Talk:Temperature record of the last 2,000 years/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Temperature record of the last 2,000 years. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

No one has objected

(William M. Connolley 23:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK. No one has objected to my basic proposal above (I think). I plan to:

Create a main "temperature record" page (only following SS's comment above, perhaps it should be called "past temperature"... not sure. In fact I prefer TR to PT)
Move historical temperature record to instrumental temperature record

I'll do this all tomorrow sometime, unless someone objects here first, and/or I realise I can't decide what to call the main TR page.

(William M. Connolley 22:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I have moved historical temperature record to instrumental temperature record, and heavily edited the text there. Cut text is to the new temperature record page, for now.

2000 year plot for whenever

Since people are discussing reorganization of the temperature record pages, I went ahead and created a 2000 year version of the temperature reconstruction comparison plot.

(William M. Connolley 22:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)) How about, just for the moment, moving the page to ...of the past 2000 years? And swapping your new plot in. BTW, I realised that there is a formalism for page moves if we want to use it, which is Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Removing the "corrected" graph

(William M. Connolley 13:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I removed entirely the "corrected" graph. This is the t-rec page, not the mbh vs m&m page. Also, M&M's "reconstruction" *isn't* a reconstruction - they say so themselves. Its also almost without a doubt wrong, as evidenced by its disagreement with all the other versions. So I don't see the point in having it.

image caption

IMHO the caption should be kept simple. This means that we do not need to mention all details there, this is what the article is for. In this case it is clear anyway that the graph was reconstructed (see the text above the diagram: "Reconstructed Temperature") and furthermore the wording "according to" indicates that these are not temperature measurements. -- mkrohn 00:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you up to the point where facts are obscured. I don't see the problem with mentioning the fact that the vast majority of the graph doesn't represent actual temperatures but rather a theory as to what temperatures might have been based on various proxy data. The caption is already quite a long one, so a couple of extra words shouldn't push it over the edge, wouldn't you agree?--JonGwynne 00:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jon, most of the addition in "the majority of which have been indirectly reconstructed from various proxies" is redudant. "reconstruction" is already mentioned and how the reconstruction takes place ("from various proxies") should not be part of the caption, but is explained in the article. -- mkrohn 00:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it has to be mentioned in the caption. Otherwise, there is the implication that this is an actual temperature record rather than a reconstructed one. That it is mentioned in the title is irrelevant, it has to be mentioned every time temperature record is mentioned. Personally, I think this thing is a bit dodgy anyway, I mean it is bad enough that they're mixing all sorts of proxies of various reliability into the same record along with actual instrument readings towards the end. But that's a subject for another time.--JonGwynne 00:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should assume that no one will take five different temperatures for the same year as "actual temperature records". Thus chances that someone mixes actual / reconstructed temperatures are rather small, in particular since the caption points out that the black graph is "instrumental record".

It is very common to adapt the words to the situation, e.g., using "temperature" when we mean "reconstructed temperature". Of course this can only be done if there is no ambiguity. And by the way: "temperature" is always a reconstruction process, e.g., you measure a thermal expansion of some fluid, i.e., some length scale.

The dodgy stuff is called "statistics" and this is serious science :-) Of course statistics (and often the interpretation) are very difficult. Nevertheless this should not be a reason to outright dismiss the results.

"How about this?" (the last edit from Jon). I would clearly agree with the edit, if the text within the picture does not clearly states the same thing. The addition is obviously redundant, but it does not harm either. Perhaps it is better for those who do not carefully read the graph. -- mkrohn 00:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Briffa "omission"

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SEWilco added:

There is an undocumented omission in IPCC graphs of post-1960 values for Briffa MXD, which would appear as a precipitious drop to the 1980s. [1]

In my opinion, this is somewhere between misleading and wrong. For the first thing, I don't really think this is an IPCC issue per se, given that Briffa and colleagues have been telling people that the tree ring density series past 1960 is unreliable since at least Briffa et al. 1998. They noted that the MXD record diverges from temperature over recent decades, especially in high northern latitudes. In Briffa et al. 2001 they show that different predictive schemes based on MXD diverge after 1960, i.e. that the inherent uncertainty is large during the recent period. They contrast this against the period 1880-1960 where they argue that different predictive schemes give far more consistent results (i.e. that for some reason the inherent uncertainty was less in the earlier part of the record).

Subsequent papers (e.g. Briffa et al. 2004) have argued that this divergence between temperature and tree ring density at high Northern latitude is related to ozone depletion at high latitudes, which is affecting tree growth through enhanced UV flux and confounding their temperature interpretation. Hence, in their view, this only affects the recent record where man-made substances have been causing ozone depletion. Other authors (Vaganov et al. 1999), argue that the divergence is related to changes in precipitation pattern after 1960, in which case it could be a more generally confounding factor.

Whether or not these arguments are correct is obviously beyond the role of us as encyclopedists to decide (and I am not trying to neccesarily advocate Briffa's conclusions). However, if people believe these details are important then they need to be described accurately and with both sides represented. In particular, it should be pointed out that Briffa et al. wanted to truncate the record significantly before the IPCC TAR was created and this has little to do with the IPCC (except maybe that they should have mentioned Briffa et al.'s reasoning). For that matter, this issue is fairly well-known and documented within the climate reconstruction community and shouldn't be regarded as some great surprise or sleight of hand, unlike the description offered in the linked blog.

Also, it is probably worth noting that no published articles (to my knowledge) take the declining MXD trend as a serious sign of declining temperatures, since colocated thermometry measurements show warming. Hence it is understandable that the IPCC might want to avoid showing the post-1960 data when talking about recent climate change, or when contrasting against other reconstructions, so as not to mislead the viewer into thinking that the recent part of Briffa's MXD record should be regarded as serious evidence of cooling. However, these discrepancies would naturally bear on how reliable (or not) tree growth may be as an indicator of climate change and certainly are appropriate to that discussion.

I'll let other people decide what, if anything, should be written about this issue in the article.

Dragons flight 23:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

References:

K. R. BRIFFA, F. H. SCHWEINGRUBER, P. D. JONES, T. J. OSBORN, S. G. SHIYATOV & E. A. VAGANOV (1998). "Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes". Nature. 391: 678–682. doi:10.1038/35596.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
K. R. BRIFFA, T. J. OSBORN, F. H. SCHWEINGRUBER, I. C. HARRIS, P. D. JONES, S. G. SHIYATOV & E. A. VAGANOV (2001). "Low frequency temperature variations from a northern hemisphere tree ring density network". JGR. 106 (D3): 2929–2941.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
K. R. Briffa, T. J. Osborn and F. H. Schweingruber (2004). "Large-scale temperature inferences from tree rings: a review". Global and Planetary Change. 40 (1–2): 11–26. doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00095-X.
Vaganov E.A.; Hughes M.K.; Kirdyanov A.V.; Schweingruber F.H.; Silkin P.P. (1999). "Influence of snowfall and melt timing on tree growth in subarctic Eurasia". Nature. 400 (6740): 149–151.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

PS. If you have access to it, the Briffa 2004 reference is good summary of the issue, showing both the clearly divergent trends and giving Briffa et al.'s explanation for it.

"this has little to do with the IPCC (except maybe that they should have mentioned Briffa et al.'s reasoning" Yes, indeed they should. Should they also have mentioned the uncertainties in tree behavior? I mentioned the IPCC as a significant point in the chain of data presentation, not as the origin of the truncation. I was aware of those papers, but thanks for mentioning them for other contributors. (SEWilco 04:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC))

William's absolute statement

WMC tried to replace the statement

"An important aspect to the difference between the two classes of reconstructions is whether the warmth during the past century is within the bounds of previous natural variability or not."

with

"In all cases, the warmth during the past century is outside the bounds of previous natural variability"

If you're going to make an absolute pronouncement like that, you'd best have some support for it. Nothing less than a published journal article with support for that statement including agreement from several noted skeptics will do. In addition, such a statement requires quantifiable and universally accepted definitions of both the degrees of warming and natural variability (neither of which seem to exist).

Until you provide such support, we'll go back to the qualified version. --JonGwynne 19:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you talk of? As a cover for your POV pushing, its transparent. The support for the statement is, of course, to simply look at the figure just next to it. William M. Connolley 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Ah, I see you have once again failed to support your claims. Isn't this a violation of the injunction against you? Do you dispute that there is still disagreement as to the amount of warming and the extent of natural variability? Since that is the case, wouldn't it be absurd to try to make an absolute statement that all current warming during the past century is outside the limits of natural variability? Of course it would. But it doesn't stop you. Why not? --JonGwynne 08:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"all cases" and "previous" cover too broad a range yet the article is focused on only a few centuries. Are you claiming the statement is true on time scales of thousands and millions of years? (SEWilco 03:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Maybe over the timescale of the article, past 1000 years, no? Vsmith 04:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you or WMC should have no trouble providing a reference to a peer-reviewed paper stating this. I'll take the failure to do so as an indication of inability rather than disinclination, shall I? --JonGwynne 08:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So in an article on Supreme Court of the United States it would be proper to have: :"In all cases, people who have made decisions in the past have worn black." (SEWilco 14:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))

JG is just trolling. Happily, he's just been banned for 3 months, so we can all ignore him. SEW, your comment is... opaque. If you want to take on the mantle of JG, do let us know. William M. Connolley 19:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I would argue for having both statements there rather than replacing the first with the latter. They deal with different things - the original is a statement about what is relevant while the latter is an answer to the implicit question in the first. I also think the diagram is not as conclusive as William argues - the black line of the instrumental record certainly rises above the other lines - but the appropriate comparison is between the levels of the reconstructions. In that respect, the variability in the past century is equal to (to a near enough approximation) the previous variability - look at the red (Moberg) and light green (Esper - particularly on the longer graph that Dragon's Flight prepared) lines for example. The MWP peak is about the same as the level of the reconstruction today - that does not meet the standard of 'all' and 'outside'. JS 28 June 2005 05:12 (UTC)

I don't see how we can have both statements - they are inconsistent. Or rather, the version I really intended to write - replacing "warmth" with "temperature rise" - is. So, is the current version better? Also, I've replaced "two classes", which I rather dislike, with vary between, which expresses the idea of a spectrum rather better, I think. William M. Connolley 28 June 2005 09:20 (UTC).

OK JS

213.122.123.31 / 213.122.105.117 / 213.122.182.235 / ...

Latest comment: 19 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Anon 213.122.123.31 (etc) has been waging an odd campaign over at Ross McKitrick and Talk:Michael Mann (scientist) which has now (unfortunately) spilled onto this page, where she has pasted in stuff from the McKitrick page. I don't think this is appropriate. This page is about the T history; not the disputes. It mentions them, but shouldn't fill up with all the tedious detail. William M. Connolley 08:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

I find very odd that you find OK to mention an error made by mckitrick which was in an unrelated article but find a error made by Mann in the hockey stick article a tedious detail. So I removed the refenrence to error of mckitrick.--MichaelSirks 12:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

They were both mentioned - William out the details, since they are better in the dtr article. Guettarda 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

First the error of Mckitrick is in an unrelated article, so it is not relevant here. You are creating the impression that you want say because he made error in in unralted article you can't trust them. Second the error( the cosine one) which Mann made is now accepted by every one. (even William? If you don't agree say so.) It is not corrected in corrigendum. And furthermore has been replicated Wahl en Annan. William made big deal of error of McKitrick but is unwilling to mention the known error in Manns study. So I remove reference.--MichaelSirks 13:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen a ref to the Mann cosine error. Our anon (was it you) never ref'd it. If you have a ref, do put it up. Somewhere relevant. William M. Connolley 14:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

You never asked this question in any of the five comments you made at Talk:Michael_Mann_(scientist)#Cosine, and I assumed you already knew everything about the global warming debate. You could try the article in the September 30th, 2004 issue of Science by Hans von Storch et al. Or the Tim Lambert blog you seem so happy to use as a source (various comments by Lambert himself in http://timlambert.org/2005/06/barton). Or other likely suspects.18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

September 30, 2004 issue of Science? Not surprised William didn't read that one - the folks over at sciencemag.org don't seem to be aware of that issue either. How about picking a real issue? Guettarda 18:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I copied the date from this article - perhaps you would like to change it here. A search at Science turns up "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, and Simon F. B. Tett Science 22 October 2004; 306: 679-682; published online 30 September 2004 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1096109] (in Reports)" 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Over at MM, you were rather coy about proposing any text, so there was nothing to comment on. G has pointed out a problem with the Science. I point out that the TL blog you point to doesn't contain the word "cosine". So what exactly are you referring to? And I've removed some of your comment: do please try to keep this polite and relevant. William M. Connolley 20:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

Confirmed. Moreover, manual scanning of the blog entry and all the comments also turned out nothing remotely related. --Stephan Schulz 20:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You can read about it at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=275. Do you William think Mann is correct to use cos(a) instead of (cos(a))^(1/2)? If you think it is not correct shouldn't he admit it and do his calculations again? Could you please anwser my questions.--MichaelSirks 20:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"cosine" appears 12 times in the blog thread. You might want to go direct to Comment 186.20:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Blog thread? Who cares about blogs - I thought we were talking about a mythical midweek edition of Science. Guettarda 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See reply above. The problem was this article which you do not sem to have spotted. It seems 30 September was when it was published online, 22 October on paper. 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

So it was alright to make a link to tim lambert's Blog when it was about the error of McKitrick, but wrong when it is about Mann. But Please anwser my questions William!!!--MichaelSirks 21:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

MS, its hard having a conversation when you don't know who is writing what. Are you the same as anon 213...? Also, please cut the offensive jokes (I have). Now, I can't find cosine in the post you refer to, and neither can the "search" function, so please can you past here the bit you're talking about. As to Mann's error: if he was wrong (and he might be) its a small effect. M&M's error (confusing radians and degrees) completely scrambles the data. William M. Connolley 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

You do not seem to be talking about MichaelSirks's link to a climateaudit tread. The anon's link comes to page five of Tim Lambert thread on Barton v. Mann. Go to page four [2] to find comment 186 from Tim Lambert, which starts with a long quote from the "Note on weighting observations" at [3], and ends with Tim Lambert's own words: So that to weight by area, the input to PCA has to be weighted by the square root of area. I retract my sugestion that von Storch might have been mistaken — he found an error in MBH98, though he does not seem to think that it was important. I am not sure that dismissing errors with "a small effect" is really the point in the scientific method: the willingness to acknowledge and correct methodological errors may be more important. --Audiovideo 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, thats rather more helpful than referring us to somewhere in a 5-page thread. I've also looked at the Science article (don't bother look at the paper, its in the online additional material). Its a throw-away comment by von S. Its probably an error in MBH98, though I haven't verified that. Its very unlikely to be of any significance (for the obvious reasons), UNLIKE M&M's degree/radian error which completely scrambled their dataset. William M. Connolley 10:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

M&M didn't make a mistake in degrees and radians I think you mean McKitrick in a not related article made that mistake.

Of course M&M did. But McK and McI don't have a trademark on the M&M label.

And thereby deliberately misleading people who read this talk page. --MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That is the reason why I am amazed that you want to mention it here. You give the impression that you want to suggest that McKitrick doesn't know the differnce between radians and degrees.(thereby suggesting that you can't trust the work of M&M.)

On the latter point, definitely. William M. Connolley 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

It doesn't surprise me, but now it is in writting.--MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not the case, he mistakely assumed that a subroutine used degrees instead of radians. When confronted with his mistake he admitted it and recalculated his work correctly. I fully agree with audiovideo when he says; I am not sure that dismissing errors with "a small effect" is really the point in the scientific method: the willingness to acknowledge and correct methodological errors may be more important. Then you say; "it is very unlikely to be of any signifigance". There is only one way to be certain and that is by doing the calculations correctly. And by the way I am not anon.--MichaelSirks 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're not 213... then spiffy. Why you're picking up her half of the conversation, I don't know. There is an easy way to tell whether the not-sqrt of the cos makes any difference: have M&M attacked MBH for it and redone the figures? No they haven't. Why not? They claim to have the code all set up. The only explanation is that they *have* redone the calculations and found that the change (as expected) is tiny, but don't want to publish that. Unlike M&M' who completely scrambled their data points with their degrees/radians mistake. William M. Connolley 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

It is the resposibility of Mann to admit his mistake and do a recalculation. You have very strange ethics. --MichaelSirks 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You're trolling. Do come back when you have something to say. William M. Connolley 21:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

So you now seem to agree that Mann+ made a cos(latitude) mistake, as McKitrick+ did, even though the mistakes were different. That at least is progress, though given your behaviour I don't really think your opinion counts for much. By the way, it is considered rude to censor other people's talk comments. 22:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting links

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[4] [5]

Especially a correlation with a number of sunspots is interesting. Miraceti 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Source Data - Random Data Produces the Same Graph

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have not updated the page itself as I wanted to share it with the community first. David Stockwell has released his version of the "hockey stick graph" created using Mann's proposed algorithm and completely random data. http://landscape.sdsc.edu/~davids/enm/?p=34

I don't think you should update the page. This is just some random blog. Also, do read the text there. Also, you could try looking at the pix on *this* page... William M. Connolley 13:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed the link. Uncertain why 'random blog' would have anything to do with the quality of the content. Disinterested scientific method calls for repeatable results. The author of the page has presented his algorithm (same as MBH) and published his data. The results are repeatable.

Ah, you've reviewed the pix on this page. Excellent. And you conclude, of course, that just as the page says there are a variety of reconstructions using a variety of different methods all producing the same hockey stick shape. As for the rest: I'm glad you like the quality of random web pages: try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/mbh/ instead then. Also, you seem to be taking rather a lot on faith. For example, "the results are repeatable". How do you know this? Have you done it? Do you think its described in enough detail to allow you to reproduce it? William M. Connolley 10:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be rather defensive concerning the validity of MBH. Can conclude that you have leveraged their data and method to repeat their results and further attempted a random data set to validate the algorithm? Perhaps you are taking a lot on faith yourself and calling the kettle black. I place more value in scientists, economists, and mathematicians who operate with transparency rather than try to hide or secure their methods and data from "adversaries." That some of the Journals involved in relevant publication do not require the archival of related data and methods for ongoing peer review certainly lessens their scientific value.

I notice a complete failure to address my questions... are you just trolling? BTW, please sign your comments with ~~~~ William M. Connolley 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mann's irreproducible results

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I know Dr. C. is simply going to revert, but this is my annual attempt to turn this biased article into a neutral one.

You can:

help me make this article balanced, by incorporating information which contradicts your pre-conceived POV; or,
I will place an {{NPOV}} tag at the top of the article.

You can fool some people, but not all people. Not forever. The Mann et al reconstructions are widely accepted by the climatology community, whereas the criticisms are not - sure, they may be widely accepted but who has been able to reproduce his results? He's being sued to make him show his data and methods.

They might even have to pass a bill in Congress that requires any scientist who accepts U.S. federal funds to share the data on which he bases his findings with other scientists, so they can check whether his work is valid or not.

Among real scientists, a hypothesis is not considered sound if other scientists fail to reproduce the claimed results.

Science fails to advance when:

one researcher's work is accepted uncritically because it's "what we want to hear"; or,
a researcher's work is ignored because it's "not what we want to hear

I am asking you publicly, Dr. Willian Connolley, to be a real good scientist. --Uncle Ed 15:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(following edit conflict)

Removed the following addition by ED:

has been reconstructed in two significantly different ways. Traditional reconstructions, based on reprocible techniques, show substantial ups and downs (see Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age). One modern reconstruction by Michael Mann portrays temperature as steadily declining until sharply rising after 1940.

Mann's results have not been reproduced by other researchers, mostly because he has refused to share his data. It has been claimed that the computer program he used to prepare his famous "Hockey Stick graph" makes even random data appear in the shape of a hockey stick.

as it apeared to be just stuck in without regard to sentence disruption or anything. Ed, are you just trolling WMC here or trying to fool some of the people or what? The info on Mann ... appears later in the article, if you have new sourced info include it there. Vsmith 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the one sentence which was "disrupted". Please explain why the rest of it was reverted. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote just above. The Mann dispute is there. Do you have a ref for the refused to share bit? Also note the combative nature of your comments above and your edit summary. And, I am aware that you and WMC have had a long running verbal war game, but the tone of your comments are inappropriate - spoiling for a fight. Vsmith 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) This article is about the "Temperature record of the past 1000 years" which relates to the work of dozens of scientists. Mann is important to that, but he is not the be all and end all of climate reconstruction. Ed's suggested text makes it appear that the whole issue revolves around Mann and the criticism/acceptance of his work which certainly isn't fair either. I may be swallowing a load of WP:BEANS for saying this, but maybe it is time we think about having a Hockey stick reconstruction controversy (or some such) article rather than conflating the MBH work with the whole of climate reconstruction. Dragons flight 16:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mann et al. and McKitrick et al. are the only people I know to have addressed the issue. If there are others, by all means add them to the article. It would be a disservice to our readers to present them with only two extremes.

As for the tone, Dr. C. and I get along quite well. I doubt he'll take phrases like "take that!" as meant in any way other then good humor.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat my words. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in some sense I already did since I long ago added Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png. You might note that of the 10 reconstructions referenced, only 3 include Mann as a coauthor. Dragons flight 16:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed again, still no source for the serious charge of refusing to share data. Vsmith 17:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Ed, unfortunately, has swallowed the skeptic nonsense whole. So... personalising this around Mann is wrong. As DF has pointed out, and indeed drawn, there are a whole pile of different reconstructions *all of which fit the TAR text*. On to Ed's text:

Traditional reconstructions, based on reprocible techniques, show substantial ups and downs (see Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age). One modern reconstruction by Michael Mann portrays temperature as steadily declining until sharply rising after 1940.

First off, I've no idea what he means by "trad recons" (and I strongly suspect he doesn't either). If he means annecdotal evidence from forst fairs, etc, then he should say so. Second, these are not "reproducible" in the sense that different records show (or don't) MWPs and LIAs at different times. Third, the paper is MBH, not M. Fourth, Eds edit [6] was done in such a fit of speed that it doesn't even make sense - a sure sign that he wasn't really thinking. Fifth, Ed of course doesn't know about Wahl and Ammann... I'll add it. William M. Connolley 18:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No time to rebut ALL of your five points, so I'll just pick some low-hanging fruit. I do so know about Wahl and Ammann. M & M comment here. And what's a forst fair? Robin Hood's merry men celebrating? ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So if you know about W+A, how can you call the results non-reproducible? William M. Connolley 20:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Low R2 values (see multiple regression). --Uncle Ed 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, Ed, do you have a clue what you're talking about? You said *non-reproducible*. Are you backing away from that in a cloud of ink?

Nope. Feel free to expound on MBH's data and methods - and on other researchers who have been allowed to see them OR have been able to reproduce his results. You could even add this to the article! --Uncle Ed 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that "nope" to "do you have a clue" or nope to retreat? So, your argument is... MBH can't be reproduced, even though, err, W+A have reproduced it. Errm... Help me, I'm struggling to understand your "low fruit" William M. Connolley 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

NRC report

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I took most of the NRC report stuff out, on the grounds that this is very recent stuff and really ought to be allowed to settle a bit before it gets added to the article in any but the most neutral terms. Also, its a rather long report, so could anybody adding refs to it add the actual page/section or somesuch.

So, any chance we my try to hack out some agreeable text on the talk page? Reactions to the report go from the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. to they pretty much concede that every criticism of MBH is correct.

So in particular I'd like to see In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century is the largest of any century during the record. not tampered with much - it remains true. The NRC assessment is that the records are less reliable before 1600. So In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that because of substantial uncertainties about the climate before 1600, there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements. [7] does not seem reasonable - thats not what they said. They don't seem to say anything specific about probabilities - only that pre-1600 is less confident than post; this is formally just about null, since we all knew that anyway. What matters is just how less certain they are... which is hard to judge. William M. Connolley 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over a small part of the report, and they claim a high level of confidence for the claim that that last few decades of the 20th century are warmer than any time in the last 400 years. They are less certain about the last 1000 years, and have little confidence about the first millenium. That does not mean they disagree with the reconstructions, they just see larger uncertainty for the reconstruction of earlier temperatures. I found Lumidek's edits to be "creative", to say the least. --Stephan Schulz 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As a start, the spaghetti graph could remove any study which contains strip-bark samples or Mann's PC1 since the NAR said their use was "not recommended" for temperature reconstructions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.87.91 (talk • contribs) .

I did the first addition and asked for expert elaboration. What came after was a biased interpretation, to my mind, so I 'adjusted' it. I'm new here so am happy to abide by whatever the agreed conclusions are. I would like to say that the summary [8] conclusions (page 4) of most importance to the debate are: - SBO

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies." - SBO
"Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."

NB, 'less', not 'none' - SBO

I believe that the report is intended as 90% or more vindication of the various proxy data graphs and their conclusions, with 10% of reservations that the data gets less reliable as it gets older, and that this is not always acknowledged in the more obvious headline-grabbing conclusions. - SBO

I also think that the paragraph on page 5 of the summary - "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence." deserves stressing. - SBO

That last point may be important in discussion of global warming. But its only significance for this page is to say that this page is less important than it used to be taken to be.

You are misrepresenting their conclusions. They say that the reconstruction after 1600 is, in its qualitative features, reliable, by which they mean 90-95 percent confidence level. The reconstruction of temperatures before 1600, averaged over longer timescales, is "plausible". They choose not to quantify it but they say that they mean something like 2:1 odds. Everything else is "even less confident", which means qualitatively less than a 66% chance. This includes not only the first millenium temperatures but also the detailed annual temperatures before 1600, including the statement that 1998 was the hottest year and the 1990s were the hottest decade in the millenium. "They just don't know whether it is true," they describe their report at the press conference. --Lumidek 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure how I can misrepresent a conclusion when I am quoting it verbatim and providing the link to the source for everyone to confirm the quote. Their specific concerns about the period between AD900 and AD1600 are the precision of the data with respect to annual and decadal variation - which makes claims about 1998 and 1990s between 66% and 90-95% certain. (if the lower limit is 66% and the upper is 90-95% as you claim, it cannot be unquantified and 'about 2:1') That does not invalidate them. It just makes them less well supported and worthy of further investigation. The reservations do not rule out their support for the main conclusion made by Mann et al - that the last 25 years have been the warmest for a millenium. As this has a wider resolution, it is better supported by the data. I again point you to page 4 of the summary. - SBO

The current wording from Lumidek includes the phrase "large uncertainties make it impossible" which I feel is overstating the case considerably. I would like this changed to "uncertainties make it less plausible" which is more in keeping with the vague wording of the report, as well as its intent.--Hoggle 23:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (also SBO)

Not "less plausible" (uncertainty can't do that), but "less certain". --Stephan Schulz 06:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

fair point, although 'confident' is their wording --Hoggle 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To sum up where we are so far: Lumidek wants wording as follows:

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century was thought to be the largest of any century during the record. This conclusion has now been reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress for the 17th, 18th, and 19th century but the panel concluded that large uncertainties make it impossible to compare the 20th century with any period before 1600.

I would be happy with:

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century was thought to be the largest of any century during the record. This conclusion has now been reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress for the 17th, 18th, and 19th century but the panel concluded that uncertainties make it less confident in comparisons between the 20th century with any period before 1600.

So long as there was a more detailed analysis in the body of the article. William wants something like:

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century was thought to be the largest of any century during the record. This conclusion has now been reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress. The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence... the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Let's achieve a compromise from this point.--Hoggle 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite... I disagree with "was thought to be". That refs back to the temperature records, and is describing what is in the records, so should say "is". William M. Connolley 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So how about: Introduction

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century is the largest of any century during the record. This conclusion has now been reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress. (with citation as supplied)

Body

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence. The committee found it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However the panel expressed reservations that uncertainties make it difficult to compare individual years and decades of the 20th century with any similar period prior to around 1600.

The report also confirmed the major points of the criticism by MM: the statistical significance of the conclusions about the climate before 1600 is low; the bristlecone pines are not a good temperature proxy; the data and the software should have been made available; and the principal component analysis was not used properly. (with citation as supplied)

It's a bit wordy, but I think it uses everyone's opinion without contradicting either what is in the report or what has already been proposed. I'll add it and see if anyone joins the debate. --Hoggle 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit because it was an argument, not an agreed wording (but kept the change to preceeding millenium rather than record as he had a point). It seems to me that we should keep the words in the introduction to a minimum. We also need to agree the wording in the middle section which I missed from above. It currently reads:

In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that because of substantial uncertainties about the climate before 1600, there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements. [11] For a comparison of the common temperature plots, see [12]. (as per Lumidek)

I would prefer:

In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the first statement was supportable. However, they cannot support the second part of the statement, as it compares fine detail (years and decades) with data that can only be said with confidence to be accurate at a wider resolution. [11] For a comparison of the common temperature plots, see [12].

I think this reflects the actual report more accurately --Hoggle 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The piece removed was not an arguement, it was what was said on pages 3 and 4 of the report:

Reviewing this conclusion, the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress [9] stated that not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward. The report said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries; less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600; and very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

First of all, large-scale quotes may infringe copyright. Secondly, the introduction is not the place for anything other than a brief summary of the conclusions. Thirdly, if you wish to influence the outcome, please register like I did.

As for your argument, the value of individual proxy records is always low. It is only when data over multiple sites is considered that a global or hemispherical average can be obtained. The first part of your quote is not relevant to the preceeding part of the paragraph, which refers to claims by Mann et al from studies using multiple proxy measurements. If you wish to quote a part of the report that sums up the conclusions, how about their own summary:

"In summary, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are proving to be important tools in our understanding of global climate change. They contribute evidence that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries." [[10]]

It may not be the wholehearted support that many people were hoping for, but it's far from the condemnation that Mann's opponents keep trying to twist it into. --Hoggle 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've shifted this discussion to decide the wording of each section, below. This section was getting a bit long. --Hoggle 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences report MUST be here

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Two posters have tried to hide a report by the National Academy of Science, ordered by the U.S. Congress, and its key conclusions. This study is, so far, the most authoritative study of the very subject of this page.

The study has invalidated the scientific conclusions about 1998 being the hottest year in the millenium, the 1990s being the hottest decade in the millenium, and all other major statements that require scientists to know anything about the weather before 1600.

The report of the NAS as we read is the final, complete, and official version of the report. There won't be any developments, and it is absolutely unacceptable to allow anyone to hide this important document from the readers. I hope that no one will try to hide the report again. This is an unconstructive game. You can't hide it forever. How many days do you need to admit that it is the final version of the report that can be described on Wikipedia? --Lumidek 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your 1st sentence; I'm not certain of your 2nd. Also I don't agree with your 2nd para. I disagree with the intent of your 3rd: the report is indeed complete; just like any paper published in a journal. What isn't complete is the digesting of it and consideration of what it means. Clearly it has statements appealling to both sides; finding some balanced text to describe it is going to require more work than you've done. I agree that the report must be here; but not with your text William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the report must be included, and that its conclusions be presented in as unbiased a form as possible. I don't know of any attempts to hide it. The only edits on record are mine (I added it in the first place), yours (which prompted the discussion above) and Mr Connolley's (which was to hold off on interpretation of the report until the wording could be agreed). The study has in no way invalidated the major conclusions about late 20thC warming being uprecedented. It has set out a level of confidence that individual conclusions can be given, and given guidance about the work that would be needed to increase that confidence. If it felt that the conclusions were invalid, it would have said so. I find the characterisation of this discussion process as 'hiding the report' thoroughly disingenuous and disruptive. It is also a lie, since the report has been included since I added it and never removed. Only your personal interpretation (and my correction of it - also personal) has been removed. The consensus description will be added as soon as we achieve it. I am happy with that. - SBO

Dear William, thanks for having clarified your points. I have already digested the key messages of the report, and many people have even read the whole bulk - which does not include me. I don't think it is a task for Wikipedia editors to be re-digesting opinions of NAS. They said what they said, it may look a bit ambiguous, but in principle, it is very clear what they could confirm and what they could not confirm. Your first sentence in which you only say a misleading statement that the "study has in no way invalidated conclusions" etc. shows that it might be nontrivial to negotiate a consensus with you. What I wrote was meant as a draft of the ultimate neutral formulation. I controlled my opinions about the matter tremendously and wrote a proportional summary of their expert opinion. I encourage you to act equally constructively, and only if you have reasons to think that something is inaccurate in my description of their report, or if you think that it does not match the proportion of topics in their reports, edit my comments in a continuous way, the way how Wikipedia works whenever it works well. Your attempts to deny that they have rejected the claims about statistical significance of virtually everything that involves the climate before 1600 - a fact that I wrote in a very diluted way in the article to make particularly you happier - cannot lead anywhere. --Lumidek 21:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I don't know how to sign my comments properly. I guess I should register so things get easier. The second paragraph is mine, not William's - SBO (other comments signed similarly)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Lumidek: yes you're being unusually restrained, which is good. Digesting: you're missing my point, so I'll try again: the NAS report, like any other paper, is a finished object but needs to be placed into context. Youll find I've argued this for both pro- and anti- papers. Ideally, wiki would leave a fair time - a year or more - for scientific stuff to settle down before being included. This is an encyclopedia, not wikinews. However, thats clearly unrealistic for things like this. But I still argue that we should try to leave it for a while. I've tried adding a quote from the report which seems fairier to me. Probably there should be a section for the report; or even a page for it William M. Connolley 07:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear William, in your latest edit of the article, you pretended that you were just changing the introduction, but you actually tried to erase some paragraphs from the bulk - about the statement that 1998 was the hottest year which the NRC report labeled as completely uncertain. What you were trying to paint as a "quote" at the beginning was not a quote. You selectively chose words from a sentence of the report - the only sentence that you like in the report - and separated the words by "..." so that the meaning and focus of that sentence was moreover seriously compromised. Please try to be more reasonable. Read the full summary of the report, if not the full report, and check that my version correctly summarizes the summary. If you think it does not, please explain on the talk page what's the inaccuracy, and make a selective improvement. What you're trying to do borders with vandalism. --Lumidek 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I know its hard for you to assume good faith, but you could try. I eliminated nothing silently; I quite clearly marked it as a revert. I think The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence... the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. is a fairer summary that yours. I don't see anywhere that the report says that large uncertainties make it impossible to compare the 20th century with any period before 1600 - an I notice you don't give a page ref. Nor is In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that because of substantial uncertainties about the climate before 1600, there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements. [11] justified by its ref, as I've said before. Ditto for your last para.

Based on past evidence, I don't see much chance of L and I agreeing, so I invite others to comment on this. William M. Connolley 12:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This second discussion point - should the report be included in the article - is, I think, settled. We all think it should be. There is consensus on that and we should discuss the wording of the inclusion above. --Hoggle 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NRC Report - wording of Introduction

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Starting point

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century is the largest of any century during the preceeding millenium. This conclusion has now been reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress. (with citation).

For legibility I think the structure of the article needs a very short and non-committal introduction, with no comment about what the report says or means, other than the bare fact that they are generally supportive of the preceeding statement. Anything more than that can be included in the body of the article under the appropriate sections. --Hoggle 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We now have this:

In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century is the largest of any century in the record. This conclusion has now been strongly reinforced by the National Research Council's report to the U.S. Congress for 1600 onward. The panel finds it plausible that this also holds for the millennium, but notes that larger uncertainties reduce the confidence in these long-term comparisons.

The first sentence does not seem attributable to the NRC, but rather IPCC [2001]; that is not clear in the article. The second sentence seems like it is saying something important, but it isn't: 1600 was mid LIA. Also, the second sentence seems wrong, because it is talking about a temperature increase, which isn't what the NRC is about. The third sentence just says that it is "plausible" that the temperature (increase) was the largest; that is pretty weak, and seems to mean merely 2-1 odds. I think that the above-quoted part of the article needs reworking. —Daphne A 11:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the LIA, this was claimed by the NRC report to be "roughly 1500 to 1850". —Daphne A 11:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NRC Report - wording of Minimal Variability section

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Starting point

The work of Mann et al., Jones et al., Briffa and others (two citations) forms a major part of the IPCC's conclusion that "the rate and magnitude of global or hemispheric surface 20th century warming is likely to have been the largest of the millennium, with the 1990s and 1998 likely to have been the warmest decade and year" (citation). In 2006, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that because of substantial uncertainties about the climate before 1600, there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements. (citation) For a comparison of the common temperature plots, see (citation).

AFAIK there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements. is Lubos's own invention, not the reports. In fact the report seems to be pretty vague about what it thinks the uncertainties are, pre 1600 William M. Connolley 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Modified

because of substantial uncertainties about the climate before 1600, there exists no sufficient scientific evidence for either of these statements.

to read

data was too sparse to fully support the decadal and single year conclusions. They did, however, confirm the status of the more general conclusion that the last 25 years have been the warmest for a millenium. (see below)

which presents, I think, both interpretations of the report more fairly. --Hoggle 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NRC Report - wording of Reconciliation - MBH section

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Starting point

In 2006, a panel report of the National Academy of Sciences ordered by the U.S. Congress was published. The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence. The committee found it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However the panel expressed reservations that uncertainties make it difficult to compare individual years and decades of the 20th century with any similar period prior to around 1600.

The report also confirmed the major points of the criticism by MM: the statistical significance of the conclusions about the climate before 1600 is low; the bristlecone pines are not a good temperature proxy; the data and the software should have been made available; and the principal component analysis was not used properly. (citation)

I'd like to see page cites for those last 4 William M. Connolley 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed 'similar' to 'similarly short' for clarification of the quality that concerns them. It is only the identification of individual decades and years that they feel is harder to fully support, as the precision of the data before 1600 is too low for a high level of confidence. --Hoggle 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NRC Report - wording of Reconciliation - NRC Report section

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I added this section so that the five main conclusions can be either quoted directly or reworded in brief as I have done. I'm not sure if such a large quote would constitute fair use. It would be good if we could keep opinion, interpretation etc to the other sections and leave this without editorial comment. --Hoggle 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this is a public report for the senate, I'm fairly certain that even large quotes are ok under fair use. Certainly quoting single paragraphs is unproblematic.--Stephan Schulz 22:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to a direct quote --Hoggle 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wegman Report

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I am new here and not particularly familiar with Wikipedia so please forgive me if I am posting something incorrectly. While I am not a paleoclimateist, I do have a foundation in statistics and had been skeptically curious about the methods used in the 1998 IPCC report in the past.

My contribution to the forum was the inclusion in the Criticism section an except and link to a recently released report conducted by independent statisticians (i.e. not related to the pale climate community, nor industry - furthermore conducted pro bono).

As this is likely another step in an interesting discussion I do not consider this to be the final word from the statistical community. The report itself [12] contains the most comprehensive statistical criticism of the reconstructions and are worth linking to in this section. Thank you. ~~~~. D. Salenger

I disagree. The Wegman report looks like a regurgitation of M&M, with very little added and no understanding of climate. The NRC report is far better William M. Connolley 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What you meant to say was that "eminent independent statisticians endorsed M&M's statistical criticisms of MBH" but somehow you did not manage to type it 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect what he wanted to say was: "Statisticians with no background in climate science, but selected by a politically biased body, claim to confirm criticism of one temperature reconstruction, but fail to address about 15 others showing similar results, and (so far) fail to get their work published in any established scientific journal (or any other peer-reviewed venue)." --Stephan Schulz 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that the Wegman report has simply repeated the original critique of the 1998 Mann et al paper (NB NOT the IPCC report!) by M&M which has some validity in statistics. All of the valid criticisms of the original work have been addressed and corrected where necessary and the original conclusions are fundamentally unchanged. It is futile to keep changing things back and forth every time someone re-states the original arguments. Yes, the 1998 studies had some statistical errors. Yes the US government, who funded the study, are looking at it very closely to see if their money was mis-spent. No, the work has not been invalidated or reduced in importance. No, the political shananigans do not belong on this page except as a sidenote. This page is about the state of paleoclimate research NOW - not just an argument over one paper published 8 years ago that, let's face it, was the first of its kind. As such, it should reflect the emerging consensus that temperatures in the past few decades are unprecedented over the preceeding 1000 or more years. The processes and methodologies have been revised and improved over that time, and the Wegman report merely advises a greater use of statisticians in government-funded paloeclimate research (what else would you expect from a committee representing the interests of statisticians) to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. In a debate over the management of government science programmes, it is appropriate to study the report. In a page discussing scientific findings it only deserves a footnote and reference.

If the anonymous newcomer wishes to add the quote, I trust he will accept a quote from Mann rebutting it, in the interests of balance. --Hoggle 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoggle, unless I am not using wiki correctly, my name is at the end of my post. William, the NRC report may be 'better' from a general topic view. This report is strictly interested in the statistical methods employed in climate reconstructions - depth versus breadth.

Fair point, missed it. Welcome to the bloodbath Mr Salenger :) --Hoggle 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen, I found your quote partially correct - The statisticians do not have a background in climate science. However, we could just as easily say that the climate scientists in question are not recognized experts in statistics nor have they published per reviewed articles in the appropriate statistical journals in which they could demonstrate the validity of their methods).

Finally, your suggestion that the statisticians were selected by a politically biased body is not correct. Only Wegman himself was tasked by Congress. Do you have reason to call his intellectual integrity or statistical expertise into question? Or perhaps that of his colleagues? You are free to argue the merits of the research but this is a low blow and not useful in this type of conversation.

Please continue to read the report. From a statistical perspective it is more a condemnation of the mathematical methods used in these types of reconstructions than solely a condemnation of the IPCC research. 69.255.1.237 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) D. Salenger

Professor Wegman's responses to questions from Representative Stupak can be found here - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf. Interesting also for the display of social networks that involve Dr Mann. He makes it clear that he is not commenting on anthropogenic global warming, merely the fact that the methodology used by Mann is such that it will show a hockey stick whatever data is put in - CynicalSurprise.

How odd then that he says the hockey stick shape must be in the data to start with or the CFR methodology would not pick it up. Are we perhaps reading different reports? William M. Connolley 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary, 17 July 2006

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In order to avoid going into too much detail in the edit summary, I need to explain that the source link WMC complains about ("How about this quote instead, actually sourced to a page rather than lazily the entire report?") was originally added by Lumidek (here), not me. And I thought it was appropriate, not lazy, to link the the first page of the report, since the entire sentence dealt with more than just page 106. --Spiffy sperry 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Its still lazy - its a long report; linking to the first page is well nigh useless. And since I'm here, I didn't much appreciate your previous edit summary William M. Connolley 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer 3 links to 3 different pages, rather than 1 link to the beginning? I don't like the Open Book format at darwin.nap.edu (sep. link for each page), but I can't control that.

And about my previous edit summary ("WMC hid a deletion in his last revert, or reverted to far"), I was going to apologize, but changed my mind. I could come up with 2 explanations for your revert on July 16, which I portrayed in my edit summary.

1. You reverted 86.17.239.73 to Dragons flight (the most recent version), while at the same time deleting/changing material without explanation in your edit summary ("rv nonsense"). When I see "rv" in the edit summary, I assume there were no other edits other than the revert unless told otherwise, an assumption I'm sure other editors would see is reasonable.
2. You reverted 86.17.239.73 to William M. Connolley (14 edits prior), without explaining that you were going that far back, which was peculiar since 3 editors managed to revert 4 times without losing useful information. When I see "rv" in the edit summary without a description of what it was reverted to, I assume that it was reverted to the most recent version prior to the offending author(s). If this is the case, then you were calling the addition of a direct quote from the NAS report "nonsense". While we demonstrated that it could be improved, it certainly wasn't nonsense.

--Spiffy sperry 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Article

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added a link to this and the Steve McIntyre quote, as it should prevent people from over-attributing the relevance of the debate to modern climate change.

Not sure why you quote P, when RC said it first... anyway, its oddly positioned. It might be better in the intro to qualify the relevance of all this William M. Connolley 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased sampling?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I removed this section:

Biased sampling

In the paper Reconstruction of past climate using series with red noise, David R. B. Stockwell showed that by using the methodology of dendroclimatology, but using red noise instead of tree ring data, one can reproduce the hockey stick graph.

The steps to construction were as follows:
1. Generate 100 sequences of 2000 random numbers with long term persistent (LTP) stochastic process. 2. Select sequences with a positive correlation with CRU. 3. Average the selected series.
The series show a ‘hockey-stick’ pattern due to step 2 - only those random series correlating with temperatures are selected. This step is analogous to only using trees with positive correlation with temperatures. Outside the range of the calibration temperatures the average of the series reverts to the mean value of the random numbers, which in this case is the chosen zero value of the calibration temperatures. This leads to an upward drift in values back through time.[13]

The tree ring data used in dendroclimatology is calibrated using recent data, for which we have measured temperatures with which to compare. But the fact that this recent data is used in calibration means that it is biased, and so should not be used. Thus, the blade of the hockey stick may be a product of the calibration process.

First of all, its nothing to do with biased sampling. And its not a paper. And I've no idea what IAG news is. AFAIK the article itself is obscure, and in particular not cited by either of the recent reports. And its methodology (particularly the formation of the noise) is too brief to assess on its own. So I don't think it belongs William M. Connolley 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Original publication is here: http://www.aig.org.au/pdf/AIGNews_Mar06_revised.pdf (SEWilco 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. The next article is by the inimitable Louis Hissink... William M. Connolley 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

--- Other Sources

The discussion might benefit from a review of independant reconstruction of temperature trends in the recent past. Much of the discussion here concentrates n the Mann paper and its detractors. I recommend addition of a sectiuon on other studies. One example could be the borhole data found at the NOAA site

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/core.html

Inclussion of the temperature diagram provided there may add to this article. . NOAA says "the diagram below is a global perspective of surface temperature change over the last five centuries, averaged from 837 individual reconstructions. The thick red line represents the mean surface temperature since 1500 relative to the present-day. The shading represents ± one standard error of the mean. Shown in blue for comparision is the global mean surface air temperature (five year running average) derived from instrumental records by P.D. Jones and colleagues at the University of East Anglia"

Hockey Stick in Intro

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Although there is a redirect there should be something like "...commonly known as the 'hockey stick graph..." or such in the intro. The intro should mention that there are skeptical studies on the graph. Sparkzilla 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Which graph are you talking about? Our diagram plots 10 different studies. And if you are referring to Wegman and M&M, they are themselves severely criticised (so where do we cut this off?), and they only deal with one of the 10 reconstructions.--Stephan Schulz 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment proves my point. This page redirects from hockey stick graph so it should say which of the graphs is actually the hockey stick graph, and should deal with the controversy surrounding the hockey stick graph. Otherwise please make a separate page dealing with the hockey stick graph because this page does not enlighten the reader.

Also, are you saying that because a critical study is criticised that it should not be mentioned? To me, that is the definition of "controversial" and therefore the controversiality of the hockey stick should be mentioned in the intro.

We have a whole section with several subsections on the criticism. But in the introduction, we should not give undue weight to this one issue. MBH98 is just one of several temperature reconstructions. And the Wegman report, while politically influential, a) is not a peer reviewed publication (i.e. has much less scientific weight) and b) even if correct, does not refute MBH reconstruction, but only claims it is not reliable. This does not belong into the general introduction.--Stephan Schulz 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point: who exactly do you mean by "our" in the phrase "our diagram"? Do you mean the original researchers or their critics? Surely the critics have a diffeerent idea of what the graph should look like? Or do you classify that as "their" diagram? Does their diagram merit inclusion in this discussion or not? Your claim of ownership shows your bias.Sparkzilla 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does deal with the controversy surrounding the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes reconstruction at length, but that is far from being the only reconstruction of the last 1000 years. "Our diagram" simply refers to the figure currently appearing in Wikipedia, which is a composite of 10 different studies. Please try to avoid reading too much into things. Dragons flight 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not avoid the question. Who does the "our" in "our diagram" refer to?Sparkzilla 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We, as in wikipedians, i.e. "us". It is Wikipedia's diagram, so it is "our" diagram. If you are really asking who's information is in the figure, then go read about it Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png. Dragons flight 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not my diagram. You really are in no position to speak for all wikipedians. Sparkzilla 16:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never written one word on russian literature, therapeutic cloning, or the Third Reich, but I'm still happy to say that those are our articles on those subjects. Maybe I'll even disagree with what they say (the last two choices are intentionally controversial), but they are still part of a project I care about and feel allied with. I would hope that you would share in that sense of community. Dragons flight 16:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you have no right to speak for all wikipedians. You are part of an ongoing process, not the end of it.Sparkzilla 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also noticed that on the Stephen McIntyre page that there is a whole section on "The Hockey Stick Controversy". If this "Temperature record of the past 1000 years" page is the redirect from the "Hockey Stick graph" page then why is this controversy not mentioned here in the same terms? That means mentioning it in the intro and creating a section called "Hockey Stick controversy" As it reads now, you would think there was no controversy at all. Sparkzilla 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "Hockey Stick" is mentioned in the section "Reconstructions with minimal variability", with a "read below" pointing to "Mann, Bradley and Hughes temperature reconstructions". I've added the term there to make this relation even clearer.--Stephan Schulz 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Sparkzilla's changes [14]. Some of them were fair, but I think pushed too far. This page has a constant tension as to just how much its about the T recon; and how much about the controversy.

I didn't like the demoting of In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century, and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the (reconstructed) record. downwards; and if the section name gets changed to crit of the HS, I don't see why there shouldn't be a "defence of the HS"; but then that would get silly. And The methodolgy used in creating the graph has been called into question, most notably by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. in the intro is unbalanced, without mentioning that the other 9/10 graphs haven't been questionned William M. Connolley 16:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the other 9/10 graphs have not been questioned yet, but it does still not take away from the situation where the most important graph, the HS, is involved in major controversy.Sparkzilla 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Make that "haven't been questionned in peer-reviewed literature". There is a category on "other multiproxy studies" at Climate Audit, and 4/9 of the "haven't been questionned" studies even have their own subcategory. There is indeed some questioning going on, and SM gets told repeatedly to publish on some other studies. --Spiffy sperry 17:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeeeesss... I knew that. But I think thats been around for a while. We don't restrict ourselves to peer-reviewed stuff entirely, but. I would have thought that if he were going to publish his crits, he would have done so. Is there any hint there that he is in press or anything? William M. Connolley 17:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

William, if there are valid points in what I say they should be worked into the intro, not reverted. Once again, this page is the redirect from HS, so it should mention HS in the intro, and should address the HJS controversy directly, otherwise a separate page should be made that specifically addresses the HS issue.Sparkzilla 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That this page is a redirect from HS means nothing at all. There probably should be a separate page for the "issues" William M. Connolley 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found this page in the first place by entering "Hockey stick graph" into the Wikipedia search box. I was somewhat surprised that it was not mentioned in the text. Anyway, I think it is mentioned enough to satisfy future searchers now. Sparkzilla 09:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"In all cases"

Latest comment: 18 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

The article says 'In all cases, the increase in temperature in the 20th century, and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the (reconstructed) record.' Is this verifiably true in all cases?Sparkzilla 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true by inspection. No? William M. Connolley 09:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a claim, not the truth - truth is the invention of a liar... --ghw 09:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

William, are you sure that EVERY model confirms this, even the models of the skeptics? Happy to leave it as-is if true. Sparkzilla 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, you mean even the secret ones they keep under their beds and don't show anyone? Of course, I inspect them all... But of course, no, the text refers to those plotted on the graph, so you may inspect them yourself William M. Connolley 10:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to be facetious. If the text refers to the diagram (and to the ten studies on the chart) that should be made clear -- it wasn't to me, and isn't to the casual reader. I also don't know what you mean by JG? Could you explain? Sparkzilla 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any serious global temperature reconstructions forwarded by the "sceptic" side. The closest I have seen was a 50 year interval sampling of the Sargasso Sea temperature by looking at calcium isotope ratios (and drawn by connecting the dots with straight lines, no error bars given...). As far as I know, our (as in "the one currently in the article") diagram has all reasonable recent studies that have been published in a serious scientific venue. If you are aware of more studies, I'm certain DF will be able to integrate them. --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case I think it could be better phrased. How about, According to ten major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see neighboring graph) the increase in temperature in the 20th century, and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the (reconstructed) record. Sorry to be pedantic, but "all" is not really clear enough. Sparkzilla 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's loosing the point that there are no comparable competing studies. --Stephan Schulz 12:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about... According to all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals (see neighboring graph) the increase in temperature in the 20th century, and the temperature in the late 20th century is the highest in the (reconstructed) record. Is this correct, even when considering SM & RM? Sparkzilla 12:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good text. I'd probably loose the "(see neighboring graph)". The connection should be obvious without it. As far as I know, M&M have no temperature reconstruction of their own (and a grand total of one peer-reviewed paper in a rather obscure journal on the topic).--Stephan Schulz 12:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be three peer-reviewed papers, and one of them was in the same journal (GRL) as 3 of the 10 reconstructions featured here. --Spiffy sperry 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do you have any pointers? I suspect you talk about Energy and Environment, which at least I don't consider a repectable scientific journal. It is not, for example, recognized by ISI. --Stephan Schulz 15:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He was talking about GPL. Are you sure it is a "rather obscure journal"? Or is it your POV which seems to be coming through strongly? 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I knew about the Geophysical Research Letters publication (and I consider that a rather obscure journal, compared to e.g. Science and Nature, in which 4 of the studies in the graph are published). I was wondering about the other two Spiffy was referring to. All I could find was a paper in E&E. --Stephan Schulz 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the article in GRL (which has MBH99, by the way), there's two articles in E&E, the orginal one in 2003 and a 2005 update. You can find it all at Climate Audit. --Spiffy sperry 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I searched on Climate Audit, but found things not easy to find (ptp). And thanks for DF for correcting me about GRL. I may have confused that with some other journal. --Stephan Schulz 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As for "Energy and Environment", you will find it in an ISI list at http://scientific.thomson.com/isilinks/journals/e/ 22:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what that list is but ISI does not index E&E. GRL is the only place indexed by ISI that McIntyre and McKitrick have published together. However, I would not characterize GRL as obscure. Though not the equal of Nature, it is definitely a major publication and one of the top journals specializing in earth science. Dragons flight 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you look at the NAS Panel or the Wegman report? Or just read the statement from MBH theirselves in Nature 442, 627(10 August 2006) admitting the uncertainties and important caveats of their own work? The hypothesis, that there has never been a warmer period in the last 2000 years does not have a significant scientific basis (according to the limitations and uncertainties of the used data and methods).--ghw 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

None of these changes the truth of the sentence. It only points out that the reliability of the reconstructions goes down for earlier time periods. Is the "2000" a typo? Both the article and the graph discuss just the last 1000 years... --Stephan Schulz 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the pointer to the graph for clarity. Text added. Sparkzilla 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

McIntyre Quote

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Steve McIntyre has recently been quoted as saying "I'm inclined to agree that, for the most part, the Hockey Stick does not matter to the great issue of the impact of 2xCO2." and this is a point of agreement on both sides

This quote appears to be taken out of context with respect to this page. The quote appears to have undue weight, and makes it appear that SMcIntyre is in agreement about the temperature record. This page is about the temperature record, not the impact of CO2. Could someone help clarify this? Sparkzilla 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions about sub-sections

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I did a restructuring to improve the flow. No data was removed, just moving text around to make it read better. The restructuring raisies questions about the following sections:

1. Reconciliation of the two approaches I think this should be a sub-section inside the General Techniques section (ie no underline), but I think it needs some clarification. In the section it says the two approaches are historical and statistical, but that is not clear in the preceding sections

2. Uncertainties and limitations Perhaps this should include a wider discussion of unceratintains in models, rather than the focus on one particular instance. Also, I think this should also be a sub-section (no underline) General techniques section.

Looking at the content of these sections again, I wonder if they couldn't be combined into a discussion of the limitations of models. In other words, put the Reconciliation section's text inside the Uncertainties and Limitations section. Another possibility would be to rename the "criticisms of Temperature models" to "Debate about Temperature Models" and put it all in there. Sparkzilla 11:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

statistical and historical is itself a historical phrase... much of the past debate has been about the difference between MBH and the "known fact" that there was a global LIA/MWP - that is the "historical" reconstruction approach. For example... this version. The qual/quant distinction seems to have got lost in the present version of the article in favour of different version of the quant record. Note that explains the somewhat orphan Baliunas text William M. Connolley 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a big edit where I try to create a good flow in the overall text. I added the qualitative section back in. I also tidied the "debate" timeline. It seems a lot more readable now, although there may be some typos and minor formatting errors. I removed is the the McIntyre quote due to undue weight (see above) and some repetition of NSA and M&M text in the "debate" section. Comments welcome. Sparkzilla 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the substance of the quote in the intro, but sourced it to RC instead... its an important piece of information, often forgotten William M. Connolley 17:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

rv TheSeven: why

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I reverted TS's changes. Specifically he cut but M&M offered no explanation as to why their analysis also differs from other reconstructions [15]. with no explanation; the fact that M&M differ from all the other recons, not just MBH, is worth noting. Changing "actual results" to "conclusions" doesn't make much sense either: the point is that all the numbers remain unchanged William M. Connolley 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The analysis of M&M is solely deconstructive: they criticize others for errors in statistics, etc.. All others have made similar errors. So the statement that you make is not true. (Your last sentence doesn't make sense to me.) TheSeven 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, M&M offered a "what it would look like with errors corrected". As to my last sentence... oh dear. The "correction" of MBH changed none of the results at all (all it did was clarify the sources). So changing results to conclusions weakens things: just "conclusions" leaves scope for the idea that the results changed somewhat, but not enough to affect the conclusions. Whereas what actually happened was no change at all. You knew that, yes? William M. Connolley 15:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

M&M have never suggested a reconstruction. It is true, however, that some of their opponents have claimed that they suggested a reconstruction, and then criticized them for that. So perhaps you have been misled. There is a brief mention of this issue in the Wegman report (p.48). I now understand your point about "results" versus "conclusions". TheSeven 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. M&M indeed produced a picture of what they said the curve would look like, with what they said were MBHs errors fixed. See [16] which is the archived copy. Its figure 8 William M. Connolley 09:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

M&M did make that "corrected" figure, but they have argued that the underlying MBH is fundementally inadequate for making long-term temperature interpretations. The result is that they do not believe that even the corrected figure should be interpreted as a temperature reconstruction. Hence, from their point of view, they have never published or endorsed any temperature reconstructions, even though they have at various times published plots that certainly look like temperature reconstructions. Dragons flight 17:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that William M. Connolley 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The above issue does not seem to have been reasonably resolved. For now, then, I have put a Noncompliant sticker on the article. TheSeven 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the very narrow definition of temperature reconstruction biases the viewpoint of the article. This also affects the "In all cases" section above. Sparkzilla 09:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the non-con tag as being appropriate, so I've removed it William M. Connolley 09:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because you have no doubt does not mean there is not a dispute. --Facethefacts 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The tags should be added, as appropriate, by those actively involved. Which excludes you William M. Connolley 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I come at times, but then your rudeness keeps driving me off. You even copied Image:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png from my Image:IPPC 1990 MBH 1999 Moberg 2005.png without attribution. --Facethefacts 22:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a silly person. And of course I didn't copy you - I did it properly William M. Connolley 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have contributed on the subject before and you are again trying to drive me off with rudeness. Point made. --Facethefacts 23:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

'Disputed' tag

Latest comment: 18 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

In reviewing this article I don't see any basis for the disputed tag and thus have removed it. The problems with this article have to do with organization and writing style, not factual accuracy. I'll work on organization over the next few days. Raymond Arritt 23:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it takes (at least) two to dispute, and if you think you can judge on your own whether there is not a dispute then it might be worth reconsidering your position. --Facethefacts 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

An accuracy dispute in the Wikipedia sense has a more structured meaning than simply saying "I disagree." Please see WP:AD where you will find the following:

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

* it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.

* it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.

* in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.

* it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

The implication is that a disputant should give his reasons for adding the tag, so that the article can be improved (which is the whole point of the exercise). Which specific parts of the present article are of concern to which specific criteria above? If there are particular sections that are in dispute, then tag those sections. Tagging the whole article implies that the whole article is full of unverified information. Reading the article shows that simply isn't the case -- on the whole, the article is appropriately supported with references.

If you give your specific concerns we may be able to improve the article by dealing with them. But simply hanging a {{disputed}} tag on the article isn't helpful. 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the disputed tag is given in the prior Discussion, and should also be clear from the History. To repeat, the statement "M&M offered no explanation as to why their analysis also differs from other reconstructions" is grossly misleading: M&M have never proposed a reconstruction, they have only criticized other reconstructions. I and others have tried to correct the error, but WMC reinserts it. If that statement were deleted, then the disputed tag could be removed. (I am also concerned about the article's discussion of M&M's GRL paper, but that is not a factual issue, rather NPOV.) TheSeven 08:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rv'd to RA. THe sentence isn't misleading, let alone grossly; I've provided a ref to their *analysis* not reconstruction William M. Connolley 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear what the problem is. WMC regularly introduces apologetics, often with a link to his group blog. A typical example is this edit: [17]. It is a highly controversial issue, in this case because claiming current tempratures are likely to be the highest in the last 1000 years was a significant part of what IPCC TAR put forward and highlighted [18]. Playing it down now may be a change of opinion by some people, but the IPCC has not said so (yet) so it does not belong here. Wikipedia is not for propoganda, and many of WMC's edits are unsuitable. He then decides he is happy with the article and cannot see any reason for dispute. This is an abuse of Wikipedia and very ego-centric. The article certainly is disputed and WMC has a history of making diputed edits making it seem like another of his personal soapboxes. --Facethefacts 08:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear what the problem is: drive-by edits by GW skeptics who don't know what they are talking about. If you look at the D+A chapter of the TAR, which RA has kindly provided a link for, you'll find nearly 2 pages of summary of D+A; less than 2 lines are about the 1000-y T record. There is no change of opinion; it remains a minor part of D+A William M. Connolley 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked ArbCom about WMC's recent actions, which seem very much inappropriate. TheSeven 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [You'll be pleased that you've got a response then [19] William M. Connolley 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]

I agree that the article is misleading and does not have NPOV. To some extent the problem is that the definition of "temperature reconstructions" is too narrow. M&M may not have made an actual reconstruction, but their analysis is an important part of this debate and should be included. The narrow definition of which peer-reviewed journal is important only to academics. The graph should go because the narrow definition of "all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals" is completely misleading. This debate is wider than pure academia.

As an example of how narrow this page is, I had to edit this page to even mention the Hockey Stick (which this page redirects from). The outside world hears "Hockey Stick" and wants to know what it means? If they came here they would think that the debate was minimal, and that the issue had been decided.

To WMC: With all due respect, you have great knowledge about this subject, but you do not own this page. Open discussion of the debate, and a bit of give and take with regard to the general reader, will lead to a better page for all. Thank you. Sparkzilla 09:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear S, here we see the problem with the skeptics: they have no real position: its Lawyers science. You think the graph should go, because you think M+Ms reconstruction should be in it. Others however insist that mentioning M+M's analysis being incompatible with everyone else is unacceptable William M. Connolley 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I said the graph should go because its definition is so narrow as to be misleading. Even if M&M did not make a reconstruction, the graph, by not taking their research into acocount, gives a false impression of the debate. The graph should be removed because it says that there is no debate, when in fact there is. And that is just one example.

You may well have a strong position, but this page is not just about your opinion, your position, nor even about your facts. This page is not the place to attempt to prove who is correct. It is not is not "WMC vs the skeptics". It should be an overview of the issues and the debate around them. Much as some would like this to be a purely scientific discussion, the temperature record of the past 1000 year is actaully a wider issue, and all aspects of the debate should be addressedSparkzilla 10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The temperature record of the past 1000 years is a purely scientific issue. No amount of debating skill, advertising, or political posturing will change it. The graph does show all serious temperature reconstructions. M&M have raises some issues with one of them, and apparently have not made it clear if they offer an alternative reconstruction or are just generally sceptical about the process. Of course we can (and should) include criticism and the political debate, but without undue weight, and without giving the appearance that they have the same weight than the actual published (peer-reviewed) science.--Stephan Schulz 10:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"The graph does show all serious temperature reconstructions" surely depends on what YOU narrowly define as serious ie. your POV. The graph gives a misleading impression to the reader that everyone who is "serious" is in agreement, when they are not. I came to this page to find out more about the hockey stick and I found very little to let me understand the debate about it, some of which is clearly political.. If you do not include the wider debate, and insist on narrow definitions, then the page has to be classed as inaccurate. Sparkzilla 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

M&M *have* specifically denied doing a temperature reconstruction, so they don't get included in the graph. They have published an "analysis" which disagreed with all the others, showing a very warm MWP. The graph shos all the reconstructions; saying that its misleading is bizarre. Given the extensive section on the Debate, If you do not include the wider debate and I found very little to let me understand the debate about it is also bizarre. I suspect that what you mean is, "I don't find things to fit my POV emphasised right at the top", but thats another matter William M. Connolley 11:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it. The statement "all major temperature reconstructions published in peer-reviewed journals" may be accurate, but it is misleading because it presents a narrow sub-set of analyses. The fact that M&M have not published their own reconstruction is irrelevant -- they dispute the temperature reconstructions in that graph, therefore the graph does not show the full picture. At the very least the graph and accompanying text should be labelled as being in dispute. Sparkzilla 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very funny: major peer-rev stuff has become, in your mind, a narrow sub-set of analyses. No, they are the mainstream of the scientific view on this topic. YOu're now down to arguing that yes, all the major peer-rev stuff says this, but we should balance it by minor or non-peer-rev? The graph is accurately described. M&M get a mention in the intro, and thats fair enough, they get about as much space as they deserve William M. Connolley 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again you miss the point. It's not about balance. I dont care if M&M's graph is on their or not. The graph attempts to show that there is consensus on the temperature record when there isn't. It's misleading, and it should be removed. Sparkzilla 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You destroy yourself: you suggest that we should have this article *without a graph of the various reconstructions*, just because someone has disputed *one* of the reconstructions? Try to take this seriously William M. Connolley 17:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Much as some would like this to be a purely scientific discussion, the temperature record of the past 1000 year is actaully a wider issue, and all aspects of the debate should be addressed". I find this amusing - despite the fact that it's an interpretation of scientific data, we need everyone's input, especially those of people who follow their "gut"? Right? Are we talking about GW or creationism? Or maybe the Iraq war? It's so hard to tell - the arguments are all exactly the same... Guettarda 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The keyword here is "an interpretation".Sparkzilla 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? (Being less cryptic is helpful) Guettarda 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You said: I find this amusing - despite the fact that it's an interpretation of scientific data. Interpretation = politics = POV. A major issue on this page is how to balance the different interpretations of the data, scientiofic or otherwise. Sparkzilla 17:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Interpretation = politics = POV"? Wow. So you have just dismissed the entire enterprise of science? Data without interpretation isn't science. Science is about the interpretation of data in accordance with the scientific method. Sure, science isn't without cultural context and all that crap, but it has less than any other means of knowing and it is fundamentally self-correcting. If you are a postmodern relativist who believes that there is no reality beyond what you construct for yourself, I see how you might have a problem with science. But then, I have no idea how you would write any encyclopaedia article if you believe that sort of stuff. Guettarda 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That may be science but it is not Wikipedia. We can quote the IPCC's interpretation (though they did not say it was "minor") or Real Climate or Dr William Connolley's later interpretation. But we cannot put it forward as a fact. That is not how Wikipedia works.--Facethefacts 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you were quite willing to assert that it was of "major" importance despite the fact that IPCC never said so, and now you're criticizing others for saying it's of "minor" importance. You're painting yourself into a corner with regard to your latter point (on how Wikipedia works). Raymond Arritt 20:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit the IPCC did not say "major", they just put it in the summary and other documents. But nor did they say "minor". So why not accept my compromise and leave it out of the introduction? --Facethefacts 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)