User:Tillman/"Hide the decline", yet again: NPOV problems

FOR: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Our article currently says:


 * The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[8][42] The WMO graph would have been clearer with separate colours for instrumental and proxy data rather than merging them together, but this was an issue of the WMO requirements for their cover illustration. The graphs in subsequent IPCC reports clearly showed a separate line for the instrumental temperature record, and the 2001 IPCC report discussed the divergence problem as an important caveat to be borne in mind.[43]

Um. "Hide the decline", in the opinion of a number of RS's, appears to be selective picking of the parts of the proxy curve that fit the "hockey-stick" shape, and (in the critics opinions) is certainly not "a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion." There is also substantial criticism of the extent of the discussion of the divergence problem by the IPCC.

So I think we need to present a more balanced picture of this controversy, as we rewrite the article. I'll dig around for RS critics as time (and inclination) permit. We will likely face another controversy at that point, as the most persistent and technically-knowledgeable critic is Steve McIntyre.

I hope that we can improve the article, and deal with its problems, in a cooperative and collegiate fashion -- as many of the problems are artifacts of the "Bad Old Days" of the Wikipedia Climate Wars. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)