Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist)

Dubious language & cite in lede

I think the statement "He has since been exonerated by the British House of Commons," cited to a HuffPost article written by a partisan, is too simplistic and arguably POV. Our treatment of this topic at the Parliament section, Climategate article is considerably more nuanced. We should probably synopsize that section, and drop the HuffPost cite, which isn't used over there.

In general, I feel that Jones' involvement at the center of the Climategate controversy is skimmed over too lightly here. That's what most of our readers will know him for. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A better citation would be an improvement, but no need to expand on the issue here as there's a detailed article on the subject, plus a sub-article. There was no real case against Jones, as the Select Committee found, and the further issues are best dealt with in the other articles. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Pete. The text about exoneration was a bit too positive and simplified, even given the positive Committee report. Looks like it has been changed now. I had to take a long blink when I read the Committee characterize "hide the decline" as an innocent "colloquial term" perfectly at home in a "private email." I also agree that this article doesn't examine the issue enough. Caution should be taken to be fair to PJ, but I think to the extent this matter is papered over it's a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers, and it won't assist the climate change environmental movement either because people will become skeptical. DanielM (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As a sceptic myself, I changed the citation and the wording. Your failure to understand the decline is irrelevant, and the detailed discussion of the science belongs in the relevant articles, not as a WP:COATRACK in this article. Everyone should become sceptical, so if this article encourages that, it's doing a good job. . . dave souza, talk 11:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good job if the article, by papering over the uncomfortable implications raised by that language, makes people skeptical about climate change science, and Wikipedia too. I well understand the exchange was about tree ring temperature extrapolations that didn't match temperatures recorded by various instruments. Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand, because there was evidently no "decline" at all, only some tree ring data that erroneously indicated one. You did after all write "decline" above as if you believed it were actual. WP:Coatrack warns against loading up an article with a "tangentially-related" side issue. IMO it's not tangential at all. DanielM (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is uninformed. See divergence problem and note, as the Select Committee did, that it was "hidden" by being published in scientific papers before the graph in question was prepared. As I say, it's well covered in other articles and your misconceptions are inappropriate for this article. Please be more sceptical. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah, Dave souza, you haven't told me anything I don't know yet, or pointed out anything I was wrong about yet, so your uncivil criticisms about my "failure to understand" and the supposed uninformedness of my opinion and misconceptions are just rubbish talk. DanielM (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pete, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I agree with you that lots of people are interested in Phil Jones because of Climategate. But I'm going to disagree with you that Wikipedia should be catering to the needs of these particular people (and, hey, I'm one of these people). As I said above, I recognise that I have a radical position on Wikipedia BLPs. In fact, I'd say I am a minority of one in being a Wikipedian climate change SPA editor who actually cares about applying the BLP policy as written. So, I can fully respect you if you believe, say, on the contrary that the "law as practiced" as opposed to the "law as written" should apply here. Nonetheless, I think what I have said above is undeniably, unambiguously consistent with the BLP policy, and none of this stuff about Climategate can appear until such time as the rest of Jones's career is filled out (accurately, properly). Note WP:BLPSTYLE, and see that 'eventualism' is not meant to apply in the case of BLPs. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the BLP policy has been completely rewritten again in the space of a week. Eventualism does apply to BLPs, apparently. I have no opinion now until such time as I have read the new policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think whilst BLP policy is in its present state of flux we can look at WP:COATRACK#The_Attack_Article and WP:COATRACK#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22. WP:COATRACK show that we have got this Jones article to a respectably encyclopaedic state and further coverage of Climategate is completely inappropriate here. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "none of this stuff about Climategate can appear until such time as the rest of Jones's career is filled out." I don't think that's Wikipedia policy at all. If you're basing it on WP:WEIGHT I think you're wrongly interpreting the rules. The climate emails controversy has tremendous notability and Prof. Jones was at the center of it. It would amount to an indefinite veto at the caprice of any individual editor to interpret WP:WEIGHT as being okay to say for example "can't talk about A until J, K, L, and M are also discussed, so hop to it." I maintain that this article in its current state is a papering over of the notable issues involved with PJ's emails and actions. DanielM (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I don't think I am wrongly interpreting the rules and your own wording suggests that it's really the email controversy you're interested in and not Phil Jones per se. Agreed that the email controversy has tremendous (independent) notability. But this article is supposed to be the biography -- the life -- of Phil Jones. No, I am not misunderstanding the rules on that. This is supposed to be the biography of Phil Jones and yes there are some ABCs that need to go in before editors can come along and add 1,000 words on the Climategate controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1990 UHI paper

Jones' 1990 paper in Nature on the Urban heat island isn't mentioned in this article. First of all, this paper has been referenced, if I understand right, in all the IPCC reports on climate change. Also, I understand that FOIA requests by Stephen McIntyre relating to Jones' data that he used for that paper are at issue in the ClimateGate controversy. How should the article include some text on this paper? Cla68 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any such work should be done by people capable of spelling Climatic Research Unit email controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Monbiot

We need to incorporate Monbiot's call for Jones' resignation into this article. I will work on it in the coming days. ATren (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

George Monbiot has since remarked that his call for Jones' resignation was hasty. "[W]as I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones's resignation? I think, on balance, that I was." [1] Please be aware. Wikispan (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadn't seen that. But Monbiot was still very critical: "He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I've now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I'd conclude that Phil Jones should hang on – but only just." His original call and this later partial retraction should both be reported here. ATren (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we need neither. Monbiot made a mistake which he later retracted. Your enthusiasm for adding it in is duly noted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law." -- Monbiot is highly visible in this debate and is frequently cited, so this needs to go in. Now it's just a matter of how to word it. WMC, why don't you take a crack at it? ATren (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Got another source for that argument, showing the significance of Monbiot to Jones? Looks rather coatracky. . dave souza, talk 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Monbiot is frequently sourced in other BLPs. His opinion is relevant. The criticism needs to go in. ATren (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, why don't we clean up any unfair or unnecessarily negative information from any other CC BLPs first before we discuss adding criticism to this one? I'm sure WMC and Dave would be happy to help out with that. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that for 3 years. They won't budge. Solomon and Monckton were my last attempts to stop their POV push. So I'm switching gears: it's time to work on these and add the criticism they've been suppressing for years, to bring them into line with the others. NPOV demands it. ATren (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added Monbiot's call for resignation and his later qualified retraction. ATren (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be taking a battlefield approach to this, you can't justify introducing undue weight here because you think some other article is unbalanced. WMC removed your dubious statement with the comment " why do we care about monbiot on this page?" you reverted without further discussion.[2] The first part of your paragraph reversed the order of information, and says that "Monbiot initially called for Jones to resign" when his actual statement was "I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign." Not quite the same thing. The second part of the paragraph is unsourced, and appears to misrepresent Monbiot's retraction – "reiterated the criticism" is inaccurate, Monbiot examined his points of criticism as later developed, and found that they had been largely answered by the inquiries. That still leaves the question of why Monbiot's changing view is of such significance to the biography of this scientist – you've only provided a primary source for these views, and haven't shown why this isn't giving undue weight to one particular criticism. . dave souza, talk 13:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

<ec> [Reply to comment withdrawn by Atren] – Mondbiot is a primary source for his having expressed the belief that Jones should resign, and for later stating that, on balance, he was wrong. That's not him providing a secondary source on someone or something else. There remains the greater question of just how important Monbiot's opinion is to the bio of Jones. Also interesting to note that the comment is made on "George Monbiot's blog", which may qualify as WP:NEWSBLOG but given the recent discussions should be considered with care for use on a bio. . . . dave souza, talk 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This has started up again, since I removed the quote again. I think this belongs over in the "controversy page", and only makes sense as part of a timeline. Dumped in here as "Monbiot called for Jones resignation. Then he changed his mind" it makes no sense. Nor is it clear why we should quote Monbiot's opinion. If the Monbiot quote were illustrating a widespread campaign or something to unseat Jones, then it would make sense. But there was no such campaign, as far as I can tell: he just stepped aside during the investigations William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phil Jones (climatologist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120181301/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Ffigspm-1.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg1%2Ffigspm-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223143843/http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/wg1-4ar-authorlist.pdf to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/wg1-4ar-authorlist.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621140551/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/ to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)