Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 23 July 2011

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

Environment: Climate change NA‑class

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

On 2 May 2010, Hockey stick controversy was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Reorganisation of controversy section

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

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

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

I've restored the referenced content as I see no valid reason to remove it. Vsmith (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not happy about this at all. It looks like the article structure has now been completely broken so that some reliably sourced POV from a footnote in Weart can now be given its own section. And with the new article structure, the reader is still given the misleading impression that the controversy was purely political. We have section "Controversy". Fine thinks the reader. Then immediately subsection "Start of the political controversy". Oh, this controversy is a political controversy, thinks the reader. So we took one small step forward, and Dave's edit takes us several steps back. The structure which was previously confined to scientific disputes as it tends to be in the reliable sources (e.g. Pearce's book adopts a structure like this) is now quite rambling, and a misleading impression is given. It's disappointing. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The structure now is historically accurate, noting the point at which the existing political controversy over global warming focussed specifically on this graph. Pearce's book is explicit that the controversy is mainly, if not entirely, political, and the article gives plenty of space to scientific arguments over aspects of the reconstructions. Note that scientific disputes are normal, and are not "controversies". Perhaps you think that the chapter heading "Scientists in the firing line" suggests that Pearce's discussion is "confined to scientific disputes", have a look at the first couple of paragraphs, which include:
"Some of the most vocal sceptics, however, are not interested in the science. They have more commercial and political agendas, furthering the aims of their employers in undermining calls for action against greenhouse gas emissions. The scientific sceptics are few in number but the power often lies with the people from this political end of the spectrum – the fossil fuel companies and rightwing thinktanks and newspaper proprietors – who are keen to publicise their views."
We have to be careful not to give undue weight to those few, or show their views out of context. . . . dave souza, talk 09:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a couple of fallacies in the arguments above. First, nowhere does WP:NPOV state that we can only use sources that are themselves ambivalent about facts or issues. It says that we must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. If the vast majority of serious academic commentators share a single view of a subject, then that is what we reflect - of course noting if certain individual politicians or bloggers have also strenuously tried to oppose it. Secondly, if we are here to represent the reliable sources without expressing our own bias or furthering any agenda, how can there be talk about steps 'forward' and 'back'? Surely such talk assumes the writer has a personal or implicit goal in mind. Misplaced Pages will never be 'finished', there is no end-point that we are supposed to have divined and be measuring our progress toward, other than to represent all the most significant sources in the most accurate way possible. --Nigelj (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Nigel; NPOV says, in no uncertain terms, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone". So if, hypothetically, we did agree (as we should), that Weart's language is not neutral (because it is not), and we recognise that Weart likes Mann and as such is biased (because he is), NPOV says that we don't cite where his bias shows.
To give an example designed for your sensibilities, Lindzen's textbook on middle atmosphere dynamics is doubtlessly a reliable source for atmospheric dynamics. But, if we found a page where he theorises in the vein of his discredited Iris hypothesis, we would discard that passage as unreliable, but continue to treat the work as a whole as reliable. NPOV does not require, or even allow for, thoughtless automata.
In this example, as Pete correctly pointed out, 'attacked' is unlikely to be neutral description of something, unless the 'something' is one person hitting another. And in the context of the climate change debate, 'deny' is a term loaded to connote 'climate change denier', which many of our readers and many Wikipedians themselves find offensive. So in repeating Weart's non neutral language, we have violated NPOV (yet again).
@Dave, it is nonsense to say that scientific ideas are not 'controversial'. It is no secret that science is rife with a nasty politics of its own and there are as many controversies in science as there are in politics proper, if not more. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex is correct. We both went through a very unpleasant experience with a refractory editor who insisted on inserting global warming conspiracy in the lede at the Climategate page, and various other opinions presented as fact elsewhere there. Interested (and very patient, or bored) editors may peruse the Talk pages there for the policy discussions, which remain unresolved.

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

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice.

This appears to be exactly what Dave is trying to do, and it is specifically against policy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please, Pete and Alex. We have reliable scholarship by an accepted authority on the matter, and should show that without trying to censor it on the basis of our own personal opinions, as you seem to be doing. As the cited sources show, it's clearly factual that this controversy has been promoted by those with commercial and political agendas, often supported or with links to the fossil fuel companies and rightwing thinktanks and newspaper proprietors. That doesn't apply to all those raising issues about the graph, we have to follow reliable sources for each case. Also remember, avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion, and ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Putting a clear majority view as quotes from one author is unacceptable as it implies parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view. At present it seems to be so tiny a minority that you haven't even provided any sources, just kept repeating your own original research which you should know is unacceptable. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a single of this has any bearing or is related in any way to the objection that was raised. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Define the difference between fact and opinion, please. My operational definition for Misplaced Pages is "no red flags, reliable source, no reliably sourced diverging statement, stated as a fact -> fact". What's yours? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that looks like an ad hoc definition and I doubt it is robust, but in this case there are obvious red flags being raised, so I would reject the text even if I accepted your definition. Weart's apparent proposition is that there existed a single, dedicated minority that denied global warming and that this minority attacked Mann's hockey stick through a paper by S&B. In other words, it is a conspiracy theory, given without evidence. Moreover, Weart's statement diverges from Pearce's account. And as John Mashey pointed out, it's factually inaccurate and S&B were not the first to attack Mann's conclusion, which suggests Weart probably hasn't even researched this closely. Lots of red flags, and a history diverging from Pearce's. So by your test, it fails as a fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Which text are you talking about? I suggest you take a look at this. If you drop all qualifiers from a statement, the fact that the unqualified statement is dubious is not the original writers problem... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comic. Weart wrote: "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century" . Taken at face value, it implies a single group in behind the scenes collaboration; a conspiracy that would include Soon, Baliunas, McIntyre, & McKitrick. I ddoubt Weart actually believes there was a conspiracy and suspect he is just simplifying the story for a lay audience. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, you seem to have a reading comprehension failure there. A dedicated minority doesn't imply a single group, it implies a few who are united in denying that there's a real problem. For example, that minority does include the names you mention, all of whom have overtly political connections to the George C. Marshall Institute to a greater or lesser extent. Of course this minority seems to be united in claiming that 97% of climate scientists are engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to hide the MWP. Will look at the issue of attacks before S&B, none of which had anything like as much significance. . . dave souza, talk 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section in another attempt to make it NPOV, by using Weart's arguments as a quote, and by adding Pearce as a source. See what you think. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, above. Which is it - are you saying am I misreading something because there is no conspiracy and because Weart doesn't posit one either, or are you in fact saying I am reading it correctly because Weart does posit a conspiracy and you agree that the conspiracy is real? Everything after your initial polite suggestion that I have a reading comprehension problem suggests I did in fact read it correctly, and that you agree with my interpretation. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spencer Weart was originally a physicist, but has been a credible science historian for 30+ years. In no way is he a participant in the hockey-stick controversy. He is interested in the history of the science, and thinks that the attacks on the hockey stick were mainly spurious technicalities that had little effect on the real science. So, his AIP website (of which the book is a subset/snapshot) tends to pay little attention to the fake stuff, and he leaves the study of the politics/PR and underlying machinations (i.e., the conspiracies) to those who do that. Hence, it may not be very useful to argue endlessly about a few words in his book.JohnMashey (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

For myself I am satisfied that Pete's changes have resolved the NPOV problems, and if no one is objecting to his changes, that would make this discussion moot. However, I do feel strongly that the new section breaks the article structure. If we do need a new section, it should discuss the promotion of the MBH99 graph in the media, to explain why it became a target of skeptics. Otherwise I can't see why the next section wouldn't be S&B, followed by MM03, and probably after that would be the right place to discuss the related political controversy. That structure makes a lot more historical sense to me. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good add -- makes clearer that Weart is a partisan, in this case anyway. Which has kinda been my & Alex's point. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Pete, rather shows that you're a partisan. Very naughty quoting one sentence of Pearce's page out of context, I've shown the next sentence and amended the title accordingly, since someone changed the title without noting it in the edit summary. Gotta rush, will be back with more detail. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this as Pete's is a neutral presentation of Pearce, whereas the 'contrarian' sentence is out of context and presents just one small part of the article. If you want to add a balanced look at the Pearce article then we need to extend this to the Briffa vs Mann dispute.
Meanwhile Pete's decision to turn 'the' into 'a' was, I think, very polite and fair to Weart. Nigel has restored the appearance that he is a conspiracy theorist. That said, I completely agree with Nigel in that Pete's change did indeed change the meaning. If Weart says 'the dedicated minority', he implies behind the scenes organisation; a merely logical grouping by shared belief or ideology, as you suggest above is Weart's meaning, can't actually do things in the real world, so it can't attack calculations via the S&B paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of order, your idea of neutral is hiding mainstream views of these fringe and contrarian views. The Briffa v. Mann dispute is already covered in the previous section. You also appear to be misreading Weart again, who says nothing to support your unsourced allegation that this reputable historian is a conspiracy theorist suggesting a behind the scenes organisation. Of course there may well have been behind the scenes organisation, but we need other sources for that. There's also the point of quoting rather than paraphrasing, this is currently very poor so I'll aim to improve it. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

We do need to add in the McShayne & Wyner stuff -- their (somewhat controversial) finding is, the tree-ring temp data, if any, gets lost in the noise. And we all need to try to stay encyclopedic despite our personal beliefs -- me included, of course. It is encouraging that the current curves restore the MWP & LIA -- not that they ever really went anywhere, except for in the early, "flat" MBH curves. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pete, our cited sources clearly show that this was a political controversy manufactured with the use of widely publicised criticisms by a tiny minority of climate scientists and criticisms by non-scientists. Your personal beliefs are showing, you've yet to provide reliable sources supporting your contentions, despite being requested earlier to do this.
As for your comment that the "current curves restore the MWP & LIA", that shows you've failed to notice that even the original publication of MBH99 "supports earlier theories that temperatures in medieval times were relatively warm", and more recent curves all fit within the two standard error limits which the MBH study emphasised. As the spaghetti curves show, even the central smoothed MBH line isn't out of place. . dave souza, talk 06:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

G, Come on, everyone knows that this is manufactured "controversy". I am not impressed by your false accusation that I am 'quote-mining the sources to make fringe views look less fringe'. I have just read Fred Pearce's book and his conclusion is that the hockey stick controversy was anything but a 'manufactured controversy'. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not impressed by your false accusation that I am 'quote-mining the sources to make fringe views look less fringe' - you removed context from a statement in order to make the fringe view look less fringe. That's quote mining. Further down this page you've done it again - taken a statement out of context to try to undermine a source you don't like. I don't care whether you are "not impressed" with me calling out your behaviour - I am, however, surprised that you would continue to do that so soon after being called out for it. Just stop playing these silly games Alex. Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

proposed article structure

We have somehow ended up with the following structure:

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

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

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

'Inhofe' doesn't deserve to be in a section heading; it gives him too much prominence. He was jumping onto every paper he could to throw doubt on the consensus so it makes no sense to associate him in the mind of the reader with S&B just because they happened to be first. By moving Political Controversy to 3.7 after exposition of the various scientific controversies, it becomes possibly to present a sane discussion of the political controversy, how various politicians used these papers. I also think Al Gore's film belongs in this section and fail to see why it is instead a subsection of 'Congressional investigations'. We also should add a section for Moberg et al. because their paper seems to restore the MWP. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the MBH 2004 Corrigendum should have its own section and more detail. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that you fail to see the sense in a historical sequence highlighting the shift from debates within the scientific community to the introduction of political controversy inflating minority criticisms at the same time as serious research refined and essentially reaffirmed the central findings of the MBH study, despite its flaws. Your proposal would result in a series of one-paragraph sections, and would take controversy out of context, failing the WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV policy by "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself".
Your POV assertions show your continued attempts to mislead others about the significance of events. Inhofe's initial attacks, which were contemporary with and intertwined with the S&B debacle, are highlighted by severaly reliable secondary sources. Al Gore's film was screened in the middle of the Congressional investigations, after they'd been commissioned but before they'd reported. As discussed above, the MWP never went away, and as our spaghetti graph shows, Moberg et al. deepened the ice age while reaffirming the broad MBH estimate of NH medieval temps. More variability but the same general conclusion, no reason for this paragraph to be a section on its own. . . dave souza, talk 06:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attacks. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In historian circles, calling a historian "partisan" is a serious attack on their professional integrity. Do you support Tillman's characterization of Weart as "partisan"? Will you do so if/when he shows up here? Just out of curiosity, may I assume you and Pete have track records equivalent to Weart in researching and publishing history of science?JohnMashey (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mashey, isn't that something to take up with Pete Tillman? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit Request

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

Reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 06:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pearce Guardian experiment not RS

I don't believe this source is reliable: . If we read the disclaimer, As well as including new information about the emails, we allowed web users to annotate the manuscript to help us in our aim of creating the definitive account of the controversy. This was an attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth. In other words, it is much the same a source like Misplaced Pages and not a reliable secondary source. This would explain why certain sentences diverge so much from Pearce's book. Can we please remove text based on this source? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a RS as s news report, the interactive aspect more than meets the allowable standards of WP:NEWSBLOGS. From my look at the book, the sentences cited recently are the same in the book: please give page numbers of specific sentences you wish to query. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal. I say that I don't believe Pearce used a sentence like the one you quote in the book, and you want me to give you the page number to prove it. Perhaps you need to give me the page number where he does say this? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Which sentence I quote? You're still too vague, and surely you should be able to find sections of the book relating to topic areas. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you said you checked the book and found he said exactly the same thing in the book. I don't know what you checked; you tell me. What page numbers did you check to make this conclusion? I don't believe anything in his book is biased and loose like the sentence you added to the article. So I can't give you the page number, because I don't think such a page exists. You claim the source is reliable, so you need to provide the page number here. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex - scroll up a bit, read the statement just above Fred Pearce's picture. Users could annotate the article, not alter. Those words mean different things in English. And their annotations are visible if you click on the bits of the text highlighted in yellow. Read the whole thing, don't pick bits and quote them out of context. Hmmm...I have this feeling of deja vu. Guettarda (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Origin of the controversy" subsection: comments, questions, recommendations

"Some" contrarians

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

I have raised the matter of whether or not we should be using this sentence in the first place at WP:NPOVN#a_Fred_Pearce_sentence_.2F_reliably_sourced_loosely_worded_sentences. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written to me and confirmed that my interpretation of the reliability of this passage was right. I reproduce the correspondence with permission below:

Alex Harvey to the Guardian:

Subject: Fred Pearce: Climategate series

From: Alex Harvey <redacted>
To: <reader@guardian.co.uk>
Date: 2011-06-29 15:59:21
Dear Sir/Madam,

This message is intended for Fred Pearce.

I am a Wikipedian and I have read and particularly enjoyed his book, The Climate Files. I share the view of others that it is the only balanced account of the Climategate controversy or indeed the hockey stick controversy in existence.

In Misplaced Pages, however, a group of editors sympathetic to Michael Mann's version of history have seized upon what may be one loose sentence in the following Pearce article:

The sentence, which I think they have taken completely out of context anyway, is "The contrarians have made the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists."

I do not think this statement is entirely accurate, and especially the underlined part, in so far as I do not think that the primary motivation behind Steve McIntyre's 'audit' of the hockey stick was to destroy the credibility of climate scientists. I also do not think it was the primary motivation of the many other technical bloggers who support him. Certainly, it would be true of some of his readers, and true of some other contrarians, but I very much doubt it is true of all of them. Moreover, I don't think The Climate Files takes a strong position like this, suggesting to me that this may not be the considered view of the author.

I would very much appreciate a clarification on this and if possible an indication of whether or not I would have permission to reproduce the reply in the Misplaced Pages talk pages.

Kind regards,
Alex Harvey

Sydney, Australia

Fred Pearce to Alex Harvey:

from Fred Pearce <redacted>

to <redacted>
date: 30 June 2011 05:06
subject: FW: Guardian RE: Fred Pearce: Climategate series
mailed-by <redacted>

Alex,

Thanks for this. I certainly think some "contrarians" have such motivations. While I cannot quote you chapter and verse, I have seen that kind of view expressed. Nonetheless, I agree it is a rather bald over-generalisation. Attribution of motive is always dangerous, a point I make a number of times in the book. I am sure that is why, in the book version, I changed it to "Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists."

By the way, I suspect that in fact the original version as quoted was not my own words. I have just gone back to the draft of that article on my computer and the sentence does not appear. On a daily newspaper, things happen along the way. Editors rewrite sometimes to convey a point more directly. And sometimes they lose, shall we say, nuance. I am not "accusing" editors of doing that. But these things happen.

You are, of course, welcome to quote me on this anywhere you like.

Regards

Fred

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

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

Well, the first step would be to find some way to verify the reliability of this. Nothing personal, but we can't just take the word of some anonymous person on the internet. Obviously you already know that. So...where is the Misplaced Pages-reliable source that supports this? Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Guettarda, I see a few ways forward from here: (1) I can write back to Fred Pearce and explain that despite his disavowal, Misplaced Pages intends to use the text anyway unless the Guardian publishes a formal retraction (I am quite happy to do this if only to shine some more light onto what editors like myself have to put up with here in Misplaced Pages); (2) you can send me a private email and I can forward you the correspondence (true, that will not prove the authenticity of the correspondence); (3) you can write to Fred Pearce yourself! ;-) (4) you can look up the text in Pearce's book and confirm that he uses a different wording, which admittedly involves admitting that I already told you this; (5) you & Dave can both man up and admit that my observation (i.e. that The Guardian wording was an over generalisation) was self evidently true and as such we shouldn't have needed to spell all this out to the author in the first place. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex, having an author do your homework for you doesn't invalidate Misplaced Pages policy. Dave asked you to specify page numbers in Pearce's book. You refused. Now, Pearce has pointed you to a specific quote in the book. And yet again, you don't want to provide page numbers. If you won't specify where in the book the quote is coming from, we can't use it. "Because I say so" isn't a reliable source. "Because I can quote an email" isn't a reliable source. A reliable source is one that is verifiable. If you can't say where in the book Pearce discusses it, then it's not a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

No Tillman, that is not what this is about. Alex was asked to specify a page number. Had he come up with one, Dave (or someone else) could have double-checked, verified the context, and we could be having an editorial discussion here. Instead he came up with an email that he would appear to want us to use, in lieu of a specific source. It's sort of like, I dunno, using a blog comment, and claiming it to be reliable source. The only way we can even consider the book as a source is if someone bothers to track it down and look at it. An unverified quote from an email, allegedly by the book's author, cannot be used as a source for the specific wording in the book. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

G, I don't have the book handy unfortunately. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, do you also wish to press on or can we consider the issue resolved? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But you see, that's the problem. We can't work off an author's "what I meant to say...". Sometimes our sourcing policies seem onerous, but they tend to do more good than harm.

The point is that we need to report what sources say. We can't deviate from what the Guardian article said based simply on Pearce's say-so. It's not like an editor altering an article is news to anyone - that's just part of the way newspaper articles are written. And we can't substitute the book as a source if someone doesn't actually consult the book, look at the text, in context. Because unless we quote the book directly (which we can't, because it appears that none of us have a copy), we need to paraphrase. And you can't paraphrase accurately without reading and understanding the entire context of a statement. If we shift away from what the article says, we're misrepresenting it. We can't source anything to a book none of us has read. And we can't use an email (especially not an unverified one) as a source. Guettarda (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem Guettarda, I will write to Fred Pearce and explain that you require a formal retraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't stop you from saying that, but that is, of course, not what I said. Not even close. How you get from me saying "we need page numbers" or "we can't use an email as a source" to " require a formal retraction" is mind-boggling. But in the interest of assuming good faith, I will assume that it's not an intentional lie. But if your command of English is that limited, I would strongly advise that you ask people to explain what they're saying. Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble following the debate above, but if it helps I can confirm that page 41 of The Climate Files (second paragraph of Chapter 4) includes the phrase "Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." If you need a bit more context round the statement just ask. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Does the context of the paragraph differ substantially from the Guardian article? Guettarda (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of differences that might be considered important. The book paragraph says

The IPCC put the graph in the summary of its third climate assessment, published in 2001. Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The sceptics have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade. Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists. And in the man who first drew the hockey stick, a young paleoclimatologist called Mike Mann, they have found an angry, outspoken and sometimes vulnerable foe.

I have marked the main changes in bold. For what its worth I would suggest that the book is a better RS than the web page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jonathan. I am of course happy for the contentious text to be rewritten per revised wording in Pearce's book. Since most of my edits get reverted for one reason or another, Dave or Guettarda should probably do this. (Unless there are further objections...) Meanwhile, I would politely request that next time I say a sentence appears to be inaccurate, over generalised, or biased, editors like Dave Souza & Viriditas & Guettarda might consider that I am sometimes right and not assert that I am a fringe theorist pushing a fringe POV. Once again, as I say every so often, I do not consider myself to be a 'climate change skeptic' at all. And my next trick will be to write to Spencer Weart about this 'dedicated minority' business. ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had a go at this change; hope the text is OK. There is probably a case for analysing other sections of this page taken from the Guardian webpages and checking them against the book. Given you strong interest in this page can I respectfully suggest that investing in a copy might well be £8.39 well spent? It's usually better to prove that you are right by finding a proper source rather than just asserting it. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, I have a copy of the book... but not here... May I suggest respectfully that you have completely missed the point. In most cases where biased, unreliable, or inaccurate text is selected from otherwise reliable sources there is not going to be a revised and updated book to appeal to. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article text, better to summarise the book's text as quoted above. The book says two distinct things:

• The sceptics have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade.
• Some hope that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

By shifting a word along, i hope this edit makes both of these things clear without labouring the point. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nigel, I'm undoing your edit because it changes the meaning of the passage as recorded 7:45, 1 July 2011 by Jonathan. Yopienso (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CRU founded 1971 or 1972?

According to Weart the CRU was founded in 1971: "...The second important group analyzing global temperatures was the British government's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, founded by Lamb in 1971 and now led by Tom Wigley." Our article on the Climate Research Unit has 1971 as well, although other sources go with 1972. The source Dave has now linked says it was founded in "1971-2". So what do we do here? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The source added, written by Lamb and two other directors, states it was founded in 1971–72, and he was founding director 1972–78. By going with the second description we avoid the issue of when CRU was founded, which is more appropriately dealt with in the Climatic Research Unit article. . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Minority denying global warming was a problem

Dave after removing the contentious text yourself to another part of the article you have now made this change . So we have the article now repeating Weart's 'dedicated minority' fourthree times. Please revert it. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Alex, it's bad form to use editors' names as section headings, so I've altered the heading to discuss the text in question.

With this edit Alex removed the earlier compromise, changing "The first criticism of the hockey stick graph to have significant political impact" to wrongly call it "The first peer reviewed criticism of the hockey stick graph". Alex's edit summary correctly notes that Weart "doesn't talk about 'political impact'" but omits the clear context that this was "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal" and came from "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem". Taking that on board, I've carefully summarised the context and shown the source referred to by the footnote. Agree that the earlier compromise was unsatisfactory, the wording now doesn't repeat in the body of the text but does show the context in our footnote. Any alternative wording that accurately shows the context of Soon and Baliunas's roots in denying the implications of climate change will be welcome. Monastersky in the cited source also notes that Soon and Baliunas received funding from the American Petroleum Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, a recent Reuters article discusses the former in relation to their 2003 paper, perhaps we should mention it. . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex:

• This edit changes the wording from "first peer reviewed" to "first published". Weart clearly says "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal". He does not say that theirs was the first to be published. In fact, that assertion that no one published anything critical of it before Soon and Baliunas seems highly unlikely. Regardless, your edit misrepresents the source (which is a very bad thing).
• This edit changes "obscure" to "relatively obscure", and again uses Weart as a source. Two problems - one is that "relatively" is meaningless fluff - all scientific journals are relatively obscure. More importantly, once again, you are attributing material to Weart (or more specifically, his footnote) which he doesn't say. Again, misrepresenting sources is a serious problem. Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Guettarda, your points are correct. The article itself shows previous criticisms published in peer-reviewed journals, and indeed there were earlier attacks as John Mashey has noted in earlier discussions. Must clarify that.

The wording used by Weart is shown above, the Monastersky source used later in the paragraph says "When the two researchers finished writing their report last year, they sent it halfway around the world to Chris de Freitas, an associate professor in the school of geography and environmental science at the University of Auckland, in New Zealand. He is on the editorial board of Climate Research, a relatively obscure journal owned by a small German publishing company, Inter-Research." Monastersky doesn't say relative to what, but it's pretty clear from the context that Soon and Baliunas, who had previously "voiced skepticism about humanity's role in warming the globe", went out of their way to find an obscure but sympathetic journal. Given Weart's clearer statement, we don't have to go into arguments about the relative obscurity of Climate Research which appears to be best known for the Soon and Baliunas controversy. . . dave souza, talk 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

These points have been discussed at great length above, and a prior consensus existed for a change to the wording. Indeed Dave himself proposed the new wording, and the edits Guettarda complains about were intended to restore Dave's original wording. To the extent that Dave & Guettarda want to fight the same fights over again, this is disruptive. Weart's language in this section is emotive and non neutral, and NPOV is very clear that we are not allowed to use such wording. I will return some time to raise this as an RfC. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use sources you don't find neutral? What happened to "all significant viewpoints"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, you cannot claim that sources say things that they don't. That's a matter of basic honesty, which is a minimum baseline for editing Misplaced Pages. If you can't abide by that simple premise, you need to find something else to do. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, the point I am making must be very subtle, but I have not objected to the reliability of the source. I am simply (a) applying the NPOV policy; and not to mention (b) applying common sense. Once again, the policy says, The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Later it says, ...statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. To describe a paper critical of your work as an "attack" is a long way from a neutral description of events. As for the "minority who denied that global warming is a problem", who are they exactly? To illustrate the absurdity of this sentence I might ask the question: Is Richard Lindzen part of the "minority who denied that global warming is a problem"? Now you'll quickly see that it is a trick question. Because if you say, "no he is not" then you assert that Lindzen is not a climate change skeptic, which is clearly wrong. But if you say, "yes he is" then you assert that he attacked the MBH hockey stick, which is also clearly wrong. So what Dave Souza wants is to repeat four three times that Spencer Weart has penned a vague sentence that hints darkly of an organised conspiracy. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the relevant part of NPOV is just above, where it says, "we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Denying that global warming is a problem may have been fashionable in US politics at one time, but it is no longer a seriously tenable intellectual stance. We are describing a historical controversy here, not a current one. --Nigelj (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, why are you disparaging a reputable historian in this way? Weart is specific, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you he states "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. For example, in 2003 a few scientists argued that the Earth had been as warm a thousand years ago as in the late 20th century", and provides footnote 48 defining who he includes as examples of those few scientists, starting with Soon and Baliunas. He also mentions McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) but it would be an exaggeration to call them scientists, though they did attack the calculations and do provide support for the minority view that global warming isn't a problem. No mention there of Lindzen, another reliable source would be needed to examine his position.
As has been pointed out to you before, Weart isn't among "participants engaged in a heated dispute", he's a reputable third party scholar. If you think his expert scholarship is disputed, please provide reliable secondary sources showing that dispute. . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not disparaging anyone. I am stating a fact, that Weart's sentence is not clear. On the other hand, you are making an attack against McIntyre & McKitrick in clear violation of BLP. Above you tried to argue that the 'dedicated minority' is a logical grouping, which would be the set of all people who are dedicated (presumably) and deny that global warming is a problem. Clearly, Lindzen is dedicated, and he (arguably) denies that global warming is a problem. Thus, he should be in your set. But now you want to say it is not a logical grouping after all, but it is in fact a physical grouping, i.e. an organisation. If it refers to an organisation, what is the organisation and please tell us who are the members of the organisation. You mention McIntyre & McKitrick. If Weart means that, then he has got his history wrong. McIntyre & McKitrick had no connection with Soon & Baliunas at all. So who else is in the dedicated minority? As the person arguing that this sentence is clear, you need to explain what the 'dedicated minority' is that is allegedly referred to clearly. Alex Harvey (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the source with more care, your failure to understand Weart's expert scholarship doesn't invalidate it as a reliable source. . . dave souza, talk 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please answer the question, rather than asserting "I am right". Alex Harvey (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What question? You misrepresent things I've written, and state that you find Weart's scholarly writing unclear. I find it perfectly clear, and think most reasonable editors will agree with me. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Guetterda, this looks awfully close to a Personal Attack to me. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fascinating, because if you believe that it's a personal attack to comment on an editors actions, I'm curious why you'd think it acceptable to comment on my actions. That said, I'm also curious why you insist on misspelling my user name. Please stop doing that. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, answer the question please. What is the 'dedicated minority' that Weart is referring to? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from Weart, not a paraphrase. Guettarda (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Very good. But that is an answer to a question I did not ask. To repeat, What is the 'dedicated minority' that Weart is referring to? You are claiming that Weart is quite clear. If so, it should be very easy to explain what Weart is referring to. Please no more I didn't hear that. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, please read more carefully. It's the "dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem". For further clarification and context, see the whole page by Weart that quote comes from, and the other pages in his history linked from that page. An interesting exercise, but given your repeated refusal to read or accept the wording before you, not something to debate on the personal basis you suggest. WP:NOTAFORUM. . . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can read the words and I've demonstrated above the reference is unclear. He posits a 'dedicated minority' but then fails to explain who is in it. The only two people who are certainly in it, from reading it in context, are Soon & Baliunas. So maybe he means a 'dedicated minority of two'? You tell me. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, Nigel puts it well below. Weart names four authors as examples, if you think there's any serious doubt that at the time there was a "dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem", it should be easy for you to produce sources disputing Weart's expert assessment. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There may have been a 'heated controversy' over this in US politics in the early 2000s, but there was not one in February 2011 when Weart wrote this. If there is any hair to be split over the possible meanings of what he wrote, it is so obscure that it is of no concern to us or to our readers unless it is supported by even more recent, third party, references that dispute or challenge Weart's statement. This is a summary of an event in the past by a science historian; it is not for us to create or imply loose ends where there are none, and where there is no reliable evidence of any. To do so would be to create a false balance between established scholarship and unreferenced fringe views. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Spencer Weart and 'the dedicated minority who denied global warming was a problem prompty attacked the calculations'

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Since June 11th a heated dispute has existed at this page regarding a sentence found in Spencer Weart. At this moment, the article says, with emphasis added to show the contentious parts:

The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from the minority denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published in the obscure journal Climate Research on 31 January 2003.

is Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming. NOTE: Spencer Weart is known to be pro Mann in the hockey stick dispute, and is a some time contributor at Mann's RealClimate website (e.g. etc and RealClimate and Mike Mann have often promoted Weart's book and recommended it as the official RealClimate approved history of global warming.
is the S&B2003 paper itself.

Elsewhere in our article it says,

As science historian Spencer Weart says, "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations."

And if that isn't enough Dave Souza has also added the same quote a third time again in the footnote .

This dispute had previously been resolved but Dave Souza has seen fit to go back on the previous consensus and start this whole dispute off again. (That is why the text now appears in three places; it had previously been agreed we would attribute this to Weart per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.)

Now the problems with this text are:

1) This is a BLP violation as it insinuates without evidence that Soon & Baliunas were part of a 'dedicated minority who denied that global warming was a problem', which hints of some kind of conspiracy. Now this may be true for all I know. It was admittedly revealed the other day that Soon has taken about $1 million or so from fossil fuel interests over his time. (I am not aware of the same allegations against Baliunas.) Nonetheless, BLP says we avoid these sorts of guilt by association claims unless the strongest evidence exists. Weart's sentence, on the other hand, is unclear. No one can tell me exactly what this 'dedicated minority' actually is, despite my repeated prompting above.

2) We are repeating Weart's emotive and non neutral language in Misplaced Pages's voice without good cause. When I try to substitute more neutral synonyms (e.g. 'criticism' rather than 'attack') I am repeatedly accused of dishonesty and mispresentation. Nonetheless, NPOV is very clear that we should avoid emotive and non neutral language, even when such language does occur in a reliable source.

3) This text is 'sneaking' some name calling that would normally not be allowed into the article. We are not allowed to say that Soon & Baliunas are 'deniers' but for some reason editors think this is okay.

I would appreciate the views of people who do not edit in the climate change area.

DISCLAIMER: To preempt the likely response from some who seem to like telling the community that I am a 'fringe theorist' or that I am 'pushing a fringe POV', please note that I am a climate change neutral who fully believes that the worst case IPCC scenarios are possible. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Involved Editor Responses:

• For some weeks (presumably since June 11) Alex has repeatedly attacked the judgement of the historian Spencer Weart and attempted to misrepresent what Weart says on the basis of Alex's personal opinion, apparently trying to give minority views "equal validity" with the mainstream views ably expressed by Weart. By "contentious" Alex apparently means "mainstream".
  Alex claims to be unable to understand Weart's statements, and on that basis wants to censor them. Despite repeated requests, Alex has failed to produce a reliable source disputing Weart's scholarship or wording on this matter. The proposals made by Alex blatantly contravene WP:WEIGHT policy, and fail WP:NPOV by trying to exclude a well sourced and established majority viewpoint.
  The reason I added the quote from Weart in the footnote was that Alex repeatedly tried to take the footnote out of the context of the text it referred to: if Alex's misreading is not repeated, I've no objection to removing the quote from the footnote. That leaves one direct quote in one section, and a paraphrase in the next section describing the specific relevance to Soon and Baliunas. . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Responses from Climate Change regulars:

• I'm a bit confused about how this RfC meets the "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template..." (emphasis in the original) instructions from Misplaced Pages:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. "Spencer Weart is known to be pro Mann" - indeed? Well, he would have that in common with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Weart is a recognised historian of science (and a physics PhD to boot), and his book is published by Harvard University Press. This certainly meets sourcing requirements even for WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why you complain that this is not neutral but you then go on to agree that Weart is known to be pro Mann and present no other examples of bias. Which part are you actually taking issue with? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you read something different from what I wrote. We don't decide if our sources are "neutral", we evaluate if they are reliable. You also seem to suffer from the "neutral is to give equal weight to all position" fallacy - see WP:VALID. If the scientific opinion overwhelmingly supports a particular position, that does not make them "not neutral", and the neutral point of view will reflect the predominant position with due weight. Do you have any reputable source that disagrees with Weart on this point? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Responses from outside Climate Change regulars:

It seems to me that the real issue here is the attribution of the text. At the moment it's not clear from the article that the disputed phrases are in fact direct quotes from Weart (it becomes clear after reading the footnote, but the main text is potentially misleading). I'd suggest rewriting those sentences along the following lines

Commenting on a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas , Spencer R. Weart wrote The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations.

The publication details for Soon and Baliunas can go in the footnote. Also, there's probably no need for the Weart quote to appear more than once in the article. Disclaimer: I'm responding solely to the sentence mentioned in the RFC; I have no intention of reading all of the extensive discussion above. Jowa fan (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Weart quote appears only once in the article, as a direct quote. Alex's summary is rather misleading. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Guettarda may have a point, and if it was misleading, it certainly was not my intention. I have attempted to revise the text above to remove reference to the 'third quote'. The contentious words are all Weart's, but we have changed the word order slightly and so on, in my first quote from the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, your entire summary is misleading. And your repeated attempts to disparage Weart are incompatible with your WP:BLP policy. Please rephrase it accurately and without the unsourced attacks on Weart. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing disparaging to Weart and nothing further to revise. Weart is not a God and he doesn't expect to be worshipped as a God. Saying he has written a sentence that is unclear is not an attack. Saying that he is a friend of Michael Mann's is not an attack. Saying that he is pro Mann is not an attack, and Stephan Schulz above seems to agree that this is a perfectly accurate statement. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As Stephan notes above, it seems that you read something different from what he wrote. Weart is an expert historian and a reliable source, your failure to understand him and your attempts to depict him as supporting one of the scientists do nothing to alter that fact. . . dave souza, talk 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor opinion - Regarding the text in the Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation section, there is the passage: "The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from the minority denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published in the obscure journal Climate Research on 31 January 2003. (The editor who approved the paper for publication was Chris de Freitas, a climate change skeptic.) Using data from previous papers, Soon and Baliunas argued that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, implying that recent warming was not unprecedented. In March they published an extended paper in Energy & Environment. The paper drew widespread criticism ..." My first impression is that the sentence includes too many loaded words in the narrator's voice. I've stricken them out (above) to illustrate. For example: editors cannot write that Freitas is "a climate change skeptic" without a citation so stating. Furthermore, in controversial articles, the source must be mentioned in the article, as in "Freits (who, according the person ABC, is a climate change skeptic)." In general I agree with editor User:Jowa fan's comments above: just stick with the facts as the sources relate them. Do not insert adjectives or adverbs in the narrators voice. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Noleander, regarding your specific points I can see merit in some of the issues you raise, and having reviewed the sources have amended the paragraph accordingly. In the "for instance" case, that description of de Freitas as a sceptic was added by Alex, and doesn't accurately represent the source, so I've summarised the source as "Chris de Freitas who saw no climatic dangers in human actions".
Regarding your suggestion of saying "who, according the person ABC," that approach is inappropriate as shown in the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV policy: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice." and "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" to avoid giving a false impression of "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
Hope that meets your concerns, please note that several reliable sources are being cited, and no reliable sources have been proposed contesting these views. In addition, I've removed the Weart quote from the footnote, while retaining the link to this important context. . . dave souza, talk 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the WP guideline that urges: "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion", but it is still a fact that WP requires all statements to be supported by sources. So, to write: "Freitas is a climate change skeptic" requires a citation. It has nothing to do with minority/majority. Frietas may well be a skeptic; and his positions may well be in the minority; but that does not eliminate the requirement for a source which states that Freitas is a skeptic. In the absence of such a source, he cannot be labelled a skeptic in the article. That was my point. --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that, in an effort to appease others, I added the assertion that de Freitas is a skeptic. Although a stickler for BLP observance myself, I don't actually see the need for a cite on this. de Freitas agrees that he is a skeptic and so does everyone else, but I'm happy either way on that one. But I think Noleander has hit the nail on the head that the sentence includes too many loaded words in the narrator's voice. Thanks for taking the time to give your feedback Noleander. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Noleander, thanks for making your point about sourcing which I fully support, unfortunately Alex has repeatedly misrepresented sources, or as in this case shown a cavalier disregard for the need for sourcing views that chime with his personal opinions. Where there are no reliable sources contesting a view, we shouldn't suggest that view is "mere opinion" on the basis of Alex's unsourced feelings.

@ Alex, the sentence has been revised but the essential point remains, we must be clear that minority views are minority views, and show how they have been received by the majority of experts in the field. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, the issue is far from resolved. If you want to say that Soon & Baliunas are deniers, please attribute this view to Weart. Noleander said Jowa fan is right. I agree that Jowa fan is right. That is, we attribute the view to Weart, per your previous compromise. Further, Noleader said a cite was required to establish that de Freitas is a skeptic. Instead of providing a cite, you have just replaced 'skeptic' with a phrase that means more or less the same thing. Noleander gave you examples of loaded terms that shouldn't be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. You have deleted those, but you have left all the other loaded terms in Misplaced Pages's voice. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The best we can do is to source every statement. This incident (the controversy) is now well in the past and Weart is a science historian who has summarised it. Academia has long-since moved on. What we must not do is what every proponent of a fringe view would love us to do, and that is to suggest "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view." That is why the historian's words are in Misplaced Pages's voice: no-one, even of the people he writes about, has written anything we know of to contest his summary (except for Alex, here). If there were any reliable sources written after him (Feb 2011) challenging his words, they would be worth looking into. --Nigelj (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we go back to the direct quote from Wearts -- which is what we (briefly) had earlier -- and move on?

Thanks to the uninvolved editors who gave their opinions. I agree with Noleander, need to strike the unsourced "skeptic" bit. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Pete Tillman, because as noted above, such direct quotation contravenes the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV policy. Indeed, the direct quotation already used is inappropriate, a poor substitute for agreeing a form of words that accurately reflects Weart's scholarly assessment. You're a bit behind the times, the article no longer has the unsourced "skeptic" bit, and in its place has a properly sourced statement. . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I just looked at WP:YESPOV & it doesn't seem to rule out a direct quote. In fact, that 's generally what we do when using a particular source becomes contentious -- as it tells the reader who is making the contentious statement.

As for the Freitas/skeptic bit, your change is no better, and still uncited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, there's no evidence that the source is contentious, that's an unsourced assertion (or original research) being made by Alex (and presumably yourself) without any evidence that Weart's expert opinion is in any way contested. As for your removal of information properly sourced to Monastercky, perhaps the rather clumsy sequence of the paragraph misled you. I've re-examined Monastersky's description and have reorganised the section accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the clarification. Re contentious: I'm sure you will agree the Weart-sourced bit is contentious here, and I indicated the usual way we hav dealt with such in the past: make it unambiguous.

As for Freitas: please recall this is intended as a summary, and interested readers can refer to the Soon/Baliunas controversy article for details. I think the Freitas bit is overkill for a summary. Perhaps a 3rd-party editor (if any are still following this) can offer an opinion. I also restored the POV tag, per my and Alex's objections. Easily resolved with a direct quote (per 2 UE's), and pruning. Why do you object to that? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a significant part of the S&B affair according to the cited source. As for your and Alex's objections, they're still only your own views and you've yet to provide any published sources supporting your views. Per YESPOV, "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." You're saying that you want your own opinions incorporated in the article, even though you've produced no published sources showing that the published expert opinion is contested. Your proposals fail both NPOV and WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is an RfC was raised, 2 uninvolved editors recommended attributing the text to Weart, and you are refusing to do that. I will investigate escalating this to the next stage of dispute resolution. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, why your desperate rush when only two uninvolved editors have responded so far to your misleading and inaccurate rfc statement? Changes have been made responding to their main issues, it's been pointed out that the over-attribution you propose contravenes NPOV, and you've still failed to provide the necessary verification of your claim that Weart's scholarly expert view is in any way contested. . . dave souza, talk 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, added a citation to Pearce about the de Freitas bit. Note the amount of space Pearce devotes to this issue. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pearce isn't as specific as Monastersky about de Freitas disputing the effects of humans on global warming, but that's well shown in the 2002 paper by de Freitas which we discussed earlier. I've now got around to adding that info to the IPCC graph enters political controversy section where it obviously fits. Similarly, Pearce calls Climate Research a "fairly minor journal" while Monastersky describes it as "a relatively obscure journal", both making the same point. . . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: neutral language and reliable sources

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The above RfC didn't resolve anything unfortunately. Although it is claimed that the recommendations of uninvolved editors were complied with, in my opinion the article is now even worse than it was previously. Accordingly I would like to restate the RfC and ask a much more specific yes/no question.

The article now reads (with emphasis added to a single disputed word):

The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from those denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

Myself and others maintain that the description of the S&B paper as attacking rather than as criticising is irreducibly a matter of opinion, whether in a reliable source or otherwise. Spencer Weart (ref ) may be an expert historian, but it can't be assumed that his work therefore does not contain his opinions as well as facts. I say that Soon & Baliunas simply say that Michael Mann is wrong, not that he is a fraud, or a bad person. However when I argue that we should therefore tone this down and restore the original wording I am accused of misrepresenting the source.

I believe that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here: Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Other editors say that ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't apply here because WP:YESPOV says we must "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion".

UPDATE: Even RealClimate, Mann's own website, describes the Soon & Baliunas paper as a criticism so it is clearly not the case, as editors are asserting, that we have no choice but to present Weart's wording as fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Needless to say, disputes of this form - about reliably sourced opinions being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice as facts - are a recurring, disruptive theme in climate change content disputes. So this particular example may seem minor but it is the general principle at stake here.

So the question is: Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply? If so, would it not be better just to restore the original wording and replace "attack" with "criticism"? Thanks, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Involved Editor Responses:

• Weart highlights an important distinction between criticism within the scientific community, and attacks from those promoting the interests of the minority who deny that global warming is a problem, with oil industry funding as was the case with Soon and Baliunas. Alex's attempts to give equal validity to these minority views are both disruptive and biased in favour of a fringe viewpoint.
  Once again, editors are invited to present reliable sources supporting the contention that Weart's expert opinion is contested, but instead of doing so Alex seems to be forum shopping, and again promoting his own unsourced opinion.
  As for replacing "attack" with "criticism", the article clearly shows that there was earlier criticism. The view is cited to Weart's expert opinion, and "criticism" in this context is weasel wording misrepresenting the source. If others wish to propose an alternative sysnonym for "attack", that can be considered. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  It is untrue that Soon & Baliunas were not scientists. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  What is true is that S&B 2003 was not science, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Here is a reliable source: RealClimate describes the Soon & Baliunas 2003 paper as a criticism. "The problems most often arise – such as in Soon and Baliunas (2003) ... when the criticised authors are not involved at all ." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nice to see you accepting RealClimate as a reliable source, note that Gavin Schmidt (not Mann) was referring in the paragraph to generic cases of criticisms, his description neither contradicts nor detracts from Weart's evaluation of the S&B paper as an attack. An attack can criticise authors, as was the case with S&B, perhaps you'd prefer it phrased as "The first peer reviewed attack criticising the hockey stick graph...". How about finding something that says it wasn't an attack, or proposing an alternative wording that doesn't misrepresent Weart's clear statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Have a think about what kind of text might in principle "contradict" Weart's wording here. Imagine that another historian had explicitly stated, "On p.x in Discovery of Global Warming, Professor Weart used the word 'attack' but I rather think his wording was too strong". Or "Some have described S&B2003 as an 'attack' but I believe it was a 'criticism'". This is the only evidence you would accept. Yet, obviously, this would be a quibble and no one would bother saying this. The challenge that I provide alternate reliable sources here is a distraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, it could be a respected historian saying, "It was fortunate that S&B2003 pointed out all the flaws in the graph before anybody wasted time and money on climate change mitigation." --Nigelj (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Nigelj. The argument Alex puts forward is a false dichotomy, an attack can also be criticism. Indeed, the cited source describes it as both, making it clear that the emphasis on attack is a deliberate and considered description. The very fact that Alex is persistently arguing to change to "criticism" is clearly bssed on this being a weaker term, misrepresenting the source. . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I am afraid I have no idea what Nigel J. is talking about. We all agree that S&B wrote a flawed paper that should never have been published. There is no dispute about this, and there never has been. I also fail to see any false dichotomy, or any dichotomy at all. The difference between an 'attack' and a 'criticism' is irreducibly a matter of taste and opinion, as I have said repeatedly. You have asserted that there is a consensus that the S&B paper was an 'attack', and more than a 'criticism'. I have pointed out that your assertion is unfalsifiable because, as 'attack/criticism' is merely a matter of taste, it is not a matter that is even discussed in reliable sources. The best I can do is show that other reliable sources don't prefer this sort of language, but then you retort that the existence of a reliable source that does not prefer this sort of language (e.g. RealClimate above), does not contradict your view. Thus, your view is unfalsifiable. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• RFCs normally stay open for a month. Seems a bit excessive to launch another one. Rather premature to make pronouncements on an RFC. Not to mention that we usually let an uninvolved editor close one. Guettarda (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, well I didn't know that and I've never seen new responses appear after a week. It's open now so probably best to leave it open. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea why this has dragged on so long. The controversy can be resolved simply by quoting Wearts directly, and careful sourcing of all contentious material -- as was suggested by two UE's in the previous RfC, upthread. This is routine elsewhere. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's dragged on because a couple of persistent editors are still asserting without any published evidence that this historian's considered opinion is "contentious", and because their proposal clearly breaches WP:YESPOV as we should "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion", and should not give "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." So far, no reliable source has been presented to show there's even a tiny minority view that the material is contentious, and the source is a reputable historian, not an "activist". . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor responses:

• Criticism is almost always the better word for a Misplaced Pages article on anything controversial . The reader will decide on the nature of the criticism and the merits of the arguments. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

While respecting your preference, "almost always" doesn't apply to specific cases where sources show a specific context of attacks, as confirmed in the cited Scientific American article. In the citation for the specific statement, Weart as a historian says "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal (Climate Research) was Soon and Baliunas (2003). Asked to respond, Mann and other top climate experts gave strong reasons for regarding the criticism as groundless". Weart clearly emphasises that this was not merely criticism. As stated before, alternative wording accurately summarising the sources is worthwhile considering. . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave: once again, let's quote Weart directly and move on to other things. How much more time and effort is this small disagreement worth? All three UE's disagree with your edit. Think about it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, you and Alex are so impatient! Also, you seem to be a bit muddled, the RfC about quoting directly is the one above, which is still running. The second UE there accepted that we don't give in-text attribution to uncontested views where that can mislead as to weight, the first one hasn't yet commented on the changes to meet objections. This RfC was raised about a word that the second UE accepted, now we have DGG almost always preferring criticism, but not yet having had time to consider the points I've raised. Please try not to put words in the mouths of UEs. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what DGG says, and move on to the next argument. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Use criticism, rather than attack - Criticism is much more encyclopedic. Attack should be used sparingly, as in physical assaults or very aggressive criticism. Since this topic is about an academic/scientific dispute, "criticism" is a better word. If a source specifically uses the word "attack", perhaps that source could be quoted in a footnote, so interested readers could see the verbiage. --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks again Noleander, DGG & Peregrine. While it is obvious to me that 'criticism' is encyclopaedic and that 'attack' is inappropriate (for a scientific dispute), it is less obvious how to settle an argument like this with reference to Misplaced Pages's core content policies when reliable sources don't always use encyclopaedic language. I can see a number of ways to make the argument, e.g. WP:YESPOV, "Prefer non-judgmental language". WP:NPOV#Impartial_tone, "Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view". WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements, "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." Have I made the argument badly? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Some of this may be relevant if there was an active academic or public debate or dispute to describe. This article is about a controversy that flared up 6 - 8 years ago and is now settled. Describing the moves, actions and counters that were made by the main protagonists at the time, and re-using metaphors currently applied by respected science historians, is perfectly appropriate. It would be a disservice to the now-moribund debate to apply principles and practices that were designed for handling current controversies (i.e. ones where nobody knows what the outcome will be). --Nigelj (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. You think these sections of NPOV only apply to unresolved controversies. This controversy is resolved, you say, therefore Spencer Weart is right. Thus it is fine to use judgemental language if Weart does, or to use impartial language if Weart does, and as we know he doesn't even have a bias, none of his statements are mere statements of opinion, and therefore attributing and specifying biased statements is not applicable either. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  @ Alex, you're rather misrepresenting aspects of the policy, and again accusing the most reputable historian on the topic of being biased, on no better source than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nigelj is right, we shouldn't describe issues accepted by all reliable sources as though they're currently disputed. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  @ DGG and Noleander, it's appreciated that you don't like "attack", and I'd been hoping for suggestions that accurately represented Weart's expert view rather than weakening it to mere "criticism". Fortunately, I've been re-reading Pearce's book and have found an alternative formulation that is more specific and informative on the purpose and impact of the S&B paper; "The paper was an early attempted refutation of the hockey stick." That's closer to the S&B paper, which produces an alternative reconstruction to dismiss the IPCC finding of recent exceptional warming, rather than actually being formulated as a criticism of the graph. @ Peregrine Fisher, I hope we're not going to "move on to the next argument", we should be able to discuss improvements to the wording in a collegial way. Having conceded removal of "attack", I've revised the article to use Pearce's approach and have provided this new source. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Three uninvolved editors have recommended "criticism" and you are still refusing and still claiming that I am the one who is confused about the policy. So how many people need to say the same thing before you accept that you are wrong? Your new wording is awkward and still not truly neutral. You can't "refute" a "graph". Pearce is using imprecise language in a popular history. It is not Pearce's or Weart's job to write an encyclopaedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of outstanding POV issues in S&B section

Although I feel that "attempt to refute" is awkward, it is probably neutral enough. (It is not neutral in that "attempt" to refute gives the impression that the MBH99 has never been "refuted", which is arguably not true, but I'm not planning to argue the point right now.) These are the outstanding issues of Misplaced Pages's inappropriate use of loaded terms:

The first peer reviewed attempt to refute the hockey stick graph from those denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Using data from previous papers, Soon and Baliunas argued that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, and said that recent warming was not unusual. They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas whose opinion was that human actions did not cause climatic dangers, and he approved the paper for publication in the obscure journal Climate Research, where it appeared on 31 January 2003. In March they published an extended paper in Energy & Environment. Scientists cited in the papers said that their work was misrepresented. The Climate Research paper was criticised by many other scientists, including several of the journal's editors. On 8 July Eos featured a detailed rebuttal of both papers by 13 scientists including Mann and Jones, presenting strong evidence that Soon and Baliunas had used improper statistical methods. Responding to the controversy, the publisher of Climate Research upgraded Hans von Storch from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August 2003. After seeing a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, von Storch decided that the Soon and Baliunas paper was seriously flawed and should not have been published as it was. He proposed a new editorial system, and an editorial saying that the review process had failed.

The issues are:

1) Bias through rhetorical repetition. It is already pointed in the article that Weart regarded the "attacks" as originating from "the dedicated minority who denied global warming is a problem". It is not neutral, therefore, to contrive this sentence a few paragraphs later to repeat the same.

2) Use of loaded language in this case "denying" as in relative of offensive "deniers". Please don't appeal to emotions using Misplaced Pages's voice as that is not allowed.

3) I am happy to call de Freitas a "skeptic" without a cite but "... de Freitas whose opinion was that human actions did not cause climatic dangers" is convoluted and seems pejorative to me and needs a cite, and as Noleander pointed out, it needs to be attributed in the text whose opinion this is.

4) "Obscure" journal is not appropriate although I'm happy to use Pearce's "fairly minor journal". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, glad to have your agreement that "attempt to refute" is reasonably neutral. You seem to be soapboxing about MBH99, note that sources reaffirm its main conclusions and it's not the only "hockey stick graph". First response to your other points, without going into this in great depth:

1) This is a separate section, we can't assume readers have read or memorised the previous section, and we need to be clear that this attempt at refutation came from some of those described in the previous section, to accurately represent the cited source.

2) Once again, you're taking issue with a very reliable source without presenting alternative descriptions of equal weight. Misplaced Pages accurately describes the views of reputable reliable sources, not your personal opinion.

3) We know you're happy to call de Frietas a "skeptic" without a cite, because you already did so, and the need for a citation was the point raised by Noleander at 00:47, 11 July 2011, above. The term "skeptic" is vague and misleading, covering many different opinions. The views of de Frietas are shown in the cited sources, we can of course review the best way to describe these views.

4) Once again you're presenting your own opinion as though it overrides a source when you make the odd claim that "obscure" journal is not appropriate. As already stated, Pearce's "fairly minor journal" means much the same so no objection to a swap. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, please don't start this tired old schtick again. Either quote Wearts directly, or paraphrase him using neutral language. You've been around here long enough to know the difference between loaded and neutral language. Let's finish this silly argument and move on. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I think I could be forgiven for thinking that Pete Tillman is using a rhetorical trick in dismissing Dave Souza's points--to wit, that Alex is full of hot air. Do we have some points to debate, or is it just the usual? --TS 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's removal of the POV tag

I've removed the POV tag because this seems to be an obvious bad faith dispute. The hockey stick has not ever been that controversial as science, and the sheer fact that some people insist that it is controversial doesn't mean that it is. At this point we would need more than the opinion of some Wikipedians to support the notion that it remains a controversy, if it ever was such outside the realms of a few bloggers and fringe scientists. --TS 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• NA-Class Environment pages
• NA-importance Environment pages
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment