Jump to content

Talk:Michael E. Mann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnMashey (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 10 January 2023 (→Restore 3 awards in the Infobox: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Biases and omissions

Throughout the article it is difficult to discern where Mann’s own beliefs end and those of the writer(s) begin. There also appears to be a deliberate suppression of facts regarding Mann’s litigation woes. In particular, there is not a word here about Mann’s parallel lawsuit against the climatologist Dr. Tim Ball which is currently proceeding in British Columbia and which has resulted in a demand from the BC Supreme Court that Mann submit to it certain relevant research data, a demand which Mann has so far refused to comply with. The "Hockey Stick" section egregiously fails to mention the central contention of Mann’s critics, namely his suppression of the so-called Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age data. No use going to the Hockey Stick article as it appears to have been written by these same people. Orthotox (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your biases and omissions are noticed, as is your lack of verifiability from reliable sources. You are of course flatly wrong about the MWP and the LIA. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ball case: retraction and apology to Mann

And superseded by the latest news from the Tim Ball case – * "Retraction and Apology to Michael Mann". Frontier Centre For Public Policy. 7 June 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2019. ..... dave souza, talk 19:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources for speculation about the Tim Ball case, well sourced articles show that MBH published data and methods but still WP:BLP–flouting allegations though "we don't have any reliable source as to what information Mann was asked for, or even if this was an issue for the court." Section closed: open new section to discuss when you've got the required RS's. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Tim Ball case: Mann Lost

It seems to me that the loss in court by Mann, with costs to Dr. Ball should be added to the page and include a cross link to Tim Ball's page. The reference should be the actual BC court ruling. This can be found at https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Mann v. Ball, 2019 BCSC 1580 Date: 20190822 Docket: S111913 Registry: Vancouver Between: Michael Mann Plaintiff And: Timothy ("Tim") Ball Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi

Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Plaintiff: R. McConchie Counsel for the Defendant, Timothy (“Tim”) Ball: M. Scherr D. Juteau Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. May 27 and August 22, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 22, 2019

The line about ""we don't have any reliable source as to what information Mann was asked for, or even if this was an issue for the court." has been clearly answered by the court in the judge's document.


The case was dismissed with prejudice and $700,000 in costs were awarded to Ball. All a matter of public court record and yet omitted. Instead we get the hyper partisan WP gatekeeper POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.175.220 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New comments July 2020

"In 2011 the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Tim Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy." - A reference is missing, the reader cannot look from the original, what exactly Ball said about Mann. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good... we don't publish he said she said allegations per WP:BLP and in any case the later apology supercedes whatever fingerpointing may have been waggled earler.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead the case was dismissed due to delay, for which Mann and his legal team were held responsible." - In so far, the actual defamation claims have not been formulated in this article. Moreover, some climate sceptics write that Mann failed to present his raw data to the court. This information should be included in the article or the corresponding claim should be commented. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear exactly what changes you want or what WP:Reliable sources you propose to use to support those changes. And since the lawsuit is now over, and the court is satisfied, it's also not clear why things that were not decided by the court matter for this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Court documents as RS

Wait! Dave Souza, I can't believe you cited a detail about the Steyn case to a court document. For my part, I've never understood what's wrong with doing that; my personal opinion is that court documents are excellent and wholly reliable sources. But for at least the 10 yrs. or more I've worked on articles you were involved with, you've been a real stickler for following that rule and numerous times have blocked the addition of facts to an article because they were cited to court documents. What's up now? I find this irregular in your behavior, yet support it. Just asking for an explanation of the anomaly. If I had the time, I would try to get the policy changed. YoPienso (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Since we've ended up citing another case to a court document, and think this is reasonably uncontroversial, have given in and accepted that the policy does allow them to be used with care. There will be cases where court documents are unsuitable, and I'm open to persuasion, but gather you're ok with it in this instance. Will now try to get back to editing somewhat less controversial 19th century history, memory lapses permitting. . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. YoPienso (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the denial industry will now quote our article, concentrating on the "delay" part, as confirmation for their mendacious interpretation "Mann failed to lay open his data". Because the court document as a primary source does not expand what that delay means, they will fill the vacuum with lies. That is one reason a reliable secondary source would be better, if it existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "rule" are we talking about? Court documents are great sources, if used correctly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically requires us to exercise extreme caution in using primary sources, and not use court records to support assertions about a living person. From 22 August there were multiple attempts to cover dismissal of the Ball case, based on blogs or CC denial sources. Mann's FB page and tweets had evidence it was dismissed for delay. When a primary court source was cited at Talk:Tim Ball giving only the fact that the case had been dismissed, I raised it at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball. That discussion (permalink) continued until the court judgment was published, so the current edits to both Ball's and Mann's bios are based on that primary source: if you think they can be improved, do so with care.
As far as I've found, there are only two reasonable mainstream secondary sources, and they're both in German. Pohlmann, Dirk (3 September 2019). "Der Klimaschwindel". Rubikon (in German). Retrieved 17 September 2019. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) google translate looks to me to be a good account, it notes fake claims and points out that the data and methods are available, and says the case "was discontinued because Professor Ball described himself as old, ill and implausible". There was some resistance at BLPN to the usability of the publication. Marjanovic, Petar (18 September 2019). "Klimaforscher Michael Mann erlebt Shitstorm nach Fake-News". Blick (in German). Retrieved 19 September 2019. is another source. If anyone, preferably better at Deutsch than me, wants to make the case for these, or if anyone can find a better source, that will be good. . . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very strange that when the court decress says foo we may not report "the court said foo" but have to wait until we can say "Y said the court said foo". But thanks, I didn't know that was in BLPPRIMARY NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I first heard of the "secondary sources are better" rule, it seemed strange to me too. Second-hand information is more reliable??? What?
But primary sources are often rather like "raw data" that have to be interpreted, because they are written by specialized experts who are bad at explaining things to laymen. Having another layer between those and an encyclopedia article is good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. Court documents are public and usually easily accessible which makes them exceptionally reliable. The two main reasons editors often argue against them are: 1) to protect living people (WP:BLP) and 2) because they're hoping a biased media source will spin the court findings in the direction that they prefer. Whenever you see an editor switching positions on whether they can be used or not, it usually means they're in the latter camp. 140.139.236.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a final judgement (which is a primary source and should be used with caution, especially if its not final), and other court documents, especially those filed by the parties. The later are extremely rarely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following links as contra WP:EL, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTDIRECTORY I leave them here for possible future article development, not excessive indiscriminate promotion. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore 3 awards in the Infobox

On 31 December 2022, Edwardx deleted 8 of 11 Awards from the Infobox, deprecating them as "few of the many awards are really notable". I propose to restore 3, for a total of 6, adding back 3 awards whose recipients are quite distinguished:

1) The 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, a $200,000 prize which as Wikipedia page says, is "regarded as the "Nobel for environment". I attended this awards ceremnony.

2) The American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS) 2018 Public Engagement with Science Award, list of recipients. AAAS has 120,000 members, spread around the world, and as Wikipedia says "the world's largest general scientific society." It publishes the journal Science, which as Wikipedia says, is "one of the world's top academic journals." I'm an AAAS member and have attended several of the big yearly meetings.

3) The American Geophysical Union(AGU) 2018 Climate Communications Prize, list of recipients AGU is the leading geosciences society. I'm a member of AGU, have attended half a dozen of the big Fall meetings, including one of the awards ceremonies. This award only started in 2011, as AGU finally realized that communication about climate change to the public was very important.

All these awards are notable, especially because it is relatively rare to get awards for BOTH contributions to science (the 3 now in Infobox plus 1) AND for communications to public, 2) and 3) here. Edwardx's deletion erased the communications awards. JohnMashey (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_E._Mann&oldid=1132667625"