Revision as of 22:42, 2 December 2011 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Climategate 2.0 emails: WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXing.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:33, 31 May 2023 edit undoGraham87 (talk | contribs)Account creators, Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Importers, Rollbackers291,843 edits no longer being archived |
(615 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{old AfD multi |
|
{{sanctions|See ].}} |
|
|
|
|date1 = July 23, 2020 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Hockey stick controversy |
|
{{talk header|noarchives=yes}} |
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{Environment|class=C|importance=|climate change=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
{{High traffic|date=2 May 2010|url=http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/05/02/2027242/Virginia-AG-Probing-Michael-Mann-For-Fraud|site=Slashdot}} |
|
{{High traffic|date=2 May 2010|url=http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/05/02/2027242/Virginia-AG-Probing-Michael-Mann-For-Fraud|site=Slashdot}} |
|
{{Online source |
|
{{Online source |
Line 13: |
Line 12: |
|
| accessdate = 2011-09-07 |
|
| accessdate = 2011-09-07 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archives |auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |index=/Archive index}} |
|
{{archives |auto=long |search=yes |index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from=Hockey stick controversy|from_oldid=546655710|to=Hockey stick graph (global temperature)|date=25 March 2013|to_diff=546896349}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive %(counter)d |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== statistics == |
|
|
|
|
|
why is statistical methods dangerous in the hands of an in experience <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Your statement appears to have nothing to do with improving the article, and hence does not comply with ]. On which basis this offtopic discussion should be deleted. . ], ] 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The worry over "neutrality" and "sources" has made this article impossible to grasp by us, common users. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot make heads or tails of this obfuscated "scholarly" mumbo jumbo.] (]) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sorry to hear that, it's a fairly complex issue but essentially the graphs were produced and publicised, were much maligned by those opposed to action on climate change, and have been supported by subsequent research. Will try to bring it more up to date when time permits. . ], ] 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 == |
|
|
|
|
|
New user so by all means do not be shy nudging me if I am breaking protocol in some regards (I read the pages but it is a lot to take in at once). Focusing on one thing for now: |
|
|
|
|
|
''In an immediate public relations campaign, the Canadian National Post for 27 January carried a front page article alleging that "A pivotal global warming study central to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws", well timed to allow the Bush administration to say that the Kyoto Protocol was discredited.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
One article is not public relations campaign, and the insinuation here that a British newspaper was in collusion with the Bush administration to sabatage Kyoto is fanciful at best. I recommened removing this entirely unless the source listed has some very compelling evidence. Maybe noting the 2005 paper was cited by critics of Kyoto during the time frame though honestly it seems tangential, the way it is written reeks of unproven 'conspiracy.' --] (]) 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:The sentence is sourced to Pearce. I haven't read that book, so I cannot check what he writes. However, please note that the ''Canadian'' National Post is not a ''British'' newspaper in any current sense. --] (]) 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::@ Shadowy Sorcerer, hi! Firstly, you're doing great as far as "protocol" is concerned, it's good to discuss points like this, and entirely reasonable to question a source that's not readily available on the internet.<br>As Stephan say, the newspaper is Canadian, as are McIntyre and McKitrick who haven't been shy about influencing U.S. policy.<br>] writes "This time, McKitrick's friends stoked up the PR campaign in earnest. An essentially obscure paper in a second-ranked journal was splashed across the front page of Canada's ''National Post'' with a political spin: 'A pivotal global warming study pivotal to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws.' In news terms, the timing could not have been better. The protocol was due to come into effect later that month. And it allowed the Bush administration, which had reneged on the protocol after coming into office, to claim the deal had been discredited."<br>Pearce is a journalist rather than a historian, he's tended to give credence to McIntyre and is on friendly terms with those opposing mainstream views, but generally shows the mainstream position. So, fairly even handed but should be taken with care. The ''National Post'' was blatantly misrepresenting the significance of the MBH study, and was promoting political opposition to Kyoto at a time when the Bush administration wanted to reject it. The Protocol is mentioned two sections previously in #McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, but the point of the timing could do with clarification. Your point about it possibly suggesting that they were colluding to sabotage Kyoto indicates that the wording is unclear, so on reflection I've changed to:<br>''In an immediate ] campaign, the Canadian National Post for 27 January carried a front page article alleging that "A pivotal global warming study central to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws." The ] had already decided to disregard the ] which was to come into effect later that month, and this enabled them to say that the protocol was discredited.''<br>Hope that meets your concern, if you think the phrasing can be improved please suggest changes which still summarise the source. . ], ] 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Canadian not British, my bad for typing this up so late last night. And Dave, the changes are much appreciated, just cutting the Bush administration statement off from the public relations statement makes the progression of the politics a whole lot clearer and reads more objectively. But 'public relations campaign' still reads very oddly to me... I think your case for the distortion of McIntyre's paper is very strong give the political environment but I worry that it sounds unsubstantiated especially to those reading the article used to similar phrases used to dismiss certain viewpoints. If it is from Pearce perhaps quoting it to make it clear that it is it is his wording? Or even something saying, "With an eye to influencing upcoming political debate of the Kyoto protocols, the Canadian National Post..." I think that avoids politically loaded phrases and keeps the intent of the paragraph and Pearce's point intact. --] (]) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Avoiding politically loaded terminology would be mantaining NPOV right? Hah, learning the language already :P --] (]) 14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think Pearce's point, which is correct, is that this was the opening shot in a PR campaign rather than being about the science. Not very happy with the suggested wording, will see what others think. . . ], ] 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: His point is probably correct, but it is not neutral phrasing because we are talking about journalists. Whether or not it is true, the phrase 'engaged in a PR campaign' passes a judgment without the evidence, especially as it relates to journalistic objectivity. Its like using the phrase (okay bad example) such and such person is a racist, instead of saying what he said/did.--] (]) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hide the Decline == |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like considering this is a 'controversy' page that the lack of discussion of the Hide the decline issue and related data questions about the Hockey stick here is lacking. The phrase 'hide the decline' should probably be not be discussed in such terms itself however as it is deceptive on several levels... both in what skeptics think and what Mann actually did. The issue of the process of how he picked his data and excluded outliers is always a legitimate concern when analysing the merits of a scientific paper especially given the number crunching and modeling-heavy science Mann employs. There has also been considerable 'controversy' over how well his records were kept, and how open he has been with sharing his data with other scientists. This is not just a skeptic versus AGW issue either, it is my understanding that worries among the scientific community about openness and access to this kind of data (as well as to difuse this line of skeptical criticism of course) is one of the reasons for the rise of open and highly transparent temperature databases on the internet since when Mann formulated his graph, and even processed databases making their methods abundantly clear to avoid confusion. Though I will have to get a source for that to put it in the article obviously (believe the Scientific Assessment Panel made this point somewhere). |
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly the conclusion of such a section should be that 1) The majority of papers continue to uphold the hockey graphs conclusions vis-a-vis the trends of warming from around 1000-2000 BCE and 2) Mann was not found liable of engaging in any fraud, misuse of data, or violations scientific protocol. However, this has not precluded many scientists favourable to Mann's ideas suggesting a need for greater transparency in such research... and the impact skeptical criticism in this front has had on future research in the field, regardless of the merits. --] (]) 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:You seem to be a bit confused by that much misused phrase, it was written by Jones about Briffa's reconstruction which was incorrect after a the 1960s due to the well publicised ], and so Jones followed Briffa's instruction to stop the curve at 1960. In a a simplified figure for the cover of the short annual World Meteorological Organization report in 1999, Jones combined reconstructions with instrumental records in a way that Mann did not. |
|
|
:This had little or no impact at the time, which was before the famous IPCC "hockey stick" graph, but has been much publicised and misrepresented after the CRU email hack. We should probably have a short section about that, the sequence hasn't reached that date yet. |
|
|
:As for transparency, Mann always used publicly available data and was one of the first to publish his computer programs as well as publishing the method, which was all that was required. There have been more recent issues with CRU using data from Met offices that don't allow it to be republished, preferring researchers to ask for it from the Met office. That has now been overcome with data from all countries except Poland. Take it up with the Polish Met office. |
|
|
:By the way, I've already suggested that this should be a page about the graph, as the "controversy" is only a small part of the story. There was some resistance to renaming the article, may have another go at that. . ], ] 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If this were in fact a page just on the Hockey Stick I would probably agree with you since the focus should be on published science as a science page, but considering it is a controversy page, it seems odd not to include aspects of the controversy. A page on the controversy should cover the history and politics surrounding it without the same rigours as what is included in a science article, because no matter your stance on the issue, the hockey stick controversy has been a defining political and cultural battle, regardless of the science. I think a page like this does serve important purpose for people trying to access American political debates and the history of the debates, but obviously only if it is understood that the conditions for inclusion in this article are not the same. Though if there is wikipedia policy on this please inform me. |
|
|
I am actually quite aware of the science and am probably more in agreement with you than you realize... I only used the phrase 'hide the decline' because it is the best way to immediately inform editors of what I want to have a section on without any parsing. I am however skeptical of what you say about transparency and though it should probably be characterized more as an issue of communicating his methods such as combining instrumental methods with the pre 1980s proxy data with instrumental data, but I suggest we focus on whether there needs to be a section or not before we hammer out the science. --] (]) 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Climategate 2.0 emails == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'll start posting C2 emails relevant to the HS controversy -- recognizing of course that this is primary-source material, but we'll hope for secondary commentary later: |
|
|
|
|
|
*Email , ] to ], 6-5-2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
"A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation." |
|
|
The whole exchange is pretty interesting. Good MS thesis material for someone? -- ] (]) 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:] and ]. You should know better. --] (]) 08:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Kim: I'm attempting to improve the article here. Are you saying this isn't relevant material? And where is the soapbox? Thx, ] (]) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, it is not relevant material - since it is A) ] B) not ] and finally it is cherry picked. --] (]) 22:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sigh. Tree-rings in Boulder, CO have zero relevance to the use of tree-rings in paleo reconstructions. Reading Bradley's Paleoclimatology(1999), p.402 might help.] (]) 06:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Um. ] thought this relevant. Whose opinion shall we take? Cheers -- ] (]) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
*Email , M. Mann to Phil Jones, Fri, 20 Jun 2003: |
|
|
|
|
|
Mann: |
|
|
:Re, Malcolm co-authorship–big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can add his |
|
|
:name (i.e., just say it was ‘accidentally left off’), where it belongs alphabetically in the list. |
|
|
:I’ve talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one–but Malcolm has raised |
|
|
:the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be |
|
|
:vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on |
|
|
:recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99). |
|
|
:Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil. |
|
|
:So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit to AGU ASAP? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Restored edits to page and talk page== |
|
Context: this is a discussion of Fig.1 of the EOS rebuttal of ]. Mann is arguing to include CYA language for the Briffa curve, which was snipped of the later, divergent tree-ring temp-recon results -- see . Hmm. --] (]) 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I've restored the edits to this page and the talk page because many of the article edits are needed for attribution. Contrary to the opening argument in ], this was not a fork of the article about the graph but rather it was ]. I restored the talk page edits and archived the remaining discussion; the archives were never deleted. I came across this situation while checking the supplementary materials of . ''']'''] 09:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Pete, you're becoming increasingly tendentious and disruptive in trying to use blogs and primary sources taken out of context to promote the views you favour. Please desist. . ], ] 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Dave, please point out what is "tendentious and disruptive" about quoting emails from principals in the HS controversy. Yes, it's primary source material. So what? We use same with caution, and I carefully note above, we'll hope for secondary commentary later. This seems worth a few spare electrons.... Cheers, ] (]) 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I will repeat this again: Will you please cease and desist in using WP as your personal ]. You can come with this once there are ] that consider this relevant - instead of using this talk page to do ]. --] (]) 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
I've restored the edits to this page and the talk page because many of the article edits are needed for attribution. Contrary to the opening argument in this articles for deletion debate, this was not a fork of the article about the graph but rather it was the other way around. I restored the talk page edits and archived the remaining discussion; the archives were never deleted. I came across this situation while checking the supplementary materials of this fascinating paper. Graham87 09:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)