Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Abuse

Since the IP continues to abuse this page, I see no option but to briefly semi-protect it. If anyone thinks this was inappropriate, feel free to undo the protection (or ask me to do it if you can't do it yourself). Guettarda (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate. He provided a link showing the e-mails are public domain, under FOI laws they were anyway. Please remove the protection and revert the removals of his text, thank you mark nutley (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your fantasies about FOI to yuorself William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fact that FOI does not change the copyright status of information, I'd like to see by which legal construct a UK FOI request, even if granted, would change the copyright status of an email written by an American, in America, under US law. Let's say I email a review copy of my latest book to the prime minister, and someone obtains it via a FOI request. Does that put my book into the public domain? Why? How? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The e-mails were always subject to foi requests, they are publicly funded. Your book analogy is flawed. America also has foi and all publicly funded work falls under it. mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. And we've already been through this. Give it up William M. Connolley (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But Mark, what did that have to do with this article? It's entirely beside the point whether the emails are or are not in the public domain (and note that THE article does not appear to use the term "public domain" in the legal sense). There was nothing in the discussion that coiuld be used to improve this article - it was, in fact, being used as a venue to attack Mann and then, to discuss policy. Neither of those are appropriate uses for this page. Nor is this thread. If you want to discuss my actions further, I would suggest my user page. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hand

I think it's easy to take Hand's comments out of context. Neither he nor the Panel of which he was a member examined the Mann paper (MBH 1998). This was outside the scope of the inquiry into the scientific output of the Climatic Research Unit, of which Mann is not a member. Hand was simply summarising his understanding of existing critiques of the MBH 1998 reconstruction as an example of the kind of problematic use of statistics he did not find in the CRU publications.

Some newspapers and others have grossly misinterpreted Hand, and an addendum or correction has been released repudiating the more ridiculous interpretations.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possible methods.

I agree that nothing Hand has said sheds additional light on the dispute. Hand simply extemporised the most superficial outline of the statistical problems with MBH 1998. His opinion should certainly be noted in this article, but care must be taken to avoid repeating the errors of the press. Hand is an expert in the field of statistics but there is no reason to suppose that he has made a point of examining MBH 1998. Our article covers everything Hand said and more. --TS 16:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Hand's comments aren't particularly significant - and certainly not an endorsement of any "side". Thparkth (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article will likely need a major rewrite ... but not quite yet

People interested in this page might want to start studying:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1

http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/06/wegman-and-rapp-on-proxies-a-divergence-problem-part-2

Basically, Deep Climate shows evidence of seeming plagiarism in the Wegman Report of Raymond Bradley's 1999 textbook, including a few cases where wording was changed slightly to reduce the credibility of that work, and at least one where Bradley's comments were actually inverted.

DC also found evidence that chunks of the social networks text in the Wegman Report were taken from: two separate textbooks .... and .... Wikipedia

JohnMashey (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Please keep in mind two things. First, this article is not about the Wegman Report. (But feel free to start a new article about it.) Second, DeepClimate, for all its many virtues, is not a WP:RS. I do agree, however, that this article would benefit from a major rewrite. David.Kane (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to edit a (contentious) article, I added this to Discussion, primarily because I hate to see people wasting their time editing it in the immediate future. Second, I wasn't going to cite the DC posts (certainly not WP:RS) - they provide context and explanation for the the items that (I think, tell me if I'm wrong) {[WP:RS]], the side-by-side comparisons of Bradley and the Wegman Report:

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/wegman-bradley-tree-rings.pdf

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals1.pdf

I own a copy of Bradley, which matches what DC says.

A large fraction of this article is devoted to a) the events that led to the Wegman Report, b) the Wegman Report, c) The NRC Report created because of the way the Wegman panel got set up. To this day, people cite the Wegman Report favorably, and I'm not sure there would be even the hint of a controversy without it. I've argued that it was just the high point of a long sequence of actions:

http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony (not itself WP:RS either, but with many pointers to such.)

But, good partitioning of a complex sequence into manageable articles is always a legitimate argument with no right answer. Given all the history that has surfaced, I have a hard time extracting the WR in isolation from the events around it, but others may differ.

Finally, I was inspired by seeing Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion" listed here and finding it already has its own Wikipedia page filled with glowing reviews. JohnMashey (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re: Deep Climate's comments on Wegman: Prof. Judith Curry has responded to these at some length here (scroll down to comment 125). Her summary: "To see such a respected academic accused in this way (with the accusations so obviously baseless) is absolutely reprehensible." --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and she wrote: "He was asked to chair this effort by the NRC since he was Chair of NRCs Committee on Applied Statistics. When asked to explain the greenhouse effect, he really didn’t know anything about the physics of how it worked. So I don’t think you could have gotten a more unbiased person to do this review."

NAS/NRC offered to do a study in the usual way, Barton turned them down: "―Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in a statement that because "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive prospect," it deserved closer study, and that the academy was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's concerns." p.142 of my CCC report.

So, instead, Barton/Whitfield asked Wegman via Jerry Coffey, who has clear views on politics [[1]] and climate [[2]], p.115 of CCC. It is unknown whether someone else asked Coffey to ask Wegman, or they asked Coffey to find someone and he selected Wegman. See talk by Yasmin Said, p.3 [[3]], which mentions Coffey, and vaguely implies this was a normal NAS request to form a panel. It was not.

Rep. Boehlert officially asked the NRC to do a real study, which they did [[4]], led by Gerald North, following standard NRC procedures [[5]], to which Wegman's processes bore not the slightest resemblance.

Finally, Dr. Curry complained about "plagiarism" of Wikipedia. If that were all, nobody would care much (nobody gets sued for copyright, people don't care, although it is not a plus for quality of scholarship), but DC has found ~10 distinct pages of the Wegman Report containing ~7-8 pages of text bearing "striking similarity" (that's lawyer-speak) to Bradley(1999), Wasserman&Faust(1994), or de Nooy, Mrvar, Batagelj(2005), and 2 Wikipeda pages (one of which isn't yet public). Most seemed straightforward (the sort an undergrad might do), but some of the text from Bradley was changed either to weaken it or actually reverse Bradley's conclusions, with zero justification, especially by people who were new to paleoclimate. Anyone who doubts all this need only look at DC's cited side-by-side comparisons to decide whether the texts are "strikingly similar" or not. All this is both inexplicable and sad, on several people's parts. Those unfamiliar with academe might want to check whether such things are taken seriously or not.JohnMashey (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DC is not a reliable source and his analysis is lacking. The excerpts he uses from the Wegman report and Bradley’s book are part of the general knowledge. An analysis using the method DC used could attribute the source to any number of authors. Woopidydo they use similar terms to discuss issues that are part of the general knowledge. You will find the same worlding on real climate, climate audit or any number of blogs.Bigred58 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No reliable sources I've seen to date, so far it's a talk page issue rather than something that is ready for the article. Don't want to rabbit on, but a similar analyis shows copyvio that would quickly be removed from Wikipedia – perhaps wrong to hold Wegman et al. to our standards. More significantly, the Wegman report appears to be essentially sound on the statistics, and in line with other analyses, but both incorrect and plagiarised in areas outside that area of expertise, where they present the more controversial opinions. As John Mashey has noted elsewhere, the citations in the Wegman Report are also interesting. Now what's needed is reliable publication of an analysis so that we can consider it for this article. . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

BigRed58: how certain are you of what you say? 50%? 90% Can you show us "the same wording" to the extent (similarity, length of text) DC has, elsewhere? (If so, it is possible that Elsevier or Cambridge would be interested.) Dave souza: statistics might be sound in the narrowest sense, but in the broader sense, I don't think so, but here is not the place.... there is more to come. Again, patience.69.104.3.109 (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Der Spiegel - Computer using Mann's Method given Random Data, Hockey Stick Graph Produced

Der Spiegel reports [6] that a computer programmed using Mann's methodology, and entered random data produced a "hockey stick curve." Extremely notable, significant and from a reliable and famously neutral source. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They simply quote McIntyre's claim from his very first paper — do you have any other point? Oh, and they claim that "grape vines were cultivated in Scotland" during the MWP, they must have that confused with today. Case dismissed. Lars T. (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no vineyards in scotland today, are you perhaps thinking of something else? mark nutley (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense - there is even a commercial vineyard - whether it will be a success is something different[7] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from an article on that vineyard:

"Mr Gottgens hopes to produce his first crop, using two white varieties, by the end of the year, despite trials showing the grape's chances of surviving a Scottish winter would depend on a warm summer. He added: "If it's not hot enough we won't produce the wine." "

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just like Mark - you failed to read the reference i gave to you, and failed to notice the nuances in what i wrote. Do you suppose that Na h-Eileanan Siar is in Scotland? Hmmm. [and commercial is certainly not an issue here - since you will then have to demonstrate that Scotland produced wines in the MWP that were up to todays commercial standard on Wine quality and quantities....] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Several centuries without vineyards in Scotland...and its now getting warm enough to again start growing grapes there. Happy news indeed. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So how many centuries exactly? Ohh, right, you made those up, just like the Spiegel guys did. The south of England is not Scotland, in case you didn't know. Lars T. (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That article seems rather badly out of datae. Did you miss the reports exhonerating Jones? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is from this month. You may wish to contact Der Spiegel if you feel they are incorrect, but here at Wikipedia we do not engage in WP:OR. We use reliable secondary sources, the standard is verifiability WP:Verify, not some "Truth" that only you are enable to enlighten us with. 99.141.241.135 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:V. It doesn't say that we must use all verifiable material - just that all information must be verifiable. We do not put in information that is incorrect (and verifiably so) - just because someone can find a WP:RS that says it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My response was directed towards Bill's comment that "Jone's exoneration", claims which themselves pre-dated the introduced articles published date, somehow trumped any consideration of the Der Spiegel reference. Your response seems to be akin to that of an auctioneer taking bids from the chandeliers - nothing more than an inept and heavy-handed straw man argument apropos of nothing.99.141.241.135 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP poster is correct as is der spiegel. This has been known about manns work for years, McIntyre figured this out ages ago. I think i`ll put this in, after all this is about the Hockey stick controversy mark nutley (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The date of the event is meaningless. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As for the report's on Jones, this is an article about Mann. Finally, we cannot conclude an article "wrong", without a reliable source that claims that. Anything else is original research, as KDP well knows. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been covered by reliable scientific sources, Der Speigel mirroring equally unreliable newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and showing plainly erroneous reporting does not meet the required standard. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does Der Spiegel base their reporting of the hockey stick graph on the Telegraph - I can't even find a mention of the Telegraph in any part of the article or pages. Nor did I find any relationship with the T and the authors, Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter. I do not appreciate the time-wasting your lies have caused me in re-checking my source. Do you just make this bullshit up as you go along?99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are of course exactly right, the Spiegel instead bases their reporting on what McIntyre says — and that's already in the article, just in case you have missed it. So why do you feel the need to bring up non-news? Lars T. (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave, if you wish to claim the Telegraph and Der Speigel are unreliable sources, you may want to post them to the RS NB and see what sort of response you get. Just make sure you have a thick skin before you attempt such a thing. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll accept that Der Speigel has nonsense not covered by the Telegraph. Whether or not they count as an rs depends on context, and for science they look pretty hopeless. Also outdated, now that the CRU has been largely vindicated by two inquiries. Your enthusiasm for them is noted, and I'm surprised you've not rushed to add this gem to the relevant article: "Unfortunately for Jones, however, McIntyre's supporters eventually included people who know how to secretly hack into computers and steal data." However, in my view this tidbit is premature and we're better awaiting the result of the police activity. . . dave souza, talk 22:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All I know for sure is that you lied to me regarding my source in an effort to falsely impeach it. Forgive me if I don't believe you and doubt your motives now.99.141.241.135 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IP address has misrepresented what the source says. He states "Der Spiegel reports that a computer programmed using Mann's methodology, and entered random data produced a "hockey stick curve."" He neglects to state that Der Spiegel actually reports that "McIntyre programmed his computer using Mann's methodology and entered completely random data into the program. The results, says McIntyre, "was a hockey stick curve."" Why are sources yet again being misrepresented? Hipocrite (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So... you believe McIntyre's computer...wasn't a computer? That perspective is rather bizarre. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I know you're going to go all the way around the bases on this misrepresentation of sources, but the Der Spiegel source doesn't present anything not already in the article. You know that now that someone actually read back and quoted the source to you. I know you think my time is free and valueless, so misrepresenting sources (by omission) by you and people you agree with is ok, but I recollect you were just warned about conduct exactly like this. It's good you're not 99.141, and that 99.141 didn't edit the article, isn't it! Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Insult rermoved Lars T. (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Nothing was misrepresented, and the information from the Der Speigel article is not "already in the article". Fell Gleaming^(talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a policy reason for this material to be excluded from this article? Because all i`m seeing above is bickering. I`m going to add this to the article unless given an actual policy based reason for it not to be in mark nutley (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be rather foolish (to add just because there isn't a policy against it). But the relevant policy is: WP:UNDUE. And an additional reason is, that strangely enough - the information that the anon wants to add already is in the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Der Spiegel reports on McIntyre's claim only, and not on a new claim, but on the claim we already have in the article in the paragraph starting "On February 12, 2005, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published a paper...". Of course, why M&M's claims are worthless is fairly obvious to anybody who looks at their methodology, and follow-up reconstructions done without the criticized PCA show essentially the same results as the original reconstruction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is already in the article — the fact that you can't find identify it should tell you something. ((-removed personal attack-Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC))) Lars T. (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As they used the same methodology as Mann et al does this mean their results are also worthless? I know that they are of course, but am curious as to your response. And i have yet to see a reconstruction which gives a hockey stick that has not used A- Bristlecone Pines B- the Yamal Dataset or C- using short centering to get the desired results. Post on my talk page though, lets try and stay OT here mark nutley (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm....no, Mann et al. have not fed red noise into their algorithms. And it's interesting what you "know", given how many things you "knew" turned out to be plain wrong over the last few weeks. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content not me please. The reason random data was fed in was to prove that you got a hockey stick regardless of what data went in. Mann et al did not bother to do this, they already knew that without the Bristlecone pines included, you got no hockey stick, they also knew without short centering their results did not give the desired result. I assume you already know this, so why argue the point? Now why not get back on topic? mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there! You can't put too many denialist theories together in the same breath - there is no scientific reason why they will be mutually compatible. If the original methodology would produce a 'desired' shape using any data, even random data, then why did they need to include the the Bristlecone pines proxy data? With or without it, the same shape should have appeared? --Nigelj (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I`ll put this a little simpler for you. Bristlecone pines = No MWP and huge uptick, No Bristleconepines = MWP and no uptick. Short centering was used to ensure that the data from the pines overrode all other data fed in, to produce an even bigger uptick. All these flaws are well documented, perhaps you should look at how mann got his result and not slag off the guy who discovered just how badly flawed mbh98 was? mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Watch your tone" and accusing me of being "offensive"??!! Hold you own discussion, and have a look at WP:AGF. I'm outta here with comments like this. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your right, sorry about that, I`m a little touchy today (am a bit broken). I have removed that comment mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

" why M&M's claims are worthless is fairly obvious to anybody who looks at their methodology," -- David Hand, president of the British Royal Statistical Society and one of the most eminent statisticians in the world, looked at their methodology and praised it. Are you more qualified than he? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

For the statistics part, almost certainly not. For the natural sciences part, quite possibly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should publish your opinions on the matter - and after a reliable secondary source reports, comments or refers to your opinion on this subject we can consider its notability and what, if any, weight to give it.99.141.241.135 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

David Hand rejected McIntyre's research, according to New Scientist.

Hand said he was "impressed" by McIntyre's statistical work. But whereas McIntyre claims that Mann's methods have "created" the hockey stick from data that does not contain it, Hand agrees with Mann: he too says that the hockey stick – showing an above-average rise in temperatures during the 20th century – is there. The upward incline is just shorter than Mann's original graphic suggests. "More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick," he told New Scientist.

The one person who FellGleaming cites to vouch for McIntyre's credibility ultimately believes his work is crap. None of this is new. Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong Wikispan (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to that article you got the quote from please mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry just noticed it mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Could someone give me the *mathematical* definition of "More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick?" (yes, I know what they look like, although I doubt the curl at the end.) And could someone explain why they think it matters? The error limits are fairly substantial until the modern record (the "blade"). Except for the curl-back, many different sorts of sticks fit within the limits, and as far as I know there is far less doubt about the blade.JohnMashey (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the revisionists are out in force today:

“ Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.... ”

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Wikispan, i do not see what you have quoted in the link you have provided. Which section of the article is it in? mark nutley (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

[comment removed per WP:NPA --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)]

RealClimate and Climate Audit

I notice that RealClimate and Climate Audit are both used as sources in this article. Neither site is a reliable source. Although both sites are operated by the principal participants in this topic, both are basically blogs and are used (arguably of course) for advocacy regarding either "side's" position on the controversy. Therefore, I don't think that any text which is sourced solely to either one of the two should be kept in the article. If a reliable secondary source references either blog, then I think a link to the article in the blog can be incuded in the reference to support what the RS is saying. If no one objects, I'll start by first trying to find a reliable secondary source for the information, and failing that, start removing the text in question. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a misconception, commonly held by editors working in the climate change space, that blogs are inherently unreliable sources. Per WP:RS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Both RealClimate and ClimateAudit likely qualify under this exception, as the contributors to both have been published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

Furthermore, again per WP:RS, blogs and other self-published material may be used as a source of information about their own writers, subject to some sensible conditions. If Gavin Schmidt posts on RealClimate that he's a Yankees fan, we can confidently include that information in an article. If Steve McIntyre states on ClimateAudit that a temperature reconstruction is based on an inadequate sample size in a particular period, we can confidently report that "Steve McIntyre believes...". So as long as we're reporting on people's opinions, which in an article called "...controversy" is quite likely, the person's own blog posting is a reliable source for that opinion.

The upshot of all this is that I don't think you should simply remove all blog-sourced content in bulk, if that's the only reason for removing it. I think it needs to be considered case-by-case. Thparkth (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable position. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that both blogs feature guest posts by other people than the owners. If these are potentially reliable depends on the credentials of the individual author. And, just to spice things up, McIntyre has been published very little in reliable sources, and only on a very narrow field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Every use of a blog as a reference needs to be assessed individually on its merits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Erh? While i agree with most of your comment, the part about using people as "source of information", is a avoiding the subject of due weight. Opinion does have to be notable before inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's probably best to use extreme prejudice when deciding whether or not to use a blog as a source. To a blog, IMO, every opinion which supports the mission of that blog is likely notable. It's different (presumably) for newspapers, magazines, and journals, who must weigh other factors such as the notability of the topic, reader interest, balanced coverage, timeliness and significance of the event in question, accuracy (I'm not saying that RealClimate or Climate Audit aren't accurate), etc. We can take it on a case-by-case basis. If Montbiot, for example, says in his Guardian column, "Mann, in a post on his RealClimate blog, just made some good points about recent developments with his hockey stick research" then links to the blog post, then I think it's ok to link to the blog post here. If Christopher Booker or Lawrence Solomon in their newspaper columns do the same thing, except perhaps linking to a post by McIntyre on Climate Audit, then I think it's ok to link to that blog as well. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have entirely different concepts of what makes opinions notable. Monbiot, Booker or Solomon do not project any credence to opinions on science that they quote (in fact i'd very must say its the reverse) just because they chose to focus on these opinions. The reason for this is that M,B&S aren't credible for such - they do not, in any way or form, have a background that makes them "good arbitrators" of what is and what isn't notable aspects of science. Besides using opinion articles to gauge notability of the opinion of others - is simply not a road that an encyclopedia should go.

The reason that CA and RC are notable opinions on this subject - is that they are published experts on aspects of this particular subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the very first line from the (RS) policy is, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't think this, in general, applies to too many blogs. They don't have the editorial oversight, such as an ombudsman helps provide, that most mass media do. If Montbiot or Solomon say something libelous in their newspaper columns (and I'm not saying they have), they get called on it by their editors. So, I think that reliability is more important than the presumed notability of the opinion. We can take it on a case by case basis, of course, as suggested above. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ClimateGate emails

I've been reading more about the ClimateGate emails and I noticed that many of them are related to the controversy over Mann's research. In fact, many of them between Mann, Ray Bradley, and Phil Jones from 2002-2004 discuss strategies to try to discredit M&M's paper in the media. Later, from 2004-2005, Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, and Eugene Wahl discuss strategies for getting the Wahl-Ammann paper published in time for the IPCC4 report so they can use it to rebut the M&M paper. Should any of this be mentioned in this article? Cla68 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that depends on the notability and reliability of your sources. Judging by the red links above, and lack of citations, it looks unlikely to carry enough weight for encyclopedic coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently,according to someone just up above, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the amount of press and book attention that I think will be forthcoming once the final investigations of CRU and Mann are completed, I don't think that will be a problem. Cla68 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if any discussion of individual emails surrounding this will ever reach the level of weight and reliability required. Except perhaps in sources where we can cite the investigations themselves. There are rather a lot of scholarly sources (which by no means is exhausted) about this controversy, which carry significantly more weight, than the usual MSM descriptions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

David Hand comments on the hockey stick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a mention of recent comments by David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, on the hockey stick graph be included in this article? 06:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, was a member of the Science Assessment Panel which investigated the Climatic Research Unit's actions related to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. After its report was released, Hand commented on the hockey stick graph. Hand's comments were reported in several secondary sources, such as New Scientist here, and The Daily Telegraph here. It appears that an evenly split number of editors involved with this article either oppose making any mention of Hand's comments in the article or support including one or two sentences in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cla68 (talk • contribs)

Involved editors

• Include. In an article of this length, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT do not apply when only one or two sentences are added. David Hand is a credible source of opinion, as the article shows that one of the main controversies surrounding the graph is the statistical methods used for arriving at its conclusions. The Royal Statistical Society is probably the most respected, professional statistics organization in the UK. Including the opinion of a notable, expert, statistician in this article adds value for the reader and helps make the article more complete. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the clarification, I don't see what there is to include. Can someone explain what they think should be included? Guettarda (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I, too, would like to see a text proposal before I weigh in... — Scientizzle 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I suggested some text in the section I linked to above. I stand by that proposal but wouldn't be against adding another line stating, "After Hand's comments, the panel issued a clarification statement which, not mentioning Hand by name, stated, "....". Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I went looking through #David Hand comments...I suppose your proposed text is

          David Hand, president of the UK's Royal Statistical Society and a member the Oxburgh panel which investigated the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit regarding its involvement in the email controversy, criticized Mann's methods of statistical analysis in producing the hockey stick graph which Hand says produced an exaggerated result. Hand stated that the hockey stick shape is genuine, but that the shape should look, "More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick."[ref NewScientist].

          plus or minus the additional clarification, right? — Scientizzle 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore - Hand made some comments that appear to add nothing to the existing discussion. What he actually said, and what the papers have added for their own ends, is unclear. The kerfuffle in various papers says more about those papers than anything else (were they used as the basis for how the "skeptical" press like the Torygraph blow up minor matters out of proportion then I would support inclusion for that purpose). As usual, this turns out to be less exciting than thought, as Hand's clarification [8] makes clear William M. Connolley (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore - If we put aside our natural desire for recentism, and pretend for a moment that there's no game of point scoring going on here between the two "sides", what reason is there for this to go in the article? Does it illustrate a perspective not already represented? No. Do his remarks represent an unambiguous "final verdict" on the subject? Hardly. Will anyone care in a year's time? I doubt it. Very often these climate change articles read like a single blog being being written by two people who disagree, with any event that arguably boosts one position or the other being immediately seized upon and given a huge hurrah. That sort of thing is more fun for the writers than for the reader. Let's just step back and remember this is meant to be an encyclopedia, and the only perspective that really matters is the neutral reader's. Thparkth (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• IncludePer Cla68`s reasoning mark nutley (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore - this has about as much weight as a red carpet interview. If he wants to put his money where his mout is, let's include an actual paper should it ever appear. Lars T. (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• No - given the retraction by the panel and the difficulty in figuring out what Hand actually said (the press reports are a little incoherent). Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Include If you understand the case and what much of the controversies has been about around the usage of statistics (could Mann & Co use Short centering as a proper tool (our article on the subject don't even mention this technicality, it only says that MM assertion is correct ... )? Should he not publish all the test statistics (for example Pearson's r) etc. is the background and here MM get support for this by this/the leading Scientist on this area). Nsaa (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  If you understand the case, you'll know that whether or not centering is used makes little or no difference. Hand didn't support MM on that aspect – "Hand said he was "impressed" by McIntyre's statistical work. But whereas McIntyre claims that Mann's methods have "created" the hockey stick from data that does not contain it, Hand agrees with Mann: he too says that the hockey stick – showing an above-average rise in temperatures during the 20th century – is there." . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Can you show me the short centering text book description? As far as I know from reading The Hockey Stick Illusion (and my training in statistics on university level) says the opposite than your statement "you'll know that whether or not centering is used makes little or no difference.". Nsaa (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Off the cuff, check out von Storch's paper on the subject. Moar later. . dave souza, talk 23:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ignore as rather incomplete and uniformative comments. It's not even clear if Hand is a leading statistician in this area, let alone "the leading Scientist on this area", whatever his eminence in the society. . . dave souza, talk 23:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Ignore ditto Lars (above). Awickert (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore Unofficial and unsupported comments that add nothing new to the debate, but perhaps something small to his CV or to a possible story about the press, per WMC above. I don't know if I'm 'involved' or not - involved in this page in the past, but not in this debate 'til now --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Do not include at this time. Better sources like a peer-reviewed article would be enough to include. MiRroar (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Do not include Seems like it's more molehill than mountain. Given the clarification linked to by WMC and that the full extent of Hand's comments is more minor critique than a fundamental criticism (and ultimately agrees with Mann's results), it just doesn't seem to be very important to include. The article can wait for a peer-reviewed analysis of the statistical work. — Scientizzle 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Do not include Science is done in the peer reviewed literature, if this is an important critique it will appear there. Thepisky (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  You can take a look here iff you're interested in peer reviewed papers about this [9]. This was even papers mentioned by Hand if I remember my reading of this correctly. Nsaa (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Include You've got two reliable sources that mention this. If they think it is worth mentioning, it is probably worth mentioning. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Ignore or at most add the bit which is relevant to the controversy: that Hand endorsed the finding that there is a "hockey stick", even though he criticised some particular methods used. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New source

I just received my copy of The Hockey Stick Illusion. It appears to be trove of information on this topic and may help us replace the blog citations currently used as sources in the article. If anyone else here has ordered a copy and have been wondering why it's taking so long to be delivered, apparently the first print run sold out and the booksellers had to wait for a new print run to be completed. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a book written by one blogger sure is a better source than all those blog citations. Lars T. (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS: yes a reliable, published sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources") could be used. As far as I see The Hockey Stick Illusion fits in. If this book should be used and how is another question. Nsaa (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you believe turning a blog into a book makes it a RS, you should read WP:POORSRC. Lars T. (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds dubious. I'm sure you'll proceed with caution and avoid using biased sources. Hint: just because something is published doesn't make it an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All sources are biased, WMC, including RealClimate. Bias is part and partial of the human condition. That's one of the reasons our RS policy reads the way it does. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why we use the best sources when describing specialist subjects, with scientific credentials preferred over journalistic campaigning. From Nsaa's comments above, it seems that the book you proposed has the centering issue wrong, or perhaps Nsaa misread it. . . dave souza, talk 23:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your expertise, now we can finally use the printed versions of Wikipedia to source the online versions. Lars T. (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article for the most part uses very high quality sources. If we're going to descend into using polemics like Montford's work then quality will suffer. The book was written by a chartered accountant with a chemistry degree, thus no relevant qualifications in historiography or science.

By the way I just noticed that our article on the book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, refers to the seminal Wahl and Amman paper as a "purported" replication. Would somebody kindly fix the error? It is an item of faith in some quarters that the hockey stick cannot be replicated, although in fact there are multiple independent replications. --TS 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wahl and Amman was rejected for a reason, their stats were way off, plus of course the use of good old bristlecone :), However the source says purported, we use what the sources say mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, as requested – primary sources shouldn't be misused to misrepresent the status of peer reviewed publications. . dave souza, talk 05:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TS, you feel that two self-published blogs (Climate Audit and RealClimate) are more reliable sources than a book published by a independent publishing house? Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Cla, it's interesting that 20% of the people who've even noticed the book has also praised Signature in the Cell published by HarperOne.[10] Why don't you try using that book as a source on microbiology articles? . . dave souza, talk 00:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to disqualify Montford's book because of the supposed opinions of a few of its readers? Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you really trying to disqualify expert WP:SPS sources that fully meet sourcing policy and guidelines? . . dave souza, talk 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the ClimateAudit citation is an item by Zorita and Storch, and the RealClimate blog and Wiki are cited on subjects well within the competence of the authors and editors of that website. They are all far preferable to a work by an amateur with no reputation for reliability. --TS 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We are in no position to make those kind of value judgements and that's why our reliable sources rules simply give a general definition of what is acceptable and what isn't. Self-published sources, with limited exceptions, are not acceptable. Independently published sources, like Montford's book, are. We can demand attribution, such as requiring the text to say, "Montford, in his book, claims that Mann erred in..." or whatever, but we can't throw the book out as a source just because any of us personally don't value the background of the author or the fact that it is his first book. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a reliable source for the fringe opinions espoused by its author, but we also have to consider the reliability and credibility of the author and of the book itself. So far there's been very little evidence that it has any credibility, and as I've pointed out one of the five sources cited to show that the book has any notability has given equal if not more support for Signature in the Cell. So far, the evidence is that both books should be given equal credence, and treated as primary sources for their authors' opinions where secondary third party sources show the significance of these opinions. The exceptions for WP:SELFPUB views and for expert views in WP:SPS apply to this article, as elsewhere. . dave souza, talk 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We can take it to the noticeboard but I think we know what they're going to say...that it's a reliable source for the opinion of its author. I haven't seen any other reliable source yet which has as much detail on the history of the hockey stick and associated opinions as this book has. If there are other books on the history of the hockey stick and the controversy surrounding it, and the only other one I know is The Real Global Warming Disaster, we can use those also. Actually, I mispoke earlier about getting rid of the blog citations in this article. If no objection, when I use a secondary source which references a blog, I personally don't see any problem with including the original blog url in the footnote also, because it has already been sourced from the independent secondary source. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just said that it might be a reliable source for the fringe opinions of its author, so your speculation about the reliable sources noticeboard seems a bit odd. What's more significant is the requirement for evidence of the reliability and significance of its author and of the contents of the book. Thanks for clarifying your point about blogs, and as you'll know blogs can be used as reliable secondary sources in some circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 06:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The author is not giving his opinion in the book, he is recounting the hockey stick controversy. Which is not fringe at all, but is well documented mark nutley (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I think you should be more cautious about giving your views on the reliability of sources. . dave souza, talk 07:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from my own observations, what Mark is saying is basically true. Montford isn't, for the most part, giving his own opinion on the controversy, instead mainly reporting the actions and opinions of all the different participants in the controversy from its beginning until the end of November 2009. That's why, IMO, this book is such as good source for this article. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And why would a largely ignored book presenting the views and interpretations of an accountant with no scientific qualifications whatsoever and a reputation for promoting fringe views be considered a reliable source on a scientific issue? Isn't this like quoting a theologian who espouses intelligent design as a source on the history of evolution? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

He does have a scientific background, he got it from St Andrews University. And again he is not promoting fringe views, if you actually ever get a source saying that it would be great mark nutley (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla, you really seem to be showing a persistent and tendentious refusal or inability to accept the requirements of WP:SOURCES policy, or for that matter WP:WEIGHT. The two fringe authors you're so keen on using must be taken as such, and only given the appropriate weight in accordance with policies.

@ Mark, the theologian who espouses intelligent design has similarly got a science background, we don't cite his books as a credible source on science. You can't just assume that he's credible without good quality sources showing that he's got standing in the field. . . dave souza, talk 09:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually your wrong Dave. WP policy is quite clear in this after all. The book meets the criteria for wp:rs and wp:v. It is basicly a history of the HS controversy no more no less. And again you say "Fringe" yet you are unable to provide a source per WP policy to back this claim so i must assume you are just indulging in wp:or mark nutley (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you would do well to seek sound advice on this, Mark. . dave souza, talk 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you would do well to either provide a source saying The Hockey Stick Illusion is fringe or stop saying it. wp:v and all that you know. mark nutley (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark. It seems to me that saying that Andrew Montford is fringe and unqualified without a source to back it up is a violation of WP:BLP and I think is should stop. Cla68 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That you agree with MN fails to astonish. But this is no more convincing than the ontological argument for Batman. It has become a std MN/Cla tactic: "show me a RS that says that or you can't discuss it on talk". Pah, nonsense: you show me a RS that says that Mountford *isn't* fringe. Or better still, stop playing silly word games and discuss the substantive issues William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry Cla - but a lack of debunking is not an argument for it being mainstream, most fringe subjects are ignored by the mainstream. Fact here is: No scientist has publicly commented on the book - its been ignored. If we look at it "non-publicly", then one scientist has commented on it, and that particular scientist is stating that the book has been ignored .... because the scientific mainstream considers it .... well ... nicely put: Irrelevant, but the same also says that it will give scientists a quick route to understand the non-science view on the controversy (particularly that seen from the viewpoint of climateaudit => minority viewpoint).

But, that aside, if we look at it from a purely Wikipedian view - then the complete lack of review by any scientist or anyone of standing withing the controversy - means that the source, while verifiable, has absolutely zero weight. Lack of review cuts both ways. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not true that no scientist has commented on the book, Judith Curry has recommended it. So, we have one for, none against. Again, to say that a living person is unqualified and holds a fringe view without any support is a violation of WP:BLP, and again I ask that it stop. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Did i say that "no scientist" had commented on it? Nope. Read my text again - there is an important caveat. Another thing - please note that i specifically didn't say anything about whether the book was fringe or not.

I'm going to repeat: the complete lack of review by any scientist or anyone of standing withing the controversy - means that the source, while verifiable, has absolutely zero weight. Lack of review cuts both ways. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I checked the guideline and I couldn't find what you just said in there. And you are incorrect. Christopher Booker reviewed the book, and he is an expert on the global warming debate, having published a book on the subject which one independent newspaper book reviewer (from a different newspaper than the one Booker works for) put on his top 10 list for 2009. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, Cla. But Booker is in no way an expert on the global warming debate. He is an advocate in the global warming debate... there is a not very subtle difference. We don't consider Booker an expert - nor do we consider Monbiot or Gore experts. They are laymen and rather extreme advocates (who have all published books on the subject). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't rely on our personal opinions of the sources. We use our policies and guidelines which stipulate what we can or can't use. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately (to repeat your phrase) - my statements wasn't my personal opinon - but verifiable fact. Do read our article on Christopher Booker at some point in time. As for him being an expert ... well ... writing a book doesn't make you an expert, that is certainly something that reliable sources will have to tell us - isn't it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about Christopher "second hand smoke and asbestos are harmless and there's no evidence for evolution" Booker? Calling him an expert on science is like calling Erich von Däniken an expert on archaeology. He's not just fringe, <BLP violation removed>, quite honestly. How many "science writers" have their work criticised as "misleading" and "misinformed" by government agencies? Since he's repeatedly published blatant and trivially disprovable falsehoods on scientific matters, there is no way that he meets the WP:V criteria of sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, please stop this tedious repetition of "calling Mountfords book fringe is a violation of BLP". No-one believes you (including, I rather suspect, you). If you seriously believe it to be true, which I doubt, go run off to a friend;y admin and see if you can convince them. Otherwise, just leave it out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The book's position has negligible support among scientists. It is written by a blogger with no expertise in this particular field or scientific expertise in general. It has received only a handful of reviews and passing mentions confined exclusively to news opinion writers with a track record of "scepticism" concerning climate science. It has been ignored entirely by general media reviewers and the scientific press. It has not, as far as I can tell, been cited as a source by any other published works. The author does not have any "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as required by WP:V (in fact I think this is his debut book). An assessment based on these indisputable facts would lead an honest editor to conclude that it does not meet the standards required by WP:V. Furthermore, Cla68 is reversing the burden of evidence explicitly stated in WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Editors here do not need to prove that the book is fringe. Cla68 needs to prove that the book is not fringe. I note, by the way, that Marknutley is using exactly the same tactic on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and is driving the editors there to distraction. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Missed a bit there Chris, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The book is a reliable source under WP policy, you guys are the ones saying it is fringe so why not just provide the source which actually says that, otherwise it is just you opinion which quite simply does not matter a jot mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means you. What part of that do you not understand? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

God your rude, The burden of evidence lies in proving the source is reliable and verifiable, thats it. If you take issue with a source saying it is fringe then the burden of evidence falls on you to prove what you are saying, how hard is that to understand? mark nutley (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell this out for you in even simpler terms, then:

1) You are attempting to add this material to this article.

2) Therefore the burden of evidence that this is sourced to a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy rests with you.

3) I do not need to show that the source meets these criteria.

4) You need to show that the source meets these criteria.

5) You have not shown that the source meets these criteria.

6) Therefore the source is not suitable for inclusion.

Honestly, it's there in black and white in WP:V. The relevant bits are even bolded so that nobody can miss them. How hard can this be? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly how hard can this be, the content is already in the article, the book is being used to verifiy the information. mark nutley (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Publishing and Reviewing

I have a bit of a idle question with regards to review of books like The Hockey Stick Illusion. I know generally the reviewing process and the time it takes for a paper published in a journal to be reviewed (in terms of length of time for the reviewer), for biology at least (a full day, if not more, according to people who I have spoken to who review articles for publication). I would bet that climatology is probably the same. However, I am not sure what Stacey International's reviewing process is for books like Montford's. Would anyone happen to know? NW (Talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

BioScience's "rapid review" process asks that you do it in 3 weeks (at least according to the ms review request I accepted on Thursday). Others tend to give you 1-2 months. If you want a ms accepted for publication by a certain date, I've been told that you should submit it about 5 months in advance. Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the actual "sit down and read" time, but thanks very much for the info. I have a feeling that The Hockey Stick Illusion wasn't nearly as heavily picked through, but it would be nice to hear from someone who knows about the book publishing industry. NW (Talk) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, 'sit down and read' time. That varies a lot, and it differs from person to person. Best case, a well-written, largely qualitative article that doesn't make any really revolutionary claims - you could probably do a decent review in a couple hours. The more data they present, the closer you need to look at things like statistics. It also depends on how familiar you are with the body of literature they're citing, and on the nature of the claims they're making about the literature (more mundane, or are they saying something that feels a little off?) That can add several hours. But these are mss which run 20-40 double-spaced pages, including figures (so maybe 10-15 double-spaced pages of actual text). Something more detailed, like a grant proposal, may take several days of work to review thoroughly.

Book publishing, though, is an entirely different beast (and one I don't have first-hand knowledge of). The nature of the review is different. Even academic publishers have a lower standard than journal articles, and allow greater leeway to authors. Stacey International is not an academic publisher - in fact, it seems to have a large stable of 'contrarian' authors. But even academic publishers get it wrong sometimes - after all, The Design Inference, published by CUP, is generally seen as pseudoscience. Guettarda (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In academia books are ranked lower than articles. But books published on specialty topics are often written in chapters with invited authors who are of high standing in their field. Most of what is written in a book published by a reputable publisher is commonly published in article form and summarized or expanded on when included in a book. However, in the case of The Hockey Stick Illusion it would be a great disservice to Wikipedia to ignore it. It is the only complete review available and neglecting it would make as much sense as calling the Zapruder film irrelevant because it was filmed by an amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.115.15 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the book has not yet been, as far as I know, used as a source by any other secondary sources, I was planning on using it first as a source for information that doesn't rely on its authors opinion, such as when the US Congressional hearings were held, how North and Wegman were chosen to lead their investigations, their general conclusions, Mann's and RealClimate's responses, etc. That kind of stuff. Those hearings were apparently almost ignored by the mass media, so a book like this is useful. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That sort of stuff might not rely on the author's opinion but it does rely on his veracity, which is at the root of the problem - remember WP:V's requirement for sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If something is significant it will have been reported by a reliable secondary source other than Montford. At best you might be able to mine the book's references (assuming it has any) and quote Montford's sources, but Montford's book is not itself a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The book meets our guidelines as a reliable source. No one has provided any evidence that it isn't except for, "It isn't, because I say so." Furthermore, in a few months time, we'll probably have even more books on this controversy as books on Climategate start coming out. The hockey stick played an important background role in that controversy and I believe will feature prominently in those books. I imagine that one or more of those books will use this one as a source. Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're deliberately hearing avoiding the reasons why it isn't reliable. It is non-reliable because it is nothing other than a pile of printed pages. It has had no review. It is no more reliable that Mountford's blog William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And your source which shows it was not reviewed is? mark nutley (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh! Please see above on WP:BURDEN Mark. In a nutshell: It is up to you to provide the evidence - not the reverse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have done so...favorable reviews in The Courier, the Sunday Telegraph, and the National Post and no negative reviews. Do you have anything in a reliable source that says something negative? If not, we have clearly ment WP:BURDEN. Also, an independent editor at the RSN has stated that the book appears to have journalistic merit. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no she hasn't! You seem to have become rather mixed up when reading Judith's comment, but see RSN for detailed clarification. As for your "reviews", they lack credence as also discussed at RSN. . dave souza, talk 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::::::Hey you guys are saying it`s not reviewed, the burden is on you to prove what you are saying, but it was reviewed by McIntyre before final publication, and Matt Ridley of course mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of a handful of other fringe proponents doesn't provide review evidence of fact checking and accuracy. . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Were the Wegman and North reports "fringe" also? The "fringe" meme just doesn't hold water here. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wegman is semi-fringe, yes. North is far higher quality. Wegman was so poorly reviewed pre-publication that half the references, aren't. Meanwhile, note that MN is confusing two different meanings of the word "reviewed". Help him out, someone William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is about the hockey stick controversy, McIntyre being a major part of that is perfect to review it, mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Get someone to explain to you what "review" means William M. Connolley (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what review means, with a book it is a check to see if the facts fit the claims. McIntrye would of course know all the facts and as such his review would point out any mistakes made. mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First, that's not what a formal review consists off. And secondly, "McIntrye would of course know all the facts and as such his review would point out any mistakes made." contains several unfounded assumptions. Of course McIntyre does not know all the facts - not even close. Even then, it's unlikely that he will catch all mistakes. And finally, of course, Montford may just ignore some or all of McIntyre's remarks, or misunderstand them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(To WMC) Remember what North said when asked if he disagreed with Wegman? "No, I don't." The hockey stick critics, and that also apparently includes the chief of the Royal Statistical Society, are not "on the fringe" and whether Mann's research was sound or not has nothing to do with if humans are causing global warming or not. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't use such a brief phrase to rescue Wegman. North is a great guy, but his authority isn't that strong. The Wegman report is stuffed full of tripe, which are clues to the wise about how it is written. For example, it contains this "Valentine, Tom (1987) "Magnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems," Magnets, 2(1) 18-26" as a reference, although that ref is never used. Odd, eh? [11]. Or then again, it contains a faked-up version of an IPCC graph [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Both North and the chief of the Royal Statistical Society are on record as supporting Mann's work on this graph, and their limited agreement with the optional issue of statistical centering did not affect the outcome of the graph, as shown by numerous peer reviewed papers. Cla's point was??? . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That criticism of the graph and the research that went into it, which this book evidently contains, is not a fringe view. You two appear to have conceeded that point since you weren't able to show that North, Wegman, or the Royal Statistical Society weren't also criticizing it. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Montford is not a reliable source for this information because he is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. How could he be? He has no prior publication history. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The book Guadalcanal-The Definitive Account is probably the main source I used when I was writing the Guadalcanal Campaign articles. That book was the first book ever written by that author, but is probably the best book on that subject yet to be written. Where were you then to dispute the use of the book because he had no prior publication history? It sounds like you've just assigned yourself the task of going through Wikipedia and removing all books used as sources which are the first books written by their authors. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is rather strange logic. The criticism that Wegman and North agreed upon was a particular use of a statistical method - they did not agree upon whether the MBH results were correct or not. Wegman doesn't conclude anything here - and the NAS report concludes: Methodology wrong - Result correct. Montford's view is: Result incorrect - which doesn't match with either of the two. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's summarize this: M&M have had two papers disputing the validity of the graph published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. A reputable statistician (Edward Wegman) and geoscientist (Gerald North) support M&M's findings in testimony before a US Congressional committee. So, do you still assert that Montford's opinion is "fringe?" Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fringeness is determined by how representative they are of opinion in the relevant field, in this case climate science. M&M, Montford, Wegman and North are not climate scientists; at least two of those individuals aren't scientists at all. How many climate scientists agree with them? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Those scientists criticized Mann's research in the context of their own expertise. M&M and Wegman, all statistical experts, took issue with Mann's statistical methods. Are you suggesting that climate scientists are better statisticians than professional statisticians? Is that why the chief of the Royal Statistical Society (RSS), in discussing the hockey stick graph, suggested that Mann and/or the CRU hire a full-time statistician for their teams? So, then, are you saying that the RSS, M&M, Wegman, and North are all fringe? Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a responsive answer to my question. How many climate scientists agree with them? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a valid question. Climate science is not the only science involved here. It includes statistics, geosciences, and other disciplines. Are you saying that those fields are "fringe" when it comes to climate science, or specifically, Mann's research? I think scientists in those other fields, like North, would dispute that assertion. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to grasp onto a strawman here. Everyone in the world could agree that Mann should hire a full-time statistician - and the conclusion/views in Montfords book could still be tiny minority or fringe. Sorry. Try to grasp the above about methodology vs. result. Where Montford is completely outside of the mainstream (and btw. also with McIntyre iirc) is by the assumption that the hockey-stick is wrong. [NAS concluded that it was basically correct - but that the methodology was flawed]. You also seem to assume that NAS, RSS and Wegman agree with Montford in everything in his book - which is a unsupported assertion. (and also wrong) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Montford is the latest in a long line of reputable critics disputing Mann's research and you still want to label him as fringe because he believes Mann's conclusions aren't credible? I'm sorry, but I think you are stretching the definition of fringe to a breaking point. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Sorry. Montford is not a reputable critic here. Montford's critique hasn't been adopted by any scientist. His critique has even been touched upon outside of the blogosphere and partisan pundits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reputable critic"? What reputation are we referring to here? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, M&M have had two papers published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals and Wegman and North's credentials appear to be well-established. Montford is reporting on what they and others, including Mann's supporters, have done and said about the controversy. As I said above about the Guadalcanal book, being a first time book author does not disqualify one as a reliable source. If so, we have a long task ahead of us going around Wikipedia and removing books written by first time authors. So, I'm not seeing any reason why the book isn't a reliable source. We can discuss how the book can be used in this article, but not if. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

M&M == Notable. Writing something about M&M != notable. Writing about M&M != Accurately writing about M&M. M&M is a subset of Montford's book. Conclusions by M&M != Montford's conclusions. etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. The portions where Montford gives his own opinion are reliable sources only for that- Montford's opinion. At this time, I wasn't planning on using the book to give Montford's opinion in this article, just as a source for details on the timeline and nature of the controversy. None of the reviews of the book have noted any issues with its factual accuracy. Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not. You are asserting that Montfords descriptions are correct. That assertion has to be based upon quite a bit more than your personal opinion - and that is the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part of the problem. And i'm sorry to say that none of your reviews have any background to verify whether the things that Montford writes are factually correct or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, our reliable sources guideline answers that issue by stating that the source needs to be published by an independent publisher, which is the case here. If we have a source which contradicts what this book says, then that's another matter. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, you've been told multiple times to follow our WP:SOURCES policy which states that
"The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;"
Once again you're focussing on the publisher and ignoring the other requirements. Your arguments are tendentious and your repeated attempts to use every forum to try to introduce questionable sources are disruptive. Please comply with policies. . . dave souza, talk 07:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cla, as I said in the RSN discussion, why do we need to cite this book in the first place if the information that you want to cite from it is contained in other uncontroversial sources? Would it not be simpler to use uncontroversial sources and save everyone the trouble of arguing about this book? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was reading the book this morning, and it is fairly well sourced. The problem is that, besides this book, there is really no other book that I'm aware of (besides The Real Global Warming Disaster) that puts together a comprehensive timeline of the controversy. Without using this book, we end up stringing together individual events, such as the publication of a paper (for example MBH99), and subsequent reactions to it, using fragmented primary (the paper) and secondary sources, which ends up requiring some synthesis on our part. By using this book to fill in the gaps, we won't have to do that. I think the book is much more valuable for that than for Montford's opinion on it all. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

translated(?): "We have no good sources - therefore we must use bad sources".... Lets not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Illusion is a good source, good enough to be used as a source in a major academic paper (see below) and we're fortunate to have it to help us improve this article. There is no reason why this article can't be featured and eventually listed on the main page, there is enough information for it. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Both the sources Cla proposes are questionable sources, good enough to be used to show the claims made by authors who support a fringe viewpoint in science, a significant minority view in politics. . . dave souza, talk 18:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

RSN

See WP:RSN#Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used for related discussion. . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found new information with regards to this source which i posted at the above rsn discussion mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the use of this book in this academic paper (footnote 3), the book has now been verified as definitely meeting our guideline as a reliable source (if it wasn't before). Therefore, this discussion needs to move forward from if it can be used, to how. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sentence that the HSI is used for in the paper? Its very short - and contrary to what you imply - it isn't actually used as a source for anything. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not correct, the book is used as a source for the following assertion, "These emails, whose authenticity is not denied, suggested that scientists may have been acting outside publicly understood norms of science in their efforts to bolster their own views and to discredit the views of those with whom they disagreed." Then, in the footnote, they use the book to comment on how it relates the emails in question to issues surrounding climate science and paleoclimatology. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Cla, parts of that particular sentence is also sourced to a BBC article - which is a wonderful academic source :) And the footnote goes on to mention that the veracity of the book hasn't been confirmed or rejected. (which is the culprit in the whole discussion). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the academics who wrote the report had this to say about using the book as a source, "The principal e-mails of concern are reproduced and discussed in A.W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, London: Stacey International, 2010, pp. 402–49. This work conveniently relates the topics back to a detailed narrative of the major disputes in climate science, and specifically paleoclimate studies, with which much of the Climatic Research Unit archive is concerned." So I'm not seeing what you're seeing. They seem to actually be recommending the book as source on this subject. In the least, they have stipulated that it is reliable as a source for their University of Oxford-published paper. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope - they do not use it as a reliable source. They are pointing out that the source exists. The only thing they point out that may be reliable is the reprint of the emails. We also know by now that the speculation that the sentence in the paper was doing ..... was wrong. (the 3rd inquiry report of the incident). Using this to bolster reliability is rather amusing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, not true. They are using this book as a source to back up an assertion they made in the article's text. They don't say "see also" about the book, and even if they did that would still be confirmation that they consider the book reliable. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that 14 academics, including four with Wikipedia BLPs, are using the book as a source, thereby showing that they consider it reliable, and you're disagreeing with them. Am I correct? Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, True. They use it to source that speculation ("suggested") and a controversy exists - we know by now that the speculation was wrong. They aren't using the book for factual information at all.... no matter how much you peacock the authors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Peacock the authors? Isn't one of them, Mike Hulme, a climate change professor at East Anglia? They are using the book to source an assertion in the article text. That's it. It shows that academics, like Hulme, regard the book as reliable. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Cla, Peacocking - you are attempting to use the authors of that paper to make the book seem authoritative. Unfortunately they aren't citing the book for anything factual - but instead that speculation exists. And what you fail to notice is that neither Hulme nor any of the other authors have any background to be able to check the veracity of the book. You are simply applying the fallacy: "book is cited in an academic paper, therefore the book must be reliable". Why is it a fallacy? Lets take an example: David Irvings books are cited in loads of academic papers, but that doesn't make the books reliable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what you said before about this book, that it's "ignored by the mainstream" and "ignored by scientists". This paper shows, however, that that assumption is incorrect. Fourteen reputable academics and scientists, including Hume, a climate change scientist from East Anglia, used the book as a source in a University of Oxford-published paper that they signed their names to. Do you still believe that the book has been "ignored?" Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fourteen reputable academics and scientists, including Hulme...used the book as a source - very interesting. I take it you have a source that supports your assertion that all fourteen authors weighed in on the selection of that source? As for calling it a University of Oxford-published paper...that's rather a bit of puffery, isn't it? The document you linked to appears to be an unpublished white paper produced by the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at Oxford and the Mackinder Programme at the LSE. Sure, passing mention in that report dwarfs any prior mention of the book...but really, when you reach the end of your facts, stop. Don't continue to embellish. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All 14 authors signed their name to that report. That paper is theirs. All 14 are reputable academics, industry leaders, or scientists. The University of Oxford's name is used prominently in the report's title. No spin or puffery going on here. This paper wasn't necessary to establish this book as a reliable source. But, since we've established that the book is recognized as a reliable source in the academic community, we don't have to worry about anymore questions about its reliability according to WP's guidelines. The questions now are, not if we can use this book in the article, but where and how. I'll start making some suggestions soon. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, Cla, the book promotes fringe views and is unreliable as discussed at RSN. . . dave souza, talk 08:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And as pointed out there no it does not. It is a detailed narrative of the HSC, it promotes no views at all, just the facts of the story. It is a reliable source as proven on the RSN noticeboard. And it can be used here, time for you guys to get over it mark nutley (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, this is nonsense - and whats more interesting, is that you know it. The book amongst other things promotes the conspiracy theory that the "medieval warm period was made to disappear" (ie. it was deliberately erased). This is completely unsupported in the scientific literature, and is about as fringe as you can get. [it is btw. also not a viewpoint that McIntyre would support] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It does no such thing and i am unsure were you got that from mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Page 27-30 in the book (about Huang). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read it again, he does not say there is a "conspiracy theory that the medieval warm period was made to disappear" he is writing about the Demings e-mail, which part of that is fringe? The e-mail exists, it happened, so whats the issue? mark nutley (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This part (of many) p. 28 last para-29 first:

This sudden flash of light on a particularly murky shadow of climatological practice is probably unique. Suddenly it was possible to see that the Hughes and Diaz retake on the Medieval Warm Period was not considered enough. The aim was to erase it from the climatological record in its entirety. Although Deming himself did not indentify the email's author, Richard Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona. It was evident to anyone who was watching that, in some quaters at least, there was a concerted effort to rewrite the Earth's climate history so that the Medieval Warm Period disappeard. Unfortunately, few people were watching. Those who noticed what Deming was saying, and tried to raise the alarm, wre ignored by the media.

This is a very simple statement that the scientists were frauds, and that the MWP was deliberately disappeared. Do note that this is Montford's take - not anyone elses. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) And again you are incorrect in your interpretation. He is saying that some scientists wanted to make the MWP disappear, which is obviously proved by the Demings e-mail. There is bugger all fringe about that it is well documented. Do you deny this happened?mark nutley (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...."obviously proved"... think about this for a bit. Then try to turn your personal POV off and think about it again. "hide the decline" was an "obvious proof" as well .... wasn't it? Where is his description of Overpeck's view? Kinda strange that this isn't presented - isn't it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Overpeck`s view? All overpeck said was he did not recall sending the e-mail. I`ll check the book to see it`s in there. But the mail was sent, it exists, so it is as i said obvious some were willing to hide the MWP to make the modern warming appear worse. Do you deny the Demings e-mails happened? mark nutley (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the email (since you say it exists)? Do please note that Overpeck denies having said something like that (or at the very least in that context). So no it is neither "obvious" - nor is this an accurate description (as you claimed). What i think is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that this is an extremely one-sided description, which presents a conspiracy theory, makes it raher clear where Montford is on that point, and has no description of the mainstream view. Ie. fringe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) [it should also be mentioned that "Lindzen confirmed" is incorrect according to the ref given in the book --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)]

Kim overpeck never denied writing it, he said he could not recall sending it, big difference. As for the mail Demings own words can do i suppose [13] [14] mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Try reading what i wrote - instead of what you think i wrote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject on one small point: It's factually inaccurate for anyone to say that a consensus has been reached at WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I might argue that there's a consensus that it is reliable for the opinions of Andrew Monford (the notability of which I choose not to adress), that it is not reliable for disputed statements of scientific fact. Just trying to create a starting point for agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The book was cited by the journal i mentioned at the rsn board Nsaa had access to it. So we now have the Hartwell Paper and the Journal of Environmental Law from the University of Oxford I believe this proves beyond doubt that the book is neither fringe or unreliable mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, have you read the Journal of Environmental Law? Could you provide the context this book was used in? Given the context that book was used for in the Hartwell Paper, whatever that is, I agree the book is also a reliable source that the CRU emails exist. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)