Talk:Steve McIntyre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Changes made 28-Mar-2006

I added a sentence about why SM started ClimateAudit, User:William M. Connolley edited my work and now I've edited his. Let me explain my last edit.

• In an article about a Canadian, we should probably use North American spelling ("paleo") instead of English ("palaeo"). (In Australia, we follow British spelling, but I'd never seen the word (prefix?) spelt that way before.) How small a nit is that to pick?
• I'd italicised the blog names in my first edit today; I've "de-italicised" them because they are links and should look like links.
• WMC must have not noticed that he deleted the link to RealClimate; I've made the other occurrence into a link.
• I felt we should say something about why SM would care about RealClimate, so I've said that it's "a blog run by Michael Mann and other scientists", seeing we've mentioned Prof Mann earlier.
• I've changed "McIntyre asserts in a blog comment" to "McIntyre has stated", which is shorter and (IMO) less hostile.

As always, edits and comments are welcome. —Chris Chittleborough 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 16th April 2006

Additional changes made to this article:

• The fact that Energy and Environment is "a forum where climate skeptics publish studies that cannot pass scientific peer-review" is clearly a viewpoint expressed by Environmental Science and Technology, not a fact, and should be expressed as such.
• The GRL article is far more noteworthy than the E&E article, and should be included, plus the fact it was nominated as a journal highlight deserves a mention.
• Not a change, but my opinion: McIntyre's papers are very technical in their nature, and the ES&T response is really more an opinion piece. It would be nice to represent the counter technical viewpoint in the main text, rather than the opinion piece. I haven't made a change in this respect because I'm not the best person to do it, I kind of feel it could be better though. Just a thought. S. 16 April 2006

Changes made 06-Jun-2006

Added two external links to realclimate.org criticism of McIntyre's 2003 & 2004 papers. C Wu

"Largely or wholely"

I don't think it's fair to say that the NAS and the House Committee "largely or wholely" supported M&M. I think it's fair to say that the NAS actually acknowledged some of M&M's technical criticisms, but concluded that the hockey stick graph was largely correct, at least back to AD 900. "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than at any period of comparable length since AD 900."

As for the House Committee: there was a report commissioned by the committee written by a statistician named Wegman, but there was also a great deal of testimony taken, and some of it strongly disputed the conclusions of Wegman's report. It would be less POV to say that Wegman's report supported M&M, but not the House Committee (which in any case is not a relevant body to participate in a technical debate). :::Mitch Golden

The NAS report upheld just about every criticism M&M had of MBH. As for back to AD 900, the report only said that it was "plausible" that the hockey stick was correct for the Northern Hemisphere. Additionally, M&M did not claim that the hockey stick itself was wrong; what they claimed is that the derivation of the hockey stick was wrong (i.e. perhaps another, correct, derivation of the stick exists).

Some critics of McIntyre have claimed that M&M proposed temperature reconstructions of their own. This is false, as McIntyre has said several times on his blog. The Wegman report also makes this point (n.8, p.48): "We comment that [M&M] were attempting to draw attention to the deficiencies of the MBH98-type methodologies and were not trying to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions". (The article should probably make this point clear.)

Regarding testimony before the subcommittee, the transcripts don't seem to be available yet. I have seen summaries, and also watched part of the second hearing on TV (CSPAN). I don't know of anything that disputed Wegman's confirmation of the statistical problems with MBH that were claimed by McIntyre, and I don't believe there was anything. Other aspects of the report were disputed, but not even Michael Mann stood by the original MBH98/MBH99 analyses. (Mann did stand by the MBH conclusions, claiming other "independent" studies confirmed the hockey stick; Wegman disputed their independence; ....)

As for what the Wegman report should be called, I really just copied this term from the article Hockey stick graph. I have no real view on what the report should be called (most people seem to refer to it as "the Wegman report", at least colloquially). I think that the two articles should use the same term. And, I see that using the same logic, this article should use the term NRC rather than NAS; okay, that's fixed.

—Daphne A 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I too disagree. Also the NRC and Wegman reports were rather different. William M. Connolley 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wegman report wholly supported McIntyre. If you "disagree", please give evidence. If you think that the NRC report did not largely support McIntyre, please state why. Here is a quote from Wegman at the hearings:

“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NRC] panel essentially agree.…We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics…

—Daphne A 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, lets be clear that the NRC report has far greater credibility than the Wegman report - the latter did indeed largely parrot M&M's criticisms (this http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf is also rather interesting...). However the NRC report didn't. For example the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/06/nrc_report_not_as_interesting.php for Nature and Science William M. Connolley 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that citing these blogs is very useful. These are advocacy positions, and I think that there is any need to cite blogs or statements outside the peer-reviewed literature.

Look again. I'm not citing the second blog (which is my own; I assume that was obvious). I'm using it to point to comments in Nature and Science, which I hope are respectable enough for you, albeit they are rather minor journals ;-). Pielke is also a respectable figure, and by no means in the Mann camp William M. Connolley 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that Daphne A appears to be overstating what the NAS report said. The relevant discussion from the NRC report is on page 87 ( see http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/87.html ). Reading page 87, I get the impression that the NAS is also accepting the points made by Huybers, who is saying ( see http://web.mit.edu/~phuybers/www/Hockey/Huybers_Comment.pdf ) that M&M have exaggerated the importance of the issue that they are bringing up.

As I read it, they acknowledge the technical points made by M&M, but it doesn't seem that it's fair to say that they "largely or wholely" endorse them. The specific quotes Daphne A is using don't address the *specific* points at issue, even if the NAS found Mann et al to be entirely wrong, that doesn't necessarily imply that they are endorsing M&M.

OK, I agree with you there. They acknolwedge the points, but say they don't matter too much (which is also Manns position) William M. Connolley 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, the NRC showed several other hockey-stick graphs in their introduction, ( see http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/2.html ) and the relevant quote from the report, it seems to me is "The basic conclusion of Mann et al (1998,1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecidented during the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been confirmed by an array of evidence..." I believe that it is seriously misquoting them if you want to use the NRC report to call the scientific validity of the hockey-stick into question.

All that being said, I don't believe that the current discussion on the page, characterizing the NRC as "ambiguous", is acceptable either. They did accept the technical points made by M&M, and they encourage greater caution in the use of the data, but they left the hockey-stick intact.

Ambiguous was my word. Its a short word to carry a lot of meaning... I'd be happy for you to rephrase/expand on it William M. Connolley 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, regarding Wegman - I believe it's fine to say that his report was commissioned by Congress, but to give it the imprimatur of Congress is incorrect. Congress was not in any position to review his work, and so it's properly characterized as the Wegman Report, commissioned by Congress. — Mitch Golden Sept 4, 2006

Or simply commissioned by Barton? In practice it was, whatever official designation it may have William M. Connolley 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded the discussion on the two reports. I feel that it is appropriate to have this discussion here, since the M&M paper and its validity is really McIntyre's main claim to have an entry in Wikipedia at all. I believe I have correctly summarized the conclusions both papers had with respect to the M&M work.

I have included a link to Gerald North's talk at Texas A&M. It is very informative to the attitude of the NRC report. (I don't recall where I found it.) I am concerned that this video may eventually go away, but perhaps we can find a written, and more permanent version of it.

Hopefully, this is acceptable to everyone.

— Mitch Golden Sept 4, 2006

Seems fair. According to the report, though [1] Boehlert commissioned it William M. Connolley 08:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, though, that in the video, Gerald North claims that Barton agreed with Boehlert to have the report commissioned. I will leave it as it is, it's not important. — Mitch Golden Sept 5, 2006

Presumably the written report itself trumps video William M. Connolley 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the paragraph to indicate who Boehlert and Barton are. — Mitch Golden Sept 5, 2006

Please note WP:BLP

Please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to this article, and is a policy (not just a guideline). Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Real Climate

About the link; it is not external! We need to make a reference to it because the subject of the article himself stated that there were attacks coming from realclimate. Now, the link is to a wikipedia article about a blog (that meets the Wikipedia standards), but not to a blog. Thus, by adding the link we simply give the reader better ability to compile relevant information that is already in wikipedia. Therefore, there is no problem. Brusegadi 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Who says so?

On Dec 21, William M. Connolley removed the point that MBH had asserted that the past 25 years were the warmest in the last millenium. Here is the relevant sentence from their abstract:

The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.

reference here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html MGolden 02:00 2 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I am going to put this text back into the article, since it is relatively important - it identifies a point of difference between the NRC report and MBH.

The problem is that this isn't a clear point of difference. MBH said "moderately high levels of confidence". Is this the same as "reasonable certainty", which is what the article uses? And do the NRC actually use this phrase? NRC definitely say "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600" but this is not a point of difference with MBH. So I don't think the assertion that NRC disagree with MBH over this is true; its certainly not supported by the text William M. Connolley 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're making progress. I think that it is pretty clear from the text of the NRC report that they felt that they disagreed with the strength of MBH's statements. If you don't find the text persuasive, here's the transcript of Gerald R. North's (the head of the NRC committee) testimony before congress:

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales. We also question some of the statistical choices made in the original papers by Dr. Mann and his colleagues. However, our reservations with some aspects of the original papers by Mann et al. should not be construed as evidence that our committee does not believe that the climate is warming, and will continue to warm, as a result of human activities.

URL here: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Reconstructions.asp

I agree that this is a tempest in a teapot - the NRC presumably wouldn't make a statement that there was data to disprove the MBH reconstructions. However, it is I believe a distortion of the record to try to claim that there is no difference between MBH and the NRC.

So, do we have agreement to keep the text in?

Mgolden 17:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast... your quote, above, says they have less confidence prior to 1600 than "a high level" and even less in the original conc of MBH, which said "likely". But the problem is that all these comparative terms are very ill defined, and we have a level of "even less than less than high level" which is very vague - this could easily be the equivalent of likely. "reasonable certainty" (which is your article text) isn't used by anyone. If it said "likely" then that would certainly fit with the MBH text, but not with what the NRC said William M. Connolley 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the terms are all undefined. The point I think that you can take away, however, is that NRC thought they were differing from MBH, and that MBH thought they were being corrected - even if they didn't agree with the corrections. Here, for example, is a quote from realclimate:

"The report calls into question the confidence in certain fairly specific previous conclusions, e.g. the tentative conclusion in Mann et al (1999) that the 1990s and 1998 were the warmest decade and year, respectively, of the past 1000 years."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

(That particular post is signed by "group" but M and B are authors of realclimate.)

Now, you'll point out that the RC post goes on to try to make the argument you were making above - that there's really no quantitative difference between what NRC is saying and what MBH said. But that is putting words into the NRC's mouth. They felt that the MBH conclusions were too strong.

You (and MBH) may disagree with the NRC report, but I think it's appropriate in the writeup to say that the NRC did - in this limited and mild way - disagree with MBH. Mgolden 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I'm one of RC too, in case you didn't know. The page already says "The NRC differed from MBH largely in the strength of their conclusions" so what you want is already in there. Given the lack of quantification in the NRC report, thats about as strong as you can get. And also... this isn't the place for fine detail on NRC/MBH - this page is about McI. And... as I said: no-one is using your preferred term "reasonable certainty" William M. Connolley 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know. I hope you take this the right way, but given your close affiliation to M and B, I hope you pay particular attention to make sure you maintain a NPOV. (Not that I am claiming you aren't.)

How about this: I will edit the text to use precisely the phrase "moderately high levels of confidence" instead of "reasonable certainty", and remove the (in my view) overlong sentences defending MBH from the NRC. I believe the point of this discussion (as you yourself said) is not to try to resolve or even discuss the merits of the disagreement between the NRC and MBH, but merely to point out that the NRC thought there was one. 65.213.31.127 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I try to remain NPOV. In this case, I'd suggest that its best handled by shortening the text a lot - extensive discussion doesn't belong here. In fact I'm going to do it, just o see how it looks; but if you don't like it, fair enough, revert and I won't worry William M. Connolley 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

POV crap in the Wegman and NRC discussion

I just removed a whole pile of back and forth points from the discussion of the Wegman and NRC reports. The editors were evidently trying to either inflate or deflate the credentials of the various authors. One person adds a quote from McIntyre that none of the NRC authors were qualified, then someone else adds text to claim that they were. This is silly. This is McIntyre's biography.

I also added back a sentence that indicates that the NRC report appeared to express concern with the MBH conclusion about the heat of the late 1990s.

Mgolden 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As the "forth" in the back-and-forth, I fully support your deletion. I had wanted to delete the original comments on qualifications of the NRC authors but thought that might start a revert war, so instead I added a counter-point. Deleting it altogether (as you have done) reads much better. Raymond Arritt 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Still POV

The discussion of the two 2006 reports is extremely slanted. McIntyre's analysis was largely statistical, and Wegman confirmed McIntyre's criticism of MBH98 (incompetent analysis of cherry-picked data) and disproved the claims of "multiple independent reconstructions" (that's why Wegman did that social analysis). Nor do we currently mention that the NAS panel said current reconstructions were only accurate for the last 400 years (not 1000 as Mann and his disciples once claimed) and that bristlecone pine ring widths are not valid temperature proxies (which means that none of the then-current reconstructions are trustworthy, because they are all heavily influenced by bristlecone data, which has a strong hockey stick shape).

How did the article get so slanted? Consider this edit, in which a respected Wikipedia administrator removes an important fact (that Wegman is a world-class expert on statistics) under cover of an extremely misleading edit summary.

Aside: on the rather important question of whether the current warm period is warmer or cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, McIntyre has noted some interesting data suggesting that northern Sweden is currently warmer than in the MWP — in fact, as warm as the Holocene Optimum.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While disagreeing with most of that, I'll note that I've hopefully removed the POV problems by moving them elsewhere. I didn't actually xfer any of the text, so if there is stuff here you like, do move it across. But the aim is to avoid duplication across various biog pages William M. Connolley 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I largely wrote the part you're criticizing (though it is gone now), let me say the following. (1) I did state that Wegman supported McIntyre's criticism of MBH98. My exact words were "Wegman et al agreed with the technical criticisms that M&M had leveled at MBH." So let me get this: in your view, unless I am calling MBH98 "incompetent analysis of cherry-picked data" I'm being POV? (2) The social networking analysis that Wegman et al did were not, as you imply, specifically targeted at the independence of the specific reconstruction of the reconstructions of MBH98, nor of MM, so there's no particular reason to discuss it here. (3) You are misrepresenting the NAS report's conclusions. The pointedly did not state that the reconstructions were only accurate for 400 years or that MBH98 was wrong. Since I see their conclusions distorted all over the place in the blogs and in the media, let me quote their exact words, from the summary: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al was that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence... which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2000 years." (Bottom of page here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3 - much of that evidence has nothing to do with bristlecone pines, BTW.) We don't have to agree or disagree with what the NRC said, but at least we should quote them right. Mgolden 06:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

McIntyre's background

I added back McIntyre's background in oil exploration and a link to CGX Energy's annual report as proof. 67.168.34.90 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He has no background in oil exploration; he worked in hard-rock mineral exploration. Please do not use Wikipedia to make ad hominen attacks like that, especially when they're false. Here's a selection of McIntyre's rebuttals of an earlier version of this attack:

• I have never been an employee of CGX. At the time, I was active in a mineral exploration company which subleased office space from CGX and had no connection at all to climate issues.[2]
• Northwest Exploration with which I’m associated had no oil and gas reserves or production (it has done gold exploration) and had nothing to do with a company with a similar name with oil and gas production in Nevada.[3]
• Northwest Exploration Company Limited carried out gold exploration as a provate company in the mid-1990s. In late 1997, it was taken over by Northwest Explorations Inc. through a share exchange to become a 100% subsidiary of Northwest Explorations Inc. and continued to carry out gold exploration as a subsidiary of Northwest Explorations Inc. I was President of the subsidiary and a director of the parent. Northwest Explorations Inc. went public and continued gold exploration. The gold exploration was unsuccessful and all gold exploration operations ceased and all employees of the subsidiary were terminated. In 1998, CGX Resources did a reverse takeover of Northwest Explorations Inc. and changed the name of Northwest Explorations Inc. to CGX Energy Inc. As a result of the takeover, I ceased to be a director of the parent company. CGX Energy Inc. had no interest in the gold exploration subsidiary, Northwest Exploration Company Limited, which, at the time, had some gold exploration concessions of negligible value, all of which have since been dropped, and some small liabilities and sold the subsidiary to a private group with which I was involved. Northwest Exploration Company Limited has successfully done some property transactions involving hardrock mineral exploration properties (nothing to do with oil and gas) acquiring some assets in the process.[4]

At least one person has used realclimate to knowingly mislead people about this issue. Wikipedia has, or at least should have, far higher standards. CWC 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me but: (1) I posted proof of his background in oil exploration, in the form of an annual report from a publicly traded company and (2) you apparently do not know what an adhom is Chris; it is no more an adhom to state this fact than it is to state the other biographical details. I'm new to wiki, so I'm going to read up on how to handle this sort of nonsense. In the meantime, here is the CGX annual report... http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf ... where it is as plain as day that CGX is in the oil exploration business (see page 4) and McIntyre's relationship with the company is described(see page 13). One is tempted to say that Wikipedia has, or at least should have, far higher standards. GrifM 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the oil, nor do I care. But removing the links under the guise of ad-homs is quite wrong William M. Connolley 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having browsed the web, and McI's CA post ref'd above, its clear that McI is pretty cagey about his past. There is a lot of stuff there about what he isn't, but very little about what he is. This is rather regrettable (did anyone say disclosure?) but until we do find something better, even one company report with his name on is worth keeping, because he does/did have a life outside of the hockey stick William M. Connolley 20:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I found [5] which isn't that useful. Also he appears to be a director of Dumont Nickel inc. And probably Timmins Nickel too. Jut to be clear: there's nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see William M. Connolley 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive POV problems

This article has had severe POV problems for a long time. Recent edits have made them much worse, as can only be expected when one of the main editors has a massive WP:COI. The article as it stands violates WP:BLP and WP:OR as well as WP:NPOV. It also contains multiple falsehoods. I have therefore tagged it as {{POV}} and {{Disputed}}. CWC 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to spell out exactly your problems with the article. You say it contains multiple falsehoods, what exactly are they? --Theblog 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Forget the falsehoods for now, they're less important than the blatant POV & OR problems. Here's a very incomplete list:

1. "McIntyre has stated ..." = sly insinuation intended to discredit him
2. Mention of CGX is purely to discredit McIntyre as part of the eeevil oil industry
3. No mention that Wegman completely vindicated McIntyre's statistical work
4. No mention that Wegman completely vindicated McIntyre's rebuttal of false claims at realclimate of multiple independent confirmation of the Hockey Stick
5. No mention that the NRC agreed with McIntyre about Bristlecone pines being useless for honest paleoclimatology
6. Link to Thacker article violates NPOV, BLP, RS and EL

More to come. CWC 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to the POV tags - since I regard the article as pro McI, we can both be happy with the tags, but for different reasons :-). Meanwhile, I note that the ext links to Mann are all "blog posts" but the ext links to McI's blog posts are all "McI rebuts..." which is grossly POV. Just leave them with their titles is fairer. Re CGX - I can't share your view of that. Its one of the very few facts actually know about McI's career, about which he seems to be rather secretive - but then he's well known for his lack of interest in disclosure, no? William M. Connolley 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro McIntyre? What planet are you on? Your massive COI is preventing you from thinking rationally about this article.

Secretive? Not at all. Ever heard of Google?

If you really had a problem with the summaries on the Mann links, you would have fixed them instead of blindly reverting. Of course, the trick you're pulling is that the titles of Mann's posts are emotional propaganda attacks on M&M, whereas the titles of SM's posts are neutral and unemotional (just like the posts themselves, in both cases).

WMC, you and I both know that for a realclimate blogger to edit this article is a blatant COI problem. The solution is simple: stop editing here. You can easily find another editor who is just as desparate to discredit M&M as you are. Cheers, CWC 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be made clear that the realclimate links are self published blog posts. The Wegman report should also be included. If you wish to know more about his past history, why not email him or ask on his blog? I'm under the impression that it is non notable. --Theblog 02:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How could his past history be NN on a page about him? Chris: your talk about COI is so much hot air; you can take it back to the COI page if you really like but you'll get the same response as before William M. Connolley 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think for accuracy the designation of realclimate as a blog should be included, climate audit is described as a blog in the article. What exactly is your problem with the changes? As for his history, its probably like, worked at company X for 382 years, then went to company Y, I don't care enough to follow up, but go right ahead. --Theblog 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree but now moot. As for McI's history: how incurious you are. But google is silent William M. Connolley 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual tag

There does not seem to be any requirement for the factual dispute tag (as contrasted to the POV tag). I have removed it. Hal peridol 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On further checking, not all the subjects studied at UofT are supported by the bio (which states algebraic topology, group theory and differentiable manifolds, economics and econometrics). These don't seem particularly relevant, but feel free to re-add the supported ones if you disagree. Also, the scholarship to Oxford should probably not be described as a graduate scholarship, as it did not result in a graduate degree. Hal peridol 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GW Skeptic?

Is there a quote indicating that Stephen McIntyre is a skeptic? If not he should be removed from the catagory. --Theblog 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

I cannot see any POV problems with the article in its present state. If anything, it is rather bland. Can we remove the tag, or failing that, can someone point out the specific POV problems so they can be fixed? Raymond Arritt 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See above for a few of the many problems. CWC 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your points 1-6 above. They're utterly spurious. For example, how can "McIntyre has stated ..." be an attempt to discredit him, under any conventional standard of English usage? Raymond Arritt 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They're utterly genuine. Raymond, please reread WP:AGF at your very earliest convenience, then stop flouting it.

Here's a blindingly obvious example: why not simply say that "McIntyre started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at RealClimate, a blog on climatology.[6]"? The current wording carries a strong implication that McIntyre's word is not to be trusted, as everyone fluent in English will recognise immediately if not blinded by an extreme, hostile POV. CWC 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example would carry the POV that there are/were in fact attacks being made against McIntyre on RealClimate. McIntyre stated, or said or declared if you prefer, that he "perceived" several posts as attacks. However, as this is found in one of the comments on the ClimateAudit site and does not appear to be part of the 'official' ClimateAudit goals, I'm not sure it belongs at all. Hal peridol 12:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre finds error in GISS temp record

The surface temperature record appears to have a number of problems. Steve McIntyre found one of them. [7] GISS has just admitted it and credited Steve McIntyre for finding it. [8] GISS has not clarified how many years of the temperature record will be affected by this correction.RonCram 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just restored this information based on a recommendation by another editor. I will not add it to other articles until it has been picked up by third party reliable sources, but it belongs here at the very least. RonCram 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thank you for the correction. That's what I get for typing too fast and thinking too slow.RonCram 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, okay I misread that. I thought you were correcting my error and it was yours. RonCram 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind having the Hockey Stick and Temperature records sections joined, as each section is quite small on its own, and although the information is not the same, it is at least related? Hal peridol 12:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal, the two are not at all related. In one McIntyre found a number of errors by Michael Mann that affected temperature reconstructions based on paleoclimatology, not instruments. In the other, McIntyre found an error by Jim Hansen affecting the surface temperature record. The two contributions are separated in time by about two years. The Hockey Stick situation is somewhat controversial because Mann admitted some errors but denied others. That caused third parties to become involved: Congress, Wegman, NRC. The GISS error is noncontroversial at this point, although the correction they made may not be complete. The year 2006 was not adjusted as much as McIntyre thought it should be. RonCram 15:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Raymond, I understand what you are saying here. You have a point. I was planning on addressing the issue in the article itself, explaining that some of the corrections to the temp record issued by NASA were not anticipated by McIntyre. This deserves much better explanation than the article currently provides. RonCram 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Climateaudit silenced

Following McIntyre's major victory re the "Y2K" bug in the GISS "data", his website has been hammered into silence by a DDOS attack.[9] I wonder how many of the people who edit this article will be glad about that, if only in private? CWC 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like paranoia to me William M. Connolley 08:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On Pielke's website, Anthony Watts talks about the Denial of Service attack on ClimateAudit. SurfaceStations.org is also down but Watts says his site has a different problem with the ISP/telco. See comment #65 [10] The warmers are afraid of the facts.RonCram 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

McIntyre is paranoid. His site can't cope with a lot of traffic and has gone down because of all the traffic he got on the GISS error. This isn't the first wildly paranoid claim he's made. [11]--TimLambert 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, your opinion is interesting only because it says more about you than it does about the facts. You should have read the comment by Anthony Watts that I cited just above. Then you would know that there has been no abatement of the attacks during normally slow hours for the internet. There is no question this is a DOS attack. RonCram 14:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Methinks some folks' egos are getting the better of them. Do they genuinely think that their power and influence is so sweeping that others are inspired to silence them? Raymond Arritt 15:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I could see someone attempting this, not some vague conspiratorial group but a small group of hackers who aren't happy with him. However, until we get a reliable source that makes the claim, it hard to see how we can include a mention except as saying that he claimed to be the subject of such an attack. JoshuaZ 21:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have the comment of Anthony Watts on Pielke's website. Watts claims first-hand knowledge of the DOS attack. See comment #65. [12]RonCram 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A comments thread is not a reliable source. At best we can report that the site went down and that Watts and McIntyre said that it was due to a denial of service attack. JoshuaZ 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not expect the article to say more than that. Will you put it in? RonCram 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Added in. JoshuaZ 23:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is fine, except the WP:SYN bit implied by "Shortly after this..." is plainly unacceptable. All we know is that the web site went down, and that McI and Watts claim it was a DOS. Granting only for the sake of argument that it really was a DOS attack, we don't know the motives of the person or persons who did it. Raymond Arritt 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, neither Watts nor McIntyre make the connection between the DOS and the correction in the sources we have, so we can't. Given that, I'm not even sure it makes sense to include the claim since it isn't connected at all without that matter. Do we have any source that McI and Watts saying that the DOS was connected? JoshuaZ 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Hottest year on record

In Talk: Global Warming under 'New NASA Data' we have discussed that the years are not statistically different. So, besides needing a source you would need to reach concensus since there are other sources that would claim the above. Brusegadi 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the years are not statistically different? Did you compare the old version of the U.S. temperature anomalies to the new? The old version is here. [13] The new version is here. [14] Only an uninformed person would claim no statistical difference in the anomalies. Now 1934 is the warmest year in U.S. history and 1921 is warmer than 2006. RonCram 21:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion included the following statement: "Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C." I interpret that as saying that the difference between the two temperatures is not statistically different from zero e.g the p-value (or analogous term) is too 'large' to be able to say anything with confidence. Be careful because two estimates (I believe the numbers on the list are estimates of the temperatures) may be unequal but not statistically different. There is much uncertainty that goes into those numbers and that uncertainty plays a role in what you can say with confidence and what you cant. Brusegadi 23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the recent changes are barely statistically significant, but you can't have it both ways. Either the fact that the longer term US averages is up in recent years by around a tenth of a degree ºC is a convincing argument for global warming (in which case the recent correction is important), or the US averages do not show the effects of global warming very well (then the recent correction wouldn't matter because they don't affect the global record). Revolutionaryluddite 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't McIntyre prove that 1998 was not the hottest year on record? And isn't this a highly significant piece of information, considering the endless political blather about how "1998 was the hottest year on record, and this proves global warming is mostly due to human activity"?

We should mention something about McIntyre's discovery that 1934 was hotter than 1998. --Uncle Ed 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, there's probably nicer ways of saying the same thing. ~ UBeR 16:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to the Temperature Record

A section removed from Instrumental temperature record said this:

Anthony Watts and other bloggers noticed a large jump in NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperate record around the year 2000. [15] Stephen McIntyre investigated the data and the methods used to calculate it. He discovered "a programming error" and detailed its distribution alongside the problems in the USHCN temperature data on his website. [16] He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and it promply issued corrected data. The old figures can be found here [17] and the new figures here. [18] The new rankings for the 10 hottest years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th).

James Hansen published an online letter reporting that "the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html) had a flaw in the U.S. data. In that (2001) update of the analysis method (originally published in our 1981 Science paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1981/Hansen_etal.html) we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc. Unfortunately, we didn’t realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2001 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only)." [19] Anthony Watts disputes Hansens statement that the corrections weren't "readily available". [20]

It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record. Michael Asher at dailytech.com states that "The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor". [21] The RealClimate blog concurs that "In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible" and finds "no change in anything that could be considered climatically important". [22]

I'm wondering whether or not some of this information should be added to the two brief sentences in this article. This discovery is a major career point for McIntyre. (The statement "It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record" is no longer factually accurate.) Revolutionaryluddite 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The section looks good right now, thanks. 72.47.71.160 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Revolutionaryluddite

I have taken out the link to the google cache of the 'before and after' GISSTEMP data, because it wasnt working - both versions gave the new data. Feel free to put it back if anyone can find a reliable version of the old data. Paul Matthews 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

College Education

Is their a better source for the fact that McIntyre "holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto"? There is also no sourcing for the claim that "He was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT". Revolutionaryluddite 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The second claim also comes from his own bio cited in the previous sentence. There seems no reason to doubt it, but equally little reason to keep it as it really has no relevance to the article. Paul Matthews 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the second claim. We do need to keep the mention of his B.S. degree; that's an important part of anyone's bio. Raymond Arritt 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless they actually held a Ph.D., of course. In most biographies, one usually does not mention all degrees a person has. In this case, however, it is relevant. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Career as a Scientist

McIntyre has coauthored a few published papers. There is no mention of this here. There should be.

Blog as logbook

On a recent edit, Brusegadi asked a good question:

Mr. McIntyre does the analysis on his own and then discusses his and others' findings in the blog? Correct?

Actually, I think this is partially (perhaps mostly) incorrect.

IIRC, SM once wrote that he was using his blog somewhat like a scientist's logbook. So some of the posts are very much work-in-progress, and others are more final. In some cases, but not all, discussion between SM and others in the comments adds considerably to the analysis — someone will try a different statistical technique or a different plot, and post the results, often as a graph.

Another point is that SM looks at recent data as well as paleo-climate stuff. So I've changed the description of ClimateAudit.org from "a blog devoted to the discussion of paleo-climate data analysis" to "a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data". Please feel free to improve my wording. Cheers, CWC 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction!Brusegadi 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Steph/ven

In updating some refs, I pulled up his short bio, written by him. In this autobiography, he gave his name as Steven McIntyre. Any thoughts about that? Obviously one concern is that it's not really written by him, but the author on the Word document is listed as Stephen McIntyre. (Obviously, that could be spoofed, but it does make clear that the author knew how to spell Stephen's first name.) Perhaps this is just one of those Bob/Robert things, but I thought Steph/ven was usually written one way or the other for a given individual and not alternated between. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at his 2005 JGR paper (McIntyre & McKittrick) and he signs it :"Stephen McIntyre". So maybe he's just inconsistent. On his blog, he goes :by "Steve", fwtw. Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For the skeptics on skepticism...

Dates on blog posts are not reliable, for the reasons I stated prior to removing the whole section of original research, making them a poor source for assertations about when a blog started. John Nevard (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University study

In the article it states that McIntyre studied PPE at Oxford, and a short self-published biography is cited. Although it is clearly not a reliable source I wouldn't normally have a problem with it being used to reference something clear-cut like degrees studied for and obtained. Unfortunately, in this case it seems rather suspicious. He apparently graduated from Toronto in 1969 and then from Oxford in 1971. Yet the Oxford degree course, one of the most prestigious programmes in the world, is normally 3 years. Can something more reliable not be found? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its rather notable that, in contrast to the class positions mentioned for everything else, for Oxford he just says "graduated". There is also the suggestion of some urgency in return to Toronto. One might speculate that he either cut the course short, or wasn't on the undergradute programme but on some MA course instead. How about replacing the wording with "studied PPE" instead? I rather doubt we'll find a better source, until Ox records go online William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I don't think Oxford do PPE except as the three-year degree programme though, and "graduated" would mean that he passed the whole thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I ended up cutting a bit more. The bit about MIT is entirely unknowable, so removed. I aslo cut "pure" maths from his BA - I rather doubt the course was formally called that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in warmest year

I found this article after reading the one on James Hansen. On Hansen's page it says the issue with the data moved 1934 in front of 1998 for the warmest year measured. On this page it says the mistake didn't lead to any changes in hottest year.

Which one is it? the Hansen article has references concerning the warmest year change. This article doesn't. Before I change the entry using the reference from the Hansen article, I wanted to make sure there weren't any objections among those that watch this page. Pgrote (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in rankings was for US temperatures (and almost not significant), for world temperatures there was no effect in rankings. Brusegadi (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to modifying language to the section regarding McIntyre's contribution to the global climate record? "The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C". The citation for this language can be found in the GISS website itself at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html. Is there any reason to minimize this statement in terms of it's impact on the 2000-2006 data? I've tried to correct this minimization in the past only to have the edits reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 0.15 oC is already in the article. You seem to want to add in the somewhat subjective "noticeable", on the grounds that its in that GISS article, but I can't see the point William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition I previously have tried to add the following comment from realclimate.org which states the following as a result of McIntye's finding: There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). "Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC." Any objection to including this statement? This is consistent with what McIntyre has said on his blog and is confirmed by what is on the GISS and realclimate web-sites? Is there any reason to omit this information from this biography as it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college. Showman60 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GISS sez: Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty. the re-arrangement of 1934/1998, or not, is trivia. it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college is an insult to McI, if only you realised it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there is no objection to inclusion of that information in the biography based on it's accuracy. As of now only one person views the statement as trivial. The impact and the amount of discussion generated by McIntrye's analysis regarding the 1934/1998 arrangement certaintly would refute the opinion that the statement is trivial. IF trivia is the basis for exclusion, please provide the Wikipedia "trivia" standard if there is one by which statements can be judged as trivial or not for inclusion in Biographies. We can then measure this statement against that criteria and have others weigh in as to whether it meets or exceeds that standard for inclusion. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. The objection is that its trivia - the furore in the blogosphere and the op-ed columns is trivia. It has little to no relevance outside of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit

I remerged the Climate Audit stuff back into this article. It's the primary reason McIntyre is notable and should be in this article. Other semi-notable people with blogs have the blog content with their bio, see e.g. Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com. -Atmoz (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy and usual practice for blogs and bios on notable people like this seems ambiguous. E.g., there is Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com as Atmoz states. But there is also Pharyngula_(blog) and PZ_Myers. Given that the article existed separately for almost all its lifetime (4 years), I'd suggest that the redirect be discussed first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SausageLady (talk • contribs) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PZ is notable as an academic independently from his blog. McIntyre is only notable for his blog. Until that changes, this should remain one article. -Atmoz (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Without changing this into a debate about Myers, his academic contributions do not seem any greater than Phil Plait's (who you use as a model for having a single article).

I would argue that his meaningful contributions to the hockey stick controversy and his corrections to climate data are other notable facts about the McIntyre.

So my points are (a) a consistent practice in such cases and (b) recognition (or not) of the significance of the

Finally, surely there is a more constructive way to resolve this than repeated reversion of changes. Suggestions? SausageLady (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

McI doesn't pass WP:PROF. He's not notable as an academic. -Atmoz (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't claim he was an academic. My remarks above were about comparing Myers and Plait as academics. So WP:PROF is not applicable to McI.

But let's focus on constructive ways to deal with this dispute. SausageLady (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're saying he has made "meaningful contributions to the hockey stick controversy and his corrections to climate data", but these shouldn't be treated as academic? Then what are they? -Atmoz (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Consensus changes. Its now lived uncontested for 3-4 months as a redirect, so that is the current consensus state.

I agree with Atmoz here, CA is McIntyre, and CA is notable only because of McI, it doesn't have notability beyond that. Which means that either CA merges into McI or the reverse, and since its McI's contributions in the HS controversy that are notable, it should be the McI article that gets preference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm with Atmoz William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Atmoz, as mentioned above the whole hockey stick controversy was started (mainly) by McIntyre, the amount of press around that (articles, congressional hearings, etc.) is enough to make McIntyre notable by itself. The blog came after that. The blog has also received enough press and awards to stand alone, the two should be separated. --Theblog (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, Theblog. I also disagreed with Kim D. Petersen's assessment of notability. But in the face of 3 against 1, I thought it best to move on and try to make contributions elsewhere. However, I still believe that they should be separated again, as they were until recently. SausageLady (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

McI has only had the one real paper in 2005 in GRL. All he's had since then have been some comments, comment replies, and EnE (the skeptics journal). McI is a blogger. MERGE 72.82.44.253 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"With Ross McKitrick, McIntyre has been involved in questioning the validity of the "hockey stick" graph used in a journal article by Michael E. Mann and co-authors."

This appears to be an attempt to marginalise McIntyre's contribution to the paleoclimate debate, i.e. again by suggesting the whole thing was was all about one article by Mann. McIntyre's criticisms, as least as I understand the matter, affected the IPCC2001 report where Mann's hockey-stick graph had been adopted, where the medieval warm period had been removed after the original IPCC1995 assessment. As such, McIntyre's contribution was much bigger than "exposing an error in Mann et al". The wording in the article should be edited to include mention of this. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre's chief interests at his Climate Audit blog include [23]:

• Climate science data archiving, transparency, disclosure and due diligence in climate studies

• Multiproxy temperature reconstructions, especially bringing the proxies up to date:

• The "Hockey Stick" controversy, including the use (and misuse) of statistical analysis in multiproxy studies

All of these should be (imo) in the lead paragraph. Agree that Mann doesn't need to be specifically mentioned here. Lead should also mention it's McI's personal blog. Article tagged for improvement.--Pete Tillman (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all a bit funny, given McI's repeated personalisation of the issue. I'm pretty sure that text was added by the anti-Mann crowd. So sure, re-write it. While you're worrying about the article quality, you might want to address the problem that large parts of the "career" bit are sourced from nothing but McI's words in un-RS. where the medieval warm period had been removed after the original IPCC1995 assessment is hopelessly wrong; see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

McI may have personalised the issue, but that's gossip & inappropriate for the bio. Don't know who added it. Agree on your remarks about his career being from SPS. I'm not sure of your point about whether IPCC2001 did or did not get rid of an MWP via MBH98 that was or was not in IPCC1995 but I'm of the view that where there is controversy, it's best to steer clear of it altogether in Wikipedia. What is certain is that MM's result (right or wrong) is far bigger & more important than a single Mann paper. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is certain is that MM's result (right or wrong) is far bigger & more important than a single Mann paper and how exactly do you determine this? Certainly not by WP:WEIGHT since impact_factor(MM)<impact_factor(MBH), and since even MBH critics aren't agreeing on MM (ex. Von Storch). You are certainly allowed your own opinion, as long as it doesn't impact WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment was addressed to those who can see it for what it obviously is. Don't wish to get into another argument about the colour of the sky. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"article tagged for deletion"

Out of politeness, shouldn't this tag now be removed per spirit of Wikipedia Foundation's treatment of BLPs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs)

What deletion tag are you referring to? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The one at the top of this page. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IB these are customarily left in place, as a historical record. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it shows the result was 'Keep'. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate quote

Is there some reason for having the one long quotation,

Closing the circle: my original interest in GISS adjustment procedures was not an abstract interest, but a specific interest in whether GISS adjustment procedures were equal to the challenge of “fixing” bad data. If one views the above assessment as a type of limited software audit (limited by lack of access to source code and operating manuals), one can say firmly that the GISS software had not only failed to pick up and correct fictitious steps of up to 1 deg C, but that GISS actually introduced this error in the course of their programming. ...

twice? —WWoods (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

None that I can see. I've removed it (and the bit that preceeded it, which is trivia) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Highlighted in WSJ and UIP"

I tried to verify these references, and came up blank. ClimateAudit is not mentioned in the linked WSJ article at all, and the WaTimes link for the other source is broken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen McIntyre is mentioned in the WSJ article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. Before you changed it, that sentence referred to ClimateAudit, which is not. It's still in the ClimateAudit section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to move it if you're that particular. As is, I don't think it makes much difference. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

“Climategate”

In light of the breaking information related to “Cliamtegate” in November 2009 involving the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and dissemination of thousands of emails from the aforementioned CRU, the information regarding McIntyre should be revisited and revised. Particularly regarding the "hockeystick" dispute. At a minimum links/references should be inserted to the following wikipedia article [24]-- Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the section Role in the controversy over emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit - I don't feel like editing here now. But I'd be inclined to drop the section if I were William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Drop POV link?

• Has Balance Warped The Truth?, by one Paul D. Thatcher, 2006, Society of Environmental Journalists newletter

Highly-POV article, sample quote: "Hopefully, the profile of Stephen McIntyre by The Wall Street Journal will be the last dying gasp of the skeptics. These people were created by industry money, but only flourish because of the ethic of "balance" that exists in journalism."

We certainly wouldn't permit this in the article, by BLP rules. It doesn't seem appropriate as a link, either. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Published in a reliable source, by a respected journalist with a long track-record in reporting on these issues. You seem to have forgotten that BLP doesn't mean no-criticism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Weel, we can see it's a WP:non-notable source. What can you tell us about this WP:non-notable journalist? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he is notable enough to have an article Paul D. Thacker. So please expand on why you think he is non-notable. And i'm rather interested in how you think the SoEJ is a non-notable source as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Its an editorial from a highly partisan source and if notability cannot be demonstrated it has to go. WVBluefield (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Best would be to create a section entitled "Criticisms" and then include those criticisms in there. Then, footnote the article. Such material would definitely pass muster with BLP. I agree that a simple link (not just that one but others in there as well) is suspect. Wikipedia is not just a collection of links. David.Kane (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Graduate Degree

The fact that McIntyre doesn't have a graduate degree was added to the article, with the explanation that "I think since he is known for commenting in a technical way on scientific matters, the lack of an advanced degree is worth explictly noting". I respectfully disagree. Should An Inconvenient Truth include the fact that Gore doesn't have an advanced degree (he has a BA)? Should Mann state that he is not a statistician, since his most well known paper was largely an exercise in the statistical handling of existing data? I'm certain that both of these would be deleted as POV, as the implication is that this makes their views somewhat inferior. --Spiffy sperry 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, Al Gore doesn't claim to be making a technical contribution to the debate; he is an expositor not a scientist. Michael Mann has a PhD from Yale in Geology and Geophysics; he doubtless had serious training in statistics and applied math as part of that. McIntyre's CV mentions coursework in group theory, algebraic topology and differential manifolds (areas which have no connection to statistics). I'm guessing he must have taken at least a course or two in analysis (the area of pure math closest to statistics), but the point is he has very little formal training that is directly relevant. Ultimately, of course his arguments stand or fall (radians vs. degrees anyone?) on their own merits, but still his qualifications are highly unusual for someone in McIntyre's situation and therefore worthy of note. Crust 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, McIntyre doesn't claim to have a graduate degree. So to mention it in this way is POV. (Although it is ambiguous. I think it's interesting that someone without an advanced degree can find errors in a peer-reviewed paper, but that's POV too.) Second, I am not one to assume what Mann knows about statistics. [25] Third, your remark about radians vs. degrees reveals alot. You do know that McIntyre had nothing to do with that, don't you?[26] Finally, you are correct that McIntyre's arguments stand or fall on their own, and that's why there's no need to point out that he doesn't have a graduate degree or a PhD or whatever. It's clear by listing only a BS that he doesn't have a graduate degree. --Spiffy sperry 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, no one is stating or implying that McIntyre lied and claimed to have a graduate degree. Nice try, though. The point is just that McIntyre's qualifications are highly unusual for someone contributing to the scientific debate and therefore worth pointing out. On my parenthetical snark about the degrees v. radians error, it looks like that was actually in a paper by McIntyre's coauthor McKitrick but not McIntyre himself (McKitrick and Michaels not McKitrick and McIntyre);[27] my mistake. If you want to start a debate about what Mann might or might not have meant by the "I am not a statistician" quote you link to, I would think the appropriate place would be the Mann talk page. Since you don't reply on Gore, I assume we both agree that Gore is not a scientist and that example isn't relevant in this context. Glad we agree on something. ;) Crust 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[sorry dont have tildas on keyboard] Regarding Manns statistical training, Professor Wegmans opinion was that Manns statistical work was at the level of a graduate student!. His suggestion was that Mann should enlist a co author with the required statistical expertise, doesnt seem to have been followed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.206 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First, McIntyre doesn't claim to have a graduate degree. So to mention it in this way is POV -- that's quite a non sequitur. I am not one to assume what Mann knows about statistics -- and that's quite a strawman; it's not an assumption, it's an inference. -- 98.108.199.134 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead section, seems to denigrate McIntyre, should be changed

Currently, the lead to this articles reads to me as an attempt to downgrade McI from scientist/statistician to blogger. He is clearly more than a blogger... I certainly knew of McI before I had ever seen his blog. His notability comes from his acknowledged contribution to the hockey stick debate, and his published scientific papers. I suppose I would hesitate before going with "scientist", but only because he has only come to science late in his career (after retirement?). The reference to Michael E. Mann in the lead also reads to me as an attempt both to denigrate McIntyre, i.e. to convey his life as sort of devoted to throwing mud at his arch-enemy Michael E. Mann which makes him sound rather petty, and provides a somewhat gratuitous link to Mann's page. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because he is neither a scientist nor a statistician? He is a former mineral mining prospect company director (with a bit of hands-on engineering, management and prospecting thrown in). He has a B.Sc. in mathematics, has a bit of economics background. He is notable for his blog, and his contributions to the hockey-stick controversy, none of which make him a statistician nor a scientist. (it is all in his biography (linked at bottom)) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The real point is whether his assertions on global warming have merit, not whether he has the correct college degree. BTW, Henry Ford didn't have a college degree in automotive engineering, but I don't think anyone cares. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well whether there is merit or not is not something that we can decide, thats something left for reliable sources (by the by: Ford was a master machinist and engineer (see also Galileo gambit). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that would make him a "former mineral mining prospect company director who is known for his role in the climate change debate for demonstrating errors in the so-called 'hockey stick' graph Michael E. Mann et al. as used in IPCC2001. In 2005 he created an internet blog devoted to independently auditing the findings of climate science papers." No way is he firstly & foremost a "blogger." That just isn't truthful. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the hockey stick controversy article, McIntyre is a former mining executive. To me, that is far more accurate than "blogger". I would propose a rewording of the lead to state that McIntyre is a former mining executive who has turned to science after retiring and is notable for his work with Ross McKitrick in criticising some paleoclimate reconstructions as well as other statistical methodologies of climate science. Since 2005 he has been editor of the blog climateaudit.org where he posts regularly on his efforts in reproducing and analysing the results of climate science studies. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The real point is whether his assertions on global warming have merit -- no, that's not the real point at all, either for Wikipedia general or for what's being discussed here -- which is whether he's a scientist or statistician. -- 98.108.199.134 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a blogger. That doesn't mean he can't make contributions. There are bloggers who have made occasional journalistic contributions also. The guy has thousands of head posts and reply posts. Look at the totality of his blogging oevre versus his published work (one decent article in GRL, some comment replies and 2 EnE peices, and the GRL was from 4 years ago). There's nothing wrong with calling him a blogger. And I am a he-man conservative. 52.129.8.47 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So what did he spend his life actually doing? He got to be a mining executive and since retirement he's been doing science & blogging. Imagine this was 50 years in the future, what should it say about what Stephen McIntyre "was"? (And I am a liberal with a passion for truth.) Alex Harvey (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what seems to have been lost in these Wikipedia discussions is the fact that the most historically important article -- MM03a -- was published in E&E. I don't think this quibbling about the journals belongs in here. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Funding

Climate sceptic received funding from industry [28] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems an odd article. Is it a parody? Unless I am misreading, the main thrust seems to be that McIntyre received a speaking fee plus travel expenses for one conference and just travel expenses for a second conference. It also says that the speaking fee was donated to charity.Thepm (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The headline is a lie. The story itself says only that McIntyre was funded by think-tanks (not gosh-horrors-where-is-my-fainting-couch "industry") to give presentations at conferences run by those think tanks. It's a pathetic beat-up, not a WP:RS. Cheers, CWC 04:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't like it, that isn't too surprising, but other than not liking the answer why isn't this a RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, because it's a lie? Dishonest stories and reliable sources are sets that have no elements in common. (The headline is not the only dishonest element of the story.) Best wishes, CWC 10:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're failing to disintguish between a RS and its content. Are you asserting that Ch4 is not reliable under any circumstances? That it is normally, but you personally happen to know that this source is false? Or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to bait other editors, perhaps you can respond to my comments above. Thepm (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you think the above is baiting. Those are genuine, not rhetorical questions. Perhaps you would care to answer them? (that too is a genuine question) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I apologise for using the term baiting, I shouldn't have said it like that. As for your questions, I'm not familiar with that website, so I can't assert whether or not is a RS. A perfunctory check tells me that it's a UK tv station news site, so I'd assume it's RS in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I'm not asserting that the article is wrong either. I have no reason to believe that it's wrong.

My comments came from having read the article to see whether there was anything we could use here. It just seems a very odd article. In AUS, where I am, it was April 1 when I read it and I genuinely wondered if it was a joke article. As I say above, "Unless I am misreading, the main thrust seems to be that McIntyre received a speaking fee plus travel expenses for one conference and just travel expenses for a second conference. It also says that the speaking fee was donated to charity." Is that summary unfair? Do you think that the article is noteworthy? Is there anything in the article that we can use here?Thepm (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there is. How would this be interesting to the average reader? It would take an extra large size tinfoil hat for anyone to assume that travelling expenses to give a speech would be enough to generate some sort of conflict of interest, even if they hadn't been donated to charity. We're not talking a Gore-sized $150K payout, after all. FellGleaming (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The headline is sensational - as such usually are, this is one reason never to use headlines. But i'm interested in how you can determine that the article is a lie. And i'm also interested in the response to WMC's RS question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is incorrect because the word "industy" implies industrial activity. A think tank is not "industry". Nor is having travel expenses defrayed to speak generally considered "receiving funding". FellGleaming (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Try reading my comment again, separate headline from content. Headlines are often written after the article, not by the journalist, and they are often not subject to editorial review. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The headline is not just 'sensationalist'. It is flat-out wrong, as everyone here (and even the article itself) attests. Since "wrong" is by defintion "unreliable", why are even still debating the point? If we know a source is unreliable, we generally aren't allowed to do original research, and pick and choose portions to retain. FellGleaming (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try once more, with a different wording: Headlines are generally not reliable. They should be considered separately from the content of any news-article, since they are (in all likelihood) not written by the journalist.

Now the question is: What in the content of the article, excluding the headline, is wrong, or a lie?

Finally: That "wrong" by definition is "unreliable" is a very new context to reliability, its one i've argued rather a lot, but seemingly to deaf ears. But as the question above - you still haven't given any reason to doubt that anything other than the headline is wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Without the headline, the content "McKintyre received a small fee to defray travelling expenses to speak to a think tank, which he promptly donated to charity" seems rather far below the bar for notability. FellGleaming (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article provides a POV accusation “speculate over his funding”. However, it does not state McIntyre's position. McIntyre's bio states: "My research on climate topics has not been supported by any company, but has been carried out entirely for personal interest and actually at the expense of business opportunities." I recommend summarizing McIntyre's position by adding after the following paragraph: "McIntyre says he funds himself." This would be referenced to “Short Bio: Steven McIntyre” (currently Ref #3)(The bolding is only to highlight the addition for this discussion) DLH (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

A lot of the sources for biog here rely entirely on mcI's self-pub biog. Is that regarded as acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's allowed per WP:SELFPUB, so long as we have no reason to doubt that the material's correct, and also so long as most of the article isn't dependent on it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate article

I've been reading through the "ClimateGate" emails recently and one thing I noticed is that Climate Audit regulars were the primary source of the FOIA requests that are one of the central issues in that controversy. Thus, I believe that future books about this controversy will probably have a lot of information on McIntyre's site. I understand that a draft for a separate artice is in the works. I think there is enough information out there currently to start a separate article, but there definitely will be so once more books on ClimateGate get published. Cla68 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Added Climate Audit as the most immediately applicable topic, having been started & run McIntyre. Added "Climategate as McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times.DLH (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Add "I Stick to Science" by Richard A. Muller regarding McIntyre ...

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick (Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American. 99.181.158.51 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Al Gore and the An Inconvenient Truth, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

When do you expect the ext. link to be more accessible? 99.112.213.34 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Accessible here and now. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason for addition, per Talk:Richard A. Muller and Talk:Climate Audit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason, again, is his counterpoint to Stephen McIntyre. 99.181.133.183 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to contrast Muller's approach with McIntyre's, the SciAm news item is not enough, and putting in the article would be WP:Original Research. If you can find an acceptable ("Reliable") source which sets out to compare and contrast Muller & McIntyre, that would be fine. (Plus, I'd like to read such an article.) Hope this helps, CWC 10:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Example excerpts:

More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.

How did the BEST project come about?

A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick]. I reviewed the paper that the hockey stick was based on, and I became very uncomfortable. I felt that the paper didn’t support the chart enough. A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components. So I was glad that I had done that.

Given the favorable things you’ve said about climate science critics such as Watts and McIntyre, do you think you were called to testify because Committee Chair Ralph M. Hall thought you’d come down against the mainstream consensus? Before my testimony, there were news articles in prominent newspapers already claiming that I had a bias, that I had an agenda. I don’t know where they got this from. Well, I can guess. I think they were predicting what I was going to say in the hopes of discounting it when it came out. I’m not even going to guess at the Republican committee chair’s motivations. Having testified before Congress, I have a sense that most members of Congress are serious, that they are thoughtful, that if they have a point of view that disagrees with what you call the mainstream, it’s because there have been legitimate skeptics who have raised real issues that have not necessarily been answered. I don’t care whether I’m speaking to a Republican or a Democrat; science is nonpartisan. And I believe that my refuge is sticking to the science. I have no agenda. I have no political reasons for saying one thing or the other. I stick to the science. I think that’s what I’m good at. And if I say something that’s surprising, that’s good. That adds to the discussion.

Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?

No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.

I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.

99.181.155.142 (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see United States Congress, Climate change policy of the United States, Global warming controversy (with Media coverage of climate change) and Climate change denial for "denier". 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else see something potentially relevant to improving the article in this last comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathematician

The fact that Stephen has a match BA does not make him a "mathematician". At best a "mathematician by training". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.141.52 (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Links to articles for improving this wikibio

• Portrait of a local climate skeptic at Toronto Star, Dec 12 2009. Sample quote:

[re Michael E. Mann's hockey stick graph] He asked Mann for the data in an email – and was stunned by the answer. The climatologist wrote he'd "forgotten" where the data set was but would get an assistant to find it.

"Here's a guy in his mid-30s, this is his claim to fame, the biggest paper of his life, probably the biggest paper of his career, it's been used on the front page of a UN study and sent to every household in Canada – how the hell could he not know where the data was?" McIntyre said.

. . .

McIntyre's work sparked a U.S. National Academy of Sciences investigation, along with U.S. congressional hearings in 2006.

--Pete Tillman (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

How the hell did McI not know that Mann had moved on to further research and had a very busy career? Not everyone spends their life memorising where they got or filed every bit of data, and this article is supposed to be about McI, not about Mann: looks like potential WP:COATRACK. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)