Talk:Steve McIntyre

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 Apr 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Graduate Degree

The fact that McIntyre doesn't have a graduate degree was added to the article, with the explanation that "I think since he is known for commenting in a technical way on scientific matters, the lack of an advanced degree is worth explictly noting". I respectfully disagree. Should An Inconvenient Truth include the fact that Gore doesn't have an advanced degree (he has a BA)? Should Mann state that he is not a statistician, since his most well known paper was largely an exercise in the statistical handling of existing data? I'm certain that both of these would be deleted as POV, as the implication is that this makes their views somewhat inferior. --Spiffy sperry 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, Al Gore doesn't claim to be making a technical contribution to the debate; he is an expositor not a scientist. Michael Mann has a PhD from Yale in Geology and Geophysics; he doubtless had serious training in statistics and applied math as part of that. McIntyre's CV mentions coursework in group theory, algebraic topology and differential manifolds (areas which have no connection to statistics). I'm guessing he must have taken at least a course or two in analysis (the area of pure math closest to statistics), but the point is he has very little formal training that is directly relevant. Ultimately, of course his arguments stand or fall (radians vs. degrees anyone?) on their own merits, but still his qualifications are highly unusual for someone in McIntyre's situation and therefore worthy of note. Crust 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, McIntyre doesn't claim to have a graduate degree. So to mention it in this way is POV. (Although it is ambiguous. I think it's interesting that someone without an advanced degree can find errors in a peer-reviewed paper, but that's POV too.) Second, I am not one to assume what Mann knows about statistics. [1] Third, your remark about radians vs. degrees reveals alot. You do know that McIntyre had nothing to do with that, don't you?[2] Finally, you are correct that McIntyre's arguments stand or fall on their own, and that's why there's no need to point out that he doesn't have a graduate degree or a PhD or whatever. It's clear by listing only a BS that he doesn't have a graduate degree. --Spiffy sperry 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, no one is stating or implying that McIntyre lied and claimed to have a graduate degree. Nice try, though. The point is just that McIntyre's qualifications are highly unusual for someone contributing to the scientific debate and therefore worth pointing out. On my parenthetical snark about the degrees v. radians error, it looks like that was actually in a paper by McIntyre's coauthor McKitrick but not McIntyre himself (McKitrick and Michaels not McKitrick and McIntyre);[3] my mistake. If you want to start a debate about what Mann might or might not have meant by the "I am not a statistician" quote you link to, I would think the appropriate place would be the Mann talk page. Since you don't reply on Gore, I assume we both agree that Gore is not a scientist and that example isn't relevant in this context. Glad we agree on something. ;) Crust 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[sorry dont have tildas on keyboard] Regarding Manns statistical training, Professor Wegmans opinion was that Manns statistical work was at the level of a graduate student!. His suggestion was that Mann should enlist a co author with the required statistical expertise, doesnt seem to have been followed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.100.206 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For the skeptics on skepticism...

Dates on blog posts are not reliable, for the reasons I stated prior to removing the whole section of original research, making them a poor source for assertations about when a blog started. John Nevard (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford University study

In the article it states that McIntyre studied PPE at Oxford, and a short self-published biography is cited. Although it is clearly not a reliable source I wouldn't normally have a problem with it being used to reference something clear-cut like degrees studied for and obtained. Unfortunately, in this case it seems rather suspicious. He apparently graduated from Toronto in 1969 and then from Oxford in 1971. Yet the Oxford degree course, one of the most prestigious programmes in the world, is normally 3 years. Can something more reliable not be found? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its rather notable that, in contrast to the class positions mentioned for everything else, for Oxford he just says "graduated". There is also the suggestion of some urgency in return to Toronto. One might speculate that he either cut the course short, or wasn't on the undergradute programme but on some MA course instead. How about replacing the wording with "studied PPE" instead? I rather doubt we'll find a better source, until Ox records go online William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I don't think Oxford do PPE except as the three-year degree programme though, and "graduated" would mean that he passed the whole thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I ended up cutting a bit more. The bit about MIT is entirely unknowable, so removed. I aslo cut "pure" maths from his BA - I rather doubt the course was formally called that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in warmest year

I found this article after reading the one on James Hansen. On Hansen's page it says the issue with the data moved 1934 in front of 1998 for the warmest year measured. On this page it says the mistake didn't lead to any changes in hottest year.

Which one is it? the Hansen article has references concerning the warmest year change. This article doesn't. Before I change the entry using the reference from the Hansen article, I wanted to make sure there weren't any objections among those that watch this page. Pgrote (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in rankings was for US temperatures (and almost not significant), for world temperatures there was no effect in rankings. Brusegadi (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to modifying language to the section regarding McIntyre's contribution to the global climate record? "The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C". The citation for this language can be found in the GISS website itself at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html. Is there any reason to minimize this statement in terms of it's impact on the 2000-2006 data? I've tried to correct this minimization in the past only to have the edits reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The 0.15 oC is already in the article. You seem to want to add in the somewhat subjective "noticeable", on the grounds that its in that GISS article, but I can't see the point William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition I previously have tried to add the following comment from realclimate.org which states the following as a result of McIntye's finding: There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). "Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC." Any objection to including this statement? This is consistent with what McIntyre has said on his blog and is confirmed by what is on the GISS and realclimate web-sites? Is there any reason to omit this information from this biography as it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college. Showman60 (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GISS sez: Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty. the re-arrangement of 1934/1998, or not, is trivia. it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college is an insult to McI, if only you realised it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there is no objection to inclusion of that information in the biography based on it's accuracy. As of now only one person views the statement as trivial. The impact and the amount of discussion generated by McIntrye's analysis regarding the 1934/1998 arrangement certaintly would refute the opinion that the statement is trivial. IF trivia is the basis for exclusion, please provide the Wikipedia "trivia" standard if there is one by which statements can be judged as trivial or not for inclusion in Biographies. We can then measure this statement against that criteria and have others weigh in as to whether it meets or exceeds that standard for inclusion. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. The objection is that its trivia - the furore in the blogosphere and the op-ed columns is trivia. It has little to no relevance outside of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Climate Audit

I remerged the Climate Audit stuff back into this article. It's the primary reason McIntyre is notable and should be in this article. Other semi-notable people with blogs have the blog content with their bio, see e.g. Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com. -Atmoz (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy and usual practice for blogs and bios on notable people like this seems ambiguous. E.g., there is Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com as Atmoz states. But there is also Pharyngula_(blog) and PZ_Myers. Given that the article existed separately for almost all its lifetime (4 years), I'd suggest that the redirect be discussed first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SausageLady (talk • contribs) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PZ is notable as an academic independently from his blog. McIntyre is only notable for his blog. Until that changes, this should remain one article. -Atmoz (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Without changing this into a debate about Myers, his academic contributions do not seem any greater than Phil Plait's (who you use as a model for having a single article).

I would argue that his meaningful contributions to the hockey stick controversy and his corrections to climate data are other notable facts about the McIntyre. So my points are (a) a consistent practice in such cases and (b) recognition (or not) of the significance of the Finally, surely there is a more constructive way to resolve this than repeated reversion of changes. Suggestions? SausageLady (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

McI doesn't pass WP:PROF. He's not notable as an academic. -Atmoz (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But I didn't claim he was an academic. My remarks above were about comparing Myers and Plait as academics. So WP:PROF is not applicable to McI.

But let's focus on constructive ways to deal with this dispute. SausageLady (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)