| Revision as of 23:54, 2 December 2011 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Climategate 2.0 emails: hat this original research← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:55, 2 December 2011 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 editsm →Climategate 2.0 emails: add some descriptionNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| == Climategate 2.0 emails == | == Climategate 2.0 emails == | ||
| {{hat|One editors personal ]}} | {{hat|One editors personal ] (based in non-] and selective quoting)}} | ||
| 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: | 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: | ||
Revision as of 23:55, 2 December 2011
 | This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hockey stick controversy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Environment: Climate change NA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives | ||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
statistics
why is statistical methods dangerous in the hands of an in experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.223.130 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your statement appears to have nothing to do with improving the article, and hence does not comply with talk page guidelines. On which basis this offtopic discussion should be deleted. . dave souza, talk 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.208.57.34.8 (talk) 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. . dave souza, talk 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.' --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 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. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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.
As Stephan say, the newspaper is Canadian, as are McIntyre and McKitrick who haven't been shy about influencing U.S. policy.
Fred Pearce 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."
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:
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." The Bush administration had already decided to disregard the Kyoto Protocol which was to come into effect later that month, and this enabled them to say that the protocol was discredited.
Hope that meets your concern, if you think the phrasing can be improved please suggest changes which still summarise the source. . dave souza, talk 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. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Avoiding politically loaded terminology would be mantaining NPOV right? Hah, learning the language already :P --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 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. . . dave souza, talk 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.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 16:33, 1 December 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.
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. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 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 divergence problem, 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. . dave souza, talk 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. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Climategate 2.0 emails
| One editors personal WP:OR (based in non-WP:RS and selective quoting) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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:
"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? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:54, 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.JohnMashey (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Mann:
Context: this is a discussion of Fig.1 of the EOS rebuttal of Soon et al. 2003. Mann is arguing to include CYA language for the Briffa curve, which was snipped of the later, divergent tree-ring temp-recon results -- see Soon et al. on the divergence problem. Hmm. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
|