Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cali11298 (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 4 April 2015 (→NPOV problem in second sentence.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Environment: Climate change C‑class Low‑importance

This 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

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

Text and/or other creative content from Climate Research (journal) was copied or moved into Soon and Baliunas controversy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Rejection by four reviewers

"The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it." -- sourced or not, this is flatly false. None of the reviewers recommended rejection, all made suggestions for improvement (which suggestions were incorporated by S&B in the final version). -- Craig Goodrich 216.10.193.23 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source needed. The existing claim is reliably sourced and I see no reliable source for you claim. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is directly contradicted by the second round of leaked emails, in De Freitas own correspondence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.120.71 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@ 203.59.120.71, you don't cite a source for your assertions but I can guess where you got it. A reliable source would be needed, and there appear to be problems with your argument. Gavin Schmidt as an expert on the topic area replies to 483: That's not an ideal source, but it raises issues which your non-source fails to address. . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stephan has it rght, a reliable secondary source is needed if we show anything contradicting the reliably sourced statement by Pearce, and the leaked email is a primary source. As shown above, it appears to be out of context and superseded by later discussions. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. That's certainly not De Freitas's position, and he should have his say, for fairness & NPOV. We don't leave up inaccurate statements by usually RS's if there's good reason to doubt an assertion. Pearce might have gotten this one wrong -- or, more likely, presented only one side of the story. Which is a recurring theme around here....

Best to have Freitas from a 2ry RS, of course. And we know he's paying attn, so may not be long. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, for negative and inflammatory BLP information, when a primary source disagrees with an obviously biased secondary source, that is enough to remove the negative information. In this case, I believe that it is ok to leave the negative information as long as both points of view are provided. That way the reader will at least know that there is a disagreement. The current wording is an obvious BLP problem. Q Science (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When a reliable secondary source makes a statement, and unpublished speculation based on a primary source attempts to contradict that statement, the statement stays. We don't include "points of view" which only appear in blog speculation or in original research by WP editors. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From Climategate 1, via the EPA Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment et al, there is an email from Otto Kinne, the publisher of Climate Research

Dear colleagues, In my e-mail to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask C R editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.

I am not sure how a source can be more reliable than the epa. In addition, there are no sources claiming that the quoted email is fake, including the person it appears to be from (Otto Kinne) and the people who appear to have received it. Q Science (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have your agreement that the EPA is a reliable source, but don't see how you think this is their view. The email in question was quoted by Peabody Energy as described on p. 49: "Peabody Energy then quotes a statement from the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, which attempts to defend de Freitas’ decision to publish the Soon and Baliunas paper", from E-mail file 1057941657.txt, (July 11, 2003) which also includes scientists' discussion of Kinne's email. The EPA analysis p. 51 notes "However, Climate Research publisher Otto Kinne later admitted in a statement published in the journal that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published, expressed regret that the journal had lost three editors due to the controversy, and promised to strengthen the journals’ peer review policies (Kinne, 2003)." That later statement by Kinne is dated August 5, so the sequence described above is well supported. . dave souza, talk 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was their view, just that it is a reliable source. I think that all of what you said should be included and that the current text (as recently restored by Stephan Schulz) is a BLP violation. BTW, simply saying that the paper is flawed does not mean that the reviewers pointed out the problem. If the flaws were pointed out after publication (as other emails indicate), I don't see a problem, that is how the process works. Q Science (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The current position of this bit is out of sequence, the article as a whole is a bit of a guddle. Don't think it's a BLP vio, but it's out of context. Will try to sort it out in the near future, when time permits. . dave souza, talk 09:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the source instead of blindly undoing, you would see that Clare Goodess was on the editorial board of Climate Research at the time of the controversy and resigned over it. She affirms, 7 years before Pearce's article, that there were four reviewers "none of whom recommended rejection." This was the original language and citation of this article until 10 Sept 2010 when some IP user (not unlike myself) changed it to "all" and inserted the Pearce citation. Reaffirming Goodess' comments is this article in The Chronicles of Higher Education which states, "Four of the scientists reviewed the paper. After the authors had dealt with the reviewers' comments, Mr. de Freitas accepted it for publication." "Comments" are not recommendations for "rejection." Again, this is 7 years prior to the Pearce article at the actual time of the controversy. Are we to believe that Pearce, 7 years later, has access to some secret knowledge for which he provides no source? Both the Goodess and Chronicles sources have held up elsewhere on Wiki for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.22.219 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your sources contradicts Pearce. Monastersky only talks about comments. I don't know how many papers you review, or how, but I give comments wether I suggestion acceptance or rejection for a paper. And, from reviews of my own papers and the different PCs I've been in or organized, this seems to be the norm, not the exception. Goodess, on the other hand, writes, that the paper had "apparently gone to four reviewers..." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest looking at "Pals" PDF attached here. I make no claim that it is RS itself, but it certainly cites RS sources that may be useful here. Arguing endlessly about the 4 reviews may not be productive. de Freitas edited 14 papers by "pals" and 13 by others. "Pals" papers averaged 194 days from Receive to Accept, non-pal papers averaged 261. Soon&Baliunas got through in 140. Recall that de Freitas' earlier paper had been reviewed by Soon and Boehmer-Christiansen. If de Freitas wanted positive reviews for S&B, might he have figured out how to get them?JohnMashey (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

John: I think you just rediscovered human nature!

Regardless, thanks for this contribution, and all the others. Even if I seldom agree with them, you always "stay cool" and on-message. Best for hols, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• We know no reviewers rejected this paper, so I have removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tagged as inaccurate until such a time as this is removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? As discussed above, the sources being discussed don't contradict Pearce's assessment in his book that the board subsequently realised that reviewers had recommended rejection. When three resigned, Kinne admitted that the paper was flawed and should not have been published without revision. I've clarified that point in the article, more adjustments can be made. Please provide proposals on this talk page with appropriate citations if you want to differ from Pearce's published assessment: note that he clearly read the email from Kinne that the fuss seems to be about. . dave souza, talk 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the e-mails, none of the reviewers recommended rejection, you are adding information you know to be false. Tagged again as not factual. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"The emails" is not a useful reference. Which emails? I don't think the traffic between the reviewers and de Freitas is public, nor even the names of the reviewers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pearce was wrong. You are also using one persons opinion as a statement of fact, what makes you think this is reasonable? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines, you're using the blog Watts Up With That? to argue that a reputable journalist's published work is wrong: please take more care, WP:BLOGS are largely not acceptable as sources, as was specifically pointed out in the WP:ARBCC sanctions which apply to this article and topic area. What makes me think the point reasonable is that Pearce's book is a reliable source (note that I'm citing the book, not the online article which gives less detail). Even if we accept that the email republished on Watt's blog is shown correctly, note the date: 3 July 2003. Pearce mentions this email in his book, and then states that, , "Kinne himself backtracked a few weeks later, admitting that publication had been an error and promising to strengthen the peer review process." Kinne's retraction was prepublished on August 5. So, Pearce's argument is reasonable, he was a journalist reporting on the topic at the time and had communications with those involved. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but we need a much better source than a questionable blog to determine the facts. . dave souza, talk 12:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am using an E-Mail from De Freities to prove a point, there is a difference. ?If you prefer to add information to in an article which you know to be false to support your religion more power to you, however I will not have lies presented as fact. 22:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're using a primary source to present your own WP:OR which will not be accepted on Misplaced Pages. As far as I'm concerned the information is both true and well supported by a reliable source, but I'm open to examining alternative secondary sources. If you're accusing Pearce of telling lies that violates WP:BLP, if you're accusing me and commenting on my religion then that violates WP:NPA. You've already been reminded that this page is subject to Arbcom sanctions, please desist from such attacks, behave more carefully, and present proper secondary sources instead of asserting that your odd interpretation of primary sources is correct without further reliable evidence. Please be more collegiate. . dave souza, talk 23:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pearce seems to be the primary source for all accounts that says four reviewers rejected the paper (as far as my research can tell). We have Kinne's statment and de Freitas's as well contesting but I think Goodess' statement is the best since she has no reason for covering for both of them. Dave and I have edited the article to note an account by one of the editor's after the resignations. I am waiting to hear back from Pearce via e-mail, especially because I am interested in his evidence for 1) that a pre-print from Mann started the resignation scandal and 2) the editors found that the four reviewers had rejected S&B. The editor's account I linked does not mention any of these points in her overview. Thanks for the compromise Dave, I think it is an acceptable solution until we hear from Pearce (who said he will e-mail after the conference in Durbin), other mentions of this on other pages can be edited then once we solve the matter here. I have a copy of Climate Files if anyone needs information on its references and what it says, though I need to be careful not to break any wikipedia rules on breaking copyright! --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's good news, and these are good questions. I've commented on the sequence below at #Alternative versions on reviewer comments. `Hope to make improvements to the section shortly, using the sources we've got. It's ok as fair use to quote reasonably short relevant info from books on talk pages making it clear that it's a quotation, in articles we should either use quotation marks (or formatting in boxes) or, preferably, summarise what the book says using our own words. . dave souza, talk 20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Pearce asserts

I corrected this to: "Pearce asserts that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it". There appears to be no other evidence for this. The link to Pearce does not work.DLH (talk)

Pearce published his account in this article and this later article, and subsequently in his book as shown in the harvnb reference before the deletion of properly sourced material discussed below. . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pearce has admitted his error. I deleted the claim and rebuttal.

my statement that four reviewers recommended rejection of the original paper is almost certainly wrong. I have searched my files for any statement from any of the parties making that claim, and can find none. (The reviewers asked for revisions, but that would be normal.)... I cannot be sure, but it is certainly possible that I simply misread Clare Goodess's November 2003 statement that the paper had "gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection

Jsolinsky (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Where has Pearce published this withdrawal of a statement he's made in three sources? . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He sent out an email to Montford et al today: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/10/james-padgett-on-wikipedia-and-soon.html Jsolinsky (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not his own blog, and as such is inadmissible. Do please ask him to publish it in a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag

User 'Darkness Shines' added the 'disputed' tag, so that now this page prominently displays the text "factual accuracy is disputed". Can somebody explain for which part of the text the factual accuracy is still disputed ? Are we waiting for a response from Pierce on the reviewers issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2meters (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has not responded to discussion which covered the points raised, so I've removed this stale tag. . dave souza, talk 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

None of the reviewers recommended rejection, this was pointed out before yet the article still says all four recommended rejection. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And your source for this claim? --SMS 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Already given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And already pointed out above that this primary source predates its author's climbdown and admission that the review process failed. Secondary sources reject your tendentious WP:REHASH of this claim, please supply a proper source or accept that the article is properly sourced and accurate. . dave souza, talk 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can we come to a consensus on this "factual accuracy is disputed" 'tag' issue ? For starters, do we agree that the "factual accuracy" here is only "disputed" for the sentence ...partly because they found out that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it, ? If so, then can we at least agree that the tag does not belong at the top of the page ? And if not, which other facts are in dispute ?2meters (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

There was no response to my call to discuss the appropriateness of a paper-wide blanket 'disputed' tag, and my call to achieve consensus. So I took the liberty to remove the tag and insert text and the Goodess reference as disputing Pearce, regarding the "reviewers" and if they recommended rejection or not. This is a compromise solution, since two sources (Pearce and Goodess) are contradicting each other. If anyone finds von Storch' editorial (the one that was refused to be published) then let us know if it tells anything about the reviewers. Otherwise, it seems that we need to live with two sources, neither one can be discarded, but that are contradictory at this point.2meters (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, have added a heading as this is getting more constructive. In principle I was thinking of something on those lines, but Goodess was writing in 2003 under constraints of peer review being confidential, it was much later that Pearce came up with his assessment of the topic. We know what's in the email from Kinne courtesy of the EPA's consideration of claims by Peabody Energy, we can show that and show what Goodess said later that year, then note Pearce's view.
I've undone your edit back to your edit of 09:02, 22 December 2011, as the NOAA funding didn't relate to the Climate Research paper as you seemed to think. It is actually listed as a funder in addition to the other three in the E&E paper, which is why Soon was questioned about it in the Senate hearing. So that's two sources in addition to Goodess, and I think it's worth mentioning to be explicit about the detail. I'm open to suggestions for modifying the coverage. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If it helps the dispute, Pearce now acknowledges that he used Clare Goodess as his primary source, that his comment "ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper" is almost certainly false, and that he misread Goodess' statement "The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection." Will Souza continue to defend the inarguably libelous statement against a living person or persons using the "reliable resources" credo, when even his primary source has now disavowed that text? Time will tell. Clt510 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Where has Pearce published this withdrawal of a statement he's made in three sources? . . dave souza, talk 16:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He sent out an email to Montford et al today: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/10/james-padgett-on-wikipedia-and-soon.html Jsolinsky (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source for my statement:], which includes the quote from Fred Pearce directly. Note I am not arguing over the position of whether this is a "reliable source" or "notable source" that can be used on the front page of the Wiki article, as if that's how we decide over the veracity. First rule of journalism: Make sure you know what you are saying is true first, then make sure you have good sources to back it up. You don't publish statements you know (or common sense should tell you) are false using "well I have a reliable source for this false statement". That's a very low standard of ethical behavior from my perspective. That said, if you are made aware what you are claiming is both false and defamatory towards a living person (Chris de Freitas, in this case), you are engaged in libelous behavior. I'm sure there may be one or two Misplaced Pages rules that are being violated as well. Clt510 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The first requirement of Misplaced Pages is reliable sources, you're asking us to go along with a fringe blog. Do please ask Pearce to publish it in a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

What's your source for Bishop Hill being a "fringe blog" Dave? and why did you choose to use that term here, unless the intent was to derail conversation from the issue at hand? You'll notice I never made an argument to include Bishop Hill on the front page, merely noting that you now using a source 'in all likelihood" is wrong. Clt510 (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing that we use Bishop hill as a source for this article. The question is whether or not the Pearce sources are reliable on this point. Between the direct evidence that he is wrong, and his own personal admission that he is wrong, it is clear that the Pearce sources are NOT reliable on this point and should not be used. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To remind: this article falls under Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons. Is Dave is adhering to that standard by insisting on using a reference disavowed by its own author? He is surely experienced enough to understand the intent as well as word of that guidance. (Ironically, Dave's highly speculative theorizing aside, Pearce's three repetitions of the same statement is one source repeated three times, not three independent sources, and his "well sourced article" hinged on nothing more than Goodess's original statement. Real shocker, that...) Clt510 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To remind you, this article is under WP:ARBCC which particularly cautions against using blogs. We don't have any statement from Pearce, we have two unreliable blogs saying that he made a statement retracting his own work. . dave souza, talk 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP guidance also says the article "has to be right". I also disagree with you on Montford's blog is particularly "unreliable", though I don't suggest it be used in in the article section of this blog. To be blunt: there is no chance that your source is correct, and your speculation (all it was) on why it might be more authoritative is all wet: this source was nothing more than a secondary source relying on Goodess, which as primary source is now what you should be using in any case. Clt510 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave: "We don't have any statement from Pearce." We do have a direct quote purportedly to be from Pearce which does retract his work, and no logical argument presented for distrusting the veracity of the direct quote on Montford's blog (other than Dave's unsupported opinion that the blogs are "unreliable"). If Dave wants to accuse Montford of faking this quote, he should say so directly. And if he doesn't want to make such an accusation, he simply has no argument left, and he should accept that Pearce has a) withdrawn his statement, and b) Pearce used Goodess as his primary source (which Pearce then misread). Clt510 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Montford has shown himself to be unreliable, I have no view whether or not the purported email from Pearce is real, but we go by reliable sources. The Guardian online is good at correcting articles, no reason why Pearce shouldn't use that route or his own blog to issue a retraction. Note that if we're going by blog sources, email 1719 reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. As stated earlier this section is overdue for a rewrite and clarification. . dave souza, talk 19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Nobody is suggesting that we use Bishop Hill as a source on Misplaced Pages. We are using the statement by Pearce published on Bishop Hill to evaluate whether or not Pearce is a sufficiently reliable source to be used in a Misplaced Pages article about living people. The Pearce statement about S&B may be libelous. When dealing with potentially libelous material, we remove it from Misplaced Pages whenever there is a serious question as to the reliability of the source. We do this because the consequence of omitting questionable material are small, while the consequences of retaining actually libelous material are substantial. Pearce's statement to Montford is more than sufficient for us to remove the material. If Pearce subsequently claims that Montford is in error, we can add it back without any negative consequence. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, what is the point of continuing to retain Pearce other than to impugn de Freitas? Overall it's an inconsequential detail, other than what it says about him and his handling of the S&B paper (which itself is a side note to the main topic). Given that there is a real conflict over what is true here, and the what-would-be defamatory nature of the sentence were it false, the most parsimonious action would be to strike the entire sentence, and then add back the appropriate version after confirmation or denial of the veracity of Pearce. Regarding a reviewer denying that he gave a positive review--let him produce the review in that case! Given how controversial this became, it could be career ending to admit you gave a favorable review, and given a choice between a reviewers potentially self-serving denial and Goodess, I would use Goodess as a more neutral primary source in the resolution of this conflict. My bet is Dave's own POV will prevent him from ever admitting that the none of the reviews recommended rejection, even though that's strongly where the evidence now lies. Clt510 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave you have a natural gift for this sort of thing ;-) .... how about throwing us a bone and providing one url pointing to Montford's site where he's shown himself to be unreliable. Just Montford's site, not to somebody else's hit piece. Thx. Clt510 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to note that I'm not edit warring to keep Pearce's statement, Goodess is indeed a reliable published source. As for Montford; going from his book, when was the Medieval warm period? . . dave souza, talk 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Answering a question with a question isn't the same as giving a url. Montford's main topic was the hockey stick in his book and I have no idea what period he set as the MWP though I guess you disagree with him (anyway just forget about it & I apologize for derailing the topic). Main issue: Is it a consensus view that the sentence in question and associated source be temporarily stricken, and if so who does the edit? I'd rather somebody a bit more experienced that me do it, if we're in agreement on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clt510 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're a bit behind the times, like Watt's blog. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I am. Forgive me for having a day job. ;-) Clt510 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies on talk pages: WP:BLPTALK

"Montford has shown himself to be unreliable..." Dave, unless you have a BLP-grade cite for this, really best to avoid violating WP:BLP, even on talk pages. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog. The choice of Montford is ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book... Montford is, at best, a clown whose shtick stopped being funny 5 years ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That is really a wretched excuse of a review. And people complain about the tone of skeptics? Clt510 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Montford is, at best, a clown whose shtick stopped being funny 5 years ago." Stephan, this is an unacceptable slur and a clear WP:BLP violation. I strongly urge you to self-revert. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's my personal opinion, reliably sourced to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephan, you really should read -- and heed -- WP:BLPTALK. I've gotten criticized for this myself, so I'm not just trying to make trouble for you. Please desist your clear BLP violations -- this isn't the place for such material. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, and do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I make no comment about Montford's clownish qualities or otherwise, but note that my comment about his unreliability is based on the source given. . dave souza, talk 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, Dave -- you are seriously using an op-ed by Bob Ward, a public-relations man, to justify your comments on Montford's reliability? Good grief!

Interested readers may wish to read Montford's response to Ward's "hit piece" (per Montford). --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

...because the London School of Economics is such a low-quality liberal socialist propaganda organization? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Pete, that looks very much like a BLP vio against Bob Ward: please delete your nasty comment. And if you read above more carefully, you'll see that my source about Montford is Montford. . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You might be right -- Bob Ward does pull my chain, I'm afraid. Adjusted my cmts accordingly. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Following my request to them, Corrections and clarifications | From the Guardian | The Guardian. They've removed the sentence in dispute from the articles. . dave souza, talk 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Good to see the record corrected, thanks to your efforts! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent article revisions, continued BLP problems

The article has been much improved by recent revisions and rewrites. Thanks to all editors involved, in particular Dave Souza and Mmorabito67!

There's still room for further improvements. In particular, editors working on this should be aware that the CG2 (and CG1) emails appear to contradict this article's "statement of facts" on a number of points, and appear to show Prof. Mann organizing a substantial effort to discredit Soon & Baliunas. I've mentioned a number of these primary sources upthread -- and been roundly criticized for it. But there's a difference between using a PS as a cite, and using same to cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now. As I've pointed out, this seems to lead to WP:BLP violations against Soon & Baliunas. We won't be able to do a satisfactory rewrite until we get a good secondary RS analyzing the leaked emails -- Steve McIntyre has done some of this, but there is an influential group of CC editors who are adamantly opposed to accepting SMc's work as a RS. I haven't had the time or energy to fight this out at WP:RSN -- and in any case, by policy we are severely restricted in using blog-based material in BLP-related articles.

I'm very much concerned that Misplaced Pages is inadvertently contributing to damaging Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas's professional reputations, a WP:BLP violation of the most serious character. The Climategate 2.0 emails reveal  Removed actions by M. Mann and colleagues to discredit Soon, Baliunas, and Chris de Freitas, their editor -- see Climategate 2.0 emails above . --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be rather confused, Pete, the leaked emails are covered in a section that can indeed do with improvement but the issues are with the blog based interpretations of the emails being used to attempt to discredit Mann and colleagues. As you note these are BLP issues, and we need to use the best sources, not fringe sources like Steve McIntyre's blog. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave, I think the real issue is the Mann and colleagues appear to have discredited themselves in the leaked emails, which are rather strongly discordant with their public positions.

And please -- lay off with the canned Fringe responses, OK? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Pete, your thoughts and unpleasant innuendo lack any reliable source, please desist. If you're just whining with no reliable source, this should be hatted or archived as unrelated to article improvement. . dave souza, talk 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave, perhaps you might want to read Pat Michaels's  Removed his experiences with a Climate Research paper he published at about the same time as S&B. Even after applying the appropriate self-serve discount, it's disturbing reading. To me, anyway. See what you think, and try to keep an open mind, OK?

Yes, primary sources can be reliable, if not preferred, and are certainly appropriate for discussions like this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pat Michaels' BLOG Pete? You should know better. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you want to read into these emails, no, "Mann and colleagues" do not "appear to have discredited themselves". Rather, they do what all scientist do - debate published research, and, of course, if that research is bad, try to correct the scientific record. Moreover, no matter what you believe about Climategate, Mann, and the International Scientific Conspiracy To Make Us All Liberal Drones, the S&B paper was and is an embarrassment. The quality of the paper has nothing to do with the morals, eating habits, or hats of Mann. That you keep defending it does you no credit. Do you really think Hans von Storch would have made such a strong statement, in words and in action, if the paper had any merit? He is about as receptive to outside pressure as the base rock of the Matterhorn - i.e. "not very". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You should read  Removed to the emails -- which are easily available by Googling "Climategate email" + msg. number given there. They are directly about the  Removed Soon, Baliunas, de Freitas & Climate Research, and I hope you will agree  Removed well, your experiences have been much different than mine. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pete, you should know by now that BLP requires us to avoid original research and blog sources. Whatever you think, if you put your personal accusations about living people on a talk page you're contravening WP:ARBCC and so I strongly suggest that you should delete all your insinuations about Mann or any other scientist. . . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to the present article.  Removed. Many of Mann's coauthors and colleagues have done much better on this score. Its not appropriate to lump them all together. Each scientist should be judged by his or her own actions, and there is a broad spectrum over which those actions fall. In my personal opinion Stephan's comments about von Storch are exactly right. I have never personally examined the S&B work because von Storch's credibility in my eyes is persuasive. When climate scientists have failed to uphold scientific standards, von Storch has not hesitated to speak up (in both directions). Jsolinsky (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to Pete above, WP:BLP applies to talk pages and reliable sources are essential for any accusations against living people. This is a specific requirement of WP:ARBCC which applies to this article. If you have reliable sources about Mann which specifically refer to the topic of this article, present them on this talk page. If not, then delete your comments about Mann. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong in using the term "Climategate"? --mmorabito67 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Um --- very long story. *Very* contentious name. Got some people banned, ims. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In the opening post in this thread, Pete said "there's a difference between using a PS as a cite, and using same to cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now." Pete, to which specific secondary source(s) are you referring? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. The primary sources, of course, are the actual Climategate 1&2 emails, which are voluminous, but available in 2 or more searchable databases. I think everyone here agrees that these are genuine, but use of them at WP is contentious. See WP:Primary for policy. The better secondary sources are mostly Steve McIntyre's analyses, which, in my opinion, are generally done in more depth, with more intelligence and with a far greater understanding of the topic than almost any other of the sources deemed "Reliable Sources" here -- and are better (imo) than many of the professional, peer-reviewed studies that WP prefers. It's a real pity that McIntyre has been demonized, both by the activist scientists and by their sympathizers here. There have been attempts in the past to get some of McIntyre's work "certified" for wikipedia use , but I don't think any were successful for his Climate Audit work. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, your adulation for the mining company chairman of directors is noted, but his "expertise" is at best questionable. His blog is clearly not an acceptable source as anything other than a primary source for his views, if reliable third party sources show the significance of these views to the topic and how those holding majority expert views have recieved his pronouncements. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed BLP violations. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is not to understand, Pete? In your opening post you opined it is useful to look at primary sources that "cast reasonable doubt on a secondary source that we use now." If you can not articulate the exact secondary source you had in mind when you wrote that, then this thread starts to look like a backdoor way to talk about the emails themselves. So what 2nd source "that we use now", in your words, were your referring to? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- misread your original question, my bad. The specific 2ry source I had in mind was Fred Pearce's book and columns regarding the absurd business about de Freitas accepting S&B over 4 reviewers recommending rejection, which was in our article until recently. If you weren't here for that, some editors were very reluctant to abandon use of Pearce's original, even after Pearce himself had said this was a mistake! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your clarification was helpful since I am indeed new to the article and did not attempt to wade thru the debris of past battles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of blogs as supporting material for talk-page discussion

Dave Souza and other editors have objected (here and elsewhere) to the use -- or even mention -- of "blogs" such as Climate Audit on CC talk pages. I'll consolidate a reply here, and perhaps generalize a bit.

Re: use of climatologist Pat Michael's account that Dave objected to above. This is a directly-related discussion by an involved expert, as noted above, and should be useable at WP, though it's peripheral to this article and I'm not proposing to use it here. I mentioned it as another example of what Michaels believes was underhanded and unseemly maneuvering to discredit his paper, much as others believe may have happened to the S&B paper. Note that Michaels quotes and references a number of CG emails, which interested readers may readily read for themselves and draw there own conclusions. So the objection seems invalid to me.

Dave goes on to admonish me that "Pete, you should know by now that BLP requires us to avoid original research and blog sources.... (19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC) above). Dave, the reliable (but primary) sources you request are in the emails, as IB I've already pointed out. You made a previous complaint about this to one of the CC arbs, and I'd cross-ref it if I could find it.... Maybe you have it handy? Anyway, it was a "full and frank" discussion, as the politicians say. As before, in my view you are over-reacting. And again, I see, with your redactions above. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Pete, as you should know by now the talk page is for specific well sourced proposals for article improvement, not your attempts to spread blog based smears about scientists. Please comply strictly with WP:TALK and cease your WP:SOAPboxing. . dave souza, talk 20:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

other misc edits

Dave, thanks for adding the add'l material from Pat Michaels WSJ op-ed, and the EPA petitions. Not quite so one-sided now.

I put HS controversy back in See also. Definitely pertinent: the Mann et al EOS has (according to McI) YA sexed-up HS graph to "refute" S&B. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body – so have removed that link. You should of course know that McI's opinions on this are worthless. As it happens, I relocated the Michaels WSJ op-ed rather than adding it, . dave souza, talk 17:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV problem in second sentence.

The second sentence used to read "The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and misuse of data from previously published studies,". However, I have changed it to "The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and what they claimed was its misuse of data from previously published studies,". The latter is much more neutral than the former. Soon and Baliunas have stood by their paper, and it is only the OPINION of opposing scientists that they misused data – it shouldn't be the opinion of Misplaced Pages. That is why I changed it. If anyone doesn't agree with my change, please don't revert, try to reach a compromise or consensus first. Cali11298 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• C-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions