Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cited, again

I took out [1], yet again. What is this "an administrator said this has to stay until there is a clear consensus for it to be deleted, he said he will block people who delete it" stuff? Who is this mysteroius admin, and what is he doing making content decisions?

Can we have the article semi'd, perhaps? There is enough trouble n strife without anon reversions William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with WMC's deletion, although for a different reason. It seems like original research to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you - I think it's trivia (as I've said before), but it's also OR. Now if a reliable source discussed this, it would no longer be OR and probably would not be non-notable trivia. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Secondary sources documenting it as a well-regarded academic source would be needed to keep the paragraph, otherwise it's OR and perhaps also puffery. The only reason I left it in during the major cleanup was that I didn't want accusations of bias to lead to a revert of the desperately needed compaction.. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this had been settled. Earlier on the page, I said I would block people for continuing to edit war without gathering consensus either way. My recollection was that such consensus had been gathered. Apparently not, and I don't have time to look through archives right now unfortunately. Here is an attempt to remedy that: People who believe this information should be kept in the article, please explain why. NW (Talk) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't semi the article for a bit in the meantime, could you? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have referred that question to WP:RFPP to get an outsider's opinion. NW (Talk) 17:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I am that outsider ;-) I declined to semi-protect the article, as it seemed at the time that IPs were behaving with some degree of responsibility (I could be wrong, however...) and that sock-puppetry was probably occurring, but using auto-confirmed accounts (hence semi-protection would not be effective in addressing that). I think that full-protection may be the answer, but it's a big step and I'd prefer to avoid it if at all possible. I'm continuing to monitor the situation and will fully-protect the article if problems continue. TFOWR 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i had only meant to put back the discovery magazine which was removed as a blog. It has a full editorial staff and i posted that up above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend discussing such edits here first, and waiting for consensus. There has been way too much edit warring going on here, and if it continues the solution will be to fully-protect the article. This is something that I would greatly prefer not to do, as it will mean that everyone will have to use the {{edit protected}} template to propose and request changes to the article. TFOWR 10:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover isn't the source you re-instated. The source you reinstated is "Discovery News", a production of the Discovery Institute which lists no editorial staff and is made up of posts with date stamps, newest at the top. You (72.20.28.44) should really read links before you reinstate them. Guettarda (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

George Gilder

In the context of this article, I think it is more helpful to the average reader to describe George Gilder as an intelligent design advocate, rather than as co-founder of the Discovery Institute.[2] Some may not be familiar with the mission of the Discovery Institute and may confuse it with a scientific organization. I'm confused by the edit summary of the anon.[3] S/he seems to be agreeing, yet reverting. If Jonathan A Jones is advocating brevity, may I suggest that my edit is in accord with that wisdom.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the entire mission of the Discovery Institute just to promote the Intelligent Design theory? When I looked at the Discovery Institute's webpage, ID appeared to be but one portion of their agenda. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Gilder is best-known as a writer, particularly on technology-related subjects. See George Gilder, which has ID & the DI fairly low on Gilder's life-list. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My take on these questions is that the best approach is simply to wikilink the author's page, where there is a detailed discussion of his background. Selecting particular facts from this page leads to the danger of POV selection (where the author does not have a wiki page it's trickier of course). Thus I would normally not support describing him as co-founder of the Discovery Institute for the same reasons as I would not support describing him as an advocate of intelligent designe. In this particular case there is some argument for doing so (though not paerhaps a very strong one) reflecting the fact that the article was published in Discovery News, and so we are alerting the reader that this source is, if not quite a self published source, someway along the line towards one. However my personal preference would be for the simplest form: "Writing in Discovery News George Gilder compared the portrayal". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And why are we using this blog post anyway? Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See "Trimming" above. At a glance we didn't reach any firm conclusions; I think we got sidetracked onto minor issues. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All that got bogged down in agennda-driven stuff by M4th and MN. I've trimmed everything from Gilder on down. I still think tehre are too many though, which is really just a way to fill up the page, in the absence of anything real to say about the book William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder looks like a blog post to me, also. Does anyone have any evidence of an editorial policy or independent review? Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

there is no agreement to delete all that stuff so i put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.64 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is no agreement to have it in. Moreover, good reasons have been put forward for its removal. More, whose sock are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder's review is in the Discovery Institute's magazine, so I don't think it's a blog post. Gilder's opinion appears to be notable because he is such a prominent writer on science and technology. Cla68 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"the Discovery Institute's magazine"? Have you ever looked at "Discovery News"? It appears to be a blog. Each post has a date and time stamp, with new posts added to the top of the page. There's no mention of an editor or any editorial board. There's no publication information. So what's the basis for your claim that it's a magazine? Surely given an FoF about your misuse of sources you wouldn't be making up claims about this one, would you? If you have a source for your claim, please share it. Guettarda (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder is notable as co-founder and leading light in the Discovery Institute, which has a "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal mission"[5] and remains focussed on Teach the Controversy as a euphemism for intelligent design. We should not be misrepresenting the weight due to his opinion. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gilder a prominent writer on *science* and technology? Can you cite his previous writings on *science*, especially anything credible to do with this topic? His Wikipedia entry does not make this obvious, maybe it needs an update to add his science writing.JohnMashey (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover Magazine [6] has a full editorial staff, you did not look very hard did you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.44 (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover Magazine? Sure it does. But does that have to do with "Discover News"? Guettarda (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, 72.20.28.44 is editing from a shell (closed proxy) server, so may be a previously banned user. The rules are unclear for whether closed proxy edits can be reverted on sight. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the argument about the exact format of "Discovery News" is beside the point. Gilder's opinion is (imo) notable because he's a notable writer on technology, and we can presume that this newsletter (or whatever) is a reliable source for Gilder's views on the book.

That said, several editors strongly object to using Gilder, and it's not like we're short of positive reviews, so I won't be pressing further for use of his review. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

The current version reads "Numerous other newspaper and magazine articles ...".[7] It would be more accurate to say "A number of ..." or simply "Other". Unstated is the fact that despite the interest in the topic, this book was largely ignored by the mainstream media and scholars. Compare its reception by scholars to that given a mainstream book on climate change, e.g., "The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change" (2005) by Tim Flannery.[8]][9] The lack of scholarly sources has made it difficult write a balanced article. As currently written, with the backgrounds or affiliations of the reviewers either unstated or misstated, the reader of this article may not understand that many of the reviews are little more than a reflection of the bias of the reviewer. I find no evidence that Fred Singer is a climatologist, but describing him as a retired physicist and anthropogenic climate change skeptic would be accurate and helpful to the reader. I think that the article is much easier to read as a result of the edits of Sailsbystars. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed "a handful" to "several" for the critical reviews, but there really are a lot more positive than negative ones. I retitled Singer to Atmospheric physicist, per his wikibio. The reviews are what they are -- I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to sort out bias vs. expertise, so long as the reviews are verifiable and accurately summarized. I think readers can judge this for themselves. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The usual compromise is just to drop the title - no-one lese has one that I can see. Singer isn't a AP any more, he is long retired William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Um. As a mostly-retired geologist, I resemble that remark... <G>

More seriously, retired professionals don't often decay into instant senility. Singer himself seems to have remained quite active -- whether or not you approve of his activity. Quite impressive, for an 86-year old. You'll be there, too, someday....

Also tweaked to "A number of", per Walter's suggestion, above. And I agree that SBS's revision is a significant improvement for this section. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Added Judith Curry review

We finally have a usable version of Judith Curry's views on HSI, at her new climate blog. I've given her remarks the lead in our reception section, plus a few tweaks for neutrality and readability. See what you think. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm. I think this will lead into another WP:SPS argument, and I think that's a dangerous road to go down. If we include Curry's self published view, why can't we use RealClimate's? Sailsbystars (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "Tamino" review, that one's problem was the pseudonym. I believe we've used other RC posts elsewhere under the "established expert" SPS clause -- which would also apply to Prof. Curry. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the SPS issue, the edits look fine by me. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Identification of reviewers

I think it's helpful to our readers to include a word or two of identification for reviewers who aren't household names. I think it's essential to do so for people who don't have wikibios -- such as Richard Joyner, whose ID got trimmed for consistency. The tag I suggest for him is "emeritus chemistry professor."

It's one thing if the tag becomes contentious (as it did for Fred Singer and George Gilder) -- their bios are just a click away. But I don't think we should require our readers to Google for an ID for Prof. Joyner (or whoever), especially after link-rot sets in. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what you say here. This should not be controversial I think as long as it can be sourced. Nsaa (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Joyner there is a mini-bio at the bottom of the source, but I take your point about link rot. My preference is not to do this, but it's not a life or death point for me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I always try to look at these things from the viewpoint of the average reader. Editors here will already know who Fred Singer and (maybe) Bob Ward are, but probably not many outsiders. Knowing a bit about the reviewer gives the reader a leg-up in judging their credibility. And virtually no one will have a clue re Richard Joyner. As you say, not life-or-death, and I take your (and WMC's) point for just wikilinking controversy-provoking people -- but we should put the user first if we can. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My view on this tends to be that if the author isn't notable (for which we can use having a wiki bio as a very rough proxy) then giving the name of the author doesn't actually add anything much, and we might think about describing the review based on the source rather than the author, as we do in the previous paragraph. More generally, if neither the author nor the source has a wiki page then the review probably isn't notable. Joyner's review survives partly because Prospect is notable, though actually you could make a decent argument that Richard Joyner should have a page, not for his scientific work (which is adequate rather than notable) but for his involvement in the "Save British Science" campaign - he's far better known for science politics and science administration than for his research, except possibly in the world of zeolite chemistry. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While you have some confusing cases, I think a generally good style would be to list the person's profession if it's something other than journalist. I think the default assumption by the average reader is that a book review is written by a journalist. If it's written by someone from another profession (a guest column or some such), it's useful to specify that to the reader. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very few book reviews are written by journalists (they don't have the time to read books). I assume the average reader knows that. This is why reviews (pro or con) of books dealing with scientific subjects that ARE written by journalists, poets, or PR men need to be flagged as such. Otherwise, apparent "balance" becomes bias in disguise. I read this entry as having a fairly obvious negative bias. PS - I have read the book.Poznan (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Rm: why

I took this out [10]. That doesn't look like an RS, and the material is predominantly ranting about GW, and only about the book in passing. Since it really is ranting, its effectively a BLP problem for the author, so needs a RS for inclusion anywhere William M. Connolley (talk)

I found a reliable source. I take no position on the substantive issue of whether this "ranting" belongs in the article. David.Kane (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Having spent a substantial amount of effort cleaning up the section, I have to agree with WMC's edit. The last thing this article needs is more review creep. Unless a substantially new viewpoint is being presented from previous reviews (it isn't, and furthermore was a serious coatrack for information completely unrelated to the book), it deserves a most a single footnoted citation along with all the other reviews that say the same thing, saving the example review(s). Sailsbystars (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane, your source appears to be a blog post.[11] Also, it does not mention the article topic by name. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ecAlso, it appears that the telegraph has added a section for user sourced content, "My Telegraph" which is where this source came from. "My telegraph" does not seem to have any from of editorial control, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, per WP:SPS. Normal Telegraph articles are of course to continue to be accepted as reliable sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was only trying to provide a (more) reliable source for the resignation letter itself. Surely, my source was better than the one that WMC deleted? Of course, the material may not belong in the article at all. I have not followed the debate here closely enough to have a position on that. David.Kane (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm, a good faith attempt at improving the article and the sourcing for an edit. If you want to see the context of why I firmly oppose adding descriptions of new reviews to the article, see the version before I and several other editors engaged in a massive cleanup of the section. [12] Sailsbystars (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alastair McIntosh review summary

I just reread this review -- it's actually a pretty decent one, but I don't think our summary does it justice. Let's see if I can do better:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, wrote that, while Montford's book is based on Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the Hockey stick graph, McIntyre’s attack on Michael E. Mann's work is "strongly contested" by many scientists. McIntosh lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."

See what you think. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more coherent and stand-alone:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, wrote that, "Montford claims that the MWP was airbrushed out by cherry-picking and statistically steamrollering tree-ring data – one of the proxies used to reconstruct past planetary temperatures". This claim is based on Stephen McIntyre's criticism of the Hockey stick graph. McIntyre’s attack on Michael E. Mann's work is "strongly contested" by many scientists. McIntosh lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."Slowjoe17 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat exaggerating the quality of the review. Even the author admitted it wasn't particularly useful [13]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read McIntosh's comments more carefully. He says that his "review, for which [he] only had 700 words, does not attempt to be a comprehensive summary of [Montford's] arguments". Nowhere does he say "it wasn't particularly useful". While that may be your personal opinion, I think it is a thoughtful review by a well-informed writer. I applaud efforts to improve the content that is based upon it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rereading McIntosh's wiki-comments [14], he says (I think) that his primary beef is that Montford's (et al.) criticisms weren't peer-reviewed. So we should work that in. And perhaps both my and Slowjoe's summaries are too long, compared to the current positive side. Hmm. Too late now for me, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Third draft:

Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, says Montford's book purports to prove that Michael E. Mann's Hockey stick graph is "just not true." "But who is Montford?" A blogger with no real scientific credentials, McIntosh answers, and lists several studies supporting Mann, including one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which, according to the journal Nature, “essentially upholds Mann’s findings”. McIntosh calls The Hockey Stick Illusion "exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog," and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."

Hopefully submitted, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Montford has a degree in chemistry. The phrase "A blogger with no real scientific credentials" is original to you, I think. The above synopsis is frankly not great, in the sense that it suggests that McIntosh has said something that is arguably libelous. Can we not work something out between the first two suggestions, since the differences between them are small? Slowjoe17 (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like what's in the article much better than these attempted rewrites. Bringing in the Nature's claim about NAS here feels like coatracking (see: Wikipedia:Coatrack). Let's try to avoid fighting the larger climate battle within this article. Objectively, the NAS study was somewhat equivocal - it provided some ammunition for both sides of the hockey stick debate. That Nature chose to interpret it as on-net-favorable is a fine thing to add to the article **on the hockey stick debate** - which has been done- but doesn't add much here. Here, the claim has too many levels of indirection and just would be an invitation to add responses or competing claims of similar character. What do I mean by too many levels? If you put this in then this Wikipedia article says that *Alastair* says that *Nature* says that the *NAS* says that Mann's findings are *essentially* upheld. Montford and his boosters read the NAS study too and have a different take on the matter; adding this claim invites them to respond in kind with *their* four-levels-deep claims to the contrary. --Blogjack (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

several reviewers criticized the book for what they perceive as a poor understanding of the science.

The article says this, but then talks about how this book would satisfy a psychological need to escape responsibility for climate change. I think that a specific example of reviewers criticizing the book's understanding of science should be included in this paragraph, or alternatively the first sentence should be revised.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not 'talks about', but quotes a cited reviwer's opinion that it 'would satisfy a psychological need to escape responsibility'. That's fine. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you remove the McIntosh quote. I'm saying that it is inconsistent with the first paragraph of the sentence. The introductory sentence suggests that Montford has a poor understanding of the science. But McIntosh's quote objects to the book because in his view it provides support for those who would ignore climate change. There is a lack of consistency here which needs to be remedied either by changing the first sentence or the content of the paragraph (or both). I have elided the part about "poor understanding of the science" in the article. I would be good to provide a summary reason, but whatever reason is chosen should be consistent with the quotes in the content of the paragraph. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The RSC and Prospect articles, cited in the article, state that the interpretation of the science put forward by HSI is simply wrong. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they don't. But the quotes in the wiki article don't say that. The reasons we use in the opening sentence should be reflected in the quotes that follow it.Jsolinsky (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the Prospect article, its not at all clear to me that he is alleging that Montford doesn't understand the science. Plainly he believes that Montford has distorted the issue, but that is hardly the same charge. Which article is the RSC article?

Honestly, this would be a lot easier if somebody just picked out the quote that best represents the criticism, and then made the first sentence consistent with this quote. The version that I have up right now is consistent with the quote that pre-existed my involvement with this article. If criticism that attacks Montford's understanding of the science were representative of the entire body of criticism (and I submit that it is not. The main criticism was that this entire incident is a distraction that has little bearing on the bulk of climate science) then the chosen quote should be one which attacks Montford's understanding of the science.Jsolinsky (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the words paper to article in 'Background' because paper implies something published in a peer reviewed journal. Hmcst1 (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Reference #12 cites a positive review by a petroleum geologist in the August 2010 issue of Geoscientist (i.e. the monthly magazine of the Geological Society of London). However, this positive review was followed by a rebuttal and editorial comment in the October 2010 issue; and by the Society's statement on the attribution of climate change to human activity in the November 2010 issue. Mlack65 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, interesting. Those reviews weren't around when we hashed out that section of the article. I'll try to work them in at some point later this week. Thanks for pointing them out! Sailsbystars (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add wikilink to Stephen McIntyre's

Add wikilink to Stephen McIntyre's ... 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Already is linked. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this Add wikilink to ... related to Richard A. Muller's "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American who writes about Mr. McIntyre? 99.112.213.34 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it should be - this is an article about a book. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a current response the the book's info. Link is currently available. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science isn't available now, stated "Subscribe". 99.112.214.185 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is Bishop Hill?

What is Bishop Hill? 99.181.159.117 (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The name of the blog of the book's author. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On Squarespace. 99.181.132.99 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Judith Curry's new thoughts on the book

Dr. Curry recently posted this at her blog:

I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting Climate Etc., I engaged mainly at ClimateAudit). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion. The book itself, plus more significantly my vilification simply for recommending that people read the book, has pushed me over the ledge and into a mode of aggressively challenging the IPCC consensus.... Source: [15]

I'm not quite sure how to use this, but it's interesting. Scroll down to "JC’s message to Mark Lynas" for more. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I've posted a quote from her essay at Judith Curry#An opening mind, which is probably the better place for her opinions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of McKitrick quote

No good reason has been given for deletion of the McKitrick quote. The fact that the book is based on the work of McKitrick and McIntyre is grounds for including it, not grounds for deletion: it is highly relevant that McKitrick considers the book a good introduction to his work. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Second to this. Additionally, editor William M. Connolley has repeatedly removed this quote , with no attempt to form a consensus. These edits appear be at the limit for WP:3RR: Edit history.

On his first revert WMC commented, "rm McK - as the synopsis says, its rather about him, so lets not pretend he's neutral. oddly, we don't have space for MBHs reaction."

If we limited review/reception authors to neutral parties, the section would be much smaller. I think McKitrick's comments are helpful to our readers: he's certainly a good judge of whether the book covers his HS work fairly and lucidly. I agree that a reaction to the book from Prof. Mann or co-authors would be a good addition. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"considers the book a good introduction to his work" is actually better wording that the one in the article.

Also, the article it quite repetitive: it quotes about five deniers at length, who love the book for agreeing with them and call it "well-reasoned". This could be shortened like this: A and B called it a "detective story", C and D said it was "well-reasoned", while C and D found "lots of inaccuracies".

"Montford has not made any relevant scientific contributions" is an irrelevant argumentum ad hominem and should go. Also "might serve a psychological need in those who can't face their own complicity in climate change" - this is remote diagnosis. When reading this, I get the feeling that someone is trying to make those who dislike the book look bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Please change link to The Courier to The Courier (Dundee). 137.205.183.70 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable secondary source to use a label like "climate contrarian"

Obvious fact is obvious, right? Name one of the reviewers who isn't.

• Judith Curry
• S. Fred Singer
• Ross McKitrick
• An oil industry geologist: Joe Brannan [16]
• Quadrant: John Dawson [17]
• Christopher Booker
• Matt Ridley
• Peter Foster

"Contrarian" is me being nice. The paragraph is the denial industry echo chamber. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology." You're letting your personal views show. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So what? Are you trying to say that she should be removed from the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you want to use a label like "climate contrarian" then you'll need a reliable secondary source for each individual you want to describe that way. Even then it's questionable whether you should do that: we have wikilinks precisely so people can read up on who somebody is detail at the linked article: there is no need to repeat snippets everywhere. This is really basic stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, obvious facts do not need to be sourced - unless someone demands a source because it is not obvious to him. I infer that, for some weird reason, it is not obvious to you that Curry is a contrarian.

I do not insist on the "contrarian" label; I would prefer to reduce the amount of people quoted in the paragraph, because most of those people are nothing but yes-men of the denial industry, who agreed with the crazy conspiracy theories in the book before reading it and therefore were expected to love the book. Nobody who was not part of the scene gave a positive review.

After all, WP:FRINGE#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and WP:UNDUE apply here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Very happy to cut back; I have made a first pass. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, did you find any reply to "obvious facts do not need to be sourced" yet? All three of the "several reviewers" who "praised the book for its content" are still well-known climate contrarians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSOURCE: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Or, in other words, you'll need a reliable secondary source to use a label like "climate contrarian". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Your logic is missing one piece: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". So, who challenges the statement that those people are contrarians? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I challenged your edit here [18] and here [19]; if you want to make this change you'll have to find a reliable secondary source supporting it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear this: are you saying that those people are not contrarians? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To be more clear: The reason that statements have to be sourced is that there are people who say those statements are not true, and those people can read the source and find that they are wrong. This is why there is an exemption for statements that are obviously true: if nobody doubts them, you do not have to source them.

It seems to me that the contrarian-ness of the reviewers is an obvious fact that nobody would doubt, not even the seriously reality-impaired. But still, you insist on a source, and in the face of the obviously-true exemption, I do not understand why. So: Do you deny that it is obviously true? If not, what is this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the burden of proof here. It doesn't matter whether or not these people are climate contrarians. It doesn't even matter whether I believe they are climate contrarians. What matters is that I consider this a potentially contentious claim, and as such a claim that requires sourcing. See WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". This really is absolutely basic stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. You deny it is obviously true (you consider it "potentially contentious"). Thank you. (This is pretty weird.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I think Editor Gadling's initial comment re "the denial industry echo chamber" is a clue to his personal beliefs here. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Why do you think that? Could that be a clue to your personal beliefs?

Please try to inform yourself using scientific outlets and you will find that they tell another story than the media you usually frequent. Of course that is because scientists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth, right? Must be, otherwise you would be wrong, and that cnannot be... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are both falling into the trap of trying to determine the truth of this question and using that to determine the text. But that is not how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia is about verifiability and not about truth. See WP:VERIFY: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Jonathan A Jones (talk)

Wrong. You have consistently failed to read what I wrote. Please note that "obviously true" is different from "true". Every time I wrote "obviously true" you seem to have read "true". I have no idea whether you think "those people are contrarians" is true, I have never been interested in whether you think that, and I never will be. Material that is "obviously true", on the other hand, is not "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:VERIFY). Obvious facts that are obvious to everybody do not need to be sourced, only things that are likely to be challenged.

This unnecessary thread would not have started if you had not written "Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair", as if that were a contradiction to the "contrarian" label, and adding "You're letting your personal views show" as if adherence to the science as written in the journals, as opposed to the sham presented by right-wing media, were a personal view. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have anything more to add here, but for convenience I shall repeat the position in one place. I start at Wikipedia:Verifiability which is one of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. This states that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Since the material in question involves living people WP:BLPSOURCE comes into action, which states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article"; note that this forms part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is one of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Finally WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"; note that this is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability which is, as previously remarked, one of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. If you are uneasy with the idea that Wikipedia articles should follow its core content policies then you might be happier editing elsewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You have been telling me things I know from the beginning, and you continue doing so. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)