Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

HSI pp.23-30, 421 ... dog astrology

Interesting, but not really germane to improving this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's examine HSI's core proposition, as in pp.23-30, plus related p.421. Bob Ward discussed some of the Huang problems, and some related topics were covered under "RC Review." 1. HSI p.23-26: the FAR Graph, Vikings in Greenland, grapes in UK, good times...In 3 pages, HSI manages to: a) Criticize (correctly) IPCC FAR for showing a schematic derived from England, a small fraction of Earth, b) Assert a clear 'common knowledge" of Truth of the MWP, based on N. Europe, grapes in England, and Vikings in Greenland, a slightly larger area. c) And then endlessly promote a narrative that climate scientists were trying to hide the (criticized-for-England) Tuth. Could there be a contradiction here? The FAR was a rush Release 1.0, done in 2 years from IPCC start, a short time for such efforts. Many paleoclimate people knew the graph was a bug, quickly fixed in IPCC Supplementary Report in 1992, all described in Jones, et al (January 2009).p.36. A better 1993 graph was used in 1995's SAR, see Andy Russell's blog for handy graph series. 2. HSI p.27-30: "The Deming Affair" is the base of the key proposition. Deming is a geoscientist as HSI says, but of the many kinds, petroluem geophysicists (especially in Oklahoma) tend to have different views about AGW than most other geoscientists. Deming is also an "expert" at conservative thinktank NCPA and a strong AGW-minority view advocate. For the two key quotes, HSI cites a preprint located at SEPP website of Singer. Given the prominent in-line reference to Science on HSI p.28, readers might be forgiven if they thought the quote came from there, rather than the Journal of Scientific Exploration, an obscure fringe sciencey-looking magazine, articleshere. My current favorite article is An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in Relation to Dog Behaviour .... That seems clearer than sheep suffocation. Deming's Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear extols the virtues of Crichton's "science," as did AAPG [1]. The other 4 papers in that issue are (a) debunk of crop circle electromagnetism, (b) reincarnation of WW II Japanese soldiers in Myanamar children, (c) Author's lament that science journals keep rejecting his UFO papers for 30 years, and (d) An ode to PEAR [2], a now-defunct ESP lab. Montford quotes Deming's widely-propagated email claim: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period." Paleoclimate people had abandoned the global MWP idea years before 1995+. I suppose medical researchers might say they had to get rid of another idea in public opinion, safe secondhand smoke, long after doctors knew better, but promoted by a few of the same MWP advocates. HSI, p.28: has: "Although Deming himself did not identify the email's author, Richard Lindzen [3] of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck..." The first is true, as Deming did not name Overpeck. He might have had to prove it. But in Lindzen p.11, we find: "According to Demming, 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, in an email, remarked that one had to get rid of the medieval warm period." (Demming (sic)). Montford's own words correctly contradict Lindzen's "confirmation." No email, credible or otherwise, has been presented. Maybe the dogs ate it. 3. HSI. p.421: HSI quotes a (not-intended-for-public) email by Overpeck, denying his authorship, especially in context. Assuming a reader gets that far, maybe they will remember p.29, where this might have fairly belonged. HSI casts doubt, saying "Perhaps we will never know." SUMMARY: Montford strongly promotes Deming quotes from a fringe magazine. Then, he firmly states that Lindzen confirms Overpeck's role, a statement contrary to the fact he reported himself, and trivial to check if one actually read Lindzen's paper. Lindzen’s ArXiv paper is for a talk at a small workshop, not obviously peer-reviewed. JSE is not an oft-quoted source in actual climate research, so a possible source for this oddity might be: McKitrick in Australia pp.4-6. Bob Ward covered the Huang statements already, and all this is straight from HSI, not endless arguments over reviewers. Just 9 pages offer quite a few errors, omissions, internal contradictions, claims contrary to fact and quotations from absurd and/or minority-viewpoint sources. Maybe HSI supporters can explain all this away. Until then, I will signal my hope via "dog astrology" to remind people that fundamental scholarship flaws in the basic proposition cannot just be ignored forever.JohnMashey (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I removed this more-or-less incomprehensible section as violating both WP:FORUM and WP:OR. It seems self-evident that this stuff is of no help in improving the article. WMC has since been conducting a low-level edit-war to keep it here, reverting it back with such comments as "rv per invalid arguments." Three reverts, if I counted right. WMC, why on earth do you want to keep this visible? It just looks like clutter to me, and it's not as if you never remove such stuff -- and such actions are normally uncontroversial. What gives? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Consistency. And, of course, OR isn't a valid reason to remove stuff from talk William M. Connolley (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New review in Prospect Magazine

Yet another new negative review, this time in Prospect Magazine [4] which also published Matt Ridley's review. An interesting counterpoint. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find, the following quote from the article might be a good summary of his views: "The Hockey Stick Illusion is a McCarthyite book that uses the full range of smear tactics to peddle climate change denial." WijzeWillem (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, this one has real promise:

"Climate Denial Machine lackey Andrew Montford set to lead fake inquiry..." [5] Oh, darn, it's just Bob Ward again. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh darn, it's not another expert opinion from Bob Ward, it's a mirror of the Grauniad article. Why didn't you say so? . . dave souza, talk 03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the first review we've had from an actual scientist. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the case yes. In the end of the article he is described as "emeritus professor of physical chemistry, Nottingham Trent University". I've looked a bit at his Web of Science articles and, for completeness, this seems to be correct: mainly surface / metal catalysis chemistry. Just so it's clear he's not at atmospheric / climate scientist ;). WijzeWillem (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's a zeolite man, solid enough; seems to have been in administration at Nottingham Trent University towards the end. Not that zeolites give him any special expertise in identifying McCarthyism or smear tactics. (I make no comment about administration!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, just had to laugh at the 'zeolite man' expression :). There's actually a lot of 'zeolite people' around at the conferences I've been at, seems to be a hot topic (especially compared to administration, hehe).WijzeWillem (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This review should be included either in or after the paragraph on the positive Prospect review, showing that it was a counterpoint. This book appears to be gaining widespread attention and I think more reviews will be forthcoming, especially since this book will probably be heavily used as source in the impending books on the Climategate controversy. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the "positive Prospect review" by Matt Ridley just a reprint of his Spectator piece? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I believe this is the first review we've had from an actual scientist." Actually not. Joe Brannan is a well-published geologist -- his review ran in the Geological Society's Geoscientist, which is (I think)) the only review so far published in a scientific magazine. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So it's just the first review from an actual scientist published in a reliable source, as opposed to an oil industry geologist writing in an informal magazine with no editorial control. Carry on. . . dave souza, talk 03:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I have a personal issue with what you just wrote, but I'll take it up on your userpage. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, I've discussed your personal issue on my talk page.

@ Pete, as you'll recall from the #Geoscientist section above, Joe Brannan used a facility to publish his own comments, and appears to have reprinted the blurb for the book rather than giving a critical review. Reasonable enough, for a self-professed layman in climatology, with oil industry interests and apparently an enthusiasm for the story in the book.[6] This new review certainly gives a proper critical appraisal from the viewpoint of a scientist. However, Joyner does not seem to be a climatologist and, since I read sources with care rather than just repeating their contents, it should be noted that he makes the common error of thinking that MBH98 is just based on tree ring studies, and covers the period from 1000. Perhaps he's been bamboozled by the book? . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How could he have been bamboozled by the book, because the book goes into great detail about the different proxies that MBH98 and other, similar studies used. Dave, have you read the book? Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a passage summarising the main points of Joyner's review, along with the previously agreed text for Alastair McIntosh's review [7]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you placing all of the negative reviews at the top of the review section? Maybe the reviews should be in chronological order. Or positive reviews followed by negative reviews. What's your thinking here? Minor4th 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just alternate them. I don't think it matters if the first review is negative or positive, just make sure to altnerate them. Remember, however, that the dual reviews from the same magazine need to be together in chronological order. Who put all three negative reviews at the top? Whoever did that I think should be the one to fix it. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I alternated the positive and negative reviews. Since there are currently more positive reviews, I put a positive review first. If the situation ever changes that there are more negative reviews, then a negative review should probably go first. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems a reasonable arrangement. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine HSI's core proposition ...

Why, and why here on a Talk page? Original research done here has even less weight in the world than a blog post. FChE (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I'm ignoring this section completely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Background refers to montford's original manuscript as a paper. Since this is about science could we be clear that it was a manuscript, paper sounds like it's been peer reviewed which it obviously hasnt. Reception reads like a hagiography. There are no critical reviews mentioned in the wikipedia page. How about this one from Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/ —PrecedingHmcst1 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) unsigned comment added by 86.134.189.108 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The page is currently protected, so no edits can be made, but if you'll see above there is discussion about including reviews from the Guardian and McIntosh, both critical reviews, once the page is unprotected. Those are appropriate reviews to include. Your link is to a blog that is not a proper source for book reviews, in that it is self-published and not considered reliable by Wiki standards. Minor4th 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I realise the page is protected. Tamino has his own blog but RealClimate is a website run by working climate scientists, it's a guest post , therefore has been approved by an editorial process. Tamino is not a regular contributor to Real Climate. My link is not to a blog nor self published. There are plenty of other book reviews mentioned on Wikipedia that are from exclusively online sources, indeed The Register is an online resource. Why is The Register's gushing review quoted here and RealClimate's critical review excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.189.108 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hmcst1 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because RC is self published, and is not wp:rs it is also not usable as it written by tammy, which is a pseudonym. There are two wp:rs critical reviews now for use in the article mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, You say RC is self published I say it is not. It lists 11 established working climate scientists as contribitors, it is clearly not the opus of one person . We do not know exactly how it's editorial process works but we can be sure that this piece from a guest contributor was subject to some editorial review. Suggesting it is self published is misleading. What makes RC self published whilst The Register is somehow different? Please could you direct me to the wikipedia guideline which disqualifies a pseudonymous contribution.

Yes I note above that there are two critical reviews for use (when the lock is lifted), I'm left wondering if there is some relevance to that remark. There are many more than 2 favourable reviews in this article , are you going to delete all but 2 of the favourable reviews? Hmcst1 —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

The Tamino review is discussed quite extensively above in the section "The RC review"; while there was some debate the consensus was that it was probably not usable. Now that we have two uncontroversial reliable sources for negative reviews I doubt you will get much support for including it. With regard to positive reviews, there is some support for trimming these down a little, and I would have thought that the Register review is ripe for removal, with the Maui news being another likely victim. Regarding the balance, note that the reviews in reliable sources are almost entirely positive (the McIntosh and Ward reviews being the sole exceptions), and the article quite properly reflects this fact. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):No we will not remove the favourable reviews, I am not being misleading Surreal Climate is a self published blog. It is not a reliable source. please read wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct -- we're not removing notable, reliably sourced reviews and we're not including blog posts from anonymous individuals. And please be a little more collegial and civil, Hmcst1. Minor4th 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,Ive already asked this but , please advise where in wikipedia rules does it say anything about not including a pseudonymous source? I think you'll find that writing under a pseudonymous name, has a long history, indeed it was a favourite of ancient philosophers. I note the sarcasm in referring to RealClimate as Surreal Climate . That doesn't seem very collegial to me. It is clearly not a remark that could be considered NPOV either. In what way has my contribution been lacking in civility Minor4th ? Ive already stated above why RC should not be considered self publishing but all Ive had back is opinion not rebuttal. Hmcst1 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read wp:rs yet? It is a self published blog and can`t be used for statements of fact for anything other than about itself. That`s it ok mark nutley (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have read wp:rs . It does not give a definition of self published does it? Self refers to the individual , if the review was on Tamino's blog (exclusively)I would agree with you , but RC is the work of 11 people who are professionals in the field on which they write. Im not saying we need to rely on the article for for statements of fact. I am saying that we need to make some reference to the opinion expressed by the article, for balance. This summary of reviews is made up of opinions, it is misleading to suggest that the opinion in question is not 'reliable'. If you feel that way don't quote directly from it, paraphrase or summarise and move on. It is also disingenuous to suggest that Tamino's view was never expressed because you don't like the website on which it was published. I think we have to ask ourselves what are we trying to write here? A balanced article about a controversial book, or are we trying to make a favourable review by 'quote mining' the online reviews already published?Hmcst1 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What are we trying to write here? I can't answer for other people, but I am trying to write an article which reflects the balance of opinions in reliable sources about this book, and at the moment that balance is broadly positive towards it (the balance was overwhelmingly positive until the McIntosh review came out, but is now moving towards the middle). Note that I'm not particularly interested in the balance of opinions in reliable sources about the Hockey stick controversy or the Climatic Research Unit email controversy or even about Historical climatology because I am not writing on those pages; I leave those to people with stronger stomachs and more spare time, though I am, of course, glad that we link to them.

We are now in the happy position of having several reliable sources on both sides (positive and negative) of the question, which means we can start to be quite fussy about the quality of the sources (so dumping marginal stuff like El Reg). In assessing the quality of the sources my approach is to firstly look at their expertise in writing popular science (so Matt Ridley's opinions rate very highly for me) and then to look at issues such as length and depth of review (so the Courier article scores quite well) and stability of the article (which means that Bob Ward's review should be used with great care). As I have said before, in my opinion the leading contenders for negative reviews to be included are McIntosh and the new review by Joyner, while among positive reviews I would initially be looking to cut Andrew Orlowski and Harry Eager. But doubtless other people will have opinions too. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with this. As for the Dutch review, for now I feel we should leave it out since it's neither really negative or positive (and still a proper citation is lacking).But perhaps it's time to start building a concensus on this in a new section? WijzeWillem (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, forgot about this. Actually I quite like having middle of the road sources. Yes, we need a better citation, but I think we have one, as the book review was as far as I can tell published on page 73 of the June 2010 issue of NWT Magazine (I guess you could find a copy in your library?). The article being in Dutch is a problem, but not an insuperable one, though obviously we shouldn't quote from it unless we quote in Dutch. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see your points. I'll see tomorrow if we have it in our uni library (if anyone can confirm the ref let us know!). I think the article being Dutch shouldn't have to be problematic indeed.WijzeWillem (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As expected, some people tried very hard to delete or suppress "dog astrology." Nobody has been willing to discuss HSI's firm statement that Lindzen confirms that Deming identified Overpeck. That statement is either:
a) poor scholarship - trivially checkable by simply looking at the cited source and seeing that Lindzen offers an untruth about Deming's paper, which Montford's own writing shows is untrue. OR
b) "culpable ignorance", i.e., the polite legal term for presenting an untruth, where one cannot prove that the writer knew it, but should have. I cannot prove that Montford ever actually read Lindzen's paper to support this major point.
One way or another, Montford's claim is a clear untruth ... about a living person, and sometimes such things are defamation.
So, what seems to be wished here is that laudatory articles about HSI on websites (like the Register) or from local writers in local newspapers are noteworthy and true, but no one is allowed to even discuss anything direct from a book/movie, a bit strange. Many Wikipedia discussions are about what's in the source, not just what somebody else says about it. For example, see [of AIT] or [talk] or [Deniers]. If it becomes OR in discussion to check one citation to see if it says what is claimed, it appears that no one can check anything, unless it appears somewhere like the Discovery Institute or Maui News. Then it might count. How well would the selected pages of the HSI fare if submitted as a Wikipedia page? Part of its core proposition is demonstrably untrue by a simple search in a single citation. I'm perfectly happy to see evidence or discussion and change my mind when data warrants.JohnMashey (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

John, save your rants for timmys blog please. They are not needed here and do not help with improving this article mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, please refrain from dismissing another editor's comments as "rants". You are not the sole arbiter of what is and is not helpful. If you wish others to respect your comments, you should extend the same courtesy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wsiegmund, please refrain from enabling john in his rants, read wp:spade mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, please be assured that I will give your advice the consideration it deserves. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Received a mixture of positive and negative reviews?

According to our article lead the book has "Since its release, the book has received a mixture of positive and negative reviews;". As far as I see we have two negative reviews at The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Reception. One printed in The Guardian (and was later amended by the publisher) by the pr. man Bob_Ward and on by the what seems to be an green activist Alastair McIntosh. All the other 10+ reviews and the usage of the source in Scientific papers to underline the issue discussed in the book, hardly looks like a mixed review. For me it looks like an overly positive reviews with two badly written negative reviews, where one already has been amended. Mixed? Nsaa (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Three reviews actually - Prospect, The Guardian and the Scottish Review of Books. As for your own opinion on the reviews, please keep it to yourself - it is not useful in developing this article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the lede should more accurately reflect that the book has gotten mostly positive reviews. Minor4th 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided characterising the reviews ("mostly positive", "mostly negative", "mixed" etc), partly because that is subjective and partly because it will change over time as new reviews are published. The wording I used - "a mixture of positive and negative reviews" - is an entirely non-committal description that does not depend on subjective opinion or changeable circumstances; it will always be valid, no matter what the proportions of positive and negative end up being. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the reviews a bit more, now they are at least less than 50% of the article text, a bare minimum for sanity. This article doesn't need a series of repetetive fawning reviews; adding them back just makes the book look silly William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hartwell Paper - Edit Warring/Restrictions

This is getting simply ridiculous. The next person who edits wars over information in the article about The Hartwell Paper will be blocked. My advice on this matter? Start a fresh discussion below to decide whether or not to include the information, and recruit an uninvolved editor (perhaps an uninvolved FA reviewer or mediator) to close the discussion and come up with a consensus closure. Incivility and any responses to it will be removed, hopefully as promptly as possible, and will be met with blocks or topic bans as appropriate. NW (Talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if everyone laid down their arms and focused instead on collaborating together to get this article up to GA status.[8] Jprw (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Lovely? [9] Like your edits to the Lede; a nice start. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good one (-: Jprw (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I failed to notice this - my apologies. I cut the Hartwell stuff in the process of trimming the over-long review section. In penace, I've restored all the other stuff I cut, too (though in the long term I still think it needs to be trimmed). Should you feel the need to block me for this I'll understand William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here: the use in the Hartwell paper clearly isn't part of its reception - it is a citation. I dno't think that makes sense to have it in the article (as previously stated) but if/while it is there, I think it should be moved into a "citations" section William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hartwell Paper again

Nuclear Warfare You said you were going to block the next person who edit warred over the Hartwell Paper, etc. Although discussion is ongoing here about sources, WMC is removing large chunks of sourced text without comment on the talk page. This includes the reference to the Hartwell Paper. This is the second time he's done this in 24 hours [10], [11], despite warnings on this page as well as on his talk page [12]. I will copy this message to your talk page -- I expect that you are going to follow up on your warning. Minor4th 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief he removed a lot of text. I'll give NW a chance to respond before adding it back, although I presume anyone is welcome to do so. Cla68 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the text, though I still think it needs to be trimmed - I'd missed NW's warning. Regardless, the problem remains: the reception section is ridiculously long, bigger than the rest of the article put together. That is symptomatic of the problem: there really isn't much to say about the book, so the article needs to be bulked out with "reception" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or somebody needs to write a 600-800 word synopsis, as is recommended here, which would address the balance problem. Jprw (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but in view of the polemical nature of the book, care is required to show that propositions are the author's views, and be clear that they don't have mainstream acceptance in science. . . dave souza, talk 14:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I've read in other sources the conclusions drawn by the National Academy of Science, Wegman, the M&M papers, Judith Curry, Richard A. Muller, Hans von Storch, and the current director of the Royal Statistical Society, among a few others and to say that this book is "polemical" is not supported by the evidence. Also, are you really sure you can speak for "mainstream science" as far as it relates to this book, especially since it appears that you have haven't actually read it? The book is what it is, one subtopic under the hockey stick controversy, and a controversy it obviously is. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read all that ... Dave is encouraged to *read* the book ... but why? Most of the arguments here are about reviews by reviewers whose relevant expertise and/or thorough reading is less than clear. If one can only discuss reviews of the book, as opposed to content of the book, in *talk* page, then skip the next.

[dog astrology] HSI p.28 tells an untruth about Lindzen's confirmation of Overpeck, verifiable simply by consulting the citation HSI provides, which shows the untruth of Lindzen's claim about Deming. Given that the whole discussion is part of a core proposition of the book, is this untruth a) careless reading of Lindzen or b) having read "Lindzen confirmed" elsewhere and not checked the cite? Other reasons are possible. Maybe someone can ask AM. After that simple item, we can return to the credibility of Deming & JSE.JohnMashey (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• For those who are curious, this moved on to my talk page. NW (Talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why the Hartwell Paper is under "Reception". Perhaps there should be a separate section for papers that reference HSI and it could be mentioned there. But I would not create a section for just that paper. In fact, it does not even appear notable enough for inclusion there. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen the point of having a section on papers that reference the book. I can't think of any other book article on Wikipedia that does this, not least because it would be highly impractical. Imagine adding a section to The Selfish Gene on papers that reference the book - it would be longer than the entire article! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a separate section for citations to the book. That is what is done in Google Scholar, and I think that's a good way to showcase the book. No reason not to include it.Minor4th 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide me with an example of where this has been done anywhere else on Wikipedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No clue. Is there a rule that there can't be a section for citations to a book? Minor4th 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to treat this book differently from any other book covered on Wikipedia, you need to provide a pretty damn convincing reason to do so. I'm not seeing any reason at all why this book should receive unique treatment. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was fairly surprised when I saw that the article listed papers citing the book. Seems pretty unusual, if not pushing the bounds of noteworthy content. BigK HeX (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not proper editing policy. Let's have further discussion. Minor4th 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an "other stuff exists" argument - that's just the problem, it doesn't exist. You're advocating treating this book in a unique way, giving it a type of coverage that no other book on Wikipedia has received (as far as either of us know). Why? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th: Umm ... even aside from the unusual treatment in this article, I pretty clearly noted my concerns about the Hartwell material "pushing the bounds of noteworthy content." Did that not count towards "further discussion"? BigK HeX (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The book is only mentioned in a footnote, not in the main body of the paper, which is one more reason why this section is absurd. Wikispan (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask the question again: Minor4th wants to treat this book in a different way to any other book on Wikipedia. Why? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. It seems to be very over-enthusiastic to include this kind of stuff, and I am in favour of it's removal.WijzeWillem (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimming

Someone suggested earlier that we should try to trim some of the less notable reviews. I agree. There are a couple in particular that look marginal. Pete Tillman highlighted the Maui News review, and I suggest that we should also lose the Discovery News review by George Gilder. It's a publication which is way out on the fringes. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gilders review is fine, i have already trimmed one review. We can also lose the maui review if you would like to put back the Erwin van den Brink which was just reverted back out mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO and William M. Connolley -- do not remove sourced material without establishing a consensus on the talk page! Do not do it again. Minor4th 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point I am opposed to removing any reviews that are reliably sourced, mainly because there seems to be developing a contest over whether the reviews are mostly positive or 'mixed.' Minor4th 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... your last edit seems to be removing a bit of material also. Your edit also appears to state as fact what seems to be a contentious point. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was already a consensus to remove the Dutch sales blurb? It's certainly been discussed at length. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a sales blurb, as posted above it was actually in the magazine and from there into the webstore the review is valid mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk. What I said above about Hartwell applies to this too. There is already a fair consensus on the matter: [13]. That can change, but it has to first before it can be readded to the article. NW (Talk) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the review as it stands now nuke as it has since been found that the review is not from the webshop but from the magazine mark nutley (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus DID change. Read the whole section that you cited! All those opinions that it wasn't notable and should be removed were superceded. Minor4th 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you posted an editprotected request to have it removed, based on the consensus to do so. Had you forgotten that? Minor4th shouldn't be going against consensus here. If you believe that the piece should be re-added, let's please respect the existing consensus and discuss it here first. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that last bit. The consensus is still a bit tenuous though. Can we freeze the discussion where it is and ask people to reconfirm their views? NW (Talk) 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats is when everyone thought it was from the shop, it is not and is a valid review, you already know this as i have posted it umpteen times now. The review is valid and the consensus was on a false premise mark nutley (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see three people - Jonathan A. Jones, yourself and one other person - arguing that the previous consensus was invalid. I don't see anyone involved in that consensus agreeing with you, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially thought that the Dutch magazine mention could be removed, but I reconsidered after I read in Illusion that that magazine was one of first media publications to investigate and support McIntyre and McIntrick's conclusions on Mann's research. Because of that, I think the brief review in the magazine is relevant for this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And now consensus includes Cla and me as well. Minor4th 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just readded the Dutch review, but added a sentence with sourcing to show the relevance of the review to this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trimming the Maui News review makes sense to me. It is not much more than a community newspaper. Discovery News is hardly to be taken seriously since it is a publication of an organization with its goal to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discovery News is definitely from an advocacy organization, but so are several of the other reviews. Does the Discovery Institute have a very large following? Does their newsletter have a large circulation? Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[Without comment on the Dutch material itself, I would make the following observation.] After making admonishments about other editors working within consensus, you've now added the material against the apparent consensus? Seems a bit self-serving, don't ya think? BigK HeX (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus the other way? I'll remove it until this gets cleared up. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't read Dutch, but I'm getting only four hits ever for this entire publication [Natuurwetenschap & Techniek] on Google Scholar. Can anyone confirm this to be notable? If this is the case, then a review from such a little-known source doesn't seem like much to be getting worked up over... BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I got a different result. Did you search in the Dutch Google? Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Google gives the same 4 results. BigK HeX (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My search returned 17,200 hits. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite the same search that I was talking about, but ... does this publication have some sort of special expertise that makes it necessary? Because ... we're talking about scrapping the Maui News source for being so little known, and doing a search your way, Maui News gets about 4 times as many hits as the Dutch publication. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an actual popular science magazine -- I think it's more relevant and appropriate than the Maui News, although I don't think there's a problem with including both of them. If one is cut, it should be Maui News. I don't think there's any legitimate dissent against including the Dutch magazine review. The reasons that previously supported exclusion are no longer applicable. That discussion was concluded a month ago. And like Cla said, it actually has significance to the book because it was the first to investigate M&M. Minor4th 01:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

About this: in Holland it is a pretty well-known popular science magazine, but not with much authority (personal view). I still haven't been able to track down the actual reference to the publication. I myself am in favor of trimming the section and I think it's not notable enough to include (as with the Maui news). BTW, it's very logical that it doesn't turn up many hits in google scholar, since it's not a scientific journal in that sense. WijzeWillem (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither source seems to be notable enough for this much discussion. Suggest dropping both. In fact, in this format, two supports and two criticisms should be enough. If there is more that really needs to be said, then a different format should be used with more in depth coverage. The existing format has way too much repetition. Specifically, the name of the book (and its author) does not need to be repeated so many times. Q Science (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 says that "several of the other reviews" are from advocacy organisations. I'm not seeing this - they're all published by mainstream sources. Discovery News stands out because it's not remotely a mainstream source, and as Cla68 says, it's published by an advocacy organisation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 asks "Does the Discovery Institute have a very large following?" See Discovery Institute, George Gilder, intelligent design movement and related articles. Probably worth including as it shows an area of support for the arguments presented in the book. . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the Discovery Institute article and I didn't see where it really said how much of a following that it has. If its newsletter doesn't have a very large circulation, then I think it would be a candidate for removal. Cla68 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I've seen a couple of editors lately, including Dave and Chris, seemingly imply that there is something wrong with the Intelligent Design movement and the people involved with it. I was under the impression that we weren't supposed to take sides on the topics we edit in Wikipedia. Is there something going on that I'm not aware of? Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, you seem to be seeing incorrectly, perhaps your vision on this issue is distorted. The intelligent design movement promotes a fringe pseudoscientific view, which opposes mainstream science. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, it means that we should show their views in accordance with relevant policies. Not sure how you were unaware of that. . dave souza, talk 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What Dave says. My point was not that they are "wrong" but that their publication, Discovery News, is simply not a mainstream source. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Q Science. Neither publication immediately jumps out as bastion of reviewing expertise, and deeper research on the publications does nothing to better indicate notability. Remove them both, and reorganize the reception section. BigK HeX (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can we please just let this settle for a bit and not go about removing sources. There is no requirement that Discovery News be a mainstream source. The only requirement is that it be a reliable source. This is a magazine subject to editorial review, and as such it is a reliable source. More importantly George Gilder is a notable person, and he is the one who wrote the review. The Dutch magazine is reliable as well. Please do not remove sources at this point. There needs to be fuller discussion and a clear consensus to remove reliably sourced information. Minor4th 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Discovery News is subject to editorial review? Not that it matters because no one disputes that Gilder wrote that which is attributed to him. The point is that Gilder and his publication are not sources that most readers would go to for a review of a book. It adds nothing of significance besides clutter. Do you object to the removal of the Maui News paragraph? If so, I wonder if you might help me understand how it improves the article and helps our readers? Is Harry Eagar an expert on climate change or related issues? Is he a well-respected book reviewer? He seems to be well-informed on the news of Maui, but I wonder why that makes his opinion of HSI helpful to our readers.[14]

• Re: George Gilder's review: I think people are getting a bit off-target by focusing on where Gilder's review appeared, and/or what his views on intelligent design (etc.) may be. Gilder himself is a very well-known writer, particularly on technology-related subjects, so I think many people would find his opinion of HSI to be of interest. Looking over the list of reviewers, Gilder is almost certainly the best-known of the group, at least in the USA.

As for trimming: I agree that the Maui News review seems dispensable. However, since trimming has become contentious, I agree with Minor 4th that it would be best to give this a rest for now. We don't have deadlines, and I suppose it's better to be more inclusive than less. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the maui news review, along with some other fixes, i think the reception section can now be left alone and it is time for me to expand the synopsis using the book. mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry

A review from the Royal Society of Chemistry which appears in the September edition of Chemistry World. "Andrew Montford declares he studied chemistry - with the benefit of his scientific education one would think he should know better." [15] Wikispan (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably by this Nick Hewitt [16]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be the fellow. [17]

Add the review to the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think this could be used, it is an attack on the author, were exactly is the review in that article? mark nutley (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That does appear to be true that it is an attack on the author under a veiled guise as a book review, but it still qualifies as some commentary on the book from what appears to be a reliable source. What do others feel about its inclusion? Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That is just a gratuitous, ad hominem attack of the author and it goes too much to the personal aspects rather than the content of the book. It is inappropriate coatracking in this article and it's also BLP violation since it is about a living person, it's an opinion stated by an ideological opponent and is not a reliable source on Montford's education and level of scientific knowledge. Minor4th 03:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a problem extracting any usable text, but perhaps something like

Writing in Chemistry World Nick Hewitt described the book as a "polemic" and stated that "Readers of Chemistry World will have far better things to do than read this pedantic book."

might be OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that wording accurately describes his "review." I'm of the opinion that we report what the sources are saying and let the reader decide on their own their validity and credibility. So, I'm in favor of adding the text you suggest to the article. Cla68 (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about we add Andrew`s response? "I still can't take the smile off my face at the ridiculousness of Nick Hewitt's 'review'. It's just so hard to comprehend how one can reach the rank of full professor and still be unable to put together a coherent argument (although who knows, perhaps this is normal at Lancaster, Phil Jones' alma mater). Come to think of it, it's hard to comprehend how one can become a full professor without being able to spell 'practice', but that's probably just me being pedantic again. And once again, we have a review that could have been written without actually reading the book at all. Not a single quote from the book, not a single fact disputed. I'm wondering if I should christen this kind of thing a "Hewitt", in honour of Professor Nick." mark nutley (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Should Chemistry World choose to link to that in an echo of the Bob Ward review, then we could certainly have that discussion. Until then "author disagrees with critical review" is hardly notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It`s not a critical review, it`s an attack pure and simple. I object to it`s inclusion on BLP grounds as it is not an attack on the book, it is an attack on the author mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this one short, per Jonathan's proposal above. Looks okay. Wikispan (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I trust our readers are intelligent enough to recognize the "review" for what it really is. We just report what the sources say and leave it up to the readers to decide what to believe. Cla68 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't water it down then -- if you're going to include it, go ahead and show how ridiculous it is by quoting the ad hominem attack. Minor4th 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as actually reviewing the book -- I think this is a more appropriate quote, as this is the only actual review of the book in the comment from Hewitt:

Here, one small part of the body of evidence that shows the Earth is warming is examined in tedious detail, with a focus on the actions and words of its protagonists. Undoubtedly there have been shortcomings in working practises, many a result of the sustained pressure these individuals have been under from a small but determined group of sceptics (most recently in the UK through the repeated use of freedom of information requests), but this polemic does absolutely nothing to alter the physics of the Earth system.

Minor4th 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

New Guardian review mentions this article

THI has now been reviewed by The Guardian, which also mentions this article - "The book has received fawning reviews from the Spectator and the Sunday Telegraph but its account of events has created so much dissent that its Wikipedia entry has been protected from further editing until disputes over it have been resolved." (How true!) Here's a proposed addition for this article:

Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment criticised "the serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies in [Montford's] book" in a review in The Guardian. Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account and characterised the elided material as "awkward truths ... which would get in the way of his conspiracy theory." Ward concluded that "given such glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in his book, it would perhaps be wise to treat with some scepticism Montford's assessment of the validity of the inquiries into the hacked email messages."

[…]

References

I'll add this when the article is unprotected. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I have a few comments. (1) You can wikilink Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (2) More seriously I'm not sure the word "noted" is right, as it implicitly accepts his claims; something more neutral would be better. (3) The reference to the assessment of the inquiries might be unclear to readers less familiar with the minutiae of the topic? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks, I should have spotted that - added; (2) how about "highlighted"?; (3) good point, I suggest wikilinking the words "inquiries into the hacked email messages" to Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Reports, so that the reader can learn more about that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thanks. (2) Better, but I'm not sure that's quite right; I've got the right word at the back of my mind somewhere but it's refusing to come out at the moment. (3) Clever, but you would have to add the review of the reviews to the article for this to make sense? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) often ends up like this: "...he highlighted [what he perceived to be] various omissions and selective quotations..." Wikispan (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) No problem; (2) I recommend a dram of whisky, that might help!; (3) I really don't want to get too much into the details of the reviews - that's not really germane here and there's too much room for disputing the details, so I would prefer to keep things as simple as possible. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• The author has a rebuttal of Ward's claims posted at "Glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations". He's thinking about asking The Guardian to publish a reply. If so, we should include it, I think.

We should also link/cite Ward's position at Grantham: Policy and Communications Director, ie PR man. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it needs to be clear that Ward is a PR guy, and I don't see any other problem with Chris' proposed edit, as now written, to add the Ward review. Still oppose the notion of butchering the synopsis with critical commentary or anything outside of what the book actually says. Minor4th 02:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the backgrounds/affiliations of all reviewers should be made clear. Thank you for that suggestion. However, if you are describing ChrisO's work to improve the article as "butchering", you may wish to choose words that are less likely to cause offense. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not talking about anything by ChrisO or any specific editor, and I apologize for coming across that way. What I meant was chopping up the synopsis with outside sources (either approving of the book or criticizing it, either way). I used the word "butcher" because that kind of treatment of the synopsis would almost certainly result in a "butchered" conglomeration of POV sources stitched together into some unreadable mess. I just don't see how the synopsis is the place for that, and I'm having trouble even conceiving of how that could be done. Minor4th 04:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Ward should be identified, although with an appropriate link, not just calling him a "PR guy." He does have a science degree and science society experience. In fact, I think *every* reviewer should be properly identified, if possible. Just to pick a few:

For instance, John Dawson is a Melbourne businessman and freelance writer who runs (or ran) http://www.aynrand.org.au/ and seems to write for Capitalism Magazine, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com. Somebody already mentioned that Joe Brannan is a petroleum geologist, and that certainly seems worth mentioning, especially given AAPG's example. Bruce Robbins appears to be a local business/news writer, http://www.thecourier.co.uk/search/qs/bruce%20robbins/rf/sample/qt/article_slideshow/. Peter Foster is (some kind of) writer for the National Post, http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=peter+foster . He is also named, p.1 in the (quite-relevant) lawsuit by Andrew Weaver, http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/andrew%20weaver%20statement%20of%20claim.pdf Excellent idea! JohnMashey (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I agree that all reviewers should be idenified with current affiliations. Minor4th 04:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of this. And the review section of the article needs some pruning, when unprotected -- do we really need the Maui News review? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a procedural note: Any admin is free to edit through my protection or lift it should they feel it would be appropriate to do so. Once consensus is gathered here, you can use {{editprotected}} to request it be added to the article. NW (Talk) 04:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

None of the reviewers should be identified with any affiliations unless it is in the source presented. In this one it is, in the other reviews it does not and as such we are unable to add their affiliations mark nutley (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not synthesis on any article to combine two references to source a quote . For example, say the article was on a Russian history work. Writing "Robert K. Massie, an author with a Pulitzer prize winning book in the field,[1] remarked about stuff in the book[2]" is much better than "Robert K. Massie remarked about stuff in the book[2]." If you merely write the later, people will wonder "Who on Earth is Robert K. Massie?" By explaining the author's background, you allow the reader to judge for themselves more easily how much weight they should to Massie's opinion. NW (Talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, how about this as a possible text?

Writing in The Guardian Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, criticised what he called "the serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies in [Montford's] book". Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted what he perceived to be various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account and characterised the elided material as "awkward truths ... which would get in the way of his conspiracy theory."

[…]

References

Might we get consensus on something like that in the reviews section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I`m ok with that, but why a ref to the whoswho at the institute? A wikilink to should be enough don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally I would link to a wiki page about Bob Ward, but slightly surprisingly he doesn't seem to have one. Failing that I'm happy to fall in with the majority. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a bit to draft, to make clear it's Ward's opinion re "serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies". Pete Tillman (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, i`ll write up an article about bob tonight (or tommorow) as time allows, should`nt take long to knock out a stub covering the main aspects for him mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW the article has been updated, better check it to ensure your edit is still the same as the article mark nutley (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I have struck out the now missing text above. There's not a lot left; might be best to start again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm: "This article was amended on 20th August 2010. Changes were made following a complaint from Andrew Montford." -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's give this another go, based on JAJ's proposed text, as the article seems to have stabilised now:

Writing in The Guardian Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, criticised what he called "the serious inaccuracies in [Montford's] book". Describing the book as an "entertaining conspiracy yarn", he highlighted what he perceived to be various omissions and selective quotations in Montford's account. He characterised the elided material as "awkward truths" that Montford had neglected to tell the reader about and commented "it would perhaps be wise to treat with some scepticism Montford's assessment of the validity of the inquiries into the hacked email messages."

[…]

References

Hopefully this won't need to be modified! -- ChrisO (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, can we wait a couple of weeks on including this? As was repeatedly stated in the main Climategate article, there is no rush to get things included early rather than encyclopedically. The review was published last week, and it isn't clear whether the ground has settled yet.Slowjoe17 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I expect we could reach consensus on something like that - I'm certainly happy with the first two sentences. But more broadly I think Slowjoe17's point is correct; the article has stabilised for the moment but Montford is hinting [18] that the initial redaction may just be the first stage. Obviously we shouldn't hold off for ever, but waiting until the end of the week might be sensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When the Guardian article does stabilize and the review is included in the article here, Montford's response needs to be included as well: [19]Minor4th 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed waiting a little bit can't hurt, and I think it looks fine as it is now. As Minor4th said we might want to add a sentence on the fact that Montford responded and (of course) large disagrees with the criticisms.WijzeWillem (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian has now added a direct link to Montford's response on his own blog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added chris0`s content would someone be so kind as to add Andrews response? mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky to see how we could use the blog material (not completely impossible as Montford's blog can be a RS for his own views, but tricky). While we could in principle add the fact that the Guardian has linked to the blog it is hard to see how one might phrase that. I note, however, that the Guardian has now added the text "This article was amended on 20th August 2010 following a complaint from Andrew Montford to make it clear that we did not mean to imply that Andrew Montford deliberately published false information in order to support the arguments made in his book. We apologise if such a false impression was given." and we might just be able to do something with that? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we can say Watts responded to the review (ref to his post) which lead to the Guardian modifying the article? mark nutley (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• Proposed addition for Guardian's amendment & apology:

The Guardian amended Ward's review, apologized, and added a link to Montford's response, following a complaint by Montford.

References

MN, did you mean Montford responded? You've confused me with the Watts ref.

ChrisO, thanks for the "ref group" trick! Always wondered how to do that... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pete, see also the Template:Reflist#List-defined_references and WP:LDR description. It's a great extension :-) Nsaa (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Second those thanks; I have learned lots of nifty syntax tricks by studying ChrisO's edits! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Oops, yet more changes to Bob Ward's review, per Bishop Hill. I'm in transit, so someone else will have to re-archive & revise our bit.

PS: What's this "Grauniad" business? Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian has now published a reply from Montford [20] which I guess should be added to the Bob Ward section. Oh, and the "Grauniad" is a traditional UK joke about the notoriously large number of printing errors in the Guardian 20 years ago before they modernised their typesetting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Joyner

Mark, calling Joyner "emeritus" isn't to "big him up", but just to make clear that he is retired. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree With jaj. See emeritus.Nsaa (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, just seems to me to be bigging him up, why mention any of his personal details? If he is retired then why does it say he`s a prof at a uni? mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Emeriti are usually described as professors even after they have retired. But I have no problem with removing all the personal details; I just don't think we should describe him as a professor without making clear he's emeritus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "emritus professor". Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a brief description of the background, affiliation and/or qualifications of reviewers should be included and may help our readers better understand the review and its potential biases. I've made this point earlier on this page, as have others. Marknutley seems to be about the only one who objects to this. At times, he has mischaracterized it as original research. Please see Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion/Archive_4#Geoscientist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding backgrounds of reviewers as long as it is done uniformly (as far as possible of course). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Restore to last stable version

{{editprotect}} The article now looks broke [21] after an edit war. Please restore the last stable version at Cla68 at 2010-09-21T07:04:41 per WP:STATUSQUO. Nsaa (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Better to fix up the tags. Or, in my opinion, better to semi it so we can fix it up. But adding bad the fluff: no William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Last stable version significantly better. Fell Gleaming^talk 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. While there is plenty of opportunity for debate on where the article should go next, Nsaa has correctly identified the last stable version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support per above. Moreover, the haircut was very sloppy -- all sorts of hanging ref-tags now. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So Tillman: just to be absolutely clear about this: you think that having a "reception" section longer thatn the rest of the article put together is a good idea, and that there is no need to trim this section at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So WMC, why don't you expand the article in other areas then. For example the The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Synopsis section could be bigger if you think the reception section is to big (I don't). Nsaa (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think my last edit was the last stable version before somebody swooped in and deleted a significant portion of the article. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't support that - there's too much bloat in the article as is. Using blogs as sources when we have real sources - not a good idea. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And where is the blogs [22] from note 21 to 26 as restored by MSGJ? Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, per rough consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (for the record). Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose fixing a broke page? Nsaa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed stuff

• 2010-08-30 MN remove maui news, depeacock joyner and various fixes[23]. Ok per talk page as discussed at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Trimming

• 2010-09-21T15:59:34 WMC removes a lot of reviews
  1. Discovery News, George Gilder
  2. The Courier's Bruce Robbins commended the way
  3. Peter Foster, in a column in the National Post
  4. In The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009, authored by 14 natural and social scientists including Mike Hulme and Roger A. Pielke, Jr.,
  5. The book was cited in a paper about environmental regulation by Elizabeth Fisher

William M. Connolley claims that this has been discussed ((→Reception: trim. see talk)). This is plainly untrue (I've gone through all the active discussions at the moment). Why is the article protected after this extremely controversial removal of content without restoring it to the last stable version Cla68 at 2010-09-21T07:04:41? Nsaa (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief - that trimming this has been discussed is obviously true - just look at the sections currently on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, give me a reference to each of the five paragraphs you removed where it was discussed (and at least got some wider consensus of removing it except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments). Maybe I've not read the discussions well enough? Nsaa (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any consensus to remove the material either. I don't support its removal. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, a long array of 1-2 sentence paragraphs is horrible writing. As for the material that was actually removed

1. Gilder's blog post wasn't notable when it was first added, and it's even more inappropriate now that there are non-blog reviews.
2. The Courier stuff is a barely notable bit of fluff. Adds little.
3. The Peter Foster bit says nothing beyond "buy this book". How does that belong in an encyclopaedia article?
4. The "Hartwell paper" shouldn't be there. "The book was used as a source"? Seriously? Is this clutching at straws, or parody? And it's seriously misleading.
5. The last bit, an entire paragraph (or sentence, since these are one and the same here) to say "it was used as a source". Um, yeah. Stop making fun of Montford's boosters?

Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda's analysis. "Writing in Discovery News, George Gilder ...." may suggest to the casual reader that Gilder is a newspaper reporter. He should be identified as an intellegent design proponent if that source is retained. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Again mostly WP:IDONTLIKE arguments. As far as I have remembered the two last sentences has been discussed at length. It's a big pain for the AGW movement that this book has been used by peer reviewed articles. Knowing that the book is regarded as a well written piece used by the scientific community is extremely important and interesting for the general readership of this article and make the weight of the book much bigger. Ok, you don't like it, but that is not an argument, see Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship. As the arguments for the other articles like "barely notable bit of fluff" (please blog about it instead), " The Peter Foster bit says nothing beyond "buy this book". How does that belong in an encyclopaedia article?" ok what does the sentence say? "The Courier's Bruce Robbins commended the way "that Andrew has managed to break the episode down and re-assemble it in a way that has transformed the Hockey Stick saga into a compulsive detective story."[22] In a second review he commented, "The Hockey Stick Illusion, charts in great detail the efforts of a sceptical mining industry consultant and statistician, Steve McIntyre, to take apart a graph that became known as the Hockey Stick".[23]". Buy the book? Yes hopefully you will do and read it but that is not what this sentence says. Nsaa (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, there is about 30% more material on reviews of the book as there is material in the entire rest of the article. This is poor style. My suggested change would be to leave one prominent favorable review, and one prominent critical review (e.g. Joe Branan and Bob Ward, which seem to be the most detailed of the reviews), then add a sentence to the end of each paragraph referencing other reviews with a similar view. Combine the two citations to the book into one more paragraph. Voila, 13 paragraphs becomes 3 and we can forgo all of these arguments on whether to add each new review every time one comes out. Do you think readers are counting the number of favorable and unfavorable cites??? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

your edit left a bunch of broken cite tags. I am going to revert your good faith edit to clean it up, and how about we carefully remove some of the excess? The problem with your proposal is that it would make it appear as though there have been roughly equal positive and negative reviews, which isnt the case --- that would give a bit of undue weight to the negative reviews. This section does need to be trimmed, however. Perhaps leave a couple of the better positive reviews and one negative that is represenative? Minor4th 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the reference tags. The references for this article are in so many different formats I couldn't tell if they were correct or not until actually making the edit. I would welcome an effort to clean them up. Given the preponderance of the sources, I think it would be reasonable to add a few more sentences about the positive reviews and possibly cut the review by Bob Ward, which had some issues with it from what the current version says. Maybe add the word "many" to the the "remainder" sentence for the pro sources and replace "several" with "a few" in the con sources, barring a sudden outbreak of more reliable sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the results of my edits, it appears the only problem was that there were several references that were never cited or cited in two different ways in the revised version, which can be trivially remedied. (most were resulting from deleting the he said/she said argument from the Ward review). Shall I try to clean it up or leave it for a more experienced user? Sailsbystars (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree the "Reception" section should be trimmed, but predict this will continue to be contentious. I only have a few minutes (leaving on a trip), but here are a couple of comments. I oppose removing Gilder's review. He's probably the best-known person (to the general public) to have commented on HSI. Gilder is not a blog post, rather it appears to be a [24] newsletter. And I think Richard Joyner's non-review should be trimmed to a single sentence, as I believe another editor previously suggested. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that I tried to do with my edit [25] was to shorten everything down except a summary of one review from each side. Here's what we can solve by this method:

1. Most of the reviews for both "sides" tell the same story. One favorable and one negative review in detail tell you the more or less the entirety of the point of view.

2. If we start adding reviews, we get into edit wars and personal attacks over, well, just about everything. This source says one thing, but this other source says this other source is wrong but then this other source says.... ad nauseum. If we add reviews with a note of the source and a citation, we avoid the whole messy details that people in this topic area love to argue over.

3. With regard to Minor4th's point about one detailed review each giving undue weight to the "con" side which has fewer reviews, I disagree respectfully. Look again at my version of the article.[26] It was obvious to me when I was writing it and it should be obvious to a casual reader that there are one heck of a lot more reliable sources in the "pro" camp than the con camp. Adding another detailed review to the "pro" camp adds little new information to the article, while providing the opening for yet more edit wars and endless debate.

4. with regards to a lot of the comments on this page saying "trim this review, expand this review", taking such actions fails to solve the main problem with the reception section, which is the fact that it's just a collection of quotes about the book and terribly long with a minimal organizational scheme. Picking at it gradually won't reduce the bloat and will leave a field of battle littered with dead horses beaten in the intervening edit wars. Hence why in my humble opinion, the section should simply be weedwhacked down to the essential points, as I tried to do.

Sailsbystars (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Sailsbystars might be on the right track here -- I like the idea of grouping the positive and negative reviews, though I think SBS's proposal is too telegraphic. SBS, why don't you post your proposal here on Talk and we can try to work out a version that is acceptable to the consensus? This approach has worked on other contentious pages. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be my suggestion too. SBS's text is the right broad approach (though I'm sure I can find some details to disagree with!). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sailsbystars on the broad approach, however this book demonstrably promotes a fringe agenda with misleading omissions, and that's something we should properly cover, as sourced to Bob Ward's review showing mainstream views. The positive reviews all appear to come from proponents of fringe scientific views, and the weight given to these reviews should reflect that. . dave souza, talk 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation in the book, fringe views

As Bob Ward's review makes clear, the book shows a practice of misrepresentation by omission, then draws false conclusions promoting fringe views. Careful reading of the book reinforces this point.
For example, on pages 24–25, Montford presents a schematic diagram from the 1990 IPCC report as showing "the scientific understanding of the time" of global warming. The graph shows Medieval temperatures dipping below modern levels around 1330, but Montford says "it suggested that past temperatures had been warmer than today in a long period lasting from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries." Is he not very good at reading graphs, or has he failed to read the IPCC report page 202 which discusses this "exceptionally warm" period "about AD 950-1250" in some areas, when another area was cold? He correctly notes on p. 26 that the graph was largely based on records for central England, but then introduces his claim that it was only in 1994 that "potentially explosive" idea that the Medieval warm period was only regional was introduced, ignoring page 199 of the 1990 IPCC report, "the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global)" as well as page 202 which describes regional variations. On page 32–33 Montford claims that Mann et al. 1998 in reconstructing temperatures after 1400 "was the beginning of the end of getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period", and makes the exciting revelation on page 33 that in the 1998 "Hockey Stick" graph showing only temperatures back to 1400, "The Medieval Warm Period had completely vanished", as though the graph could show a period before the graph starts.
That's pretty blatant, and is even self contradictory, demonstrating the low standard of scholarship in the book. It's enough to dismiss the book as a reliable source for fact, though it is a reliable source for the author's fringe views. As this analysis is based purely on the book itself and the source it cites, it's reasonable source based research. The conclusions are not those presented in the book so it's arguably original research in Wikipedia terms, but it is something to bear in mind when considering the weight to be given to Montford's views. . . dave souza, talk 11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a thought on that problem as well. Perhaps a compromise could be to link to "Main Article: Hockey stick controversy" (or Global warming controversy) immediately under the synopsis break. The Fringe views are quite well debunked on those pages, so rather than debunk them on every page about a fringe source (which would constitute SYN or OR (or perhaps combine both into Original Syn)), simply link to the main article that explains the broader context of such views. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A more explicit alternative, which I think would create more problems that it would solve (which is why I refer to the above as a compromise) would be a disclaimer along the lines of

The following section may represent a minority view on a scientific subject. To see the complete context of the controversy, please see the article on the Global warming controversy.

But what exactly constitutes a minority view? And what about adding such a statement BLPs, e.g. Judith Curry? It's more BLPORSYN. With my first choice of the main article link we solve the problem with neutral wording, which allows a similar style to be followed regardless of the scientist's position on the sliding scale of mainstream vs. fringe and lets the reader decide for themselves where that book/person/blog falls. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you'll appreciate, expecting a reader to click on a link to get an idea of the mainstream/minority/fringe status of a specific claim doesn't meet the weight policy requirements, and it should be made clear from reading the article itself. Not easy to achieve in an area as hotly contested as this is. Agree that the problem is solved by neutral wording which makes it clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view, as well as giving sufficient detail of the majority view. Unfortunately sources on barely noticed fringe subjects don't often give us that degree of information with specific reference to the specific subject of the article; in this case, the book itself. As for Judith Curry, her views on science itself appear to be mainstream, her ideas on this particular book seem to have been rather vague and ill-informed. . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but disagree about what can be done with the article. I think that the problem here is that current wikipedia sourcing policies are set up poorly with regards to fringe viewpoints. Most traditional media is happy to uncritically report fringe viewpoints since they are controversial and exciting. Blogs by experts are much more adept at dismantling these frivolous claims. The ideal solution would be to have a policy to allow the use of blog postings by recognized experts in a field as a source in their field of expertise. The ideal solution for this particular article would be referencing RealClimate's thorough demolition of the book. (Although we would still have a problem with WP:UNDUE, and an intractable debate would develop about whether we are giving undue weight by number of sources or undue weight by reputation of sources) Unfortunately, current policy doesn't allow that. So we're stuck with a fringy article for the forseeable future and should thus concentrate on repairing other aspects of the article that we can actually get consensus to fix. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how these suggestions can be achieved without major BLPORSYN issues, and consequent edit wars. The key thing to remember is that this article is about the book. Trying to use it to debunk Monford or his views is just as much COATRACKing as trying to use it to debunk AGW would be. By all means wikilink everything, and include specfic links to Hockey stick controversy or Global warming controversy. By all means include reliably sourced quotes from people like Bob Ward. But more than that is SYN at best and OR at worst. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me right back to my edit [27] attempt at major clean up the article. One side wants to use the reception as a COATRACK for debunking the book's claims and the other wants to use it as promotion bordering on advertising of the book. But additional reviews fail to add more information content to the article. The "inclusion of reliably sourced claims" has gotten out of hand on this article and has instead become "inclusion of any reliably sourced claim that supports viewpoint x or y". There is no viewpoint z (yet), so why the need for quoting 11 different sources to show two viewpoints? Sailsbystars (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we pretty much agree on basic approach, and your edit was the best we have seen for a while. I think the only real question is whether we hack it about here or on the article page. As you have no doubt noticed people get a little fraught on these pages! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt bob ward just a pr man? Does he actually have the credentials to review the science? And montford says bob got it wrong [28] Ward's article is, however, worse. He fails to make clear that the scientific papers he discusses are rather peripheral to the hockey stick story. He makes three main arguments, each one of which is in essence a straw man Should this also be in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This exactly the sort of pointless addition that is how this section got so bloated. The subject of this article is not reviews of reviews of montford's book. And the whole montford-ward-montford back and forth is already documented here and doesn't need Yet Another Quote. It's an article about Montford's book. Let's cut out the meta. In my suggested revision, I collapsed Bob Ward's review to a single sentence since it's regarded as problematic by some. However, the article at the guardian is the amended version [29] so why do we care the about the whole back and forth of how it got amended anyway? Just cite the amended version! Sailsbystars (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)