Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 8

Von Storch' opinion?

Is this controversial? Article currently reads: "Hans von Storch regards that paper as of little consequence, and believes his paper of 2004 to be the first significant criticism," which is dismissive in a way the oddly inflates Storch's opinion. I think if a criticism was used in a white house hearing it is not of little consequence. I suggest this instead: " Hans von Storch published a paper in 2004 as well criticizing the methods used to create the Hockey Stick, believing his work to be the first significant criticism." I also looked at the link, the comment certainly deserves mention perhaps in an article on the paper or in the section on Hans contribution. But as summary of the paper in an intro? I do not think so.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The M&M papers introduce various objections, which have little or no effect on the reconstructions, or have been shown to be invalid. Both von Storch 2004 and M&M 2005 raised a question of methodology which affects the "wobbliness of the shaft" and is valid to the extent of increased earlier variability as shown in Mann et al. 2008. So, perhaps we can cover this more suitably in the lead, the issue remains significant. And as S&B showed, any old claims can be used in political hearings, without having any scientific significance. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not contest that Stoch's paper was a more significant critique in terms of its appeal to the Scientific community. Its just the current wording inflates Storch as some sort of unimpeachable authority on the matter. Its even more odd sounding because he's talking about his own paper, so it makes him sound sort of egotistical to boot. I suggest if we want to highlight that his paper is the first significant criticism that we use a secondary source for that? Then we can use a sentence or two more to discuss his critique, which I am interested in researching as I know little about it. I am mostly pointing this out as the wording sounds odd when I read the article, not that I am contesting the claims necessarily. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The core message of von Storch here is not that his own paper is significant, it's that M&M has no scientific weight. That's the hallmark of a proper scientist - you don't accept crap even if it seems to support your own position, and you accept good work even if it contradicts your position. M&M's paper has played a disproportional role in the political debate, but has very little scientific relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am really not arguing with either of you on this, it just reads very oddly. It would be like reading in the introduction to quantum physics that Einstein thinks there is a better explanation. His opinion is relevent, he is a good scientists, but its odd to have someone's opinion in the middle of a summary. Can we say like, "Hans Von Storch's paper was regarded by many scientists as the first significant criticism...?"--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Controversy

I think this is a better clarification on skeptics objection: "At a political level, the debate is over how these graphs have been used to convey complex science to the public, the methodology used to create the general hockey stick 'shape' by the graphs, as well as over the robustness of the assessment presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which used them in its published materials up until 2007." Previously it read: " At a political level, the debate is about the use of these graphs to convey complex science to the public, and the question of the robustness of the assessment presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." Certainly the methodology must be mentioned, isn't that the focus of almost all the papers and reviews we cite? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Robustness covers methodology, and that aspect is covered by the first sentence about "debates over the technical correctness". At a political level, the dispute is between those who accept the scientific consensus, and those who reject it. The latter commonly raise objections to methodology, which are ostensibly scientific objections rather than political objections, and are dealt with as such. Almost all of the scientific papers and reviews we cite support the main findings of the early reconstructions, while refining the methodology as is normally expected in science. In politics, the "skeptics objection" tends to reiterate old arguments on methodology without acknowledging that they have been resolved in newer work, a technique of creating false doubt which was previously used to combat scientific findings on ozone and the link between tobacco and cancer. Perhaps we should provide more information on that, but the sources I've seen tend to discuss global warming science more generally and not the specific "hockey stick" arguments. . dave souza, talk 19:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well certainly the 'political' arguments tend to follow the line of thinking you are suggesting especially the politician's statement on the matter. Though I would argue that the politicians on the other side of the issue have tended to conflate the arguments of Climate modelers. Sadly due to the Manichean thinking of United States politics, most people feel they have to reject the science entirely as (on the Democrat/liberal/progressive) side, instead of engaging it. If you want to draw a distinction between the two types of critiques why not make it explicit? I think we should parse 'robustness' unless we link to the scientific definition as that subtlety may be lost on the usual wikipedia reader. How about: "The hockey stick controversy refers to a debate between scientists who accept the technical correctness and implications for global warming of graphs showing reconstructed estimates of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, and those who reject their findings for various reasons. At a political level, the debate tends to be much less about the science and focuses instead on how these graphs have been used to convey complex science to the public, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a source of unbiased assessment of the science behind these graphs."--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, these problems could be resolved by renaming this article hockey stick graph which would summarise the present article rather better, with the "controversy" forming a significant part of the subject. In a sense it's also wrong to say that it's a controversy about the IPCC use, it's a controversy in which IPCC use of the graph to present a powerful and rather simplistic message to the public inspired a reaction which developed into contrarian symbolic use of the graph as a totem which they feel could undermine all the other science if it or the scientists were discredited, at least in terms of public opinion. Somewhat complex, my current aim is to incorporate research into related articles rather than rewriting the lead. . dave souza, talk 20:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I would support a change to 'Hockey Stick Graph'. Incidentally I am currently researching the IPCC issue and Kyoto as I am a trained International Relations issue and this article presents a rather distorted view of the history involved in both. The problem is my sources discuss just the politics, and so you run into conflict with sources that are discussing the politics AND the science. Being able to split the issue into the science arguments over the graph, and the political issues (especially vis-a-vis Kyoto) would make things much simpler.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel there are distortions, it will be very helpful if you can point them out on the talk page to see if we can clarify points using relevant sources which discuss the reconstructions/graph. There's not a simple split, for example M&M 2005 was a scientific paper (albeit by non-scientists), though most of their arguments were overturned. However, the publicity for the paper in the National Post and McKitrick's presentation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre were clearly political. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV wording

Since I have some free time now, I am going to be going over the wording of the article here and focus on the NPOV wording. I will be making edits related to this probably by broad section. Feel free to discuss things here :) --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Added a reference and a cited quote. Not sure if my format is totally correct. Please point me to my errors if there are some so I do not make them again!--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Piecemeal it is then. This is an article on the history and politcs of the Hockey Stick. It has received legitimate criticism about its depiction of the Medieval Warming that Mann recognized. The NPA: "Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for AD 900 to 1600, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900." Therefore the development and use of graphs that better address this issue without refuting the general trend of warmth in the 20th century is very important. Especially since even as is the article recognizes that the controversy is around the 'assessment presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).' --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends which hockey stick, the original MBH99 paper made valid choices of a statistical method that tended to play down earlier variability but included wide error bars which still cover current estimates of variability. The error bars emphasised the uncertainty about earlier periods, a point confirmed by the NPA statement you cite. The IPCC presentation also includes considerable emphasis on this uncertainty, but this did not always show in publicity by both "sides". The controversy predating the graph picked it up as a symbol. . . dave souza, talk 17:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, is there a policy on use of 'scientists' as a collective noun for NPOV? Would it not be better to same 'Certain scientists" and list/reference who? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's a clear majority view then it's probably reasonable, we should not say "certain scientists" or "some scientists" in that instance. dave souza, talk 17:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Kyoto and Hockey Stick

Issue with last sentence: "Political pressures increased as the Kyoto Protocol was opposed by lobbyists such as the American Petroleum Institute who sought climatologists to dissent and undermine its scientific credibility." Which is supported by pearce. I have tracked down his source which is this memo. I am going to have to call relevance. As the New York Times points out, this was neither an approved policy nor was it funded, it also was published and outed by the media before the Hockey Stick graphs were published (Memo dated April 1998). Also the implication of this statement is not a good summary as my research into Kyoto demonstrates (The Life and Death of International Treaties: Double-Edged Diplomacy and the Politics of Ratification in Comparative Perspective by Jeffrey S. Lantis, Chapter 8. I have the pdf if there is a way to share it legally), Kyoto was opposed by a bipartisan alliance between Labor, Managment, energy companies and trade associations (even Richard Trumka was against it) primarily over economic concerns. It was basically killed by clinton's senate: "The Hagel—Byrd resolution emphasized the possible economic implications of such a deal, and they demanded that the Clinton administration provide a financial impact study on the deal if the Senate were to consider it for ratification. The resolution passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin of 95–0.103 Once the deal was finalized in Kyoto that December, even Senator John Kerry (D‐MA) predicted, 'What we have here is not ratifiable in the Senate.'" This was in 1997 before Mann solidified the argument for global warming with his work, by the time Mann published the Hockey Stick and it had time to be assessed by the scientific community, we were looking at a President Bush entering into office, and it was again rejected do to economic concerns.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

May i suggest that you read WP:NOR? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, none of this is original research as I did not author any of the sources linked, and all the statements I am using are summarized in others works. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you combine sources to reach a novel conclusion not explicit in any of the sources, that's WP:SYN which breaches NOR.

However, looking at the sentence, Pearce clearly makes the point which is interesting but a bit distant from the main issue which is that Kyoto was happening, was opposed by industry lobbyists, and set the context for the 2001 IPCC report. I'm ok with deleting " who sought climatologists to dissent and undermine its scientific credibility" from the sentence. . dave souza, talk 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrmms. Well the only thing I think could be synthesis would be the chronology points I was making? The analysis of why Kyoto failed was by Lantis. Regardless the deletion solves all issues. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've removed the addition that you just inserted[1], since it is entirely unsupported by the reference. There is nothing in the reference given, about bi-partisanship (on what? where? (the US)?) nor about unions and/or trade-associations. Secondary reason for reverting this, is a question on WP:WEIGHT.... that others opposed the Kyoto treaty is correct, but the aspect of it that we're interested in here, is the combination of this controvesy and the opposition... equally intersting would be the same combination the other way around (ie. lobby groups stongly basing their argument on the hockey-stick). But it must be based on secondary sources making that synthesis, and not upon our views/readings on the situation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference supports for my quote, "interest group opposition can be seen as directly linked to the Senate's position in this matter. Interest groups like the GCC and a coalition of labor and corporate groups were deeply opposed to the treaty. These groups, including some traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, were able to lean on the administration both publicly and privately to seek an alternative path on climate change. Together with Congress, these groups effectively drew a line in the sand (in spite of administration initiatives to widen the win#set through synergistic issue linkages).--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And in what reference is this? I've just searched for the word interest, and couldn't find it in the NYT ref. Do note that we need the combination covered (hockeystick+Kyoto). Pearce makes that link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh my bad, I thought we had agreed to use Global Environmental Politics, by Jeffrey S. Lantis, from the Oxford University Press. It is an overview of Kyoto protocol negotiations around the world, including the US from its acceptance to its eventual rejection by the Bush administration. I have a copy of the PDF. Probably should discuss before we add a new source, so I have reverted. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What we're interested in here, is the intersection between this controversy and Kyoto. If Lantis covers that intersection, then it certainly is a reference that we can use. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does You can get at least part of the chapter in question. I just think we should clarify the coalition API is part of so that we do not imply that it was just big-oil opposing Kyoto.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through pages 222–223 which are available at that link, he doesn't seem to be discussing this in the context of the hockey stick studies, their inclusion in the IPCC TAR and the lobbying environment. It's a good point that we shouldn't suggest it was just big oil, indeed Pearce covers the lobbying by the Western Fuels Association for one. It is important that there was intense lobbying in this period, both before and after the Tyoto Protocol being agreed when it was still up for ratification. Looking at the NYT article, that supports the point that industry funding of scientists taking a minority or contrarian view is significant, and though it suggests these particular proposals may not have gone ahead, it's clearly a recurring issue as discussed below. Will review how to improve our coverage of this. . dave souza, talk 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a clarification on how with this edit we went from...

Political pressures increased as the Kyoto Protocol was opposed by lobbyists such as the American Petroleum Institute.^[18][19]

to...

Environmental policy became a politically contentious subject after the Kyoto Protocol was signed by the Clinton Administration, and subsequently opposed in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition of economic and energy interests, such as the American Petroleum Institute.^[19][20][21]

via the addition of ref: Lantis, Jeffery S. "Global Environmental Politics". Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 31-4. ? Sorry if I'm missing the obvious. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good question which I hope Shadowy Sorcerer will answer. There are some useful clarifications and corrections in recent edits, but the background it getting rather too detailed and away from the topic of the article. However, as discussed below the issue of lobbyists funding scientists is significant in the "hockey stick" context, as shown by Pearce. . . dave souza, talk 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Trying to get a political chronology to show through the intro and origin stuff, since the politics and science is bouncing off each other and it is sometimes hard with the current narrative to determine when everything is happening. And yes, I have added more than I planned to. If you guys can slim it up, go right ahead, I do have a problem with verbosity. But here are my sources, Landis:

The Clinton administration faced serious opposition to the treaty in Congress, and initiatives like the Hagel—Byrd resolution demonstrate the depth of Senate resistance. Indeed, one of the more interesting questions that emerge from this case is how the administration believed that it could ever achieve Senate support in the face of these challenges. Even sympathetic Senators like John Kerry (D#MA) warned the President that the treaty might present an insurmountable challenge. Finally, interest group opposition can be seen as directly linked to the Senate's position in this matter. Interest groups like the GCC and a coalition of labor and corporate groups were deeply opposed to the treaty. These groups, including some traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, were able to lean on the administration both publicly and privately to seek an alternative path on climate change. Together with Congress, these groups effectively drew a line in the sand (in spite of administration initiatives to widen the win#set through synergistic issue linkages).

And Weart:

In international negotiations, which culminated in 1997 with a huge conference in Kyoto, the United States remained the most powerful holdout against mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. The American public was interested in the issue, but confused. Pressure on Congress came mainly from anti-government conservatives and industries that depended on fossil fuels. Right-leaning think tanks redoubled their efforts to deny that global warming posed a threat (they published more documents on the topic in 1996 than in all previous years combined, and a far greater number still in 1997 as the Kyoto Conference approached). Corporate groups joined with their own well-funded publicity.

I figured economic and energy interests would agree with both.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any support for "bipartisan coalition of economic and energy interests". Sounds more like a partisan gathering of right-leaning think tanks, anti-government conservatives, industries depended on fossil fuels, the Global Climate Coalition, and a coalition of labor and corporate groups all deeply opposed to the treaty. i.e. the usual suspects. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Senator Byrd is from the Byrd-Hagel resolution. This was the late 90s before Climate Change had become a core pillar of the Democratic party so as Landis paper mentions labor unions were free to oppose it. Even the biggest one, SEIU was opossed as well. I am certainly open to alternative wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowy Sorcerer (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is it suitable to have in the see also section a link to a book on the subject? The book in question is The Hockey Stick Illusion Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an internal link, provided the consensus is that the article doesn't already link "enough" to the book. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I have to say, being active on the talk pages. I find your editing and this request very disruptive. You have not tried to discuss this among the other editors, or reach a consensus on the matter. I might have even been open to the idea of doing this but when it is done unilaterally when everyone else is painstakingly discussing every edit (due to the contentious nature of this subject), it smacks of lack of professionalism. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved editor, my comment is that mention and the appearance of endorsement of this book has WP:WEIGHT problems: it's an unreliable source, with blatant factual misrepresentation, promoting a fringe view. As such, it should be shown in context. I'm open to including a mention of it as one of the efforts of those promoting the hacked emails to attack the science of the hockey stick graph, but it should be shown in relation to mainstream views of the book and its author. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I think you should note that these are your opinions, which are shared by some RS reviewers. The majority of the reviews I've seen (see The Hockey Stick Illusion#Reception are positive, and Montford writes well. Have you read the book? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the reviewers may be proponents of Montford's fringe views, but the book itself shows clear misrepresentation and is not a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 12:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, Dave -- don't you get it? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, Pete. In my view, fact checking and accuracy is important. . dave souza, talk 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I allege that HSI contains clear falsification, which would be grounds for an academic misconduct case if Montford were an academic. See the "Dog astrology" discussion, search for "HSI pp.23-30, 421 ... dog astrology" which people refused to address, but repeatedly tried to remove from the discussion page. If anyone wants to reference HSI, he might first address the issues raised. Of course, there were many more problems, but this was the simplest.JohnMashey (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Approaching this cautiously since I have not read the book. But it seems to me it is not our job to judge the accuracy of the book and while I think your post John was interesting it would probably qualify as violations of NOR or Synthesis to conclude from individual factual errors that the whole book is wrong. We could perhaps have a section /on/ the book? If it has been influential in the politicization of the conflict? Or a link to the other wikipedia page? --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires us to evaluate the reputation of a source for fact checking and accuracy: if it can easily be shown to have false information or poor fact checking, then it is only valid as a source about itself to the extent that third party source show it as having some significance to the topic. if central claims in the book are based on misrepresentation, that clearly means it doesn't have the sort of scholarly validity that's needed for a source. The book has been a topic in blogs, but we'd need independent evidence published in reliable sources to show if it actually was influential in any significant way. . dave souza, talk 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The book should be linked somewhere, given that it's notable enough to have an article. Given that, this is one of the best places in Wikipedia to have it linked. Exactly how it is to be linked is a separate matter. I think a "See also" entry is adequate listing; I agree with Dave that it's not very relevant, given the reputation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Do people understand the difference between factual errors and obvious untruths that support key themes? If people cannot read the book, can they read the dog astrology discussion and argue against it if they want, rather than just ignoring it? I know many people really, really want to cite the book, including people who haven't read it. So, if anybody really wants to do that, start by refuting my argument in "dog astrology." Really, it is a simple argument, requires no knowledge of paleoclimatology or statistics, just ability to read English in a few PDFs and check what Montford wrote about them.JohnMashey (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Include link in "See also". The link means only that readers of this article may be interested in that article. It's not a vouching for the reliability of the book as a source. The serious issues about reliability should be fairly discussed in the article about the book. I don't agree with Rich Farmbrough's statement above that the link is appropriate "provided the consensus is that the article doesn't already link 'enough' to the book." If there's any link anywhere else in the article, in any context, then that's enough, and it shouldn't be in "See also". At present there appears to be no such link elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• The book is rubbish and, presumably for BLP-concern reasons, the article is poor. So don't link to it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think a "see also" link would be appropriate. The fact that the book's contents are disputed by the academic community is a weak reason not to link to its article, in my opinion. The book is notable, and seems relevant, and while I see that WP:SEEALSO says that the decision of whether to include links or not is ultimately up to editorial judgement and common sense, it seems to fit the guidelines there well enough. If the article on the book doesn't adequately portray its acceptance among the scientific community, then that is a reason to edit it to more closely adhere to WP:NPOV, rather than to leave it unlinked from here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• For controversial topics, stick with the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY literature only -- don't even mention the book, let alone link to it. That smacks of implicit endorsement. Selery (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree with avoiding any hint of endorsement. However, rather than removing it myself, for the moment my greater concern is that the wording "* The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book about the controversy" implies endorsement, or at the least wrongly implies that it's a neutral source. To clarify this i've changed it to "* The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book presenting a contrarian view of the controversy". In the longer term, it would be better to remove this link from the section. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Petroleum Institute

Hello, Can anyone get my the source for "Funding was provided by the American Petroleum Institute for research critical of the graph," it links to Montastersky but I am sub-blocked from seeing what his source is. If its the same memo he discussed earlier in talk, it should be changed. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't name a source as far as I can see, he was writing in 2006 and in addition to the NYT article, the funding of the Soon and Baliunas study by the API was known. Interestingly, Clare Goodess wrote in Nov. 2003 "Some journalists are digging even deeper – into the sources of Soon and Baliunas’s funding. Their Climate Research paper includes acknowledgements to NOAA, NASA and the US Air Force, as well as to the American Petroleum Institute. Yet NOAA flatly deny having ever funded the authors for such work, while the other two bodies admit to funding them, but for work on solar variability – not proxy climate records, the topic that has caused such a storm." Note also Soon and Baliunas controversy#Later investigations "Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute.[41] Soon has also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.[42]", along with Soon's word that he was never motivated by financial reward. . dave souza, talk 13:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that when I read Goddess and S&B for this article. Its really quite odd that he would declare and then they would deny, not sure what to think about that. However, I think there is no denying S&B got money from the Petroleum Institute, and probably due to their prominence as critics of the consensus, the funding tells a story so I would not be suprised. But do we have a source that says specifically it was for 'work critical of the graph?' Even a grant earmarked for climate skeptics could probably assume to fulfill that requirement considering its prominence in the discourse by 2001. I would love to see a snippet from a funding proposal or something like that, would really make a strong case, and would be good evidence for how oil money as riled controversy in this debate.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, it wasn't not just oil money, for example coal money is still involved. Weart mentions "Back in the United States, the Global Climate Coalition mounted a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign, insisting yet again that greenhouse gas restrictions were needless and would bring economic disaster." Further down he notes "the end of the 1990s, several other important companies had concluded that they should acknowledge the risk, and quit the Global Climate Coalition." Pearce notes the funding activities of the Western Fuels Association. There is a clear connection to S&B and Inhofe's "hoax" claims, but as far as I know not the same relationship with McIntyre and McKitrick though of course they presented their arguments to Inhofe and lobbying organisations. . dave souza, talk 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a promising lead:http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/CASE-STUDY-Dr-Willie-Soon-a-Career-Fueled-by-Big-Oil-and-Coal/ The table there looks very interesting, would it be possible to track down the FOIA requests? Or research grant proposals?--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've not yet given much attention to that, we do want to be cautious about Greenpeace but I understand reporters saw and confirmed the FOIA'd material. Remember, for the article any analysis must have been published by a secondary source to avoid WP:OR . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh sorry getting over-zealous. Well we could use the reuters article on the subject: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUSTRE75R2HD20110628. I also have the link to green-peace's primary source if we want to include it though obviously only in a way that does not violate NOR. I will keep an eye out for any report that says reporters confirmed the source as authentic. --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm remembering a different case, from a glance at the cited sources one doesn't work for me, AP emphasises "Greenpeace said...". The Guardian appears to take much of it as factual, backing it up by getting responses from the firms etc. but doesn't actually say they've seen the documents. It usefully relates the issue to the S&B paper disputing the hockey stick graph, and quotes Soon's Senate testimony. A brief mention in this article would be appropriate, any detail belongs in the S&B article. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looked for a while. No luck on anybody checking their sources.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kinne on Climate research

I know it is a bit of a quibble but it is important we characterize people's opinion accurately. We say under the S&B section, "the publisher of Climate Research agreed that the flawed Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published uncorrected," I think this is a bit of a stretch, Von Starch certainly says it was flawed, and but Kinne seems to be taking the 'it did not provide enough evidence' route in explaining what he thinks the reviewers failed to detect. The whole your evidence does not support the conclusions things Montastersky says he agreed that the paper should not have been published as written. I think changing uncorrected to as written would avoid any confusion.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Monastersky summarises it as "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." The current wording reflects this, you seem to be missing out the second part of the sentence. We want to put it in our own words, will review how an improvement can be made. . dave souza, talk 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

please show wp "lock"

please show wp "lock" 99.181.137.218 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Referring, I presume to the fact that the article is semi-protected but there is no {{pp-semi}} on the article.    Thorncrag  16:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

McShane and Wyner 2010 and the divergence problem

There does not appear to be any mention of McShane and Wyner 2010 and, as I understand it, they seem to be able to create a hockey stick using similar statistical techniques and brown noise in place of proxy data. This seems to be an important criticism of the methods of at least one of the hockey stick studies.

Also, should there not be some comment on the controversy of hiding the decline in proxy data after 1960? I'm sure that Mann or somebody has said that this is a "valid statistical procedure" but it does not look like one to a layman like myself.

There may be reasons that both the above criticisms are not as serious as they seem but it would be nice to have some explanation here in the discussion page so that enquiring minds can be set at rest.

Thanks. 194.81.49.122 (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/ ? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note the article doesn't yet get that far: something to complete. M&W as published was much watered down from the original, and was published as a discussion piece along with numerous critiques: claims that it criticised the MBH methods have been greatly overstated. As for the "hiding the decline", the Origins section notes the divergence problem, and in the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 section we note that Jones produced "a simplified figure for the cover of the short annual World Meteorological Organization report...: the lack of a clarity about this change of data has been criticised as misleading." The latter was the topic of the much misrepresented phrase, as discussed in more detail at Climatic Research Unit documents#Climate reconstruction graph. That article's not up to date, subsequent inquiries have given a lot more info. . dave souza, talk 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism section too big

Our article's section on the Wegman plagiarism charges looks by eyeball to be ~1/3 larger than that at Edward Wegman#Investigations into charges of plagiarism and misconduct, which raises questions re WP:Weight (etc.). I'll be trimming it back, and cross-referencing to Wegman's page, as time permits. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are aspects of the plagiarism allegations specifically affecting the HS controversy rather than Wegman's bio. It may be possible to trim it a bit but the main points need to be clear. . . dave souza, talk 22:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yamal, Briffa and the Hockey Stick

In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote:

When I phoned [Phil]Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”. [2]

Pearce continued (p 53):

The word [Yamal] turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem of the climate wars. The emails began with [Yamal] back in 1996 and they ended with it.

The word "Yamal" doesn't even appear in our article at present, but Yamal is back in the news: "Climategate Continues" by Andrew Montford and Harold Amber. The article is written with Montford's trademark clarity and grace, and we will have the usual tossup from the activists about using it (and McIntyre's work) here. Perhaps Fred Pearce will be harder to gainsay. Our article about the controversy is certainly missing a key piece of the puzzle. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

And why exactly is it that you hype ("trademark clarity and grace") this opinion article by non-expert authors? Has the climate article talk pages turned into your personal blog? (it appears so - since you regularly use them to plug various blogs and opinion articles, with full knowledge that they aren't reliable sources). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You want to see what PT really thinks [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you, WMC. Who do you think looks better there? And how is this relevant here? Shall I reference some of your juicier off-wiki blog posts? Back off, pal. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Style vs. substance...unfortunately for your case, style has very little influence on scientific accuracy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Back off, pal"? That is not the sort of language I'd expect from someone interested in a civilised discussion. As to who looks better: this isn't a beauty contest. But then The most extraordinary thing about the CAGW alarmist scientists is that their case for climate catastrophe is so weak is ugly William M. Connolley (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Who decided to bring an off-wiki discussion here, to an unrelated topic? Why don't you try refuting my post over at the Climate Onion? --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't say anything worth refuting (A bunch of dubious paleoclimate proxies, and even more dubious statistical manipulations: Torture that data until it cooperates, dammit! Hide the decline! indeed). What is interesting, though, is that you reveal there the true opinions that you don't reveal here William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple answer - as Tilman is well aware, Montford isn't a reliable source, nor is (based on the link provided) Ambler. And despite his fans here, Montford's non-expert opinion isn't notable here. Guettarda (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So far, no response has addressed the lack of any mention of the Yamal problems in our article -- even though Phil Jones thought Climategate was "about Yamal". Instead we get WMC on tangents, and the usual claims that Montford isn't an "expert" (etc).

It's worth reminding third parties that Andrew Montford has written a well-received, notable book on the Hockey-stick controversy, The Hockey Stick Illusion. Perhaps the objecting editors don't care for Montford and/or his book, but other RS's approve of his work, and the article in question is published by National Review, a RS magazine. Is it possible some editors don't want to address the substance of the Yamal problem here? --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop it with the obfuscation. Yes, the National Review is a reliable source - we can trust that what it published was Montford's opinion. But you entirely ignored the crucial point - why should we care about Montford's non-expert opinion? (And seriously - "well received"? Do you even bother to read the articles you link to? Seriously dude - what point are you trying to make here? Clearly your goal isn't improving our articles, or you wouldn't keep suggesting crap sources.) Guettarda (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not an expert? What a bizarre idea. He has published a notable book on the very topic of this page. As such he is a published secondary source on this very topic and 3rd party reliable sources are publishing his opinions. That makes them notable and that's why we care. --174.231.6.170 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just the opposite - the reviews of the book by actual experts establish that he's not a reliable source. And no, Montford's op-ed does not qualify as a third party source for Montford's opinion. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

G. please try to control your rants re McIntyre and Montford -- both of whom clearly know far more on this topic than you do. Why don't you go write a blog post or something? --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

McIntyre and Montford are unqualified amateurs whose pseudoscience and proaganda are worthless as a source on any topic. Go level your personal attacks on other editors somewhere else...like a blog outside the Perseus arm. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's all stay on topic please. Arkon (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is Yamal supposed to be so exciting? FP has got a lot of stuff wrong on this, and it looks like he's wrong on this too. M isn't an RS, nor is THSI. Rather than flinging wild accusations, why not tell us what the substance of the Yamal problem that you want us to address actually is? Do you have some proposed text? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Tilman should come up with reliably sourced text rather quickly, instead of using this page as a press release for some non-notable op-eds. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm travelling, and will propose adds when I return. Glad to see G. has ceased his hatty silliness. As for the notability of Yamal, Phil Jones (among others) thinks it is important -- and it does supply a "hockey stick" recon, eh? Albeit a heavily-criticized one. One has to wonder why there is no mention at all here - or at Climategate, last I looked --Pete Tillman (talk)

What scientific papers?

The Wikipedia statement is: "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century.[6]" The citation is to an article in The Guardian in 2010, which says there are "upwards of a dozen studies" -- but doesn't say where. The IPCC 2007 report Palaeoclimatic chapter www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html lists 12 "proxy-based reconstructions of temperature" but not all of them cover the last 1000 years. Is the second sentence of the Wikipedia statement actually verifiable, or should I replace the Guardian citation with "citation needed"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody commented re verifiability, I've put "Citation needed" here. For an example of an article which also mentions a dozen or so studies and actually names some, which was last updated 6 months before The Guardian article, and which appeared in a magazine which also employs the author of The Guardian article, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html. But notice the absence of any suggestion that they almost all support the "warmest decade" conclusion. Incidentally the word "subsequent" can be interpreted as "subsequent to the Wegman report" which isn't what The Guardian says, and "IPCC" can be interpreted as "IPCC's latest (2007) report" which isn't what The Guardian says, but those are minor matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you talking about 1000 years? The original MBH98 only covered 600 years William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a perfectly good citation, until Peter Gulutzan removed it. The cited Guardian article[4] says, "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years." To my eye, this supports every aspect of the Wikipedia text quoted at the start of this thread. Per WP:PSTS, this source is more than sufficient for verifiability. If Peter Gulutzan thinks the Guardian is lying about the existence of these papers, then someone needs to find the equally reliable sources that say the Guardian lied, and the Guardian's later retraction of the statements, or take it up with the Guardian directly. Either way, it does not seem very constructive to find a perfectly referenced statement in a Wikipedia article, remove the reference, and replace it with a {citation needed} tag. --Nigelj (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to William M. Connolley: it's the Wikipedia article that says "1000 years". In response to NigelJ: I regret that the use of "citation needed" is interpreted as "this is a lie", since I am making a good-faith attempt to get a citation, which is needed. The Guardian and the author (Fred Pearce) are in general reliable sources, but in a long non-academic survey article an interesting statement may occur which doesn't cite a source. As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources says, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" -- but the best source in the context of a statement that there are"more than twelve subsequent scientific papers" would be the scientific papers, or a list of them. I was hoping for a reply from someone who can point to such a thing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, our article does not say 1000 years. It says "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph". In fact (as you know, because obviously you've read the article) it says "In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes produced the first quantitative hemispheric-scale reconstruction, from an analysis of a variety of measures, which they summarised in a graph going back to 1400 showing recent measured temperatures increasing sharply. Their 1999 paper extended this study back to 1000..." William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I linked WP:PSTS above is because the 12 original papers are primary sources; finding them ourselves and comparing them ourselves would be original research. A summary of them, written for the general public by Fred Pearce, published in the Guardian, and not contested or retracted over three and a half years, is a very good secondary source. Deleting such a citation and asking Wikipedia editors to set to work on the original research and detailed analysis ourselves is contrary to what we do here. If someone wants to track down the 12, and list them all in a footnote, that's up to them, but writing our own analysis and synthesis in place of Pearce's is not a step forward. --Nigelj (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: the words '1000 years' are there, please look again. Nigelj: it is not "original research" or "analysis" or "synthesis" to ask about primary sources (and if it were then this Wikipedia article which contains many primary-source references would be a violation of such a rule); the Guardian article actually was objected to years ago and you can see that in its comments e.g. 'Just which "upwards of a dozen studies" you refer to is not clear ...' but the author didn't reply (nor is there any reason that he should); and the question whether this is actually secondary material would be unproductive. How about: since The Guardian article is the only known place where this claim arises, and since your point is that The Guardian should be respected, just start the sentence with "According to The Guardian ..."? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Guardian is a reliable source for the statement then we take it as a fact, and "according to the Guardian" (which indicates an opinion) is not necessary. Are you in fact saying the Guardian isn't a reliable source on this? Fine, we can discuss that. Are you asking for the Guardian to clarify so you can do your original research? Fine again but that has nothing to do with what we write in Wikipedia. So just make up your mind what your point is and we'll discuss that. "The Guardian is the only known place" is immaterial. If we think it's reliable on this, we don't need another source. If we think it isn't reliable then we shouldn't use it. --TS 05:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

the words '1000 years' are there, please look again - oh good grief, of course they are there, I quoted them. But they aren't descriptive of the original MBH study, which is the point, since the text we're discussing is "to the original MBH hockey-stick graph" (my bold) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says, "The hockey stick controversy refers to debates over the technical correctness and implications for global warming of graphs showing reconstructed estimates of the temperature record of the past 1000 years." In the second paragraph of the lede is, "Their 1999 paper extended this study back to 1000. . ."

I think there's a longstanding consensus that Fred Pearce is a RS. Yopienso (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes thank you very much. But the fact that the article contains the 1000-word isn't in question. Please try reading what I wrote William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I said my concern was the citation for the sentence "Almost all of [more than twelve subsequent scientific papers] supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century." so William M. Connolley's comments don't concern me. But I count Nigelj + Tony Sidaway + perhaps Yopienso as believers that the Guardian web site and/or the author Fred Pearce can be relied on here, so I give up. Now, all that remains is what to do about the minor matters that I mentioned: the word "subsequent" can be interpreted as "subsequent to the Wegman report" which isn't what The Guardian says, and "IPCC" can be interpreted as "IPCC's latest (2007) report" which isn't what The Guardian says. Are there objections to removing the word "subsequent" and changing "the IPCC conclusion" to "the 2001 IPCC conclusion"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm low man on this particular totem pole, but here's my take, FWIW. It's really OK the way it is, "subsequent" referring to the original graph. (Simplify the sentence to, "Subsequent papers produced reconstructions similar to the original graph.") And since only the 2001 IPCC report is mentioned in the lede, the reader can safely assume that is the one meant. However, I'm all for clarity and clarifying, so it may not be overkill to rephrase along this line: "Criticisms aside, more than twelve scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the 2001 IPCC conclusion that 1990-1999 was the warmest decade in the last 1000 years." (Yeah, it'd be nice to end with "20th century," but this is clearer.) Ideally, those 12 papers would be listed, with links. Again, just my 2¢ worth. Yopienso (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be OK except we can't remove the original word "probably". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Gulutzan (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed to wording suggested by Yopienso but without removing "probably". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not intentionally omit the "probably." 15:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Improve the article by mentioning the Yamal controversy

Whoops! Wrong page.

Thanks to Pete for bringing this up. Fred Pearce's article has information that should be included in the article. The Guardian--a RS--explains the controversy and provides a link to Briffa's rebuttal. Points for our article: Jones initially thought the whole hacking was over the Yamal data because it had already produced controversy. The word "Yamal" was key for the hackers. Briffa explained his stance. Yopienso (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC) As Pearce points out, the Yamal data wasn't in the HS graph, and is only in three of 12 reconstructions. The first two points are about the hack of the CRU server - that's not the topic here, it's peripheral to this article. There's only one small section about it here, and most of what's in that section probably shouldn't be here anyway. Mann talks about the Yamal data in his book, and puts it in its proper context in relation to the HS. Even there the connection is tenuous enough that it wouldn't make sense just to plop it down in here. The third point, the Briffa stuff, I'm not sure what you have in mind, but again, I'm dubious that it's relevant. Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Doink! (I guess nowdays they do a facepalm.) I'm on the wrong article; sorry. I'll post this on the CRU hacking article talk page. Yopienso (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

NRC report

The Wikipedia article, section "National Research Council Report", says: "At the American Statistical Association 2006 Joint Statistical Meetings, John Michael Wallace reported that the NRC had found the Mann et al. claim that the last two decades were the warmest of the last 1000 years "entirely plausible", supported by a wide range of evidence. They had reported this cautiously, as "plausible" meaning 2:1 odds in favor.[136]" Citation 136 is a newsletter article by Richard L. Smith, which actually says that Wallace was talking about the NRC report. However, the NRC report itself http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 does not say that Mann et al made such a claim about the last two decades. The NRC report does not say that Mann et al's actual claim, which was about the last decade, is plausible, nor does it say that the claim is supported by a wide range of evidence. The NRC report does not contain the phrase "entirely plausible". The NRC report does not define "plausible" as meaning 2:1 odds. I'll wait to see how many people say these sentences should stay in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The notes recording the ASA meeting are a source for the views of John Michael Wallace, one of the authors or the NRC report, not for the report itself. His clarification of what the NRC indicated by "plausible" goes beyond the NRC report itself, and is significant to the topic. The information should stay, please make constructive proposals if you feel that our wording can be improved. , , dave souza, talk 06:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The notes are written by Smith not Wallace. Smith, perhaps / perhaps not quoting Wallace, says the NRC report (not just Wallace) found the claim about "last two decades" is entirely plausible etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Smith is explicitly reporting on Wallace's talk in that section, and he reports statements which do not appear in the report itself, according to your coment above. . dave souza, talk 14:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll quote the only sentence in Smith's article that contains the phrases re last-two-decades etc. that are essential for the first Wikipedia sentence: "The NRC report reviewed a number of other reconstructions of the temperature record based on proxy observations and believed the Mann et al. claim that the last two decades were the warmest of the last 1000 years was entirely plausible." If this is Smith's conclusion then Smith is wrong, if Smith is indirectly quoting Wallace then Wallace is wrong, because either way it's a statement about what the NRC report says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence. I left the bit about "2:1 odds" because Smith or Wallace doesn't say that's in the report, and because Dave Souza likes it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The section "Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman Report)" said: J. M. Wallace outlined the NRC report and the range of evidence which had led to their belief "that the Mann et al. claim that the last two decades were the warmest of the last 1000 years was entirely plausible." Despite this, the NRC report had phrased its conclusions cautiously, describing this as "no more than 'plausible' (2:1 odds in favor)". I removed this because the quotation is from the same wrong sentence in Smith's article that we've just discussed here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If Smith's article is getting things wrong, we shouldn't be relying on it for other comments made at the meeting, so I'll trim that out. Note that the purpose of the meeting was not given in the cited source, and the CSSP report has no relevance to this article. Will review all this as part of a general review of the Wegman section. . dave souza, talk 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RC

This bit needs revision:

In December Mann and Gavin Schmidt launched the RealClimate website as "a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues."[70]

It wasn't just M+S (technically it included me, for example, but numerous others too). And the text there implies this is all that RC was about, which is quite wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited source[5] doesn't even include that quote. The only thing the source says is "With nine other scientists, he blogs at www.realclimate.org". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

David Appell writes: "As part of his hockey-stick defense, Mann co-founded with Schmidt a Weblog called RealClimate (www.realclimate.org). Started in December 2004, the site has nine active scientists, who have attracted the attention of the blog cognoscenti for their writings, including critiques of Michael Crichton's State of Fear, a novel that uses charts and references to argue against anthropogenic warming. The blog is not a bypass of the ordinary channels of scientific communication, Mann explains, but "a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues."

I don't have a problem with AQFK's revision in terms of that source. RealClimate has more sources, suggestions or revisions to the text using these sources will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's on page 2? Sorry, I didn't realize the article was split into two pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Views out of context

Have removed this, on review the 2006 date is in error, should be Sept. 2008 from bookseller sites, and the contrarian views are shown without context:

Richard Muller said in his December 2006 book Physics for future presidents that "the strongest statement that could be made was that the present years were the warmest in the last 400 years, not 1,000 as Mann had said" and that "In the end, there was nothing new left in Mann's papers that the National Academy supported, other than the idea that using principal component analysis was, in principle, a good one."ref name=Muller295>Muller, Richard (2008). Physics for future presidents: the science behind the headlines. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-393-06627-2.<

As Mann notes in his book, Muller had already published support for Soon and Baliunas and M&M's 2003 E&E paper,[6] and in 2004 had given uncritical welcome to M&M's as yet unpublished second paper.[7] Muller's account is clearly at odds with the words of the National Academy report, and that context should be clear if we include this. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronological bibliography?

Dave Sousa is working on a time-line of the papers by which the temperature reconstructions were developed, and in conjunction with that I am going to be fixing some of the references. One result of this will be a master reference list or bibliography (because when you have multiple references to a source it really is easiest to collect all the sources together in one location). These are usually ordered alphabetically by the first author's last name. However, that is not an absolute usage nor requirement, and Dave and I are thinking it would be interesting — perhaps even useful — to try chronological ordering. I don't know that this is necessarily better than alphabetical, mainly because I haven't tried it before. Unless there is some serious objection that is what we are going to attempt. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's worth bringing to talk. I've tried implementing this so far, as the article essentially follows a time sequence putting the sources in the same order will make it easier to relate them to each other. Any comments on this will be welcome, dave souza, talk 22:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finally ready to jump in. As we are both working on a wide-scale we should be alert for possible edit conflicts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to take care and probably won't be doing much for a few days. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Brrrr, that pool is cold — too many {{cite doi}} ice cubes. How about if I start converting those to a citation template I can actually see and work with? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it will add bulk but be much easier to see what's what when editing. I'm working towards reducing the bulk of the article by spinning off the NRC and Wegman sections, leaving summaries and adjusting references as needed. . dave souza, talk 22:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the bulk is significant, in the overall scheme of things. I've copied them out to my own area to convert; I'll bring 'em back when they are ready. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dave: for consistency, should we reduce all first names to initials, or expand initials to first name? Most of the existing sources are initialized, which is the general citation practice in journals, but WP practice often tends to fuller (as in disk space is cheap). If I don't hear from you right away I may go ahead and install the initialized version, but I'll be fine with expanding them if you prefer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Initials is good for me. Readers can always get full names from the abstract, we'll show the main ones in the body text. I had thought of the template as giving a full list of the twelve committee members / panellists of the North report, but it simply shows et al. beyond a number, and doesn't show links, so the options were a separate footnote or relying on the link to the webpage describing the authors: I opted for the latter. . dave souza, talk 07:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Which template are you talking about? {{Harv}} displays only three authors (though there are some tricky ways around that) because it follows the standard author-date convention of using "et al." for more than three. The {{citation}}/{{cite xxx}} templates will display up to eight authors before going to "et al.". If you want to show ALL the authors (I think I have a citation somewhere listing something like 22) then you stuff the rest of them into |coauthors=.

  I wasn't certain I was going to like having the years in there, but I'm getting to like it.

  As I get time I'll start moving citations out of the text and into the ref list. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance, have done North et al. and look forward to seeing citations moved into ref list. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops. As I get into the refs I extracted from the article I see that most of them, even the scientific sources, do have full names. So, before I start initializing everything.... how would you feel about reversing course and retaining full names, for the most part? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't mind: there may be cases of scientists or authors with the same surname and initials where full names would be needed. The scientific sources in the doi template perhaps reflect the names given in the scientific papers? Anyway, either option is ok by me, . . dave souza, talk 21:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may be better. Fortunately I wasn't too far down the rabbit hole to back out.

I don't know if the doi templates are extracted from somewhere, or are solely local (WP) creation. Whichever, I suspect the doi practice is influenced by the general, but by no means universal, practice in scientific journals of citing by lastname-initials. I believe the main argument for sticking with initials is conformance with standard practice in some field, but I don't of any field where that is a requirement across the board. At any rate, I think full names will be fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another point (which I may take up at WT:Citing sources#Massive wiki-links): many of the existing internal citations have author-links, so I have been uniformly cranking them for every author that can be linked (not yet loaded). Some of the newspapers are also wiki-linked, and I wonder if we should be consistent about do it, or not. The against argument would be: lots of bright, blue links which tend to be distracting. Comments, anyone? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

General practice is good, that we only link the first instance of a name or newspaper name in the section. While I've often linked newspapers or publishers in citations, maybe that's not needed as readers can always search for the page on the publisher if interested. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if we decide that's the way to go, the identification of "first instance" in a rapidly developing article is a problem. Well, perhaps best not to worry about it now, and revisit the issue when the dust has settled a bit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why a bout of editing often leaves articles overlinked. My inclination now is to link the important names in the article rather than in the references. In part as the standard cite journal has seemed to only link the first author even when other authorlinks are included, haven't rechecked that effect. . . dave souza, talk 21:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like you've been clear of the article for several hours, some I am going to jump in with some across-the-board heavy editing of citations. Keep fingers, etc. out of the gears! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will stand well clear for a bit: as a last minute tweak, removed some irrelevant citations and updated others to save you from getting diverted by them. That should do for now! . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the references (sources) I'm working are the ones I extracted a couple of days ago. Well, I won't worry if any seem to have evaporated. Anyway, there's 24-30 (who's counting?) doi templates replaced with Harv links and corresponding templates added to the References. Another two dozen tomorrow or the day after. And I'm out for the day (as UTC midnight closes in). You can stick your fingers back in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Jumping in again; let's see how much I can screw up in a half-hour or so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And out. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The Weart ref was to a page/section, but works well converted to a book reference with harvs. in the text. . dave souza, talk 08:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• About to jump back in to replace some of the in-text citations with Harv links. Several points for consideration. Achieving chronological order within a year is difficult when so many of the references/citations have only a year. For most of these additional research should find more particular dates. Until then we have mixed bag. So what I am thinking we might do: within each year sources that do not have a particular date should be grouped following the others, and be in alphabetical order by author. Another idea: let's consider having each year a subsection. Though only if as a 4th or 5th level they don't show up in the toc. I'll make a test, and let you know.

Okay, everyone out of the pool: papa's diving in! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And out with only seven replacements today. (Slow, tedious stuff!) I had to experiment a bit to resolve the multiple "Pearce 2010" sources; finally settled on "Pearce 2010_pt1", etc. After the article stabilizes we could replaced them with "2010a", etc., but let's use this for now. BTW, note that I straightened Tingley & Huybers 2010, 2010a to 2010a, 2010b. Also, I tried subdividing the references, but couldn't keep them out of the toc, so that might not fly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break, Harvard refs.

Can I ask you to review whether harv referencing works well for individual news articles? Often the journalist is little known, and this leaves the reader with an uninformative name and date. Clicking on the harvard link to the reference section shows what the source is about, but leaves the reader with no link back to the sentence being referenced. The new tooltips feature which appearing when hovering over the inline cite number does not link to the reference. My general preference is for news articles etc. to be cited in full in the inline cite and only journal articles and books shown in the references section.

We could have a general reference for the Pearce Climate Wars series, and inline cites linking to each article, such as harvnb|Pearce|2010a Part four: Climate change debate overheated after sceptics grasped 'hockey stick'. That way the reader gets access to the information without getting stranded in the reference section, and the tooltip feature still works.

So, in general, please review whether it's not better to keep news article and suchlike links in the notes section, and include links in the inline citations to give readers direct access to webpages. . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I think it is extremely important to be clear that "harv" (or "Harv") is not equivalent to "Harvard referencing". The latter is a particular form of author-year citation; the form is the name of the templates we are using which builds "short cites" with links to a full citation. This template can be used to implement "Harvard" style referencing, but is much more versatile.

  Given the Harv/Harvard distinction, I think you are right: a strict author-year — Harvard style — does not always work well, particularly for newspaper articles. (If you go to Earthquake prediction#References and then scroll up into the Notes you can see several cases where I used the name of the paper rather than the reporter's name. Which is inconsistent in that Kerr is also a reporter, but for Science journal. Judgment call?) One possibility is do something like "NY Times, 6 June 2002". Which is getting a little tricky but can be done with Harv templates. Well, it's something to chew on, but I'd like to hold off on that until I've got most of these cites collected in the reference section. Though certainly a note can have more information outside the Harv template. E.g., see how I did some of the notes at Temperature record of the past 1000 years#Notes.

  Some other items. The several Weart "Discovery of Global Warming" cites are sadly deficient, but I have collected some data and will fix them up further on.

  On the other hand, I think the Lantis cites ought to be removed. The citations themselves are incomplete to the point of being misleading (I've spent about an hour trying to chase it down), and seem to be cited only regarding the IPCC or the "energy interests", which are peripheral to the apparent source. If there is any problem of leaving material unsupported I'm sure we can find better sources.

  It looks like you're still going at. Give me a heads up when you're clear. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point about Lantis, it was there before I started but is superfluous so have removed the cited info: we can get much the same from Weart if needed.
Stopped now/ Not sure what the issue is with the Weart cites, hope you see the advantage of making external links readily available without having to go down to the references section. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with you on that last item, at least part way. We'll work out something.

I see an hour or two work, then it's all yours again. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncanny! Just two days ago I was fussing about Harvard referencing, which I mistook for some student's misguided effort. "Cumbersome and messy, imho. As a user, I really like being able to click from the ref back up to the text..." Yopienso (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Do keep in mind what I was saying further up this page about distinguishing "Harvard referencing" style from the "Harv" family of templates. The latter can be implemented entirely without any templates (in which case you have no links, neither backward nor forward). (And the style we are using here isn't exactly "Harvard".) While it might be nice if the citation templates could backlink to the (possibly several) associated Harv links, I find that, if I just came from there, using the back-arrow on my browser is adequate.

  One of the problems we've been dealing with in this article is multiple versions (but different!) of a given source, and just plain bad citation, which has been harder to deal with for being scattered throughout the text. And a principal goal — showing the sources in chronological order so that one can see how the controversy developed — would be practically impossible without the use of the Harv templates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Good point about the back button [or equivalent]. Will leave the coast clear for you for the next 10 hours or so, then may make some edits to one section unless you've any objections. Thanks again for working on this, . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yours. I think you'll like the way I fixed up the Pearce/Guardian links. And I worked out a way of handling the "Nature editorial" links, which I will expand to the other editorial. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to get a better handle on McIntyr'e & McKitrick's The M&M Project: Replication Analysis..., and ran into a problem: how do we chronologically classify this? I find 'accessdate' to be quite unsatisfactory for this, as that indicates only when some editor retrieved some material, and likely changeable. It appears that this site was cited as source of some paper (none of the few comments supporting the text for which it is cited), but I don't know which. I'm going to leave figuring out which source to you, as I suspect you know the material better than I. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that. As you say, it doesn't support the text, and in addition it's a selfpublished source promoting fringe views. Action. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it "promoting fringe views", but part of scientific critique. (E.g.: does a "hockey stick" come out of "red noise"?) And I think that was a key part of M&M's critique, so it does need to be covered. And I think I have seen a source for it, I just don't recall what. Anyway, I'm trying to track a very elusive bug in one of the links. It looks like I'm going to rack up an hour or more, and in the end may change only one character. (If I only knew which one!) Throughput is through the floor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Dave, I just lost some hard-fought changes because of an edit-conflict (and I don't have time now to try to recover them). Should I have been more explicit that I was working on the article? Perhaps I gave an incorrect impression that I was done? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blast, I'm dreadfully sorry about that loss and am now cursing myself. Can only blame my own tiredness after a difficult day, will now work on another article and not edit this one. When doing large edits I try to work in a text editor to keep a copy of what I'm doing, or if I forget and there's an edit conflict it usually works to use the back button to get back to the text I was editing: that can then be copied and pasted into the article, and edited before or after saving to keep any interim changes that are appropriate.

You've noted Essex & McKitrick (2002),[page needed]: it's page 155. Which link has the bug? If I can help, I'll post my ideas on this talk page.

The scientific critique"does a 'hockey stick' come out of 'red noise'?" is an issue we can reference to M&M 2005 rather than a web page, it was answered in several scientific papers and more recently in discussions covered in Mann's book. I'll work on that, but not on this page until given the all clear. . dave souza, talk 09:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was annoying, but not entirely your fault. Like I said: should I have been more explicit about synchronizing? (Funny thing — I was going to say something, but thought, no, we're doing fine, I don't need to be so stiff about that!) And there may be several lessons here for the price of only one: adding {{pn}} attracted a bot which updated the tag, so I was trashed anyway. (Lesson: don't add tags until the last edit of the day.)

Anyway, I've got a bunch of changes to work in (starting early today), but I'll hold off a half-hour or so, until either you say you're clear, or I am pretty certain you're clear. And I will post a note here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow coming back, you're clear to go ahead and I'll confirm with you before making any more edits. One error, the opening paragraph here should read "McIntyre said that he had become interested in the paper in April 2003", the 2002 shown was based on slightly ambiguous grammar but I've found other evidence including a statement by McKitrick showing it as 2003. Am going to work that out on a sub-page and hold off editing here, . dave souza, talk 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks; I'm going to jump in for an hour or two (or??!). Yes, I expect there are errors, even in the sources themselves (which is why we do so much checking!). E.g., I found one journal article that listed Ammann with a single "n", which is pretty poor treatment of a co-author. Not that we are going to get it perfect, least not all the time. But I am hoping for "very shiney" some of the time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And out. Got a bunch done. In several places I switched some linked quotes to put the quote marks inside the link, so the link symbol does not intrude, and removed some parentheses which I was ambivalent about. Note that I sorted out the two "McIntyre & McKitrick 2003" references: the "MM03" one in E&E is 2003a, the one from the Marshall Instituted is 2003b. Also merged two notes: in part to bundle them, in part to avoid the attentions (depradations?) of a bot that likes to merge identical notes into a singe named-ref (ugh). I may take a break tomorrow, so take a long run at it if you want. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, work now in progress. Let me know if you want in again, . . dave souza, talk 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ran out of steam there a bit, have a couple of things to try to do later this evening if you're not wanting to get editing. One thing: just noticed Russell, Sir Muir (7 July 2010) has got into the 2000 references. Will try to sort that if I don't hear from you first. . dave souza, talk 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that as I flew by a couple of times. I am thinking that once most of the references are pulled out of the text I'll go through all of them to get specific dates, and once that is done I'll sort them out chronologically. I also want to take a closer look at Russell, as it seems to be one of slap and dash citations. But not today! I'm taking a rest. (Also trying to figure out why my computer has been locking up. If am absent for a day or three it might be I'm busy building a new system.) Have fun. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy the rest, I'm struggling a bit so will stop now. Have a wealth of information and potential references to try to put into order, but won't be able to do very much over the coming week. Building a new system sounds impressive, I'm going to have to get a DVD drive sorted out. Probably just needs cleaning, but that's rather too technical for me. Will alert you before doing any more. . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see you around, so I'm going to see if I can squeeze in a few quick edits. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm circling the target area today, so give me a wave if you go in first. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok for you to go in, I'm rather otherwise involved these days so will let you know before I make any more edits. . dave souza, talk 17:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• New computer is still on its initial shake-down cruise, but as I jump in I am hoping that today I'll actually get something done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And going and still going.... Yes, warn me when you go back in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Dave: the two subsections you of "Cited in IPCC ..." could use citations of where they are cited. If you could supply the chapter and page number, or link to the on-line text, I can pull out the rest of the details and fix everything up. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The TAR is covered by <ref name="TAR 2.3.2.2" /> and the AR4 by <ref name="AR4 2k years" />, respectively Folland et al. 2001, 2.3.2.2 Multi-proxy synthesis of recent temperature change and Jansen et al. 2007, Section 6.6: The Last 2,000 Years . . dave souza, talk 09:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So as I understand it: the sources in the two "Cited in..." sub-sections of the article effectively come down to being cited in those two sections of the TAR and AR4. (Right?) Instead of giving each source its own citation (and getting a string of identical citations), perhaps we could add a line of text, something like: "The TAR /AR4 based its estimate of past warming on the following reconstructions:", and then cite that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, yes. My suggestion is a line under the heading such as "The following reconstructions are discussed in Folland et al. 2001." with inline citation <ref name="TAR 2.3.2.2" />. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As most readers are not familiar with "Folland et al.", I think that the text should refer to the IPCC. Which we will then cite to Folland. Also, I think we should cite directly, not recycle the named ref. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will now implement that, though recycling a named ref. gives a link to other places it's used as well as reducing overall size. . . dave souza, talk 07:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like you are clear, so I am jumping in for a little while. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, I won't touch it before 09:00 (UTC) tomorrow and will then assume it's ok to edit during the day unless you tell me otherwise. . dave souza, talk 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And out for today. Do leave a message when you go in, so I don't jump on you.

Mostly worked on newspaper citations today. I like using a fuller date, but can see some possible problems. Much of what I am doing here is exploratory, see what works. And in some cases being deliberately inconsistent just to compare different variations. When this is "all done" (right) we can do some critical comparisons. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I can't promise much expertise on citation formats. Out now for today, after last minute newsflash. . . dave souza, talk 17:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have tried using the citation format with line breaks, it clutters up paragraph editing but if you're moving them down it may save you adding line breaks: the template tool does it at one extra click, so will continue if you prefer that format. . . dave souza, talk 17:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  "With line breaks" would be vertical formatting (right?). Which I find much superior to horizontal ("in the line"?) formatting, as it is easier to see the various parameters. As to clutter — well, yes, that's one reason for pulling the full citation (templated or not, vertical or not) out of the paragraph/text, and using the short cite (using Harv — or not). So the question I would ask is: why are you putting the full citation (full reference) in the text? (Some imposter has taken over your account, and it's not really "you"?? :-)

  That NYT citation may have a better link, but that's a detail we clean up later. I would point out that, in regard of newspapers, the publisher is not the publication. (E.g., Gannett is the publisher of USA Today.) And for newspapers (unlike books) the publisher is generally omitted. I recommend use of |newspaper=.

  Enough talk — time to find something to whack on! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• About to dive in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you guys, I notice you're cooperating with each other to make uninterrupted edits, but what if a new editor comes by and innocently "dives in" while one of you is busy "whacking"? Both of you know far more than I about little wiki-tricks ("tricks" there used in the sense of "Mike's Nature trick"), but I thought I picked up somewhere that there's a little trick that lets an editor doing what you are to temporarily lock the article from other editors so an edit conflict doesn't waste a bunch of hard work. Yes? No? Seems like a great idea/trick to me. Yopienso (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be a great idea. But if there is, I don't know how. And the problem is not just other editors— I have already been clobbered once by a bot. (Why I don't put in tags till the end of the day.) As to new editors jumping in — why, I thought you were standing guard over us with a shotgun. No?!! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ka-pow! Yopienso (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That'll teach 'em to not poke around! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave: I'm out. Back sometime tomorrow. Watch out for that gal with the shotgun. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, trust you will put that {{inuse}} template up on the page when starting to edit, and of course remove it when the coast is clear! . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that looks useful. I'll give it try. Everybody stand back while I touch these two wires togeth.... ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Scientific American: citing magazine, or blog?

The cites of Scientific American appear to be of the Scientific American blog, which has excerpts of the magazine's articles (which are behind a paywall). I am beginning to suspect that the original editor only consulted the blog, which raises a question of which should be cited. Also, does citation of the blog raise a reliability issue? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If they were blogs they would be covered by WP:NEWSBLOG anyway, but the two instances I've looked at so far give no indication of being a blog, though they do have comments by readers: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-reverses-arctic-cooling and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick – the latter includes an "image no longer available" box which says that the full version including all graphics and sidebars is available behind a paywall. The text itself appears to be complete, not just excerpts. Since we're citing the free online edition, that's clearly what's used. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

p.s. SciAm does have blogs: e.g. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/09/24/in-prehistoric-britain-cannibalism-was-practical-and-ritualistic/ is a staff blog: note the start of the url. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The text at all of the SciAm links (including yours above) does not appear to be complete. (Or else they were really short articles?) Like I said before, it looks to me like they have an excerpt or summary of the article publicly available, followed by readers' comments, with the complete article behind the paywall. The summary might be reliable in that it is derived from the article (and we can trust the editor not to screw it up; Nature does something similar). But it is not the article. Whether we call it a "blog" or not is perhaps just semantic, but I have qualms citing a webpage summary as an article, especially if we have no indication what the original author actually referenced. Of course, if some other editor with access to the actual print articles wanted to confirm that they support the text (and provide a page number?), then on that basis we could cite the article.

I may bite off some more work in a while; let me know if/when you're done for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As above, each is a "scientificamerican.com/article", not "blogs.scientificamerican.com", and these online articles are what we're citing. Even if they were blogs we could still use them under WP:NEWSBLOG, note that they're clearly by staff writers. It's speculation that the print edition may have been longer, an interesting possibility but evidence would be needed and we're not citing the print edition.

Done for today, go ahead: I'm watching out for the "at work" template before making any edits. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  It is certainly a well founded speculation that articles in SciAm are multiple pages, with a lot more text than we see on the webpage. (Though perhaps these were not proper "articles", but only a "brief" in some "current news" column or such?) And whether something is a "blog" (or not) is not determined by whether it is called a "blog" (or not). At any rate, my point is that if the original (or subsequent?) editor did not refer to the full-length article, then I should not make the citation cite the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the thing to do is to be clear that we're citing the web page, not the paper version. . dave souza, talk 21:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any trouble that the web page does not support the text one of the interns can run down to the library and check the actual article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had an idea (not certain if it's a good one) for distinguishing between citing a webpage for an article as from citing the article for which the webpage is a link. Namely, to supply the url as the "publisher". Which would be rendered like so:

• Appell, David (February 21, 2005). "Behind the Hockey Stick". www.scientificamerican.com.

Like I said, I'm not certain if this is good. Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Further ruminations: I think my core dissatisfaction here is that Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group uses "Scientific American" as the name of both the magazine and the website about the magazine, with little to distinguish these distinctly different sources. In comparison, I don't feel the same dissatisfaction with RealClimate because it is website, pure and simple, with no associated magazine. Still ruminating on this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Starting to lean towards "location= Scientific American [website]". This parallels how "[abs]" is used to distinguish abstracts from full articles in journals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that we cite what we use as a source, so citing he website automatically means that we're citing that version. If we were citing the paper magazine, we'd give a page number, with the option of a courtesy link to the web edition if it covered the same points. . dave souza, talk 21:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, giving a page number would imply that the article itself was referenced, and lack of a page number might be taken to imply that was not. But I find that too ambiguous, even too subtle for many editors (and most readers??). I think the "website" annotation clarifies that, and at the least does not harm. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Misc. nails

Dave: I have reservations about the following reference (currently in note 97):

• Canadians find flaw in Kyoto 'hockey stick', Kyoto Post, 27 January 2005, retrieved 10 September 2012 (clipping).

The "clipping" url is "suspended" (effectively dead). The Kyoto Post part is paywalled, so I can't see the actual material, but it seems an unlikely basis for the text (that "this" enabled the Bush admin. to discredit the Kyoto Protocol). Perhaps you can find a replacement citation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The text about it enabling Bush etc. is cited to Pearce who covers the wording, the Kyoto Post was a courtesy link which came up when I was checking out Pearce's statement. Think I've more on another article in that issue of the National Post, but will add it later. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dave— Another nail, or pair of 'em: the citation of Braden-Dlugacz/Tech Central Station (currently note 72) and Duane Freese/Tcsdaily.com (currently note 161) are problematical, as those sites are no longer updated and the links have gone stale. (The latter links to a php file, which is non-helpful.) Perhaps a valid url to the original material can be found, but I am wondering if you might possibly find them "surplus to need", or at least replaceable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't add #161, but it's stale and a positive nuisance so have removed it. The other ref has North making somewhat oblique comments about the Wegman "peer review" so will look to supplement that. #72 works ok for me, the first part is also covered by the Mann citation, but the Tech Central source is cited for "Canadian business executive Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have presented more evidence that the 20th century wasn't the warmest on record." That seemed worthwhile to me as their description at the time by their ally, are you sure the link is stale? . . dave souza, talk 23:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  Hmm, yesterday it went to a general link that the site wasn't being updated any more, today it goes to the source of the quote. Okay. I see that "Laura Braden-Dlugacz" is listed as a "contact", so I might attribute it to TCS.

  Thanks for removing the stinky one. Only about 20 more to do. Still mulling over how to do those archived links. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note 98 is cited that the MM05 paper was an "AGU Highlight". But is that really notable? I'm thinking that line isn't really necessary. Note 134 is particularly messy, and seems to rely on an mp3 download. It's cited in five places, so I have grabbed some of the documents and will see what I can find. I'll probably break it up into separate cites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"AGU Highlight" is a piece of puffery that someone added, if it's commonplace then we shouldn't give it undue weight and should delete that claim. Note 134 is mine, the mp3 is a recording of the NAS press conference on the day they issued the report, available from National-Academies.org | Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (RealAudio). I've not found a transcript of the points cited, but it's clear enough in the mp3 and no doubt in the RealAudio. . . dave souza, [[User talk:Dave omitting principal component analysis made no significant difference.[85][119] souza|talk]] 22:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, "Highlights" is just a come-on for the readers, has no scientific significance whatsoever. Nor, I think, any significance in terms of the controversy. I'll take it out, if you haven't already.

  Similar for n152 ("Envr Newsletter Summer07"), cited that the ASA had a session on some of this, and n161 (JSM online program). Even worse, n162 ("Richard L. Smith") seems to be just a gratuitous bio bit on a speaker of no stated importance. I think all that should go.

  I was kind of hoping that n134 wasn't yours (or you would be mum about it!); as a citation it is junk. (The source is not the paper, but the press conference.) I'll see about fixing it up.

  Some of the North report (that is the STR paper) citations do not support the material cited. Fortunately most of these seem to have alternate sources. I plan to adjust some of these, as well as breaking out a couple of multiple cites (using named refs) so they are specific to the material supported. Well, that should keep me busy for a day or two. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The points from the press conference are identified as such, and show the information that was being given to the press as well as who was giving the info. It does give some insight into the views of those members of the NRC panel about the language they used in the North report. The "Envr Newsletter Summer07" was originally used to quote some of Wegman's claims, I think it can be removed as the issues are covered elsewhere. Presumably the diffs of your changes will highlight the issues you've found with material cited to the North report on STRs. . dave souza, talk 19:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty with the press conference is that it is a record of several peoples' statements. So we're really dealing with a primary source, lacking the vetting of a secondary source. I'll try to work out something, even if it's ugly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The NAS/NRC press conference recording notes who gave the conference, and is a primary source for exactly what they said. Several points were picked up by the press, but news reports tended to be a bit vague about these aspects.

Think I can see the issue with the North report pp. 115–116 cites: p. 115 lists papers as supporting "the basic conclusion" of MBH98 and MBH99, p. 116 goes into more detail about Moberg et al., the point is essentially covered in the papers or abstracts so I can accept these particular cites are superfluous. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the flag up, so may jump in myself in a little bit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead! Time for bed here, dave souza, talk 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for another round. I'm also going to revise the bit under "Plagiarism charge" that refers to the social networking paper. I found the existing text ambiguous (I had to back up twice to get the apparently correct reading), and it seems odd that there were no direct references to that paper. (Was everyone scared of invoking it directly??) Well, we'll see. I think the quotes are good for giving the reader a better sense of Wegman's POV. Feel free to revise. I'm also going to scrape off a cite doi (ugh) that slipped in. Some other matters are coming up soon that need more of my time, so after this push my activity may slacken. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha, beat me to it: I cannot tell a lie, it was me wot added the doi in the hope that the internets would fill in the form which could then be edited, copied and pasted in place with modifications to make it work well. That didn't work immediately, but I see the template has indeed worked by now. If you want a direct reference to the social networking paper, this is it. Perhaps Elsevier think invoking it directly should be informative in a different way to that which the named authors intended? Nice to see a credit to Wikipedia, anyway. Thanks for all your activity to date, will try to continue in the same vein, . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, quick work by you adding a link to the original, I think – but what it gives me is "Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0167947307002861/1-s2.0-S0167947307002861-main.pdf" on this server. Reference #18.3f353e17.1350509945.3236c861" which isn't very useful to me, presumably you're more privileged. However, we may have to watch out for WP:COPYLINK which oddly enough just came up on another topic area I'm editing. Will try asking. . dave souza, talk 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Heilperin cite

(Split from above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC))

Yes, busy dwarfing away. I'll take a look at that link. (Yeah, I may be special (!), but I don't think they know it.) I have another question re the Heilperin cite (currently n146). The text is currently:

On the day of publication, the Associated Press summary of the NRC report was that "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

I suspect the quote is not an AP summary, nor even from the NRC, but out of the report itself. So attributing it to Heilperin/AP/etc. is incorrect. But wait, there's more! The citation itself links to an "updated" version (the USA Today archived version), and an "original version" at jimmars.com. Quite aside from Jim Mars not being a reliable source, and no basis for believing his version to be original (and likely in violation of AP copyright), and not clearly distinguishing the article text from his own, I ask: is there any reason this update is significant? I think it should be a straight cite to USA Today, and the supported sentence reconsidered. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point about removing the jimmars.com version. The text supported by the citations is fully supported by Mann 2012 p. 163 which states "The Associated Press (AP), first off the block on June 22 the day the report was released, announced that the National Academy of Sciences had determined that 'recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia'." The "summary of the NRC report was that" wording was my attempt to summarise that, perhaps better wording would be "highlighted the panel's finding that" or something on those lines. I suppose we could add that on 23 June USAToday updated the AP report under the heading "Study: Earth is hottest now in 2,000 years; humans responsible for much of the warming". . . dave souza, talk 23:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the update was, or why it might be significant. It seems advisable to reconsider just what the point of the sentence is, or even the quote. Is just to show that report was publicised, perhaps as part of the controversy? Or is there something special about the banner? (I am about to turn into a pumpkin, so "obvious" might not be obvious.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversy involves two competing narratives about how the report was received, most journalists at the time focussed on the report backing up MBH at least for 400 years, the WSJ was in the minority playing up the doubts. The section on news coverage tries to show that balance. I've made the above changes to sourcing and phrasing, but have not added discussion of the USAToday update in the text: the banner remains in the citation for those interested. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. I think that contrast would be better shown by directly quoting the USA Today banner ("Earth is hottest now... humans responsible..."), followed by something like "highlighting the study's finding" about the last 400 years. As to any difference between the AP's "original" title and USAT's, or any other change, I do not see what those are (I do not trust jimmars), or that they are significant. There is a bit of an attribution issue in that USAT is publishing AP's material, but if there is no issue of differences than I would go with a straight cite of USAT. Is there any issue regarding AP/USAT differences? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a case where I got the "original" AP focus from Mann's book, which gives a lot of references. When I tried searching for the reference, the jimmars copy tied in with Mann's version, the USAToday version is even stronger as support for the MBH version but not mentioned in the book so the implication is that the revision gave stronger support. Possibly less notable, so in light of the info found so far the "400 years" version comes first, followed by the USAToday version if we show it in the text. Haven't really decided on the latter point. . dave souza, talk 21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems rather speculative (even SYNTH?). If Mann makes an issue of any such differences, then we cite Mann. But without an authoritative copy of some "AP original" we have no basis for making any such distinction. Lacking that, I'm still inclined to quoting the USAT banner, and citing USAT. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of leaving the existing wording cited only to Mann, and making a separate mention of the USAToday story and banner in the next paragraph, which deals with coverage on the second day. We could mention that it was an updated version of the AP story, which is what they say under the banner, but that's not essential. . . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Esper et al. 2002

The IPCC TAR section with "March 2002 paper by Jan Esper et al.,[46]" is quite ambiguous. (And n46 references Russell, not Esper 2002.) The underlying point is about this "suggestion" of an underestimation; I've grabbed the papers and will study it tonight, possible revision in the offing tomorrow. Gotta run now, the field is yours. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I've rewritten it to start with the Esper et al. paper, follow that with Muir Russell saying that "In 2002 Esper published a paper which suggested that MBH had underestimated the strength of the MWP", then make it clear that Mann discussed this suggested discrepancy in an interview where he reported that Ed Cook had agreed with him that the two studies were compatible, dealing with different extents of the NH. Subsequently Cook et al. "revisited" Esper et al. "in order to strengthen and clarify its interpretation", finding that after recalibration, "annual temperatures up to AD 2000 over extra-tropical NH land areas have probably exceeded by about 0.3 °C the warmest previous interval over the past 1162 years", in other words they confirmed MBH. Hope that's a bit clearer. . dave souza, talk 22:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're running ahead of me! But I think the following previously prepared commentary still applies.

I have found a fundamental error in the interpretation of Esper et al. 2002. The text currently [still, more or less] states that a "suggestion ... appeared" in the Esper paper that "the graph" (i.e., the MBH data as represented in the "hockey stick") "underestimated the Medieval Warm Period". The article text goes on to say that "in Mann's view this did not contradict MBH" (emphasis added). The bit about the "suggestion" is cited to the the Russell Report. I have traced this to p29: "In 2002 Esper published a paper²⁵ which suggested that MBH had underestimated the strength of the MWP, ...."

But that statement is not true. Esper et al. clearly state:

The MBH reconstruction has been criticized (5) for its lack of a clear MWP. Critics argue that tree-ring records, the substantial basis of the MBH reconstruction before the 17th century, cannot preserve long-term, multicentennial temperature trends.

(With "5" being W. S. Broecker, Science 291:1497, 2001.) The critics' argument is that the failure of the MBH data to show the MEP is proof that methods are flawed. Note that this argument is not being made by Esper et al.; they are only stating what Broecker said. Esper et al. then proceeded to use a different methodology to show that tree-rings do reflect the MWP, and therefore can "preserve long-term multicentennial temperature records". Thus they support MBH. Where their data differ (but hardly a contradiction) is regarding the MWP. Here they find that "MBH is not necessarily missing a MWP." Rather, MBH did not fully account for the Little Ice Age, which then hid the MWP. (Kind of ironic.)

I don't know where this notion of some kind of "contradiction" slipped in from; possibly some denier claimed that. Esper 2002 is a response to Broecker 2001 regarding a particular scientific point, but the article doesn't go into that. Should that be addressed? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the notion of a "contradiction" is evident in the Flatow interview, it looks as though interesting differences between two studies covering different geographical areas at different seasons and extending to different points in the 20th century were publicised in a way that suggested that Esper et al. contradicted MBH. From Mann's comments about peer review and the Briffa and Osborn article that accompanied Esper et al. it seems that he thought their wording or approach had fed this conception, which evidently was picked up but perhaps not properly checked out by the Muir Russell team. It rather looks as though we should leave out Muir Russell's comment.

Mann 2012 pp. 101–103 discusses the Broecker paper, which we ought to mention, and pp. 103–104 covers the Esper & Cook story in more detail, noting that apparent differences between Esper et al. and MBH got considerable media attention which led to the Flatow interview. Will have to look at summarising that and ideally checking out Mann's references. On the ironic point, it's pretty evident from later spaghetti graphs and from Mann et al. 08 that MBH98 & 99 had the MWP about right but understated the depths of the LIA. Must watch out for a source making that point. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

  The only significance of Flatow repeatedly asking if there is a contradiction and Mann repeatedly and resoundingly saying "no" is — an unambiguous declaration by Mann of no contradiction. The controversy — why the question was asked, and repeatedly — arises from somewhere else, which we haven't covered. Mann 2012 probably mentions it; I leave that to you. But I wouldn't cite Russell (the ICCER report) for it. Which is kind of a shame, as I figured out how cite that report. It does cover some points that might relate to this topic; let me know if you want to use it.

  The source on MBH understating the LIA would be Esper et. al. 2002. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Good points, I've looked over the sources and got rid of this particular ref to Russell, though it's still cited elsewhere. Have expanded this into a section on the debate after reading through Mann 2012 pp. 99–104, but have yet to add his clarifications. . . dave souza, talk 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you have been busy. Now my turn to screw around! I'm going to revise the the Russell cites (to "ICCER"), even though I don't know if you'll retain them all. And perhaps work on the RealClimate cites, though I am still not fully satisfied on how to cite websites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good work with the ICCER, they're an independent assessment of Zorita and von Storch if only in a very bare outline. Mann 2012 gives a lot more detail on that, as you might expect. It's an interesting dispute in that it raised issues of red noise that were later part of the argument with M&M, as well as both raising the issue of centring and pointing out that it made little difference. Thanks for pressing on, . dave souza, talk 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"And on we went, though the dogs were spent...."  :-)

Yes, I believe the "red noise" thing was significant, ought to be covered. The ICCER has a lot of material, and I am a little surprised it's not cited more. Especially in the CRU e-mail section.

Are you using the {in use} template? It looks like you're still working, and I've just been co-opted for a half hour or more, so there's no rush, but I would hate to step on you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's me stalled for now, so go ahead! I've a lot to get together offline, but got diverted by the U.S. House of Representatives committee breaking all the links, rather odd. So will leave you to it for the rest of the evening, . dave souza, talk 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I might have enough time to start on the HR cites. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But had to give up because of server problems. Tomorrow. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Still some server problems this morning, but made some progress. All yours now, . dave souza, talk 18:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had to cut short again. Will try getting an earliar start tomorrow. (Be sure to use {in use}!). By the way, I see that in the Broecker citation you linked to a non-Science site. Most of the Science articles, and I believe this one, also, are free, so I tend to use the "official" url. Though the doi will get you there, too. Sometimes there are variant destinations ("summary/full-text html/full-text pdf/enhanced"); I haven't evolved a fully consistent approach. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I signed up for free access to older Science papers, but found when I was logged out that some of the pdf links gave a message with no abstract and no way of signing up to see the paper. For that reason, I think the doi link is more useful, if you've an account then there's a link to the free paper. So where universities or the like give an alternative link it's more useful. My tendency is not to bother with "in use" but be ready to copy the text I'm working on into a text document until the coast is clear. . dave souza, talk 20:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to use {in use}, as you could clobber me. (Tragedy!!) And most of my edits are complex and scattered, so saving in a text file is not a good option. I don't know what kind of problem you had with Science. Even though I am a paid-up member, I find I rarely have to login. I looked once, but don't recall: are those "free" accounts good for all content? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I check you've not added an "in use" or started editing before I save, and try to avoid your likely editing times. Got plenty else to do. You can stay logged in and not notice the problem, the free accounts are only for papers before a certain date. . dave souza, talk 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mann 2006?

The "‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ update" note (currently n158) goes to an unsourced quote in the RC blog (which is entirely unsatisfactory). It's Mann's comments on the Barton report, and we should go to the source. But a quick Google didn't turn it up. How about checking for it in Mann 2012? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Had a look and couldn't find a better source for that comment, it doesn't seem to be covered in Mann's book. This whole section needs rewriting, will work towards it as the story goes back to von Storch. . dave souza, talk 12:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant quote appears in http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0716-climate.html so that looks like a better source. . dave souza, talk 09:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mongabay refers to a "response written Friday" — a press release? Perhaps there's a copy on Mann's webpage? I might look for it, but not today. Or even tomorrow. May be wait to see if you retain that quote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Googled more today, including RealClimate, but still can't find the "uncritically parrots claims" quote. Mongabay has the story, but doesn't say where the quote came from. Does Mann mention any press releases or blogs right around the time the Wegman report came out? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I am reminded of MOS:DATEUNIFY, particularly that "publication dates in article references should all have the same format." The date formats were were originally widely inconsistent; I was somewhat casually preferring the format used by the source, which has led to inconsistency in the reference list, I am now thinking we should uniformly use "day month year" format, with month spelled out. Where the month is part of the CITEREF I am tempted to abbreviate some months so that the Harv link isn't unduly long, but I am not yet settled on that. Comment? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I'm afraid that in some instances I've added references using the format of the original but I understand that generally now we standardise on "day month year" with month spelt out: abbreviating the month is ok by me. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. It's kind of hard to get everything perfect the first time around. :-0

I'm girding up to do some heavy date mainatenance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

More stuff

Yesterday was a drag — dodging server (?) problems all day, and felt lucky I could even remove the {in use} template. (Possibly something to do with congestion on the East coast because of the "cloud" meltdown.) And not a good sign that I got an error first thing this morning just putting the template in. But get some substantial work done; the "Notes" section is looking much cleaner now. Got all of the Climate Audit/Climate 2003 cites revised (except n98, which is currently unavailable), though I may make some adjustments later. A couple of "nails" that need hammering.

• First, the Appell/Quark Soup cite to "Following further corrections..." (currently n74) -- how is this notable? Of course corrections can be expected, but if these were notable (controverted?) in some respect then that should be explicitly stated. If not, then there is not need to even mention the point.
• Second, the Wegman report "fact-sheet" (n118) is not available at the url given. Nor readily found on the Internet; this needs more looking into. Perhaps it should be removed?
• And there's the Real Climate/Mann quote I mentioned before, where we need to find the original source.

The hearing transcript for n119 has a bunch of cites. The original transcript is paginated (but not the html); I'm going to look for a pdf, and perhaps the cites can be made more specific. And that's enough for today! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cloud meltdowns? You certainly are having problems with your climate! Sorry to hear about the hassles, some of the WayBack servers also seem to be having problems but they should be back online sometime.

The corrections are merely part of the sequence of events, but guess we could shorten it to "After review, the paper was resubmitted on 14 October.[74] The McIntyre and McKitrick (MM03) paper..... "

The Wegman "fact" sheet is archived, it's Barton's version of reality and doesn't look very necessary though I suppose it's a historic document. The energycommerce.house.gov site seems to have decided to trash a lot of older links. Will have to check if it's needed for anything more than "The committee chairman U.S. Rep. Joe Barton issued a press release giving a summary of the report's findings, with quotations from the report:, which I guess we could lose in a rewrite. . . dave souza, talk 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Found a pdf of the hearings (it's big!), found most of the quotes, and split them out. (That feels good.) And there was a quote from Wegman about his active collaborators that wasn't quite right, but it seems to be gone now.

The "fact-sheet" apparently is the press release for the Wegman report. (Which wasn't dated. I presume it came out just before the report, but it would be nice if we had some source to pin that down.) I think it could be real useful for documenting what Barton et al. took as the most controversial points. Note especially how they keep harping on the insularity of the CRU — much of that seems to be based on this "social network" analysis, which even Wegman said should be taken with a grain of salt.

That's enough for today. Still getting the occasional Wikimedia erro; that's getting to be a regular drag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

More progress. I revised some of the Schulz/USA Today correction text. Main thing is that USAT did not "retract" the op-ed, but only issued a "clarification". Had some other things in mind, but while I was hassling with the Wikimedia errors and an edit conflict (???!!) they seem to have wandered off. Time to go looking for some hot cider. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact sheet was the press release, which came out on Friday 07/14/06 (created ~9:30am) and they moved it to archives section, i.e., they added "archives." to all the old names. The chronology was:

07/11/06 12:54PM Wegman Report PDF created, 07/12/06 05:51PM modified.

07/14/06 WSJ OpEd (i.e., before the press release) Hockey Stick Hokum. The image contains the same falsification of IPCC Fig 7.1(c)as mentioned above in "McKitrick APEC." The image filename is "http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AE505_1hocke_20060713182815.gif," which implies that it was created the day before. After spending 10 months on this, they then demanded that Mann appear the next Wednesday (which he was unable to do with 2-3 business days' notice), and then criticized him for that. See p.72 of (non-RS)Strange Scholarship. This was a well-organized and sequenced PR campaign, well-crafted to have one side well-prepared and the other needing to scramble.JohnMashey (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Error

Ah! Might not be server overload after all. I was wondering why this problem seems to hit only when I'm editing this article, looked around, and found WP:WFEM. This message is returned when a page isn't rendered within 60 seconds, but typically the edit is saved. Unfortunately that page is out of date. (E.g.: navboxes? we don't seem to be using them.) I'll poke around. Probably tied in with use of the citation templates; perhaps we ought not be wiki-linking WSJ (etc.) everytime it's mentioned. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Weart DGW

I think I have worked out a reasonable (and much more consistent, even clearer) way of handling the Weart Discovery of Global Warming cites. Some of them could use more specification, but we can add that later on. The key idea was to break out the various sections/chapters as separate references, which can hold some of the intermediate details. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)