Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael E. Mann: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:03, 23 June 2010 editNathan Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers12,381 edits →Request For Comment: rm headings per std.rfc / reinsert more neutral intro to rfc← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:47, 13 January 2025 edit undoA Plumbing I Will Go (talk | contribs)25 edits →Lawsuit update: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=Start|s&a-work-group=yes|listas=Mann, Michael|priority=}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|living=yes|vital=yes|listas=Mann, Michael|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{Environment|class=Start|auto=inherit|climate change=yes}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid}}
{{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject University of Pennsylvania |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Virginia |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}}
{{controversial}}{{Annual readership|expanded=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=yes}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=yes}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 2 |counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }} {{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|index=/Archive index|
<br><center>'''Other archives'''<br>]<br>
{{Archive box|
]<br> ]</center>
]
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask1=/Archive <#>
|mask2=/Archive/PSU Investigation
|mask3=/Archive/UEA Controversy
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


__TOC__
== ] ==

I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. '''Please be aware that Misplaced Pages is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip.''' --] 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

How dare you accuse others of what you so clearly practice, ]. ] (]) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To unregistered user at domain:173.168.129.57 First of all register otherwise no one will take you seriously. Secondly, TS is absolutely right.] (]) 02:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

== Michael Mann received over $500,000 from stimulus spending ==

I propose adding that Michael Mann received $541,184 in stimulus money in June 2009. <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref> In fact I don't see any discussion s on this here so I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here. ] (]) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:Why is this relevant? -- ] (]) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::Because this is the article about Michael Mann, and we're supposed to include noteworthy information about him here. Receiving over half-million taxpayer money is pretty noteworthy. ] (]) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I say add it.] (]) 02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
: That is a seriously warped story. What's so weird about a scientist receiving a government grant? The story seems to have been written from a press release from an organisation for people with very weird ideas. Needless to say that is in no way a reliable source. They're barking mad. --] 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:JettaMann, you may have overlooked the fact that the content you want to include (a) comes from a blog (specifically ], from which the Murdochised WSJ seems to be lifting content for some reason - its origins are disguised by the attribution to the ], the outfit behind Newsbusters) and (b) it's an opinion piece and a highly polemical one at that. He was funded for "his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming" - oh really? You have to do better than that. The source is garbage and unusable for any Misplaced Pages article, let alone a BLP. -- ] (]) 19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, ''I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here'' is wrong: (a) it would have been far better discussed *first* - are you in a hurry? and (b) the second part should have read ''please remove it if you disagree''. Please do *not* attempt to imply a burden on editors removing material - it won't work, but it will irritate ] (]) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
:I can see William M. Connolley is indeed irritated - a full stop would have worked wonders there. ;-) Seriously though, as ] says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines." Where material is likely to be contentious, as this was always going to be, it would have been better discussed first. -- ] (]) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
::This is quite an over-reaction in my opinion. I added a fact that is backed up by a referenced link to the WSJ, which has a stellar record for accuracy. Misplaced Pages certainly doesn't have a problem with links to the WSJ. If you think the information is too biased, here's a different link: <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop</ref> I don't know if you guys are all millionaires or something, but half a million in grant money from the Federal stimulus plan seems noteworthy to me.] (]) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You added an ]/], and Opinion articles are certainly ''is'' something that Misplaced Pages in general has a problem with on BLP articles. Half a million dollars in a research grant isn't very notable, and it doesn't go to Mann personally (you do know that - right?), it is for research from 2009-2011 for 3 researchers. I have to say btw. that i doubt if this is from any "stimulus" package - since normally such grants are advertised up to a year in advance --] (]) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::::As I understand it, part of the stimulus money was short-circuited to already applied-for research projects with a strong evaluation, but no budget. So its not impossible. --] (]) 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::::It's not even an op-ed. It's a post from the ] blog which the WSJ has reposted for some reason. The second paragraph makes its origins clear, as does the attribution to Newsbusters' parent organisation: "As NewsBusters reported on November 28..." -- ] (]) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Actually it turns out to be even worse sourced than I thought. It appears to come from the 9/11 Truther blog PrisonPlanet.com - see for the original article. God only knows why the WSJ has chosen this as a source for its own website. Evidently Murdoch has driven it off the cliff faster than I had thought. -- ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::So it is your contention that the $541,184 figure is incorrect? I highly doubt that the WSJ didn't do some checking on this, and so far I haven't seen a retraction. It's been many days and Mann could have refuted this by now if it was incorrect. ] (]) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I'm saying that we don't know if it's right ''or'' wrong, since the source is a crank outlet. A post from a nutjob blog doesn't somehow become usable by being laundered through the website of the WSJ. As for "why hasn't Mann refuted it", have you seen the number of claims directed against him from anti-science cranks? If he spent his time trying to rebutt them all he'd never get anything else done. -- ] (]) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Here we go, absolute proof from the NSF listing the grant to Michael Mann. <ref>http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0902133&version=noscript</ref> Let's post it. ] (]) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The figure ''is'' correct (its on Mann's CV). As for why he hasn't "refuted it" - let me ask you: ]. Refuting lends legitimacy. --] (]) 23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure its relevant -- its almost like saying that Mann enjoys going to the Dunkin Donuts on College Avenue... so what? At least my two cents. ] (]) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:It seems almost to be an attempt to claim guilt by association - since the stimulus is a right-wing bogeyman (let's not mention Bush's role, eh?), than obviously Mann's allegedly receiving funds from it is a Bad Thing. I can see no real reason to report this other than an attempt to discredit Mann. -- ] (]) 09:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
::Have to agree with ChrisO here. I infer the interest in including this fact is to imply in some way that Mann has a financial conflict of interest. If so, that's inappropriate. If Mann's work were publicly criticized on that basis in reliable sources, noting that wouldn't necessarily violate ]... but even then, given that Dr. Mann is perfectly entitled to apply for and receive legal government grants for his work, I'm not sure even that is noteworthy. --] (]) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
:::No, nothing is inferred. That's in your head. How can a fact be either "right wing" or "left wing"? It's just a fact, and a very notable one at that. ] (]) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The grant was funded by the ]. The fact that the right wing does not want science funded is not news, and is not an appropriate topic for this article. Mann has had many grants, this one is not special. -] (]) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

:Any controversy regarding this has nothing to do with the "right-wing" or "nut jobs" or whatever other adjectives you and a few others a throwing out there to denigrate anyone that would disagree with you. The story is that the stimulus funds were supposed to go towards job creation and retention, and from the looks of it, it is hard to see how this would fall under either. Now I am not saying it belongs, but it would be nice if the dicussion did not turn into absurd strawman arguments that the right doesn't want science, which is to say the least just plain stupid. ] (]) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Researchers are workers too, with families to feed. But I suggest that it was unwise and short-sighted to turn this into a partisan bickerfest. There may well be some local political peculiarities at work here but the main point is that the WSJ piece was picked up from some weird conspiracy-minded subculture or other. It's worrying that a usually reliable newspaper would do that, but not worth losing much sleep over. If they want to publish nonsense, it's their funeral. --] 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::: The figure they cite has been confirmed, and it's up on the National Science Foundation website (link provided above). So I don't understand how you are saying it's nonsense and their funeral. The WSJ was correct as they usually are. ] (]) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::There is just one problem with your argument.. no one to this point has disputed the amount or that there was a grant. --] (]) 17:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

:::: I think the problem is that, for the conspiracy-minded, the mere existence of this grant is proof of some horrible and nasty conspiracy to do something or other unspeakable. To the rest of the world, of course, it's just a research grant. Nobody who does not speak the language of conspiracy theory as a native has a hope of understanding what the conspiracy theorists are on about. --] 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I don't know about UPenn, but AFAIK most US research universities immediately skim 50-60% off the top for overhead (which includes everything from lab rooms to office heating, computers, and secretaries). The rest will pay 2 PostDocs for two years or so - unless some expensive equipment is included. This is a very ordinary grant - I'm sure Mann has had several similar ones in his career, as has any reasonably successful established researcher. It's entirely non-notable ("Bob the carpenter bought a hammer"). BTW, are you aware of ] Q14?--] (]) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Tony, whether or not conspiracy-minded people will think 'this thing or the other thing' is irrelevant. We're not here to interpret things for people. We're just here to present the facts. What they do with these facts is beyond our control and we certainly not going to hide facts from people because we are worried what they will do with those facts. This isn't the USSR, it's Misplaced Pages.] (]) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::: That isn't how it works. Scientists apply for and receive government grants. If we focused on a particular grant without good reason that would be interpretation, which is covered by the ] and ] policies. If some people have their own reasons for finding it extraordinary that a scientist received a government grant, they're welcome to try to convince the world at large that it is significant. If they succeed (and to be honest, doing so would require a revolution in attitudes to science funding) then we'll routinely report these "extraordinary" occurrences. Meanwhile we don't, because it would be silly. --] 18:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I'm guessing you are one of the few people on the planet who does not find it interesting or notable that he received over half-mill from the stimulus fund. Tell you what, Tony. Let's put it up there in the article and see if anyone else (not the usual people here) object to this information. If we see large and general objections to this from people *other than* the usual group, then perhaps you have cause. But my feeling is independent Misplaced Pages readers and editors won't have a problem with this being there and will probably find it interesting. Lets take our discussion out of the hypothetical theoretical and let the results speak for themselves. ] (]) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: The half-million dollars that seems to be so impressive to you is actually the market price of my small, very cramped middle-terrace house in East London. I've been trying to explain to you why--at least with that sourcing--this isn't going to make it into the article. As I don't have any axe to grind on this, I'll just unwatch this page and let you see for yourself that I'm not the barrier to acceptance of that material. --] 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:{{outdent|::::::}} The gullible, ill-informed and conspiracy-minded might find it "interesting or notable" if it's presented stripped of any context, which is how it's been presented by the anti-science contingent, but that would be a mistaken impression. To show that it is "interesting or notable" one would have to do what the anti-science mob have conspicuously failed to do: (1) demonstrate that the source of the funding is in any way unusual or different to how other scientists have been funded; (2) demonstrate that the amount is in any way unusual; (3) demonstrate that the fact of the funding is in any way unusual. As others have pointed out on this page, "scientist gets funding from government" is commonplace. The fuss made over this seems to be a very crude attempt to elicit a ] reaction from unthinking right-wingers: stimulus BAD! Mann BAD! Mann + stimulus VERY BAD! It really is at that level of demagogic nonsense. -- ] (]) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::That's really quite a warped view on this information. Again, facts are not left wing or right wing, facts are just facts. And again, what people choose to do with the information and how they interpret it isn't really up to us. We just present the facts, we don't interpret facts for Misplaced Pages readers. ] (]) 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:::But the choice of ''which'' facts to present ''is'' up to us. We present the ''relevant'' facts, not irrelevancies ginned up by demagogues to stir up the rubes. -- ] (]) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I really don't know how to respond to that. I think there are very few people out there who think it is irrelevant that Mann received a large grant of Federal Stimulus money which will be paid for by the tax payer. People tend to find it very relevant when other people spend their money. ] (]) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::In that case I suggest you either find, say, 10 articles of scientists in which ordinary grants are listed, or you try to add some ordinary grants to 10 other articles, just to show some precedent. --] (]) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I disagree with your methodology that each article must have a cookie-cutter set of lists and information. Some articles have different requirements and different points of emphasis compared to others. The reason this piece of information is relevant here is because people are naturally wondering where the money comes from to fund scientists like Michael Mann, and how much do they receive? As it turns out, it's the NSF, which ties in nicely to other wikipedia pages. We can also link this statement to the Grant (money) Misplaced Pages page. You often hear AGW people throwing out the accusation that so-and-so must be on the oil payroll and oil money is making it lucrative to oppose AGW theory. This is bunk of course, as there is a tiny fraction of the funding available to skeptics compared to the generous tax-payer government grants. This piece of information, along with the source of the grant money and the dollar figure, is a very relevant piece of information about this scientist. (Although I do agree that it would be nice for all scientists in Misplaced Pages to have a list of their grant dates and grant values, I just don't have much say in that, and the information is likely spotty. But it would be a nice ideal.) ] (]) 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see any rebuttals to my last comment. I also note that if you look up the ] and others it seems to have an emphasis on where the funding comes from with dollar figures, so there is precedent for this type of information belonging in Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 14:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

== HSI ==

HSI isn't a good book, and our article on it isn't a good article, and spamming a link to the bio of everyone concerned is a bad idea, and so is singling out a few. So I've removed the link ] (]) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
:Funnily enough i disagree, so i`m going to put it back, and as you have not read it how do you know if it`s good or not? ] (]) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::So you are saying that you will edit-war over it? Not really a good argument is it? BLP comes into play here since the book claims conspiracy and deliberate fraud. --] (]) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Actually no it does not, were did you get the idea that it claims that? And how am i edit warring? ] (]) 14:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::::You are at 1RR (your personal limit) and your statement was "i disagree, so i`m going to put it back" - no attempts at convincing - no arguments based on policy - in fact just a bold statement that you were going to revert (apparently no matter what). As for where i did get that idea? Well - first of all i read the subtitle of the book, then i've read several excerpts on Google books. --] (]) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

::: Even if it does, if its a reliable source, there is no problem. I've seen you insert plenty of sources alleging conspiracy in other BLP articles; what's the difference here? ] (]) 17:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Where did you get the idea that its a reliable source? Do please remember that reliability is dependent on context. And just for your information - i have never inserted anything "alleging conspiracy". --] (]) 18:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::::: You inserted reams of material alleging conspiracy in corporate funding links to climate skeptics. As for the source, the context of, "if it attacks skeptics, it's reliable; if it attacks the mainstream, it's not", is not a reasonable yardstick. ] (]) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::That is true kim, you used exxonsecrets in a blp did`nt you ] (]) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Not that it matters since first of all funding is not conspiracy, and this isn't a forum to discuss such - the enforcement board isn't far away. Secondly i have never "inserted" exxonsecrets to my knowledge - i may have reverted a bad edit where exxonsecrets was part - but i have never added it to an article. Sorry. --] (]) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::Nope sorry FG - i haven't (do try to differentiate between reverting a bad edit, and inserting) . And my definition of what is or isn't a reliable source doesn't differ between skeptics or mainstream articles. If you are going to continue down this line, then i would suggest that you create a user RfC or start an enforcement procedure - since i'm done accepting personal attacks. --] (]) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Pointless fiddling ==

This is just pointless fiddling. I'll revert it when my share comes back again ] (]) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

== Released, Hacked or discovered ==

I changed to released , partly because it's the longer standing wording, but mainly because it seems less POV than either 'hacked' or 'discovered'. ] (]) 23:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry but it ''is'' POV by omission. "released" indicates that it may have been legal - "discovered" tells another POV story (oh - that elusive insider) - while hacked tells it the way most reliable sources state it. --] (]) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

: If we're speaking English, "leaked" is the correct term. "Released" implies intentional action, "hacked" is far worse -- it can mean a dozen different things, and even in its closest context, you hack a system, not a piece of data (such as an email) on the system.

: '''"Leaked"''' however, means: '''''"To disclose without authorization or official sanction"'''''. Which describes the situation perfectly, despite obfuscatory attempts to the contrary. And many reliable sources have used just that term. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
::It was shown as 'released' for several months prior to the latest changes and, at least in part, that was why I changed it. The article ] has, as its first two sentences;<blockquote><i>The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet <b>leak</b> of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the <b>hacking</b> of a server.</i></blockquote>(bolding is mine)

::This would suggest that neither discovered nor hacked can be used without additional explanation that would seem to be out of place here. 'Released' just seemed the most neutral word to me. Happy to change it to anything else except 'hacked' or 'discovered'. ] (]) 23:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
::: That's it exactly, ThePm. The server was '''hacked,''' but the emails were '''leaked.''' ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know how to write for the enemy have no business changing these wordings. Demonstrate that you can with a diff before changing it again. ] (]) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

== Climatic Research Unit emails section ==

Hipocrite is correct. This section is now either a coatrack, or so close to it that it doesn't matter. Also, it reads like an out of date newspaper article. It needs to remain relevant to Mann and it needs to be a balanced discussion of events that took place. My attempt at rewording is;

:Mann's correspondence with fellow climate researchers was included in the ].<ref name='AP 2009-11-21'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | date=2009-11-21 | publisher=Associated Press | url =http://www.startribune.com/science/70700047.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-11-24 | language = }}</ref> In an interview broadcast by the ], Mann commented that the "emails are genuine and have been misrepresented, cherry-picked, mined for single words and phrases that can be completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said..." <ref>, news report by Chris Irvine, the ], published 03 Dec 2009.</ref> He wrote in ''The Washington Post'' that the e-mails "do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real."<ref name='Mann 2009-12-19'>{{cite news | first=Michael | last=Mann | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=E-mail furor doesn't alter evidence for climate change | date=2009-12-19 | publisher= | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html | work =The Washington Post | pages = | accessdate = 2009-12-18 | language = }}</ref>

:] commenced an inquiry into the matter in December 2009,<ref>http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf</ref> "following a well defined policy used in such cases".<ref>{{cite web|title=University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information|publisher=Pennsylvania State University|url=http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf|date=2009-11-28}}</ref> Their report was published on February 3, 2010 and found there was no credible evidence on three of the four allegations and stated that it did not have enough information to draw a conclusion on the fourth question: whether Mann had deviated from accepted practices within the academic community. The inquiry remanded the fourth complaint to a panel of five prominent Penn State scientists for further investigation.<ref>{{cite news|last=Flam|first=Faye|title=Penn State climatologist cleared of misconduct|url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/83508102.html|date=2010-01-03|accessdate=2010-01-04|work=Philadelphia Inquirer}}</ref>

I think it should also somehow mention that Mann had been attacked/criticised as a result of his correspondence, because that's what's relevant to Mann. The second paragraph makes it clear that he has been cleared to date, but any discussion of Mann would be incomplete without some sort of coverage of the intense scrutiny and criticism that he copped following <s>climategate</s> the <s>release</s> <s>hacking</s> <s>discovery</s> CRU incident (is 'incident' ok?). ] (]) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

:For now, I've replaced the contentious piece with the corresponding section from ], which was the result of careful deliberation there. --] (]) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

::Looks good to me. Well done. -- ] (]) 09:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:::It looks ridiculous, it has to be changed back to Climategate, you know, that word the rest of the world uses ] (]) 10:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Do you have any other problem with the text? --] (]) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::None at all, just the section title ] (]) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anything wrong with the section title. However, having thought about it some more I think the section as a whole is undue weight - comprising nearly half of the entire article - which doesn't reflect the relative significance of this issue. It may not be intended to be a coatrack but it effectively acts as one. Following the example set on ], I've shrunk the section to a single paragraph, taking out the section title altogether and reflected the four key facts - that some of his e-mails were involved in the CRU controversy, that allegations of wrongdoing were made, that he rejected the allegations, and that PSU cleared him of research misconduct. There's no need to elaborate further - otherwise we just duplicate the CRU controversy article and coatrack-ise this one. -- ] (]) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
Thats not de-coatracking, that`s whitewashing, with copious amounts of paint. And you seem to be intent on calling climategate by the wrong name, why is this? ] (]) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:We're talking about a distinguished scientist with numerous honours and awards and many years of work. Dedicating nearly half of a biographical article to a single issue - namely allegations which have turned out to be bogus - is grossly disproportionate. -- ] (]) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::Not when the majority of his press coverage which gave him his notability is about the climategate scandal. ] (]) 17:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Nonsense. His public profile comes largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph, long before the CRU controversy. His role in that controversy was relatively marginal - a couple of the most controversial e-mails were sent ''to'' him, not ''by'' him. I'm well aware that he is a hate figure on the denialist blogs that you appear to frequent, which I suggest has distorted your judgement. -- ] (]) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mann's involvement with the CRU stuff was peripheral; and the entire thing has turned out to be overblown by the press and the "skeptics". So anything here should be very brief. The idea that Mann's notability comes from CRU shows a very shallow understanding ] (]) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

:Mann's involvement in the CRUstuffgate is what most people would know him for. I have no doubt that he's a distinguished scientist with many awards, but if you asked Bill Bloggs-Onthestreet who Michael Mann is he would say something about CRUstuffgate. That's if he didn't say he was the founder of the Sex Pistols. Most news articles about Mann seem to be related to CRUstuffgate.

: You're right that it shows a shallow understanding and ChrisO's comment that he's "largely from the famous "hockey stick" graph" would be right if it wasn't for CRUstuffgate, but there you go. Furthermore, I think you're doing Mann a disservice by not covering his involvement in those events. Mann has undergone a level of scrutiny that few scientists would ever endure. To date, he's come out of it pretty much squeaky. It's a major event in his life. It's got to be covered. ] (]) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

:: I still disagree with you. Compared to the coverage of the MBH stuff NRC, Wegmann, this was comparatively trivial for Mann. Of course, as the most recent event it inevitably looks big, but as it receedes into the distance it will become ever more obviously a molehill (for Mann, certainly; probably for almost everyone else) ] (]) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::If you are correct it that assessment then that would be the time to condense the section ] (]) 08:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
::::It already is a molehill. Mann was on the periphery of the CRU controversy; as I pointed out earlier, the most controversial e-mails were sent ''to'' him, not ''by'' him, or otherwise discussed his work. Since he was exonerated subsequently, this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along." -- ] (]) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::OK, before I reply I'll put my ignorance on display for all to see. What's NRC? ] (]) 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Since you make yourself vulnerable I *will* snark at you: it is revealing that you know what Wegman is but don't know about NRC, which was the real report: see ] ] (]) 08:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe I knew about neither (maybe, for example, neither redirects). Maybe I figured asking about one would tell me what the other is :) Reading now, will reply soon. ] (]) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Maybe, but you didn't ask about Wegmann (not sure how many N's BTW). And indeed you are correct: one will tell you about the other ] (]) 09:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

== Investigation into Mann by VA Attorney General ==

I just added a line indicating the new investigation by the VA Attorney General, looking into Mann's work while at UVA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30755623/Untitled We can add additional sources, as needed. ] (]) 06:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
:I've removed it for now. A primary document with unknown provenance is an insufficient source for a ]. --] (]) 06:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
::], and note that not only is ], but due ] needs to be given to the context and significance to Mann, if any. Va politician launches expensive fishing expedition for documents at the expense of a university where Mann used to work, damaging to Va but doubtful if it has any standing as far as Mann is concerned. Quote of the day, "Even Fred Singer now admits they are still looking for the smoking gun. What is it with Republicans and elusive weapons?" . . ], ] 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

:: State of Virginia to Investigate Global Warming Scientist Mann. . Even though this appears to be real, I think it would be wise to not report anything until the results are known. ] (]) 06:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
:::As with all things, we need a proper balance. I agree that the original news item sounds like, well ], and properly excluded. However, I'm not convinced that the suggested rule - no mention until the results are released - is a good rule. Ideally, we need to distinguish between RS coverage which is coverage of a news event, and coverage which establishes notability of an event, but I'm not sure how best to do that. I'm in support of waiting and monitoring to see where this goes (hopefully nowhere), but I'm not yet acceding to the belief that there should be no mention prior to the release of results.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 14:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Probably inappropriate to about this, but it does seem laughably ridiculous and we'll have to see how the dust settles. Agree with Sphilbrick, we need to see if it gets any traction but don't have to await the iinal results. Interesting to note , but of course as a blog it's an unsuitable source. . . ], ] 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Better to wait till it`s over. I suspect this is a political move to gain some media coverage by the AG rather than an actual investigation ] (]) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::: That's a very real possibility, in which case we should avoid becoming an enabler.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
: seems like a well sourced addition to the page, but I'm curious as to what extent we wish or expect to be a source for news about the ongoing suit. I mean, this is a page about a person, not about fall out from ]. I'm not sure I object to the article the way it is, but I fear that if this suit is dragged out, Dr. Mann's article could turn into a play-by-play about these sorts of things. Thought? ] (]) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:: I agree. I think we should confine ourselves to summarising it; following the story is more suited to Wikinews. I've had a go at rewriting this section to confine it to the three key facts - the CID being filed, a summary of reaction to it, and the university filing suit to overturn it. The result of the suit will be a fourth key fact when it's been announced. -- ] (]) 08:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::: I agree with ChrisO and JHeiv - this should not become a blow-by-blow update. Frankly, I think the counter-suit, which is really just a procedural motion, is more detail than necessary at this time. Unless it turns onto something major, which is unlikely, I see the three key items as filing, reaction, and results, recognizing that the first iteration of reaction will simply be reaction to the filing, and ultimately it will be reaction to the filing and the results.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: I think we have to mention the UVA action (not strictly a counter-suit, btw, since Cuccinelli's CID was an administrative action rather than a lawsuit) since we otherwise have nothing on the university's position. But otherwise I agree with your characterisation of the key items as filing, reaction and results. -- ] (]) 14:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::It's misleading just to mention the 1st amendment defense, as the UVa has given reasons why Cuccinelli does not have the authority to demand the documents, so have briefly noted that. He's apparently going beyond his powers under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, we don't seem to have an article on that. . . ], ] 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::He may or may not be. I'm not an attorney, but I assume that reasonable attorneys even disagree on this. I think proposing that people '''''may''''' have gone outside their powers, regardless of whether they're properly sourced, comes close enough to BLP to be avoided except in rare circumstances. I mean, Cuccinelli filed suit, and UVA has responded. Until we get a final result, my opinion is that the article should be left at that. No opining on legal tactics or discussing related case law. Just my $0.02. ] (]) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::A less cynical outsider might think that when an Attorney General issues demands these would be made competently with the full authority of the law. UVa dispute that, and we should not leave the misleading impression that the Attorney General's authority to make these specific demands is uncontested. . . ], ] 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::That's a fair point, though I think we should avoid going into too much detail. I think your wording has it about right. Good job. -- ] (]) 21:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: Not sure if it was the way it is now before I last commented, but after reading it, I agree that the wording as it is is very good. Sorry for any confusion. ] (]) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

==See also to HS book ==

Links to stuff like THSI should go into SHC, if anywhere ] (]) 19:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:WMC reverted a See also to ]. Since a main topic of the book is Prof. Mann's work, I believe you are overreacting. If you like, we can go to RfC. --] (]) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:: The book is about Mann, so should link to him. Mann isn't about the book, so shouldn't link back ] (]) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Huh? ]: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Misplaced Pages articles. How can you say that this is not a "related article"? ] (]) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


== Excessive external links ==
:::: Or, a more extensive quote ''A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). '''However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all.''' '' My bold. Many articles are "related" to Mann, but aren't linked. The hint is, would a hypothetical "perfect" article about Mann include a discussion of this book? I doubt it. If you think it would, your remedy is probably to attempt to write a NPOV section which mentions this book. I think you would find that very hard ] (]) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::It is of course a related article and as such should be in the see also, i`ll put it back in later ] (]) 11:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::It's related only to the extent that it promotes fringe allegations about Mann. As such, putting it in see also is just a way of including a non-notable attack on him. So, don't put it back in without consensus. . . ], ] 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Mann is notable outside of academic circles for one reason only, the hockey stick and the controversy around it. The book is neither an attack nor does it promote fringe views, it is a recounting of the controversy, even ] say`s that it is ] (]) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: HSI says nothing about Curry's opinions. If they are indeed notable, I suggest you add them over there. But not here ] (]) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I am not adding JC`s opinions here i was using her words as an example as to weather the book is an attack fringy piece or not, it is not. The HSI should also be linked to from here obviously as both articles are related, please give valid reason for it not to be ] (]) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
*I must say, it's entertaining to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !Cabal to avoid besmirching the lily -white image of St Michael here at Misplaced Pages.... ]. Bah. ] (]) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::I must say, it's extraordinary to see to see the convoluted "reasoning" from the !skeptikCabal attemting to link to a smear campaign. If it's not shown by a reliable third party source as significant enough to feature in the article, it's certainly not appropriate to sneak it in as a "see also". . . ], ] 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::How peculiar, tell me why does the ] not feature in this article? I am certain it has been covered in hundreds of third party sources by now. The book has been covered in third party sources also, again please give a valid reason for ] article to not be in the see also section here ] (]) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Mark, have you tried reading the article? As for your second point, what sources show significance of the book for Mann? Your argument looks like classic ]. . . ], ] 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Already pointed out above, Mann is famous for one reason only, the controversy around the hocky stick. No syn here at all, just plain common sense. Still waiting for a valid reason within policy why this article should not be linked via the see also to the HSI ] (]) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


I've removed the following links as contra ], ], ] I leave them here for ''possible'' future article development, not excessive indiscriminate promotion. ] (]) 04:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
*Our article on ] lists favorable reviews from:
**], ]
**]
**], ]
**], ]


*
Additionally, ] has commented favorably on the book, noting that "The well argued allegations in this book, which are serious, should be refuted by the mainstream climate community involved in this research and the IPCC if they are in fact incorrect. And if they are correct, there are serious problems with climate research and with the IPCC," and "the fact that NO ONE from the mainstream climate community is commenting on this (other than a few people over at Klimazweibel) is telling, in my opinion; much of what Montford has written will not be easily refuted."
*{{cite journal |author=Appell D. |title=Behind the Hockey Stick |journal=] |date=March 2005 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0305-34 |volume=292 |issue=3 |pages=34–41 |pmid=15859211 |bibcode=2005SciAm.292c..34A }}
*{{cite news |title=Climate legacy of 'hockey stick' |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm |work=BBC News |date=August 16, 2004 }}
*{{Cite journal |title=Interview |date=February 24, 2005 |journal=] |publisher=BBC |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/rams/environment_20050224.ram |format=] }}
*{{Cite journal |author=Mann M.E. |title=Testimony before Committee on Environment and Public Works |date=July 29, 2003 |publisher=] |url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/epw072903.ram |format=RealAudio |id=f:92381.wais |quote= }}
*'']'', April 18, 2005, - interview
*{{Cite journal |first1=Janet |last1=Pelley |first2=Barbara |last2=Booth |first3=Paul D. |last3=Thacker |first4=Kellyn S. |last4=Betts |department=Environmental News |title=How a global-warming skeptic became famous |journal=] |volume=39 |issue=21 |pages=436A–7A |date=August 31, 2005 |doi=10.1021/es053378b |pmid=16294841 |bibcode=2005EnST...39..432P |doi-access=free }}
*
* ] meeting on ]
*{{cite web | last=Featherly | first=Kevin |title=Q&A: In 'The Madhouse Effect,' climate scientist uses satire to convey 'difficult truths' | website=Midwest Energy News | date=July 7, 2016 | url=http://midwestenergynews.com/2016/07/07/qa-in-the-madhouse-effect-climate-scientist-uses-satire-to-convey-difficult-truths/ | access-date=September 1, 2016}}


== Restore 3 awards in the Infobox ==
I await with interest presentation of RS's calling the book a "smear campaign," "fringe allegations about Mann," and/or an "attack book." --] (]) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


On 31 December 2022, Edwardx deleted 8 of 11 Awards from the Infobox, deprecating them as "few of the many awards are really notable".
: I thought you were British. You know who Ridley and Booker are, don't you? And El Rego? Come on - El Rego may be reliable for tech, but for climate science? You're defeating yourself here. GG I had to look up: ''Republican Party activist, and co-founder of the Discovery Institute.'' Who speaks in favour of this book rather condemns it (other than Curry, but she is no talisman, and has made a number of gross errors recently: she though the Wegman inquiry was done at the behest of NRC, for example). And why did you see-also HSC? It is in the lede already ] (]) 21:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose to restore 3, for a total of 6, adding back 3 awards whose recipients are quite distinguished:


1) The 2019 ], a $200,000 prize which as Misplaced Pages page says, is "regarded as the "Nobel for environment".
::The point really isn't another editor's opinion of the reviewers. The point is that ], ], and ] are all respected publications, and ] is a repected commentator. These aren't "fringe" publications, and their reviews are respectful and positive. Do the editors opposing a reference to this book have any ] for their opposition? ] (]) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I attended this awards ceremnony.
::: Do those publications mention the book in articles about Mann, or mention Mann in articles about the book, or neither? ] (]) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


2) The ] 2018 .
::::All of the articles I listed mention Prof. Mann by name, in the context of his Hockey Stick work:
AAAS has 120,000 members, spread around the world, and as Misplaced Pages says "the world's largest general scientific society." It publishes the journal ], which as Misplaced Pages says, is "one of the world's top academic journals." I'm an AAAS member and have attended several of the big yearly meetings.
::*Gilder: mentions Mann by name twice (review)
::*Ridley, Prospect: mentions Mann by name 4x (review)
::*Orlowski, Register: mentions Mann by name multiple times (interview of Montford re book)
::*Booker, Telegraph: mentions Mann by name 3x in HS context (2 columns on IPCC problems). ] (]) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


3) The ](AGU) 2018
:::: I think you misread my question. These all appear to be articles about a book mentioning a person - making it obvious that the person needs to be mentioned in the article about the book. How many articles about the person mention the book - IE, how notable is the book to the person, not how notable is the person to the book? ] (]) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
AGU is the .
I'm a member of AGU, have attended half a dozen of the big Fall meetings, including one of the awards ceremonies. This award only started in 2011, as AGU finally realized that communication about climate change to the public was very important.


All these awards are notable, especially because it is relatively rare to get awards for BOTH contributions to science (the 3 now in Infobox plus 1) AND for communications to public, 2) and 3) here.
: I see you're not keen to discuss your "lily -white image of St Michael" or allegations of "Cabal". You want to be careful with Cabal accusations: that way lies: well, you know. You really ought to consider refactoring that comment ] (]) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Edwardx's deletion erased the communications awards. ] (]) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
:Agree, and thanks for resolving this. . . ], ] 08:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


== Hockey stick graph ==
::WMC: please look again, that's the !Cabal = "Not Cabal". ] (]) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


{{re|William M. Connolley}} In your revert of my recent edit, you said that {{tq|there's no point in having "a modern version of"; the original would make sense}}. I think we should have some image. We can't have the original from 1999, for copyright reasons, and ] uses an updated version from 2013, which is outdated by now. I see no reason to prefer that one over a version that's less than half as old, considering it has essentially been superseded by new research. The 2020 chart is the latest version of the hockey stick graph we can get. Your input on this would be welcome. ] (]) 09:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:: ''And why did you see-also HSC?'' - just read your edit comment. You didn't take MN on trust, did you? ] (]) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:::And your reason within policy for removing the HSI from the see also? ] (]) 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


: Because this is the page about Mann; not about the most recent version of the temperature reconstruction ] (]) 13:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Note that mention in our article of "a long-running controversy" (with a pipelined link) doesn't remove the need (in my opinion) to call out the article in question as a "See also": ]. This is simply making the article more transparent, and helping the general reader find related articles. ] (]) 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
::{{re|William M. Connolley}} That section of the article is (at least partially) about the chart. Would you agree that having an image of the 2013 version is okay, since we are currently using it to illustrate the main article about Mann's chart? ] (]) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: MN has been spamming the same stuff to ], ] ] (]) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:Redact your PA now please ] (]) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC) ::: Meh. I don't really care that much. But the closer to the original, or Mann's own work, the better ] (]) 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|William M. Connolley}} Okay. For now, I've added the image that's used in ], which is probably the closest to Mann's original chart we can get. ] (]) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Request For Comment == == Lawsuit update ==


This is from one of the involved parties, so I don't think it can be cited in the article. But it is an indicator that we should expect reliable sources to cover it pretty soon, so I think this link is relevant as a reason to be on the lookout for future sources:
{{rfctag|media|bio|sci}}
There is an ongoing dispute as the whether ] a book about the work of ] should be included in the See Also section of this article. I think it is time for outside opinions on the matter so that it might be resolved. ] (]) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/pay-up-mr-mann/
Neutralized version:
There is an ongoing dispute as the whether ], a book about the work of ], ] and ], should be included in the See Also section of this article. Previous discussion started 3 days ago at ]. Outside opinions are requested so that it might be resolved. ] (]) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


] (]) 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''reject''' In the context of this biography, the book simply isn't notable. It ''might'' be notable on the ] article though (in a public perception part) to which this links - but note that the comment by Judith Curry so flung around, states something that is overlooked, but rather important: The book has been widely (to the extent of completely) ignored by the scientific community. This is a biography of a scientist, and the hockey-stick controversy is a scientific one. ] here, and (unfortunately) i suspect promoted here as ]. --] (]) 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''reject''' – Without commenting on the irony in KDP’s appeal to keep no biographical information out of biographies and his unwillingness to do so in articles related to AGW skeptics, the material belongs in the hockey stick article, not here. ] (]) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:47, 13 January 2025

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconEnvironment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClimate change High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide
WikiProject iconUniversity of Pennsylvania Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVirginia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

Other archives
PSU Investigation
UEA Controversy

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Excessive external links

I've removed the following links as contra WP:EL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY I leave them here for possible future article development, not excessive indiscriminate promotion. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Restore 3 awards in the Infobox

On 31 December 2022, Edwardx deleted 8 of 11 Awards from the Infobox, deprecating them as "few of the many awards are really notable". I propose to restore 3, for a total of 6, adding back 3 awards whose recipients are quite distinguished:

1) The 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, a $200,000 prize which as Misplaced Pages page says, is "regarded as the "Nobel for environment". I attended this awards ceremnony.

2) The American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) 2018 Public Engagement with Science Award, list of recipients. AAAS has 120,000 members, spread around the world, and as Misplaced Pages says "the world's largest general scientific society." It publishes the journal Science, which as Misplaced Pages says, is "one of the world's top academic journals." I'm an AAAS member and have attended several of the big yearly meetings.

3) The American Geophysical Union(AGU) 2018 Climate Communications Prize, list of recipients AGU is the leading geosciences society. I'm a member of AGU, have attended half a dozen of the big Fall meetings, including one of the awards ceremonies. This award only started in 2011, as AGU finally realized that communication about climate change to the public was very important.

All these awards are notable, especially because it is relatively rare to get awards for BOTH contributions to science (the 3 now in Infobox plus 1) AND for communications to public, 2) and 3) here. Edwardx's deletion erased the communications awards. JohnMashey (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for resolving this. . . dave souza, talk 08:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hockey stick graph

@William M. Connolley: In your revert of my recent edit, you said that there's no point in having "a modern version of"; the original would make sense. I think we should have some image. We can't have the original from 1999, for copyright reasons, and Hockey stick graph uses an updated version from 2013, which is outdated by now. I see no reason to prefer that one over a version that's less than half as old, considering it has essentially been superseded by new research. The 2020 chart is the latest version of the hockey stick graph we can get. Your input on this would be welcome. Renerpho (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because this is the page about Mann; not about the most recent version of the temperature reconstruction William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley: That section of the article is (at least partially) about the chart. Would you agree that having an image of the 2013 version is okay, since we are currently using it to illustrate the main article about Mann's chart? Renerpho (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Meh. I don't really care that much. But the closer to the original, or Mann's own work, the better William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@William M. Connolley: Okay. For now, I've added the image that's used in Hockey stick graph (global temperature), which is probably the closest to Mann's original chart we can get. Renerpho (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Lawsuit update

This is from one of the involved parties, so I don't think it can be cited in the article. But it is an indicator that we should expect reliable sources to cover it pretty soon, so I think this link is relevant as a reason to be on the lookout for future sources:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/pay-up-mr-mann/

A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: