famines in northern Europe (as proven by records from abbey estates and the like), the decline or collapse of many northern port cities due to the increased duration of ice in their harbors (as proven by port records), the severe winters which led wolves to encroach on major cities like Paris and which caused rivers in central France to freeze so solid that armies could march across them, etc, as the Little Ice Age began to set in by the 15th century; and would the graph acknowledge the significantly elevated temperatures before the 14th century (which is also proven by the records and by archaeological evidence). The historical evidence indicates significant change which many people of the time viewed as catastrophic, but Mann's graph shows only modest fluctuations and certainly less pronounced change than what some other studies have found. I don't know offhand how many people have criticized it compared to the number of supporters, but that isn't really the issue. The point is that there is a reasoned case for questioning that graph, and yet the nearly unprecedented reaction to the Soon and Baliunas paper (the calls for a boycott, the loss of six editors, etc) was out of proportion to any problems the article might have, and this raises questions. See the following article by a scientist named Richard Muller who argues that 1) he himself had once accepted the "hockey stick" graph but came to doubt it; and 2) any errors in the Soon & Baliunas paper would be little different than so many other papers which have been published with worse errors but without provoking the same firestorm of fury. See:   http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming
 * The unusual nature of the protest against this particular paper has led to charges that the criticism is heavily political and that Mann et al are trying to intimidate their opponents into silence. We aren't supposed to debate these issues ourselves in a Wikipedia talk page, but we ARE supposed to cite at least a few sources which provide a more balanced appraisal of the issue (like the above Muller article) rather than claiming that there is no serious debate and no opposing view worth mentioning.
 * But the main issue that we need to resolve is simply how we should phrase the sentence under dispute. I think my suggested change would be a reasonable compromise, since it only changes a few of the words in order to avoid stating the critics' views as a Wikipedia-approved fact.
 * Cali11298 seems to have been blocked for a week (see link provided by William Connolley), but his/her objections to the above sentence should still be resolved because the sentence does in fact have problems. Ryn78 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? To quote Weart about MBH99, 'An apparent downward trend from a "Medieval Warm Period," roughly as warm as the 1950s, into the cooler "Little Ice Age" gave way to a steep rise in the 20th century.' He notes that this was also shown by multiple studies, and goes on to say, "Any lingering doubts were quashed in 2012-2013 with the publication of two definitive studies." – Pages 2k and Marcott et al., both of which essentially reaffirm the MBH99 result. Your ideas of historical evidence were already superseded by 1990, and Europe isn't the whole northern hemisphere. Yes, in 2003 Muller published a (rather ill-informed) opinion piece in his Technology Review column, but he's an outlier on this specific topic. Amusing veneration of the Lamb "plot published by the IPCC", apparently unaware that it was a schematic, and what is the "well-known approach called principle component analysis"? it's not a question of "a Wikipedia-approved fact", it's WP:WEIGHT policy when showing fringe views in the context of clear majority views well supported by reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I read, historians still view the MCO and LIA as major fluctuations which had dire consequences, although I can well imagine that any science journal which publishes this viewpoint will likely be subjected to more threats of boycotts and blacklisting. I guess that's the new version of the scientific method, but it isn't the one I was taught. In any event, this isn't the place to discuss such things other than to point out that the NPOV principle requires that the opposing view should at least be given a fair acknowledgement, which right now it really isn't. I'm not pushing for "equal weight" since most of the article will still present the other viewpoint. What did you think of my suggestion for rewording the sentence that was under dispute? Ryn78 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * S&B is not an original research article, which can come up with new evidence, but a literature survey. Their reading of the literature has been wrong as in wrong - that is not "an opinion", but as close to a fact as one can come in science. Several of the authors of referenced papers have explicitly refuted S&B's interpretation of their work. It's not even a question of the conclusion - its a failure of their method. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The critics cited in the article itself list a number of objections, but they do not say - at least in the provided quotes - that Soon and Baliunas had deliberately misrepresented or misquoted their data. The objections listed in the article deal with allegations of political motives and interpretation issues, such as the allegation that S&B had failed to consider whether temperature variations were isolated or commonplace for a given time period. That's a valid criticism, but it's not the same thing as outright misquotation of previous studies, which would be an objectively erroneous or unethical practice; rather, it's a matter of data interpretation, which is more subjective. The article mentions that Soon, Baliunas and Legates wrote a rebuttal defending their methods, but the article doesn't even summarize the rebuttal (I guess that would be disallowed because even a brief mention of the other side is "undue weight", right?) In any event, I've seen countless numbers of really bad papers in academic journals and yet these papers are never retracted, and they certainly don't lead to calls for boycotts. The strong-arm tactics (some would say "bully tactics") being used against this particular paper are so far out of the norm that it leads to serious questions about the critics' own ideological motives, and that should be at least mentioned briefly in the article because I've seen authors who have raised that issue. And no, that wouldn't be "undue weight" since it would still amount to 0.01 % of the article. Ryn78 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm changing wording to Ryn78's version; the one we have now is blatantly POV. I agree with his arguments. Jhamilton303 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your change was blatantly POV, both weaselly and failing NPOV by giving undue weight to a tiny minority view. So I've undone your change. The paper had virtually no scientific support, even among contrarians, but was taken up by political deniers of the likely impact of climate change. All of which is shown in the article. . dave souza, talk 18:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to remove it after Jhamilton303 had added it without consensus (that's why I didn't add it myself until we've discussed it); but how the dickens can you claim that the wording itself was "weaselly"? Jhamilton303 used the same wording that I had proposed - which you hadn't described as "weaselly" before - and I just used the standard phrasing we're supposed to use, in which any allegations are properly described as allegations. That's exactly what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do. I didn't change the meaning of the sentence one iota, I just switched it to the standard way we're supposed to phrase things. Ryn78 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. Still, I must question your hostility towards anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the radical global warming crowd. There are a good number of prominent skeptics who have good arguments, like the fact that the IPCC exaggerated the date of when Himalayan glaciers would melt. Could it be you have an agenda here, Dave souza? Just sayin. Jhamilton303 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting offtopic here, but you seem to be rather ill-informed about Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which was an IPCC WGII error picked up by a mainstream scientist: J. Graham Cogley is not a "prominent skeptic" in the usual misuse of the term. My agenda is full application of NPOV, including due weight to mainstream views. . dave souza, talk 19:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We may need to postpone this discussion for a bit: User_talk:Cali11298 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article
See Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Soon and Baliunas controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)