Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 7

RfC: Spencer Weart and 'the dedicated minority who denied global warming was a problem prompty attacked the calculations'

Since June 11th a heated dispute has existed at this page regarding a sentence found in Spencer Weart. At this moment, the article says, with emphasis added to show the contentious parts:

The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from the minority denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published in the obscure journal Climate Research on 31 January 2003.[42][43]

[42] is Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming. NOTE: Spencer Weart is known to be pro Mann in the hockey stick dispute, and is a some time contributor at Mann's RealClimate website (e.g. [1][2]etc and RealClimate and Mike Mann have often promoted Weart's book and recommended it as the official RealClimate approved history of global warming.
[43] is the S&B2003 paper itself.

Elsewhere in our article it says,

As science historian Spencer Weart says, "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations."[25]

And if that isn't enough Dave Souza has also added the same quote a third time again in the footnote [42].

This dispute had previously been resolved but Dave Souza has seen fit to go back on the previous consensus and start this whole dispute off again. (That is why the text now appears in three places; it had previously been agreed we would attribute this to Weart per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.)

Now the problems with this text are:

1) This is a BLP violation as it insinuates without evidence that Soon & Baliunas were part of a 'dedicated minority who denied that global warming was a problem', which hints of some kind of conspiracy. Now this may be true for all I know. It was admittedly revealed the other day that Soon has taken about $1 million or so from fossil fuel interests over his time. (I am not aware of the same allegations against Baliunas.) Nonetheless, BLP says we avoid these sorts of guilt by association claims unless the strongest evidence exists. Weart's sentence, on the other hand, is unclear. No one can tell me exactly what this 'dedicated minority' actually is, despite my repeated prompting above.

2) We are repeating Weart's emotive and non neutral language in Wikipedia's voice without good cause. When I try to substitute more neutral synonyms (e.g. 'criticism' rather than 'attack') I am repeatedly accused of dishonesty and mispresentation. Nonetheless, NPOV is very clear that we should avoid emotive and non neutral language, even when such language does occur in a reliable source.

3) This text is 'sneaking' some name calling that would normally not be allowed into the article. We are not allowed to say that Soon & Baliunas are 'deniers' but for some reason editors think this is okay.

I would appreciate the views of people who do not edit in the climate change area.

DISCLAIMER: To preempt the likely response from some who seem to like telling the community that I am a 'fringe theorist' or that I am 'pushing a fringe POV', please note that I am a climate change neutral who fully believes that the worst case IPCC scenarios are possible. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Involved Editor Responses:

• For some weeks (presumably since June 11) Alex has repeatedly attacked the judgement of the historian Spencer Weart and attempted to misrepresent what Weart says on the basis of Alex's personal opinion, apparently trying to give minority views "equal validity" with the mainstream views ably expressed by Weart. By "contentious" Alex apparently means "mainstream".
  Alex claims to be unable to understand Weart's statements, and on that basis wants to censor them. Despite repeated requests, Alex has failed to produce a reliable source disputing Weart's scholarship or wording on this matter. The proposals made by Alex blatantly contravene WP:WEIGHT policy, and fail WP:NPOV by trying to exclude a well sourced and established majority viewpoint.
  The reason I added the quote from Weart in the footnote was that Alex repeatedly tried to take the footnote out of the context of the text it referred to: if Alex's misreading is not repeated, I've no objection to removing the quote from the footnote. That leaves one direct quote in one section, and a paraphrase in the next section describing the specific relevance to Soon and Baliunas. . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Responses from Climate Change regulars:

• I'm a bit confused about how this RfC meets the "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template..." (emphasis in the original) instructions from Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages. "Spencer Weart is known to be pro Mann" - indeed? Well, he would have that in common with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Weart is a recognised historian of science (and a physics PhD to boot), and his book is published by Harvard University Press. This certainly meets sourcing requirements even for WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why you complain that this is not neutral but you then go on to agree that Weart is known to be pro Mann and present no other examples of bias. Which part are you actually taking issue with? Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you read something different from what I wrote. We don't decide if our sources are "neutral", we evaluate if they are reliable. You also seem to suffer from the "neutral is to give equal weight to all position" fallacy - see WP:VALID. If the scientific opinion overwhelmingly supports a particular position, that does not make them "not neutral", and the neutral point of view will reflect the predominant position with due weight. Do you have any reputable source that disagrees with Weart on this point? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Responses from outside Climate Change regulars:

It seems to me that the real issue here is the attribution of the text. At the moment it's not clear from the article that the disputed phrases are in fact direct quotes from Weart (it becomes clear after reading the footnote, but the main text is potentially misleading). I'd suggest rewriting those sentences along the following lines

Commenting on a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas [footnote], Spencer R. Weart wrote The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations. [footnote]

The publication details for Soon and Baliunas can go in the footnote. Also, there's probably no need for the Weart quote to appear more than once in the article. Disclaimer: I'm responding solely to the sentence mentioned in the RFC; I have no intention of reading all of the extensive discussion above. Jowa fan (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Weart quote appears only once in the article, as a direct quote. Alex's summary is rather misleading. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Guettarda may have a point, and if it was misleading, it certainly was not my intention. I have attempted to revise the text above to remove reference to the 'third quote'. The contentious words are all Weart's, but we have changed the word order slightly and so on, in my first quote from the article. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, your entire summary is misleading. And your repeated attempts to disparage Weart are incompatible with your WP:BLP policy. Please rephrase it accurately and without the unsourced attacks on Weart. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing disparaging to Weart and nothing further to revise. Weart is not a God and he doesn't expect to be worshipped as a God. Saying he has written a sentence that is unclear is not an attack. Saying that he is a friend of Michael Mann's is not an attack. Saying that he is pro Mann is not an attack, and Stephan Schulz above seems to agree that this is a perfectly accurate statement. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As Stephan notes above, it seems that you read something different from what he wrote. Weart is an expert historian and a reliable source, your failure to understand him and your attempts to depict him as supporting one of the scientists do nothing to alter that fact. . . dave souza, talk 10:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor opinion - Regarding the text in the Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation section, there is the passage: "The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from the minority denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published in the obscure journal Climate Research on 31 January 2003.[42][43] (The editor who approved the paper for publication was Chris de Freitas, a climate change skeptic.) Using data from previous papers, Soon and Baliunas argued that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, implying that recent warming was not unprecedented. In March they published an extended paper in Energy & Environment.[44] The paper drew widespread criticism ..." My first impression is that the sentence includes too many loaded words in the narrator's voice. I've stricken them out (above) to illustrate. For example: editors cannot write that Freitas is "a climate change skeptic" without a citation so stating. Furthermore, in controversial articles, the source must be mentioned in the article, as in "Freits (who, according the person ABC, is a climate change skeptic)." In general I agree with editor User:Jowa fan's comments above: just stick with the facts as the sources relate them. Do not insert adjectives or adverbs in the narrators voice. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Noleander, regarding your specific points I can see merit in some of the issues you raise, and having reviewed the sources have amended the paragraph accordingly. In the "for instance" case, that description of de Freitas as a sceptic was added by Alex, and doesn't accurately represent the source, so I've summarised the source as "Chris de Freitas who saw no climatic dangers in human actions".
Regarding your suggestion of saying "who, according the person ABC," that approach is inappropriate as shown in the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV policy: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." and "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" to avoid giving a false impression of "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
Hope that meets your concerns, please note that several reliable sources are being cited, and no reliable sources have been proposed contesting these views. In addition, I've removed the Weart quote from the footnote, while retaining the link to this important context. . . dave souza, talk 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the WP guideline that urges: "avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion", but it is still a fact that WP requires all statements to be supported by sources. So, to write: "Freitas is a climate change skeptic" requires a citation. It has nothing to do with minority/majority. Frietas may well be a skeptic; and his positions may well be in the minority; but that does not eliminate the requirement for a source which states that Freitas is a skeptic. In the absence of such a source, he cannot be labelled a skeptic in the article. That was my point. --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that, in an effort to appease others, I added the assertion that de Freitas is a skeptic. Although a stickler for BLP observance myself, I don't actually see the need for a cite on this. de Freitas agrees that he is a skeptic and so does everyone else, but I'm happy either way on that one. But I think Noleander has hit the nail on the head that the sentence includes too many loaded words in the narrator's voice. Thanks for taking the time to give your feedback Noleander. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Noleander, thanks for making your point about sourcing which I fully support, unfortunately Alex has repeatedly misrepresented sources, or as in this case shown a cavalier disregard for the need for sourcing views that chime with his personal opinions. Where there are no reliable sources contesting a view, we shouldn't suggest that view is "mere opinion" on the basis of Alex's unsourced feelings.

@ Alex, the sentence has been revised but the essential point remains, we must be clear that minority views are minority views, and show how they have been received by the majority of experts in the field. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, the issue is far from resolved. If you want to say that Soon & Baliunas are deniers, please attribute this view to Weart. Noleander said Jowa fan is right. I agree that Jowa fan is right. That is, we attribute the view to Weart, per your previous compromise. Further, Noleader said a cite was required to establish that de Freitas is a skeptic. Instead of providing a cite, you have just replaced 'skeptic' with a phrase that means more or less the same thing. Noleander gave you examples of loaded terms that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. You have deleted those, but you have left all the other loaded terms in Wikipedia's voice. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The best we can do is to source every statement. This incident (the controversy) is now well in the past and Weart is a science historian who has summarised it. Academia has long-since moved on. What we must not do is what every proponent of a fringe view would love us to do, and that is to suggest "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view." That is why the historian's words are in Wikipedia's voice: no-one, even of the people he writes about, has written anything we know of to contest his summary (except for Alex, here). If there were any reliable sources written after him (Feb 2011) challenging his words, they would be worth looking into. --Nigelj (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we go back to the direct quote from Wearts -- which is what we (briefly) had earlier -- and move on?

Thanks to the uninvolved editors who gave their opinions. I agree with Noleander, need to strike the unsourced "skeptic" bit. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@Pete Tillman, because as noted above, such direct quotation contravenes the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV policy. Indeed, the direct quotation already used is inappropriate, a poor substitute for agreeing a form of words that accurately reflects Weart's scholarly assessment. You're a bit behind the times, the article no longer has the unsourced "skeptic" bit, and in its place has a properly sourced statement. . . dave souza, talk 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I just looked at WP:YESPOV & it doesn't seem to rule out a direct quote. In fact, that 's generally what we do when using a particular source becomes contentious -- as it tells the reader who is making the contentious statement.

As for the Freitas/skeptic bit, your change is no better, and still uncited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, there's no evidence that the source is contentious, that's an unsourced assertion (or original research) being made by Alex (and presumably yourself) without any evidence that Weart's expert opinion is in any way contested. As for your removal of information properly sourced to Monastercky, perhaps the rather clumsy sequence of the paragraph misled you. I've re-examined Monastersky's description and have reorganised the section accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, thanks for the clarification. Re contentious: I'm sure you will agree the Weart-sourced bit is contentious here, and I indicated the usual way we hav dealt with such in the past: make it unambiguous.

As for Freitas: please recall this is intended as a summary, and interested readers can refer to the Soon/Baliunas controversy article for details. I think the Freitas bit is overkill for a summary. Perhaps a 3rd-party editor (if any are still following this) can offer an opinion. I also restored the POV tag, per my and Alex's objections. Easily resolved with a direct quote (per 2 UE's), and pruning. Why do you object to that? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a significant part of the S&B affair according to the cited source. As for your and Alex's objections, they're still only your own views and you've yet to provide any published sources supporting your views. Per YESPOV, "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." You're saying that you want your own opinions incorporated in the article, even though you've produced no published sources showing that the published expert opinion is contested. Your proposals fail both NPOV and WP:NOR. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is an RfC was raised, 2 uninvolved editors recommended attributing the text to Weart, and you are refusing to do that. I will investigate escalating this to the next stage of dispute resolution. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, why your desperate rush when only two uninvolved editors have responded so far to your misleading and inaccurate rfc statement? Changes have been made responding to their main issues, it's been pointed out that the over-attribution you propose contravenes NPOV, and you've still failed to provide the necessary verification of your claim that Weart's scholarly expert view is in any way contested. . . dave souza, talk 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, added a citation to Pearce about the de Freitas bit. Note the amount of space Pearce devotes to this issue. Guettarda (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pearce isn't as specific as Monastersky about de Freitas disputing the effects of humans on global warming, but that's well shown in the 2002 paper by de Freitas which we discussed earlier. I've now got around to adding that info to the IPCC graph enters political controversy section where it obviously fits. Similarly, Pearce calls Climate Research a "fairly minor journal" while Monastersky describes it as "a relatively obscure journal", both making the same point. . . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of outstanding POV issues in S&B section

Although I feel that "attempt to refute" is awkward, it is probably neutral enough. (It is not neutral in that "attempt" to refute gives the impression that the MBH99 has never been "refuted", which is arguably not true, but I'm not planning to argue the point right now.) These are the outstanding issues of Wikipedia's inappropriate use of loaded terms:

The first peer reviewed attempt to refute the hockey stick graph from those denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.[46][47] Using data from previous papers, Soon and Baliunas argued that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, and said that recent warming was not unusual. They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas whose opinion was that human actions did not cause climatic dangers, and he approved the paper for publication in the obscure journal Climate Research,[48] where it appeared on 31 January 2003. In March they published an extended paper in Energy & Environment. Scientists cited in the papers said that their work was misrepresented.[49][50] The Climate Research paper was criticised by many other scientists, including several of the journal's editors.[51] On 8 July Eos featured a detailed rebuttal of both papers by 13 scientists including Mann and Jones, presenting strong evidence that Soon and Baliunas had used improper statistical methods. Responding to the controversy, the publisher of Climate Research upgraded Hans von Storch from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August 2003. After seeing a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, von Storch decided that the Soon and Baliunas paper was seriously flawed and should not have been published as it was. He proposed a new editorial system, and an editorial saying that the review process had failed.[49][52][53]

The issues are:

1) Bias through rhetorical repetition. It is already pointed in the article that Weart regarded the "attacks" as originating from "the dedicated minority who denied global warming is a problem". It is not neutral, therefore, to contrive this sentence a few paragraphs later to repeat the same.

2) Use of loaded language in this case "denying" as in relative of offensive "deniers". Please don't appeal to emotions using Wikipedia's voice as that is not allowed.

3) I am happy to call de Freitas a "skeptic" without a cite but "... de Freitas whose opinion was that human actions did not cause climatic dangers" is convoluted and seems pejorative to me and needs a cite, and as Noleander pointed out, it needs to be attributed in the text whose opinion this is.

4) "Obscure" journal is not appropriate although I'm happy to use Pearce's "fairly minor journal". Alex Harvey (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, glad to have your agreement that "attempt to refute" is reasonably neutral. You seem to be soapboxing about MBH99, note that sources reaffirm its main conclusions and it's not the only "hockey stick graph". First response to your other points, without going into this in great depth:

1) This is a separate section, we can't assume readers have read or memorised the previous section, and we need to be clear that this attempt at refutation came from some of those described in the previous section, to accurately represent the cited source.

2) Once again, you're taking issue with a very reliable source without presenting alternative descriptions of equal weight. Wikipedia accurately describes the views of reputable reliable sources, not your personal opinion.

3) We know you're happy to call de Frietas a "skeptic" without a cite, because you already did so, and the need for a citation was the point raised by Noleander at 00:47, 11 July 2011, above. The term "skeptic" is vague and misleading, covering many different opinions. The views of de Frietas are shown in the cited sources, we can of course review the best way to describe these views.

4) Once again you're presenting your own opinion as though it overrides a source when you make the odd claim that "obscure" journal is not appropriate. As already stated, Pearce's "fairly minor journal" means much the same so no objection to a swap. . dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, please don't start this tired old schtick again. Either quote Wearts directly, or paraphrase him using neutral language. You've been around here long enough to know the difference between loaded and neutral language. Let's finish this silly argument and move on. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I think I could be forgiven for thinking that Pete Tillman is using a rhetorical trick in dismissing Dave Souza's points--to wit, that Alex is full of hot air. Do we have some points to debate, or is it just the usual? --TS 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Tony, long time no see. Let's see if I can give a short summary, to save you (and any other interested 3rd party) from reading the Wall of Text above. Hot air is certainly involved, but it's a substantial controversy -- well, kinda trivial, really, but with clear (imo) policy violations.

Dave Souza has been doing good work revising and updating the article. I, Alex H and a few others have been keeping him (and each other) honest.

It all went pretty smoothly up to the Soon and Baliunas para. Dave wanted to paraphrase a passage from Spencer Weart's history book re this, plus some stuff from Fred Pearce. Weart used some pretty opinionated language, which Dave copied into his paraphrase. Alex and I objected to the loaded words: ie, the section used to say:

The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from the minority denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas....

Compare this to the Weart original:

The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal (Climate Research) was Soon and Baliunas (2003).

Note that the Weart quote is actually from a footnote in Weart's book, which raises an obvious WP:Weight question.

The second italicized bit came from Fred Pearces book, and is clearly more opinion -- which we, of course, can't present as fact, but must clearly identify as such.

Anyway, the thing went on and on and on. We had, briefly, an actual quote from Weart, which Dave (ims) took out, for reasons only he can explain. And here we are. Clear now? I'm sure Dave will be along to give his side, but basically it's One of those CC Things... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Pete, you're portraying published expert views as mere "opinion" and suggesting that your own unpublished opinions have priority. Please desist. Your claim that the Weart quote has been taken out is inaccurate, it's in the "IPCC graph enters political controversy" section as discussed with you and Alex previously. Naturally, I don't accept your summary. . dave souza, talk 07:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Soon and Baliunas isn't a minor "footnote" in this matter. The mess resulting led to the withdrawal of the paper after half a dozen of the journal's staff walked out over issues of peer review. I'm concerned here that these blatant and serious facts are being nibbled to death in some way. I'm particularly concerned here that when qualified experts use strong language you dismiss it as "opinionated." Let's be clear: the opinions of qualified experts are what we use to write our articles. We don't water those opinions down because somebody on the internet might disagree with the weight selected by the expert. That in itself would be an NPOV violation. --TS 22:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no disagreement about the facts. I am concerned that you are showing the same misunderstanding of NPOV as Dave Souza, Guettarda & Nigel J. and show no interest in the fact that four uninvolved editors after two RfCs just confirmed that Pete & I are correct on the policy. Dave Souza saw fit to finally update the text of the article to remove "attack" but apparently will not also admit the underlying principle. Why? Does that mean I need to raise an RfC every time I want the policy to be followed? Your statement, I'm particularly concerned here that when qualified experts use strong language you dismiss it as "opinionated." ... the opinions of qualified experts are what we use to write our articles is an unambiguous contradiction of the policy, which says the exact opposite: Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Policy says "use disinterested tone"; you say "use whatever tone the reliable sources use". Why? Once again, four editors from outside the climate change area agreed that Pete & I are correct on the policy. How many editors need to say the same thing before you accept that the climate change regulars share a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If your interpretation of policy is that we should not state the facts where they imply a judgement on someone, you're wrong. If your interpretation of the policy is such that "the opinions of qualified experts are what we use to write our articles" is a misstatement of or even a contradiction of policy, you're wrong. A disinterested tone does not imply watering down the facts. --TS 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, can you see that four uninvolved editors agreed that my understanding of the policy is correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, you're wrong to state that four uninvolved editors have agreed with your understanding of the policy. On two different RfCs, one editor responded to your misleading and inaccurate statement by proposing something contrary to policy, as was agreed by the second uninvolved editor, and in the second three responded to you misstatement of the issue and of policy by going along with your binary proposal that one word is better than another, while adding the caveat "generally". In practice, this was resolved by finding a better description. . dave souza, talk 06:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, tell me what it would take for you to agree that the policy says we should prefer non-judgemental, disinterested language, and that if we find a reliable source that uses strong, emotive, loaded language, we should rewrite. Do you agree, firstly, that the preceding sentence is what we disagree over? I will in the meantime go and ask the editors who responded if they agreed with me re the policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you do that, please read the policy as a whole and in particular read the complete sentence that you've been truncating: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity." (bolding added by me) We have to accurately describe what sources say, and not use misleading descriptions of something that is not contested in reliable sources simply because you or Pete prefers something that flatters a minority view. We don't ignore core policy because three editors attracted by a rather misleading RfC express an opinion. . . dave souza, talk 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have both read that and reproduced it above. So you now want to claim that the bolded bit means we should rewrite with non-judgemental, disinterested language except except where doing so would obscure the fact that the source used judgemental, emotive or loaded language. Which would be, uh, every time. If so we could safely just delete this line of the policy. This is why you think this rule doesn't actually apply ever. Have I got that right? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, "Which would be, uh, every time" accurately expresses your repeated refusal to accept the descriptions given of these fringe views by reliable mainstream sources. I'm happy to find alternative phrasing as long as it accurately reflects the source and complies with all the other aspects of core policies. . . dave souza, talk 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay so give me an example of where you think the requirement to paraphrase with non-judgemental, disinterested language actually does apply. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: neutral language and reliable sources

The above RfC didn't resolve anything unfortunately. Although it is claimed that the recommendations of uninvolved editors were complied with, in my opinion the article is now even worse than it was previously. Accordingly I would like to restate the RfC and ask a much more specific yes/no question.

The article now reads (with emphasis added to a single disputed word):

The first peer reviewed attack on the hockey stick graph from those denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.[46]

Myself and others maintain that the description of the S&B paper as attacking rather than as criticising is irreducibly a matter of opinion, whether in a reliable source or otherwise. Spencer Weart (ref [46]) may be an expert historian, but it can't be assumed that his work therefore does not contain his opinions as well as facts. I say that Soon & Baliunas simply say that Michael Mann is wrong, not that he is a fraud, or a bad person. However when I argue that we should therefore tone this down and restore the original wording I am accused of misrepresenting the source.

I believe that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here: Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Other editors say that ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't apply here because WP:YESPOV says we must "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion".

UPDATE: Even RealClimate, Mann's own website, describes the Soon & Baliunas paper as a criticism [3] so it is clearly not the case, as editors are asserting, that we have no choice but to present Weart's wording as fact. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Needless to say, disputes of this form - about reliably sourced opinions being stated in Wikipedia's voice as facts - are a recurring, disruptive theme in climate change content disputes. So this particular example may seem minor but it is the general principle at stake here.

So the question is: Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV apply? If so, would it not be better just to restore the original wording and replace "attack" with "criticism"? Thanks, Alex Harvey (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Involved Editor Responses:

• Weart highlights an important distinction between criticism within the scientific community, and attacks from those promoting the interests of the minority who deny that global warming is a problem, with oil industry funding as was the case with Soon and Baliunas. Alex's attempts to give equal validity to these minority views are both disruptive and biased in favour of a fringe viewpoint.
  Once again, editors are invited to present reliable sources supporting the contention that Weart's expert opinion is contested, but instead of doing so Alex seems to be forum shopping, and again promoting his own unsourced opinion.
  As for replacing "attack" with "criticism", the article clearly shows that there was earlier criticism. The view is cited to Weart's expert opinion, and "criticism" in this context is weasel wording misrepresenting the source. If others wish to propose an alternative sysnonym for "attack", that can be considered. . . dave souza, talk 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  It is untrue that Soon & Baliunas were not scientists. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  What is true is that S&B 2003 was not science, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Here is a reliable source: RealClimate describes the Soon & Baliunas 2003 paper as a criticism. "The problems most often arise – such as in Soon and Baliunas (2003) ... when the criticised authors are not involved at all [in the peer review]." Alex Harvey (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Nice to see you accepting RealClimate as a reliable source, note that Gavin Schmidt (not Mann) was referring in the paragraph to generic cases of criticisms, his description neither contradicts nor detracts from Weart's evaluation of the S&B paper as an attack. An attack can criticise authors, as was the case with S&B, perhaps you'd prefer it phrased as "The first peer reviewed attack criticising the hockey stick graph...". How about finding something that says it wasn't an attack, or proposing an alternative wording that doesn't misrepresent Weart's clear statement? . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Have a think about what kind of text might in principle "contradict" Weart's wording here. Imagine that another historian had explicitly stated, "On p.x in Discovery of Global Warming, Professor Weart used the word 'attack' but I rather think his wording was too strong". Or "Some have described S&B2003 as an 'attack' but I believe it was a 'criticism'". This is the only evidence you would accept. Yet, obviously, this would be a quibble and no one would bother saying this. The challenge that I provide alternate reliable sources here is a distraction. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, it could be a respected historian saying, "It was fortunate that S&B2003 pointed out all the flaws in the graph before anybody wasted time and money on climate change mitigation." --Nigelj (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Nigelj. The argument Alex puts forward is a false dichotomy, an attack can also be criticism. Indeed, the cited source describes it as both, making it clear that the emphasis on attack is a deliberate and considered description. The very fact that Alex is persistently arguing to change to "criticism" is clearly bssed on this being a weaker term, misrepresenting the source. . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I am afraid I have no idea what Nigel J. is talking about. We all agree that S&B wrote a flawed paper that should never have been published. There is no dispute about this, and there never has been. I also fail to see any false dichotomy, or any dichotomy at all. The difference between an 'attack' and a 'criticism' is irreducibly a matter of taste and opinion, as I have said repeatedly. You have asserted that there is a consensus that the S&B paper was an 'attack', and more than a 'criticism'. I have pointed out that your assertion is unfalsifiable because, as 'attack/criticism' is merely a matter of taste, it is not a matter that is even discussed in reliable sources. The best I can do is show that other reliable sources don't prefer this sort of language, but then you retort that the existence of a reliable source that does not prefer this sort of language (e.g. RealClimate above), does not contradict your view. Thus, your view is unfalsifiable. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• RFCs normally stay open for a month. Seems a bit excessive to launch another one. Rather premature to make pronouncements on an RFC. Not to mention that we usually let an uninvolved editor close one. Guettarda (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, well I didn't know that and I've never seen new responses appear after a week. It's open now so probably best to leave it open. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have no idea why this has dragged on so long. The controversy can be resolved simply by quoting Wearts directly, and careful sourcing of all contentious material -- as was suggested by two UE's in the previous RfC, upthread. This is routine elsewhere. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's dragged on because a couple of persistent editors are still asserting without any published evidence that this historian's considered opinion is "contentious", and because their proposal clearly breaches WP:YESPOV as we should "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion", and should not give "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." So far, no reliable source has been presented to show there's even a tiny minority view that the material is contentious, and the source is a reputable historian, not an "activist". . . dave souza, talk 18:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor responses:

• Criticism is almost always the better word for a Wikipedia article on anything controversial . The reader will decide on the nature of the criticism and the merits of the arguments. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

While respecting your preference, "almost always" doesn't apply to specific cases where sources show a specific context of attacks, as confirmed in the cited Scientific American article. In the citation for the specific statement, Weart as a historian says "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal (Climate Research) was Soon and Baliunas (2003). Asked to respond, Mann and other top climate experts gave strong reasons for regarding the criticism as groundless". Weart clearly emphasises that this was not merely criticism. As stated before, alternative wording accurately summarising the sources is worthwhile considering. . . dave souza, talk 11:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave: once again, let's quote Weart directly and move on to other things. How much more time and effort is this small disagreement worth? All three UE's disagree with your edit. Think about it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, you and Alex are so impatient! Also, you seem to be a bit muddled, the RfC about quoting directly is the one above, which is still running. The second UE there accepted that we don't give in-text attribution to uncontested views where that can mislead as to weight, the first one hasn't yet commented on the changes to meet objections. This RfC was raised about a word that the second UE accepted, now we have DGG almost always preferring criticism, but not yet having had time to consider the points I've raised. Please try not to put words in the mouths of UEs. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what DGG says, and move on to the next argument. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Use criticism, rather than attack - Criticism is much more encyclopedic. Attack should be used sparingly, as in physical assaults or very aggressive criticism. Since this topic is about an academic/scientific dispute, "criticism" is a better word. If a source specifically uses the word "attack", perhaps that source could be quoted in a footnote, so interested readers could see the verbiage. --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks again Noleander, DGG & Peregrine. While it is obvious to me that 'criticism' is encyclopaedic and that 'attack' is inappropriate (for a scientific dispute), it is less obvious how to settle an argument like this with reference to Wikipedia's core content policies when reliable sources don't always use encyclopaedic language. I can see a number of ways to make the argument, e.g. WP:YESPOV, "Prefer non-judgmental language". WP:NPOV#Impartial_tone, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view". WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements, "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." Have I made the argument badly? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Some of this may be relevant if there was an active academic or public debate or dispute to describe. This article is about a controversy that flared up 6 - 8 years ago and is now settled. Describing the moves, actions and counters that were made by the main protagonists at the time, and re-using metaphors currently applied by respected science historians, is perfectly appropriate. It would be a disservice to the now-moribund debate to apply principles and practices that were designed for handling current controversies (i.e. ones where nobody knows what the outcome will be). --Nigelj (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight. You think these sections of NPOV only apply to unresolved controversies. This controversy is resolved, you say, therefore Spencer Weart is right. Thus it is fine to use judgemental language if Weart does, or to use impartial language if Weart does, and as we know he doesn't even have a bias, none of his statements are mere statements of opinion, and therefore attributing and specifying biased statements is not applicable either. Is that correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  @ Alex, you're rather misrepresenting aspects of the policy, and again accusing the most reputable historian on the topic of being biased, on no better source than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nigelj is right, we shouldn't describe issues accepted by all reliable sources as though they're currently disputed. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  @ DGG and Noleander, it's appreciated that you don't like "attack", and I'd been hoping for suggestions that accurately represented Weart's expert view rather than weakening it to mere "criticism". Fortunately, I've been re-reading Pearce's book and have found an alternative formulation that is more specific and informative on the purpose and impact of the S&B paper; "The paper was an early attempted refutation of the hockey stick." That's closer to the S&B paper, which produces an alternative reconstruction to dismiss the IPCC finding of recent exceptional warming, rather than actually being formulated as a criticism of the graph. @ Peregrine Fisher, I hope we're not going to "move on to the next argument", we should be able to discuss improvements to the wording in a collegial way. Having conceded removal of "attack", I've revised the article to use Pearce's approach and have provided this new source. . dave souza, talk 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Three uninvolved editors have recommended "criticism" and you are still refusing and still claiming that I am the one who is confused about the policy. So how many people need to say the same thing before you accept that you are wrong? Your new wording is awkward and still not truly neutral. You can't "refute" a "graph". Pearce is using imprecise language in a popular history. It is not Pearce's or Weart's job to write an encyclopaedia. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  @ Alex, as discussed below, you've accepted this wording as "reasonably neutral" so your personal opinions disparaging the writing of published authors on the topic are irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 16:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  I was asked to clarify. When a RS uses loaded language, we still word the article as neutrally and calmly as possible. The RS can judge, we cannot. What we do with non-neutral language is to cite it in the name of the person who said it. It is the only way to avoid misinterpretation. The only possible exception would be incases where the use of particular language is repeated by all or almost all reliable sources, and even here it is not usually necessary. If there are only one or two sources to cite for it, they can be reported only as their own opinion, and only if they are reliable enough to make their opinion significant. This is especially true when it is the description of a person's work or deeds or writings, because then BLP is involved. (I also want to point out that the use of calm and dispassionate language is the more effective. Anything else runs the danger of cherry-picking, a standard technique here as elsewhere in mis-using quotations. To use an example from another field I have used before, there is no point piling on quotations to say that Stalin was a tyrant. One just describes what he did. Or an example from science that this brings to mind, there is no reason to call Lysenko an idiot. One just contrasts his findings with that of everyone else. We are writing an encyclopedia for adults or near-adults, not moral lessons for young children.) DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for your clarification, DGG. I am glad to agree with your commentary here. Alex misrepresented the position editors are taking here, and it's good to note that a mutually agreeable description of the actions of S&B has now been found, superseding the term "attack". As a side issue, our article says that "Today much of Lysenko's agricultural experimentation and research is largely viewed as fraudulent." Would you describe "fraudulent" as non-neutral loaded language, or as an uncontested technically accurate description? . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

  Language is loaded if and only if it conveys ideas beyond the literal meanings of the terms. In the case of "fraudulent" the meaning is clear; it denotes "fraud" and connotes nothing beyond "fraud". If all the reliable sources agree that actual fraud took place (and I don't know enough to have an opinion) then it is a perfectly neutral, factual description. In the case of "attack" it is a play on emotions. Literally "attack" is "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands". Do we mean that Soon & Baliunas "attacked" Mann? No, of course we don't. We don't need to know that Weart is the greatest historian to have ever lived; Weart has applied the literary device of the hyperbole. His language is judgemental. Thus, NPOV says we don't use his language. Now let's consider Pearce's language. He says the first "attempt to refute". Now "attempt" connotes "An act of trying to achieve something, typically one that is unsuccessful or not certain to succeed". It is admittedly subtle, but his wording connotes a judgement that "attempts to refute" the hockey stick are likely to fail. Again, while better than "attack", still not perfectly neutral. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's clear to me that using "attack" in this way, unattributed, is an inappropriate word choice. It is used six times in the article outside of a direct quote (and three times within quotes). I don't know that replacing "attack" with "criticism" is the best choice in each case -- words such as "oppose" may work better in some cases. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While it's not clearly inappropriate in all cases, and is in common use by sources expressing forcefully something distinct from criticism or opposition, I accept the principle and will review the article on the basis you suggest. Thanks for your comment, dave souza, talk 04:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Criticism rather than attack, since it is not directly attributed to Weart. While we're at it, the phrase "from those denying that global warming posed a problem" should go. It's awkward, cramming too much information into the sentence, and looks like a pretty transparent attempt to discredit the criticism. If people think that information should remain, the sentence should be modified to something like: "The first peer-reviewed criticism of the hockey stick graph was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, two scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming.[46]" –CWenger (^ • @) 08:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While I'll review the wording of this sentence, your proposal is factually incorrect. The first peer-reviewed criticism of the hockey stick graph was Briffa, K. R. (1999). "CLIMATE WARMING:Seeing the Wood from the Trees". Science. 284 (5416): 926–927. doi:10.1126/science.284.5416.926.. . . dave souza, talk 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wonder if "the first peer-reviewed criticism from opponents of the consensus on climate change" is really a notable event though. Could it just be changed to: "One notable peer-reviewed criticism of the hockey stick graph was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, two scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming.[46]"? Again though, I'm not sure that last clause is even necessary. It could even be considered POV unless every scientist in the article was identified similarly. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be unhappy about that, since it's not the criticism itself that is notable, but the surrounding events (a lousy paper slipped through peer review by a sympathetic journal editor and the resulting reactions, including protest by scientists mis-represented, and the reorganization at the journal, with several members of the editorial board resigning in protest). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How about if we strike the word notable? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Much better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The significance is that it wasn't just "one peer reviewed crit", this is described by Weart as "The first serious attack published in a peer-reviewed, albeit obscure, journal" as an example of "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations." It wasn't the first paper critical of MBH99, and it wasn't just a criticism, it was an attempt to refute the graph (as cited to Pearce). Agree basically with Stephan's description, that's covered in the remainder of the paragraph. The paper led the breakthrough from attacks in think tanks, an oil industry paper, and a populist book, into something seized on by Inhofe to make his first "hoax" accusation in the Senate, bringing the graph firmly into political dispute. If sources show earlier political dispute about the HS graph papers, that would be very interesting and worth adding. As far as I've been able to find, Weart's summary stands up well. . dave souza, talk 09:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's removal of the POV tag

I've removed the POV tag because this seems to be an obvious bad faith dispute. The hockey stick has not ever been that controversial as science, and the sheer fact that some people insist that it is controversial doesn't mean that it is. At this point we would need more than the opinion of some Wikipedians to support the notion that it remains a controversy, if it ever was such outside the realms of a few bloggers and fringe scientists. --TS 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of the POV tag + 2 more personal attacks is the final straw. I have raised an AN/I here: WP:ANI#disruption_at_Hockey_stick_controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bending over backwards

We presently have a section titled "Accusations that the report included plagiarism." This is silly. The Wegman report was blatantly plagiarised, in some cases from material traceable to Wikipedia! We have to get the facts right. If we come out with crap like "Accusations that the report included plagiarism" we look like idiots and nobody will trust us to state the facts. --TS 04:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Tony, do you have a RS stating the fact that the "Wegman report was blatantly plagiarised"? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. [4] --TS 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Tony, that's "Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism"... (italics added) -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Pete, do you always stop reading with the headline? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Stephan, I read the whole thing and neither "blatant" nor "blatantly" appears. This seems to be a case where we have to report what's verifiable, not what's true. A better RS is NatureNature, which says, ". . . it emerged that sections were plagiarized from textbooks and Wikipedia," and, "One of those whose work was plagiarized is Raymond Bradley." (That's what I assume to be the "true" part.) But it goes on to say (and this is the "verifiable" part):

Wegman has blamed a graduate student for the plagiarism. Daniel Walsch, spokesperson for George Mason University, says that an internal review of the matter began in the autumn. He cannot estimate when that review will be complete, and, until it is, he says, the university regards it as a “personnel matter” and will not comment further. He adds that the review is still in the “inquiry” phase to ascertain whether a full investigation should be held. “Whether it is fast or slow is not as important as it being thorough and fair,” says Walsch.

The fact that 14 months have passed since Bradley's complaint without it being resolved is disheartening but not unusual.

So, we can say there are accusations, that there is substantive evidence of plagiarism, that so-and-so said his writing was plagiarized by Wegman, but for now we shouldn't positively declare he plagiarized. Even if he did and we know it. Yopienso (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get into an ecclesiastical dispute about this. The paper has been withdrawn, and Wegman himself has admitted that the version presented to Congress was plagiarised--he blames a student. Some of the material came from Wikipedia, which is as blatant as it gets. These are the facts. The question of which of the authors plagiarized is unresolved, but it also completely immaterial to the statement that it was withdrawn as a result of the plagiarism. --TS 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we need to stick to policy on this. Wegaman himself has emphatically NOT admitted to plagiarism. Please see the story to which you linked:

"Neither Dr. Wegman nor Dr. Said has ever engaged in plagiarism," says their attorney, Milton Johns, by e-mail. In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman blamed a student who "had basically copied and pasted" from others' work into the 2006 congressional report, and said the text was lifted without acknowledgment and used in the journal study. "We would never knowingly publish plagiarized material" wrote Wegman, a former CSDA journal editor.

Please note that the same article says the study was retracted "following complaints of plagiarism."

Also see this, published May 16, 2011: "Accusations of plagiarism have led a scientific journal to retract a study that condemned scientific support for global warming, its editors say." Yopienso (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the view of Gerald North: [5]

"While I cannot excuse the academic crime of plagiarism, I do feel somewhat sad that this episode has reached this stage. I think Wegman is a well meaning person who was a victim of plagiarism by a foreign student who probably did not understand this 'strange' American custom. Having just read a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, I can feel for someone who is being vilified perhaps more for the (perhaps foolish) position he has taken in the past than for the 'crime' itself. Could this be a 'gotcha' for ClimateGate? Institutions cannot take this kind of heat without throwing someone under the bus. I hope George Mason University can take it".

It would be a grave BLP violation to include any unproven, unsourced, and probably untrue assertion that Wegman himself plagiarised the text. Yopienso is of course correct. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Yopienso that it's premature to go beyond this being accusations. However, TS makes a good point and Alex is going a bit over the top. From TS's cited source, "A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks." Clear expert views, against which we have Wegman and his attorney pulling the Billy Bunter defence, they didn't engage in plagiarism and anyway a student did it. . . dave souza, talk 07:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• On reviewing this, it's clear that there is agreement that there is plagiarism in the Wegman report, but no clear indication of exactly who wrote the plagiarised text. "In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman blamed a student who 'had basically copied and pasted' from others' work into the 2006 congressional report".[6] The heading "Accusations that the report included plagiarism" is misleading as it is superseded by this agreement that the report included plagiarism, and the discussion has moved beyond the stage where the existence of plagiarism is disputed. The heading Plagiarism in Wegman report is more concise and accurate, while still leaving open the unresolved issue of who committed the plagiarism. . dave souza, talk 21:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested heading. The section can say the report gives evidence of plagiarism or that parts of the report were plagiarized, but we can't pin it on Wegman. (Does anybody know what passage was culled from Wikipedia?)

OK, I was going to go ahead and change that myself, but will instead make three more suggestions as a package. (I'm feeling very congressional today. :0) How's this?

6 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman Report)

6.1 Contents and responses

6.2 Discussion and hearings

6.3 Plagiarism

Yopienso (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

6.3 Plagiarism charge is also concise and is probably a better subheading until the charge is confirmed. If Wegman himself is not the plagiarist, and we seem to agree on this, I don't actually see the relevance of his opinion. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not Wegman himself is a plagiarist. All I know is the conclusion has not yet been drawn in academia. When it is, we'll go by what the RSs say about it, whether we think they're right or wrong. I'm fine with "Plagiarism charge." Yopienso (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not Wegman himself is a plagiarist. All I know is that conclusion has not yet been drawn in academia, the reliable sources, or blogs. If it is, we'll go by what the RS'es say about it, whether we think they're right or wrong - an approach I consistently adopt except where BLP suggests not to. Thanks for your input. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's bedtime here in Alaska; I'll just go ahead and make the changes. Great Britain will be waking up before long and can tweak as seen fit. Yopienso (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I like "Plagiarism charge". "Accusations that the report included plagiarism" was inappropriate, but the word "charge" is appropriate for weight and the brevity answers my concern about dilution of the charge, which is exceptionally well supported and has already led to admissions of plagiarism and withdrawals by various parties.

I want to clear something up. Some people have taken it upon themselves to defend the person of Wegman himself against a putative charge of plagiarism. As the paper was a joint publication, the evidence of plagiarism does not fall directly on Wegman in person, although as principal author sadly his credibility is damaged by the plagiarism, which he attributes to a junior collaborator.

In any case, the methodological sloppiness of the paper is what concerns us here, and of course in other matters in this dispute such as the infamous Soon and Baliunas paper. Since that sloppiness pervades numerous attempts to discredit the works of Mann and his collaborators, we must convey that accurately. --TS 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As Spock would say, "Fascinating"; we seem to have reached amicable agreement on a piece of wording! ;-) Alex Harvey (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

POV in Soon & Baliunas section

It seems that the thread above was derailed so I'm starting a new one with a tighter focus.

The first peer reviewed attempt to refute the hockey stick graph from those denying that global warming posed a problem was a literature review by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.[46][47] Using data from previous papers, Soon and Baliunas argued that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, and said that recent warming was not unusual. They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas whose opinion was that human actions did not cause climatic dangers, and he approved the paper for publication in the fairly minor journal Climate Research,[48] where it appeared on 31 January 2003.

It has been claimed that this highlighted text was added at the request of an editor responding to an RfC but this claim is false. In reality Noleander had said in controversial articles, the source must be mentioned in the article, as in "[de Freitas] (who, according the person ABC, is a climate change skeptic)." So far from complying with the request of Noleander we now have:

1) still no cite, as both myself and Pete have pointed out above. Chris de Freitas is not even mentioned in Weart, and in the Pearce article that is cited [7] there is nothing to support de Freitas being labeled in this way.

2) Noleander's requirement that the text be attributed has also been ignored.

Would Tony Sidaway in the mean time please restore the POV tag that he removed until this NPOV is actually resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@ Alex, the description of de Freitas has been cited to Monastersky as was stated n earlier discussion, the Pearce cite added later dealing with another of your issues can be mored to make it clear that both cites apply. Your rehashing of arguments which you misrepresent is looking increasingly tendentious

Noleander, in discussion, said that he or she understands the point I put, that saying "who, according the person ABC" is inappropriate as shown in the WP:YESPOV section of NPOV policy: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." and "Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" to avoid giving a false impression of "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." Following that, Noleander said that the point was that a citation is needed, and dropped the assertion that inline attribution was appropriate.

So, we've a good source that de Freitas "has often expressed the view that human activity is not causing any climatic danger, and that nations should not take steps to curb carbon-dioxide emissions". Clearly a fringe view, and calling this sceptical is a disservice to scepticism as well as being misleading. If you doubt Monastersky's description, de Freitas, C. R. (June, 2002). "Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?" as already cited in the article gives a clear indication:

"This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions, we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health."

If you'd like to propose a form of wording that is properly sourced and improves that part of the article, we can discuss this further. . dave souza, talk 07:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is truly amazing that you claim with a straight face that Noleander's decision not to repeat himself is evidence that he tacitly recanted. And in the same breath you assert this is evidence that I am a tendentious editor! I'll have to say it is the first time anything in this conversation has brought a smile to my face in quite a while. So thank you! On Monastersky, I haven't read it and I don't have access to it so could you be so kind as to reproduce the section you are citing? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And just to show what a good faith editor I really am I discovered that I do have access to it after all so I've looked at it now and see that in fact the only problem is there is no cite given. The phrase is cumbersome but it's probably pointless trying to argue that the wording should be changed to 'skeptic' simply to improve readability. I would be happy to drop this point and move on to the next one. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Re Dr Chris de Freitas -- there appears to have been some effort at his wikibio to marginalize him, that's perhaps getting picked up here. I'll tend to his bio at some point, but for now, this article notes that de Freitas, whose CV looks eminently respectable, is a former Deputy Dean of Science at Aukland University, and has served as Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand. So it appears he has earned the respect of his NZ peers. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Deputy Dean (or even Dean) in many universities is an unpopular post filled by rotating faculty through it on a yearly or bi-yearly basis. And if de Freitas has significant scientific output, he managed to hide it quite well from Google Scholar. Why do you think "MensNewsDaily.com" is a reliable source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the writer got de F. appointments wrong? And I'm not sure what your point is re Dean -- are you an expert on NZ academia?

See Dr Chris de Freitas for his publication list, which is quite extensive. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's long, I'll give you that. I'm not quite sure of the impact factor of The National Business Review or The New Zealand Herald or "Ministry of Transport, Misc. Pub. " is, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if Pete's concern is with the bolded sentence in this thread or with de Freitas's WP biography? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In relation to the above; I'm suprised the article doesn't point out what is stated in the guardian source about 4 anonymous referrees being also ignored, should this not also be included in the article? (I'm here because of a previous RFC request recieved) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, that's an opinion by most of the editorial board of the journal, and while relevant is probably rather detailed for this brief summary. It's something that should be covered by the Soon and Baliunas controversy article, which needs considerable improvement. . dave souza, talk 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tone and phrasing

I've been looking at Global warming and dropped by this article as well. While reading this article, I ran across this statement: "...(As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well)..." No idea what's being said there, but the expression "trotted out" seems decidedly unencyclopedic to me; certainly derogatory. The vague terms "other studies" (which studies?) and sometimes (when?) and "close inspection .... imply" (to whom?) also seem unecyclopedic. I'd like to remove the statement altogether, but recognize that strong opinions exist in this arena. Would anybody object to the removal of that parenthetical statement? TreacherousWays (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a quote from McKitrick's 2005 presentation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre, which seemed to typify the arguments he presented. The paper is interesting in that it puts forward the common contrarian themes of "hiding the medieval warm period" and claiming that the "hockey stick graph" was "central to the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR)". It seemed to be worth noting this evidence of the arguments being put forward at the time, but if you want to suggest an alternative approach such as a brief summary that's certainly possible. Have a look at the paper and see what you think. . dave souza, talk 16:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake - I missed the quotes. TreacherousWays (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point as obviously it's rather easy to miss the quotes, I'll think about trying to include a very brief summary rather than using the quote. . `dave souza, talk

Well, the quote seems pertinent to me as an example of the strong felings within the scientific community. Perhaps it would be a good idea to re-format the quote so that it's got bigger margins and is set apart from the text? That might be a can of worms, though, depending on how many quotes there are. Most probably it's just my problem as opposed to a problem with the article or formatting. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling McKitrick's view "within the scientific community" seems quite fallacious to me. APEC is certainly driven by economic, not scientific motivations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't say, one way or the other, what McKitrick's views really are. I have started reading the climate-change-related articles, overlooked the quotation marks in this case, and (in error) questioned the tone. I may have then offended your sensibilities by my characterization of the nature of the topic. All unintended. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Having gone through McI's speech, I've tried to summarise the main points. Have included a quote that "The Government of Canada subsequently sent the hockey stick (but not the satellite data) to schools across the country, and its famous conclusion about the 1990s being the warmest decade of the millennium was the opening line of a pamphlet sent to every household in Canada to promote the Kyoto Protocol." as this is a common claim about government use of the HS graph. . dave souza, talk 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

statistics

why is statistical methods dangerous in the hands of an in experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.223.130 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statement appears to have nothing to do with improving the article, and hence does not comply with talk page guidelines. On which basis this offtopic discussion should be deleted. . dave souza, talk 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The worry over "neutrality" and "sources" has made this article impossible to grasp by us, common users.

I cannot make heads or tails of this obfuscated "scholarly" mumbo jumbo.208.57.34.8 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, it's a fairly complex issue but essentially the graphs were produced and publicised, were much maligned by those opposed to action on climate change, and have been supported by subsequent research. Will try to bring it more up to date when time permits. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

McIntyre and McKitrick 2005

New user so by all means do not be shy nudging me if I am breaking protocol in some regards (I read the pages but it is a lot to take in at once). Focusing on one thing for now:

In an immediate public relations campaign, the Canadian National Post for 27 January carried a front page article alleging that "A pivotal global warming study central to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws", well timed to allow the Bush administration to say that the Kyoto Protocol was discredited.

One article is not public relations campaign, and the insinuation here that a British newspaper was in collusion with the Bush administration to sabatage Kyoto is fanciful at best. I recommened removing this entirely unless the source listed has some very compelling evidence. Maybe noting the 2005 paper was cited by critics of Kyoto during the time frame though honestly it seems tangential, the way it is written reeks of unproven 'conspiracy.' --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is sourced to Pearce. I haven't read that book, so I cannot check what he writes. However, please note that the Canadian National Post is not a British newspaper in any current sense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Shadowy Sorcerer, hi! Firstly, you're doing great as far as "protocol" is concerned, it's good to discuss points like this, and entirely reasonable to question a source that's not readily available on the internet.
As Stephan say, the newspaper is Canadian, as are McIntyre and McKitrick who haven't been shy about influencing U.S. policy.
Fred Pearce writes "This time, McKitrick's friends stoked up the PR campaign in earnest. An essentially obscure paper in a second-ranked journal was splashed across the front page of Canada's National Post with a political spin: 'A pivotal global warming study pivotal to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws.' In news terms, the timing could not have been better. The protocol was due to come into effect later that month. And it allowed the Bush administration, which had reneged on the protocol after coming into office, to claim the deal had been discredited."
Pearce is a journalist rather than a historian, he's tended to give credence to McIntyre and is on friendly terms with those opposing mainstream views, but generally shows the mainstream position. So, fairly even handed but should be taken with care. The National Post was blatantly misrepresenting the significance of the MBH study, and was promoting political opposition to Kyoto at a time when the Bush administration wanted to reject it. The Protocol is mentioned two sections previously in #McIntyre and McKitrick 2003, but the point of the timing could do with clarification. Your point about it possibly suggesting that they were colluding to sabotage Kyoto indicates that the wording is unclear, so on reflection I've changed to:
In an immediate public relations campaign, the Canadian National Post for 27 January carried a front page article alleging that "A pivotal global warming study central to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws." The Bush administration had already decided to disregard the Kyoto Protocol which was to come into effect later that month, and this enabled them to say that the protocol was discredited.
Hope that meets your concern, if you think the phrasing can be improved please suggest changes which still summarise the source. . dave souza, talk 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian not British, my bad for typing this up so late last night. And Dave, the changes are much appreciated, just cutting the Bush administration statement off from the public relations statement makes the progression of the politics a whole lot clearer and reads more objectively. But 'public relations campaign' still reads very oddly to me... I think your case for the distortion of McIntyre's paper is very strong give the political environment but I worry that it sounds unsubstantiated especially to those reading the article used to similar phrases used to dismiss certain viewpoints. If it is from Pearce perhaps quoting it to make it clear that it is it is his wording? Or even something saying, "With an eye to influencing upcoming political debate of the Kyoto protocols, the Canadian National Post..." I think that avoids politically loaded phrases and keeps the intent of the paragraph and Pearce's point intact. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding politically loaded terminology would be mantaining NPOV right? Hah, learning the language already :P --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Pearce's point, which is correct, is that this was the opening shot in a PR campaign rather than being about the science. Not very happy with the suggested wording, will see what others think. . . dave souza, talk 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

His point is probably correct, but it is not neutral phrasing because we are talking about journalists. Whether or not it is true, the phrase 'engaged in a PR campaign' passes a judgment without the evidence, especially as it relates to journalistic objectivity. Its like using the phrase (okay bad example) such and such person is a racist, instead of saying what he said/did.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hide the Decline

I feel like considering this is a 'controversy' page that the lack of discussion of the Hide the decline issue and related data questions about the Hockey stick here is lacking. The phrase 'hide the decline' should probably be not be discussed in such terms itself however as it is deceptive on several levels... both in what skeptics think and what Mann actually did. The issue of the process of how he picked his data and excluded outliers is always a legitimate concern when analysing the merits of a scientific paper especially given the number crunching and modeling-heavy science Mann employs. There has also been considerable 'controversy' over how well his records were kept, and how open he has been with sharing his data with other scientists. This is not just a skeptic versus AGW issue either, it is my understanding that worries among the scientific community about openness and access to this kind of data (as well as to difuse this line of skeptical criticism of course) is one of the reasons for the rise of open and highly transparent temperature databases on the internet since when Mann formulated his graph, and even processed databases making their methods abundantly clear to avoid confusion. Though I will have to get a source for that to put it in the article obviously (believe the Scientific Assessment Panel made this point somewhere).

Certainly the conclusion of such a section should be that 1) The majority of papers continue to uphold the hockey graphs conclusions vis-a-vis the trends of warming from around 1000-2000 BCE and 2) Mann was not found liable of engaging in any fraud, misuse of data, or violations scientific protocol. However, this has not precluded many scientists favourable to Mann's ideas suggesting a need for greater transparency in such research... and the impact skeptical criticism in this front has had on future research in the field, regardless of the merits. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit confused by that much misused phrase, it was written by Jones about Briffa's reconstruction which was incorrect after a the 1960s due to the well publicised divergence problem, and so Jones followed Briffa's instruction to stop the curve at 1960. In a a simplified figure for the cover of the short annual World Meteorological Organization report in 1999, Jones combined reconstructions with instrumental records in a way that Mann did not.[8]

This had little or no impact at the time, which was before the famous IPCC "hockey stick" graph, but has been much publicised and misrepresented after the CRU email hack. We should probably have a short section about that, the sequence hasn't reached that date yet.

As for transparency, Mann always used publicly available data and was one of the first to publish his computer programs as well as publishing the method, which was all that was required. There have been more recent issues with CRU using data from Met offices that don't allow it to be republished, preferring researchers to ask for it from the Met office. That has now been overcome with data from all countries except Poland. Take it up with the Polish Met office.

By the way, I've already suggested that this should be a page about the graph, as the "controversy" is only a small part of the story. There was some resistance to renaming the article, may have another go at that. . dave souza, talk 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If this were in fact a page just on the Hockey Stick I would probably agree with you since the focus should be on published science as a science page, but considering it is a controversy page, it seems odd not to include aspects of the controversy. A page on the controversy should cover the history and politics surrounding it without the same rigours as what is included in a science article, because no matter your stance on the issue, the hockey stick controversy has been a defining political and cultural battle, regardless of the science. I think a page like this does serve important purpose for people trying to access American political debates and the history of the debates, but obviously only if it is understood that the conditions for inclusion in this article are not the same. Though if there is wikipedia policy on this please inform me.

I am actually quite aware of the science and am probably more in agreement with you than you realize... I only used the phrase 'hide the decline' because it is the best way to immediately inform editors of what I want to have a section on without any parsing. I am however skeptical of what you say about transparency and though it should probably be characterized more as an issue of communicating his methods such as combining instrumental methods with the pre 1980s proxy data with instrumental data, but I suggest we focus on whether there needs to be a section or not before we hammer out the science. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

RfC is now officially botched
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should Wikipedia editors post the contents of recently released emails that have been "hacked" (or otherwise obtained without authorization) to the Hockey stick controversy article or its talk page? See the Talk page section Climategate 2.0 emails. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Boris, you troll! William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Comment. This looks like a dispute strictly about user conduct, rather than content, so I don't think an RfC is the best way forward here. The options you have for conduct disputes at this point are WP:WQA, WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U, and if the filer of this RfC is interested in pursuing this further I suggest one of these, rather than a regular RfC. Of the three venues it looks like the best fit for this dispute right now is WP:WQA, but you are of course welcome to file it at whichever venue you think is most appropriate. I'll be glad to answer further questions below. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC) As this has become contentious, I've removed the content I added. Add back the 3rd-party comments if you like. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC) No they're covered in the Climategate article. Gerardw (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) YesIf they are quoted in RS in the context of the hockey stick controversy then they can be used in the article. I would have though that 'hide the decline' and other such phrases are very much part of the subject matter of this article.Greglocock (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I think Boris question is about the editors posting self-selected excerpts from the primary documents, not references to secondary coverage in reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean up talk?

Probably partially due to my own inexperience and frequent contributions, but this talk page has got very messy especially the Mcintyre and Mcitrick 2005 section. Is there any protocol for cleanup or is it just whomever takes initiative? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's currently set up to automatically archive stale threads that are older than 30 days. If anybody leaves dead threads alone, all will be well. To reduce the temptation, I'll set it to 15 days... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems the discussion after my block quote somehow got nudged out of its proper place. Dave is replying to Pete there.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have moved my comment and added subheadings, hope that helps, dave souza, talk 07:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Climategate 2.0 emails

[Removed by OP, as it's become contentious] Link to removed content--Pete Tillman (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So are we not allowed to site them as primary sources? Even though Mann admitted they were his? I'll remove my direct link in my comment until notified.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, WP:PSTS requires that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." If a reading of the sources implies wrongdoing by a living person, WP:BLPPRIMARY indicates we shouldn't use it unless the primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, in which case it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to other policies... So, a reliable secondary source is needed for the interpretation. Using blogs for interpretation of sources about other people is prohibited by WP:BLPSPS, the sole exception being WP:NEWSBLOG which still only gives an opinion and needs to be treated with caution. . . dave souza, talk 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My post down in 'Political Controversy' is relevant to this discussion but writing here since the point kind of got buried (sometimes I get too wrapped up in the debating spirit O:P ). I suggest we either add a sections for skeptical accusations of Mann's actions in defending the HS or append properly cited statements in the related sections (like the accusation he tried to get Freitas fired and put pressure on Harvard). I would be glad to write something up, if not edit 'suggestions' directly into the article so that we have something to work with. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with these accusations is that they're fringe and should not be given undue weight, especially because of the BLP issue. They must be shown in the context of how scientists have received and responded to the accusations. The emails from the first batch were used by Peabody Energy to put arguments to the EPA, all of which were examined and rejected. The Office of Inspector General of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation 15 August 2011 that exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct. The second batch seem to be a rehash of old arguments, or of info that was already public. There's good reason to have a short section on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy here, aim to work on that sometime!! . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

De Freitas qualifiers uncited, again

Our article currently asserts, in "Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation", para. 1:

They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas who opposed action to curb carbon dioxide emissions, and held that human actions did not cause climatic dangers.

Note both assertions are uncited. We had a long discussion about this long ago, and I thought this had been sorted out. Apparently not. Dave, this isn't your version, is it? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your memory appears to be at fault, Pete, as does your reading of the sources. Monastersky as cited: "When the two researchers finished writing their report last year, they sent it halfway around the world to Chris de Freitas," and "Mr. de Freitas has often expressed the view that human activity is not causing any climatic danger, and that nations should not take steps to curb carbon-dioxide emissions." . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a credit for Monastersky's opinion. And no need to be snippy, Dave. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Pete, your language was misleading: the content was properly cited to Monastersky, available on pdf but perhaps you had difficulty in reading the pdf. The edit you've made introduced the wrong citation, and you've introduced inline attribution to Monastersky is a way that suggests his expert view is contested. That contravenes the part of WP:YESPOV which says "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."
You've not provided any evidence that the assertion is contested by a reliable source, that appears to be merely your personal opinion. To resolve this, I've looked out further sources on the background of de Freitas, who was involved in setting up the "sceptic" organisation Friends of Science prior to October 2002.
As for "some scientists", Monastersky names two and Pearce doesn't seem to comment on that aspect so I've changed that from "some" to "two". . . dave souza, talk 12:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave: thanks for the specific number -- always best, if available.

As for Monastersky, as you know, we had a long discussion AWB about adding this qualifier phrase to de Freitas, as it appeared to some editors that this was added to make de F look prejudiced in favor of S&B. Mon. was the direct source of this clause. Do you have a corroboration? Otherwise, this appears to be Mon.'s opinion, and should be cited as such, by BLP rules. As you know, we are directed to be conservative in such matters.

Your quote suggesting this is an "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" flies in the face of our previous discussion, which see. Uncontroversial, it isn't!

Once again, there is evidence of misconduct on the part of Mann et al. in "discreditng" Soon et al. -- which has obvious BLP implications. I don't think we want to be adding another BLP problem here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the "evidence of misconduct on the part of Mann et al. in "discreditng" Soon et al."? I thought that there had been several investigations, who all have stated that there wasn't? I'm a bit curious about your selective BLP application here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kim. The evidence is the scientist's own words, in their emails released in CG 2 (&1). The emails appear authentic, but are primary sources. I haven't seen any RS dispute their authenticity -- have you?  Removed Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pete, once again you're presenting a blog based attack on living people to support your own original research, without reliable secondary sources. This clearly contravenes WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPTALK in this particularly sensitive topic area. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 11:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dave, I've switched to one of Pearce's descrips of de F. you added to the cite. It's shorter, a direct quote, and attributed -- the best course for using contentious material, I think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) [comment went missing, restored by dave souza, talk 08:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)]

While I accept that Pearce is the only one describing de Freitas as a "contrarian", it's clearly both factual and significant that de F was an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions, so I've clarified that point. As noted in the edit summary that's supported by two cited sources, and despite requests above you've not yet provided any reliable sources contradicting that. Please desist from trying to present uncontested assertions as mere opinion. . . dave souza, talk 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Political controversy

Wonderful thing about being new, no shame in asking questions! Does BLP even apply here? We are talking about a political controversy. As for as misconduct there is e-mail number 2524. We can obviously quote the mail directly. At the very least it is a case of 'meddling' in an unprofessional way, and certainly discrediting. Accusing a scientist of being unscientific is about as bad as it gets in the field... and even if S&B were unscientific, he should be doing it in a paper and not by e-mail throwing his name around. At the very least we are dealing with conflict of interest violations http://aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm "Any professional relationship or action that may result in a conflict of interest must be fully disclosed. When objectivity and effectiveness cannot be maintained, the activity should be avoided or discontinued." Especially since S&B's paper is critical of his work, Mann is willfully concealing both his conflict of interest and continuing activiting that conflates the conflict. Even if S&B are wrong, Mann's should not be critiquing the science of his critics, especially not attempting to get him replacement. He should know that it is unprofessional, that is why he did not make these demands publicly.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course Mann should critique the science of his critics, that's how science works and the critique should eventually appear in peer reviewed publications. There's no problem with discussing the critique in private emails, but reading them out of context can be interpreted in the way you seem to be doing. Which is why we have WP:BLPPRIMARY. Mann and other scientists are fully entitled to express their own views in public, this is a normal part of scientific outreach. Your suggestions of "willfully concealing both his conflict of interest and continuing activiting that conflates the conflict" are serious accusations, got a reliable secondary source for them? If not, they should be removed. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I apologize, I was trying to 'construct' an interpretation, I now realize I need reliable secondary sources for interpretation. The interpretation of the mails I am putting forward is not that by discussing other papers Mann violates scientific ethics, but by attempting to silence his critics and control who speaks in the scientific arena in ways /besides/ published papers. He can be critical of those who appose his views verbally all he wants, but to act against those who are supposed to scrutinize his work creates a conflict of interest that can undermine the whole proces, as understood in business, law and science. Here is my source, feel free to reformat it if it is too unwieldly, I stole code.

The group was not concerned over the technical quality of this work, but rather the political implications, as I implied in my paper. Mann, for example, wrote to Jones, Hulme, Wigley, and others in an April 24, 2003 email (1051202354.txt) noting that the primary concern was that publication would give legitimacy to contrary arguments, and noting that he had worked with David Halperin of the White House Office of Science and Technology to try to limit the damage. Earlier that day, Mark Eakin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had emailed the group noting a need to provide Halperin with “ammunition” to “dismiss” the Soon paper which “the White House has shown interest in.” By August 5, Climate Research had withdrawn the paper not because it was necessarily incorrect, but rather that claims may have been overstated and addressed in a revision: “While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication” (Kinne 2003). It should be noted that a review of the scandal commissioned by the UEA found that the paper had been reviewed by four reviewers, none of whom had recommended rejection (Russell et al. 2010, 65). Strikingly, this occurred after the resignations of three editors, including Clare Goodess, a UEA/CRU scientist who had published a number of papers with Jones and the employee he referred to on March 11. In a June 18, 2003 email (1057944829.txt), de Frietas noted that she was among the leaders of the attack on the review of the paper, and that she was from “the Climate Research Unit of the UEA that is not particularly well known for impartial views on the Climate Change Debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff.”

— Avery, George (2010). "A Response to Davies and Fielding". World Medical and Health Policy. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

—Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Abstract: The author responds to criticism regarding his recent paper, “Scientific Misconduct: The Perversion of Scientific Evidence for Policy Advocacy,” (Avery 2010)." So, we don't know the background to George Avery's argument. Note that Monastersky reports that the Bush administration had taken up S&B; "According to internal documents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, made public by the National Wildlife Federation, the administration fought to include mention of the studies in an agency report on the state of the environment, a move that EPA staff members blocked by deleting all mention of climate change." So Mann had good scientific reason for trying to "limit the damage". Kinne was still claiming the paper wasn't "necessarily incorrect", von Storch evidently considered it to be a bad paper. Russell et al. relied on the published statement by Clare Goodess that "apparently" none had recommended rejection, she was pointing out Kinne's earlier assurance that none had recommended rejection. The nuance is that, as shown by Pearce, it appears to have been rejected by reviewers, but the other editors including Goodess found that out later. That's supported by Gavin Schmidt as an expert on the topic area replying to 483: "Indeed, email 1719, reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite." A comment on a blog isn't a reliable source, but it does point to potential research. George Avery writes in World Medical & Health Policy | Policy Studies Organization, "a unique new journal dedicated to the intersection of politics, policy, medicine, and public health" which seems to have first published in 2009 (Volume 1, Issue 1). Most of its editors are from George Mason University which has achieved some prominence in this topic area. So, rather questionable. . dave souza, talk 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

First article is here. Not gone through it yet though. The review cited in my quote is more recent and official so I think we should run with that as a citation for the article unless we find something stronger. I think dismissing all of George Mason as biased over that one incident a bit much. However, our sources seem to be agreeing on the chronology of Mann, the Whitehouse, the EPA and the NWF but afterwards things get muddled. It is funny you should mention Kine as I have been trying to work out facts of the S&B being reviewd or not, especially with the publishing of this e-mail on skeptical websites (If you can link to Real Climate I can link Watts, nya!). Freitas also goes into this at length about this in e-mail 3265, (blog links are just easier.[Modified --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)] E-mail 1719 is a little vague, the unnamed informant does not sound as if they are necessarily among the four 'referees' with Paleoclimatology degrees as Freitas called them did not recommened rejection. Probably one of the editors that used to be with the CRU and then resigned? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidently I am only getting results from Gavin's posting around the net for 2106 and 3013. In the datebases of the e-mails they appear to be not not by the guys he claims. Be nice to get the correct numbers from him, probably an honest mistake.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it's preferable to await reliable sources. I'm not dismissing all of George Mason as biased, though they'd improve their reputation by completing and publishing their overdue investigations. The main issue is that it's best to be cautious about a new journal which is about the politics of science and medicine rather than being a climate science journal. The Clare Goodess article can be shown in context, it refers to the letter that Watts republishes (and I'm very cautious about his non-expert blog) which is clearly dated 3 July 2003. Pearce quotes that letter in which Kinne wrote "Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor", so that was obviously released in 2009 and was taken into account in his book. The other emails from an even less reputable site also have nothing new: the issue is what went on at the point when "Mr. Kinne agreed that the journal should not have published the paper by the Harvard-Smithsonian team as written, and that the reviewers had failed to detect methodological flaws." [Monastersky] and von Storch concluded "that the review of the Soon et al paper failed to detect significant methodological flaws in the paper" as announced a day later at the Senate Hearing on July 29, 2004. . dave souza, talk 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Views of de Freitas

De Freitas doesn't accept that extreme weather events are linked to human induced climate change (global warming)....snip..."It is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation," he wrote in 2007. As far as he's concerned the climate has always changed - naturally. And the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions last year rose by a record amount to "Pals"almost 31 billion tonnes is neither here nor there....snip..."The so called 'human fingerprints on climate change' can also be attributed to causes or processes other than those related to fossil fuel-caused carbon dioxide increase," he says....snip...To explain de Freitas's view it's necessary to acknowledge that he is one of a rare breed of climate scientists who oppose the climate change consensus as declared by the IPCC in 2007.

— Barton, Chris (July 16, 2011). "The climate dissenter holds his ground". New Zealand Herald.

Seems pretty climatey changey denierish to me. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a very relevant point and one I am seeing in our characterization of other Skeptics. Freitas' point is not that C02 does not affect temperature (the current statement in the article makes him sound like he disagrees with the greenhouse effect, which is very unqualified). Instead as Freitas points out in this quote, and Scientists who share his ideas like Plimer, the increase in temperature and effect is inconsequential because of the other natural processes being so powerful. To put it in analogy, its like complaining I turned the temperature up two degrees when all the windows are open... your pointing to the smaller actor. http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect : "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation." Guys there is no reason to get upset about this, Wikipedia should characterize opinions accurately. After all we are dealing with trained scientists here, their views points are going to be subtle. It is our duty to wade through political obfuscation and present views accurately. Even if we disagree on the science we should be able to accomplish that least that. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

While the source cited by ArtifexMayhem makes pretty strong statements about de Freitas, our article relates to an earlier time and carefully cites good secondary sources that describe his views in 2003 or earlier. We currently describe him as "an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions who has been characterized by Fred Pearce as a "climate contrarian"." The latter part comes from Pete, who apparently wants to include inline attribution of mainstream views in a way that presents them as mere opinion. I was happy with the earlier description as "Chris de Freitas, who opposed action to curb carbon dioxide emissions, and held that human actions did not cause climatic dangers." The original source for that is at the top of this section. Both appear to be consistent with your description of the views of de Freitas that human activities are less significant that natural changes, and are well sourced as describing his views at that earlier time. . dave souza, talk 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If people really want to argue about de Freitas, see the PDF at "Pals". Of course, this is not itself RS, but it has numerous RS quotes and links, including a long list of de Freitas articles, OpEds, etc that show his viewpoint for a long time. See also Article in NZ Herald, apparently students complained. JohnMashey (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John, a very useful link. For our purposes we need to confirm his views before 2003. The links to his articles don't work for me, but a search for "de Freitas, C.R., 2002. Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 50 (2), 297-327. doi:10.2113/50.2.297" is revealing:

Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant.....

increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly a major threat. A more likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions, we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health.

Which matches Monastersky's description. . dave souza, talk 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The paper seems to be Freitas' closest published work to the date of S&B being published (about 7 months), that I could find. After reading the hole paper (great summary of early skeptic opinion on the matter!), I think the wording of Freitas position here is fair. He even outright says in the conclusion "Most important, there is no evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming, thus throwing doubt on the IPCC predictions." And his views are very important in the controversy. Something that struck me very odd was the fact that he has a whole section debunking the hockstick (fallacy six). It certainly does not assuage worries of editorial bias that he concludes that section with: "In conclusion, it is clear that the Mann et al. (1999) ‘hockey stick’ is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted in the IPCC’s 2001 report to affirm the notion that temperature changes of the twentieth century were unprecedented. The validity of this has been soundly challenged and sufficient evidence exists to disprove it." Might be relevant to his page and the S&B page as well. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)