Talk:Michael E. Mann

Michael Mann’s Nature Trick

Could one of the self professed AGW experts explain to me what Michael Mann’s “Nature Trick” is?

<refactored, apologies, but see below>

The article doesn’t specify what the trick is or what exactly they are trying to hide so we should try and hash it out here and try to include it in the article.

Much thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a reliable source that discusses the trick, then this isn't the place to try to hash it out for inclusion. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for refactoring, but I think there is ample consensus that this doesn't need to be here. Issues are: (1) republishing potentially stolen material, (2) the lack of authenticity means the material isn't a reliable source for anything, removing the need to discuss it here, (3) even if there weren't ethical / authenticity issues, we should only be discussing it when it's covered in reliable secondary sources, since it's a primary source, (4) if it is a real letter, it would presumably fall under copyright protection, meaning that republishing it in full is potentially problematic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing, there are lots of them and thats precisely why this is the right place to sort them out. WVBluefield (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have different definitions of lots...and possibly also reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, so BBC News, Wired, The Examiner, the Telegraph, and the Guardian are not reliable sources. Fascinating. WVBluefield (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we need the text of the letter here to do that though. I'm not really familiar with the issue, so forgive if I make a mistake here. I just looked at the link you gave, and of the three hits, the first one describes this as a complete non-story (ie, there's no evidence that Climate change has been shown to be a hoax). Another story just dealt with the hoax. The newsbusters story does seem to allege that this is a bigger deal, but it also less reliable than say, the NYTimes or WSJ. If you wanted to include information on the hack, that would seem to justified, but I don't see enough to support writing much on the impact of the hack yet. (Presumably the main papers will cover this soon, or it'll all blow over, which would be indicative of this not being a big deal). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) could you post some of those links then? I didn't see them in the link you gave. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just saw some. The consensus of the ones I read WSJ Foxnews seem to basically summarize it as: climate skeptics smell blood in the water. That might be worth including, but it's different than them saying that global warming is now on unsound footing (ie, the scientific consensus has now shifted). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. These links, BTW, relate only to Mann and not the wider issue of the hacks. Wired, Guardian, BBC, Nature, The Telegraph, and UK Register.

What pisses me off so much is that the editros who were reverting me didnt even take the fucking time to read the information. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The ones I saw did seem to touch on the hack and it's implication. But you're right, they didn't address the "trick" whatever that is. I didn't see anything I would consider reliable (ie, blogs are right out) that mentioned that. Did I miss one? (Not being sarcastic, I just did a quick look). With regard to the post getting removed, I think removal was the right decision, but there could/should have more explanation in the edit summaries (or here). But I'm also not sure that rehashing that is likely to be terribly productive: I'd much rather address content issues to be honest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A small bit of addition to the above comment. I actually did explain why the text was removed on WV's talk page [1]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After the second removal you did provide a short and completely unacceptable explanation that was little more than a link to WP:TP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. There may be reliable sources that discuss this email, and that discuss that there is some sort of a trick. Are there any reliable sources that actually discuss the trick itself? It appears that most of the sources that speculate on the trick are blogs and forums. Your original comment appeared to be asking for discussion here to figure out what the trick was so that it could be included. --Onorem♠Dil 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see above. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@O: Well... if you consider RealClimate a reliable source (the subject of this page is an author of that blog), then the 'trick' is "just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear". -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing editing the thread? I though it was so offensive to you that it had to be deleted ASAP and wasnt worthy of any discussion at all. WVBluefield (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions that are unrelated to article improvement for this user, please use their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please strike, delete, or refactor that. I consider it a person attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WVBluefield (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So, to address the content, there's a nice summary of this by Nate Silver here. I probably wouldn't claim that's Silver's a RS, since he does admit to having slightly liberal politics, but I do trust his ability to do statistical analysis. He reads this as a tempest in a teacup, which would seem to jibe with what the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews links above seem to say. Basically, the 'trick' was how to jazz up a graph for impact, not tweaking data. I'm not saying that's the end of it, but that does seem to be the consensus of the reliable sources I've seen. If there are others (RS's that is, not blogs) out there with differing views, it'd be nice to see them.

There is an explanation of the 'trick' from the source here http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update but context still needs work. My understanding is it means pre-1960, the graph shows reconstruction/proxy data, post-1960, instrumental data. This is a well known 'issue' given some proxys diverge from the instrumental record after that point. This may not be the appropriate place to discuss the controversy though. To explain the controversy, Jones explanation should be used, along with an explanation of the 'MXD divergence'.

Otherwise, is there any oppostion to adding a section reviewing the data theft, and summarizing the reaction? For the reaction, I'd probably go with what I have above about climate change skeptics smelling blood in the water, but there being no net change in the scientific consensus. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There will absolutely eventually be a section in this article titled "Controversy" that will be well sourced and present NPOV information. Those who would not like to see this happen are wasting their time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.213.19 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my strong support to inclusion of the so-called "controversy" section -- it seems as if the only reason one would disagree with this is because they don't like what happened. Certainly using "non-encyclopedic" excuses as the editors have attempted to here, amount to nothing more than a feeble attempt at a scape goat. Strong Support jheiv (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CRU hack, anonymous IP edit warring, etc

Guys, I am a climate change skeptic and I fully agree with William M. Connolley et al. that none of this CRU hack stuff should be appearing in Mann's or Jones' biographies, by appeal to WP:NOT#NEWS. If wrong doing has occurred, let's all agree that the dust hasn't settled, and it's hardly clear exactly what that wrong doing might have been, or what the significance is of it, at this stage. In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment.

I believe a better & more maintainable solution for Mann's biography would be to remove this hockey stick controversy section from his biography altogether and leave that argument for the article on the temperature record. See what we achieved at Ross McKitrick's page for comparison.

The article needs a bit of a clean up too.

Would anyone support me on this? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting covered in Climategate, which I just saw on NPP. Just FYI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the hockey stick section. I'm not sure that should have been done as Mann seems to be the primary figure in a notable controversy in his field of work. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me, and I know what you're saying. But it was mostly quotation, bad style, and unbalanced. I've left a link "See also: hockey stick controversy" and the whole thing is discussed over at that page. Why duplicate it here? The first thing this article really needs is some reliable sourcing for what's already in the article... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree that the HSC stuff should all be done centrally William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)a

It still should be summarized here with a sentence or two or a short section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN, that's standard WP practice. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User Alex Harvey writes "In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment." What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia merely states notable information. It is not concerned with "hacking" or any other "ethical problem". It reports sourced notable information. Thats it. If it is notable and sourced- it must be included in the article. Period. 38.117.213.19 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there seem to be some very confused people such as Alex Harvey who don't understand that Wikipedia is about distributing information. The notion that Michael Mann's role in Climategate should not be mentioned for some spurious reason just baffles me. He is a central figure in Climategate and it is ludicrous to suggest that it shouldn't be mentioned on his Wiki article. This whole Climategate debacle is being treated very strangely on Wikipedia. This is the only time in memory I can recall timely data being pushed off the pages of Wikipedia. Usually Wikipedia articles change with new information almost real time, but people are locking these pages until mid December to try and suppress this information. It's baffling. JettaMann (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's because we've had an influx of sockpuppets and ranting newbies seeking to proclaim the incident as TEH GREATEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL EVER!!!111 and trying to turn articles into denunciations of Mann, Gore, "the liberals" and anyone else they don't like. But of course your own comments don't illustrate the problem, do they? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Also, of course, Wikipedia is not "about distributing information" - that's what a router is all about. Wikipedia is here to be a repository of knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful for editors to compare this bio for Michael E. Mann with the bio for Stephen McIntyre (particularly the discussion/talk page). There are undeniable facts: (1) there is a "Hockey Stick Controversy"; (2)Michael E. Mann is the subject of an investigation Pennsylvania State University which announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann; and (3) the data supporting the "Hockey Stick Graph" was dumped or otherwise destroyed. These simple and uncontroversial statements are not disputed and are verifiable through any number of qualified referenced articles, but are not included in the bio. Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least two out of three are plain wrong, and only "verifiable" for someone whose preconceptions strongly affect his reading ability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One month on, Schulz, like the famous Sergeant with the similar name, still knows and sees nothing. Notice he doesn't actually say what is wrong with those three statements, since of course there IS a hockey stick controversy, (just as there IS a Climategate controversy that Mann is at the center of), Penn State IS looking into his conduct, and the CRU did admit that unaltered source data was destroyed, and yes, this has been reported in numerous sources, including the NYT, LAT, the Telegraph, and several other sources listed in Wikipedia's infamous Reliable Sources.

• Also, of course, [sic] routers distribute packets, not information, but smarmy justifications for the suppression of knowledge in the repository are necessary. [If you're reading this, it means that Alex Harvey hasn't had a chance to erase it yet] 173.168.129.57 (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See also to UEA controversy

At this point, a "See also" to the Climategate article might be the best interim solution. Added same. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While it's certainly wise to revisit this after the dust has settled, the fact of the matter is that events are added to Wikipedia the same day all the time, NOT_NEWS notwithstanding. Indeed, almost every time I learn about a news story on the TV or radio and visit the corresponding Wikipedia page I find that the news has already been incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Not a single sentence or word or letter or punctuation in any of the leaked emails has been challenged as inauthentic by any of their authors, and a fair number of the recipients of those e-mails have taken the trouble to confirm that they are authentic, and they have been widely quoted in highly reliable secondary sources such as the Washington Post.

Which, BTW, re:copyright, is fair use, so it would be entirely legal to quote the emails on Wikipedia just as the Washingto Post quoted them in their article. And given that some of the emails have become (in)famous, we will be compelled by the Wikipedia guidelines to add them, and to link to the complete text of them, for example the archive stores at Wikileaks. I notice Wikimedia hosts the Pentagon Papers: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers. As there, here we have public researchers conducting studies that are extremely important to the public.

Also, BTW, Mann and Jones are public figures, and the legal and ethical considerations in almost all countries that motivate BLP are far less for public figures than for private ones. Also, the e-mails involve their public work, indeed work that is of the most extreme importance to the public, none of them involve their private lives. The entire archive appears to be a prepared response to a FOI request that they decided to deny instead, it's all about the scientific work and not private stuff. Flegelpuss (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Although initially uncertain, F's words convince me that the link shouldn't be there for now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I don't agree. We wouldn't like this if we did this sort of thing was done to, say, Lindzen, on the basis of some hacked email, that could be taken out of context, and we shouldn't like it any better, however we feel about Mann. ClimateGate seems to be more about Jones than anyone else. This goes strongly against my personal bias, of course, and I believe we all need to stand together to enforce the WP rules. WP should be about the rules, about objectivity, about encyclopaedic content... not about reaching compromises... A see also to "Climate Gate" has not had time to be established as significant in the life of Michael Mann. There's some pretty questionable stuff in there, sure, but I believe in the innocent till proven guilty thing. I've said a lot of crap in emails in my life, and god help me if someone reveals it all to the world some day. Let's do the right thing here... who knows... maybe others will copy us... Alex Harvey (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While the apparent discrepancy in what some editors feel is a BLP violation and isn’t a BLP violation tickles my funnybone in a way that’s most satisfying, I agree with Alex that this probably hasn’t reached enough significance in Mann’s illustrious career to warrant a significant portion of this article. A like to Climategate should suffice for now. WVBluefield (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I think the "See also" is well-justified, as it links to Mann's reaction to the controversy: [2] "Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told the Washington Post that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious".

Not linking to a controversy that the subject himself has commented on would seem odd. Reverted WMC's delertion. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's extreme undue weight. Mann may have commented on it but he's not alleged, as far as I know, to have played any significant role in it. Your approach would imply that a link should be added to the biography of every scientist mentioned in or commenting on the e-mails, which would be absurd. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Mann hasnt been one of the individuals at the center of this. A brief look at the news articles reporting this story mention Mann many times. WVBluefield (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to read more closely then - brief looks aren't advisable if you want to get it right. Apparently Mann was the recipient of one of the e-mails. That seems to be the limit of his involvement. As I said above, it would be extreme undue weight to associate this incident with people on the margins of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is the, author, recipient, or mentioned by name in over 500 of the emails. He personally wrote over 130. Providing a link to the controversy seems to be required in this case. Q Science (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? You haven't provided any rationale for why it should be relevant to a biographical article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Dr. Mann is heavily involved in the controversy. Aside from the hacked emails he sent, received, or was mentioned in -- see, for instance, this mention in the NY Times [3]: "Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures." -- Andrew Revkin

How can a link to the controversy be "extreme undue weight", per Chris O?

Incidentally, Mann doesn't seem to be highly regarded by many of his colleagues, per the hacked emails. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems that ClimateGate is going to be relevant to this BLP whether the Wikipedia apparatchiki like it or not. Dr. Mann is certain to be called before at least one U.S. Senate investigation, and there have already been pressures in Pennsylvania for a criminal investigation of his role in the longstanding collusion revealed in the CRU communications. 71.125.136.27 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

• There appears to be a plurality of editors here who feel that Mann's involvement in Climategate merits a section in the article, or at least a "See also" to that article. Mann's involvement is now documented in Reliable Sources, see for example Global Warming With the Lid Off: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science., WSJ lead editorial, 11/24/09. Sample: "For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions."

Yet an edit war has erupted over this, with editors Atmoz and Stephen Schulz being most active in reverting any attempt to mention Mann's involvement. This seems (to me) both absurd and petty.

Are there any substantial arguments for excluding this, other than WP:I DON'T LIKE IT? Pete Tillman (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think there's a plurality supporting the inclusion, then you either can't count or don't know what plurality is. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal isn't a reliable source of anything. Arguments for not including it have been expressed above. I suggest you read them. -Atmoz (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. An editorial is a reliable source only for the opinion of a particular media outlet. It's not a reliable source for a statement of fact. I might add that, predictably, this particular issue is being driven by Mann being a hate figure for those of a certain political persuasion. It has very little to do with Wikipedia's own editorial requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An editorial in one of the USA's two major national newspapers would seem a pretty definite indication of the notability of Dr. Mann's Climategate involvement. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Tillman, you might wish to take note of the fact that we do not in fact have an article called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is publicly responding to his emails and has being quoted by many sources [4] and [5]. This is not only part of his legacy now, but is emails and responses to them are affecting the whole climate debate. Something should be posted on his page about it.Hopkinsrocks (talk)

• My count of those who have expressed an opinion here:

Editors FOR including info re Mann & Climategate (a handy shorthand for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎), or a link to same:

• Tillman
• Q Science
• WVBluefield
• 71.125.136.27
• Flegelpuss
• 38.117.213.19
• Bfigura
• hopkinsrocks Hopkinsrocks (talk)
• Math.geek3.1415
• jheiv -- Strongly for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiv (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors AGAINST same:

• William M. Connolley
• Kim D. Petersen
• Alex Harvey
• ChrisO
• Atmoz
• Stephan Schulz (by multiple reverts)

But we also need to look at the quality of the arguments presented FOR & AGAINST. SFAICT, all the arguments that have been presented AGAINST have been refuted, or amount to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Further actual arguments welcome. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make an argument: WP:NOT#NEWS. I don't think we should be covering breaking news, at all. I'm surprised there isn't a flat rule against it. It seems discouraged, at any rate, in WP:NOT#NEWS. But look, we've all known about Mann for years. Now we've got it all in writing, from the horse's mouth, as it were. It's over. History will take care of the rest. I say, let's come back in a year or so, and there'll be no controversy that Mann's name will be forever linked to the Climategate scandal. For now, let's think about WP:NOT#NEWS. My view, for what it's worth. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement that the arguments presented against have been refuted is nonsense. The trouble you have is that you are trying to invoke the crystal ball, and jump ahead to a conclusion (just as Alex says (although i do not (unsurprisingly) agree with his read of the situation)). Once/If there ever comes substance behind the claims/predictions of Manns involvement (in something) then it will be integrated into the article. Speculations are not something to put on Wikipedia and especially not on a BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[reply to KDP] Your accusation of crystal balling is baseless, approaching a slur, and, again, amounts to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. C'mon, Kim -- you can do better than this.

Folks, all we're asking (for the moment) is a link to Climategate. Pull your heads out of the sand. Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that this is a "crisis" is your own personal opinion, and purely speculative - its basically something that you pull out of the crystalball as your own prediction. Its very very simple: Mann is not implicated in any way or form in the e-mail leak, nor is there any indications that he might be the leak. There are speculations that Mann might at some point be implicated by the contents of the e-mails, but so far this is all speculations from the blogosphere stuff and various pundits. Personally i think its a storm in a glass of water, but that will not stop me from including it, if or once there is more substance behind allegations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, Kim, that's George Monbiot calling it a crisis, not me. And you still seem to be avoiding the issue, that Mann is intimately involved in ClimateGate, and that this involvement is well-documented by RS's/ Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Monbiot can call it what he wants - that doesn't make it so (and please do remember that M's column is opinion), as for Manns "involvement" - that belongs in the speculative realm... Certainly a lot of the blogosphere believe him to be - but again that doesn't make it so. All of the "implications"/"interpretations" of the emails are exactly that: Speculation. Once things cool abit down it will be interesting to see if any of it sticks, so far i'm rather doubtful of it. The facts in the "scandal" are so far very very few: Emails and other documents where illegally obtained by persons unknown and released via a russian ftp-site. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This debate also suffers from heavy socking (all on one side, surprise). I'd like all serious editors on both sides to use basic due diligence and not acknowledge obvious socks and sock masters as if they were legitimate participants in the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please remove any obvious (ie, blocked) socks, and label suspected ones. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Flegelpuss is a blocked sockmaster and Hopkinsrocks looks extremely socky. The IPs should be excluded. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A link to Climategate and a brief mention of Mann's relationship to the controversy can be noted in the article. If the "not news" argument held any water, it would be easily used to delete the whole Climategate article.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a "Climategate" article. Please do catch up. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some in the media as Climategate... Pete Tillman (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Socky? Does everyone agree that these are facts: His emails are part of the stolen CRU emails, excerpts of his have been quoted widely by the media and he publicly says the are taken out of context?[6] Hopkinsrocks (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think not including this is absurd. its on kirkpatrick's page and this is highly notable. To the person who said the WSJ editorial isn't a valid source for information i think is extremely misguided since it has the highest circulation in the US. To humor you, however i'll include a link to a story by from us news and world report reporting Mann being under investigation for fabricating data [7]Jgeddis (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, does this not meets all criteria of submissions yet? "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Mann publicly responds to the media again - Associated Press , Washington Times From the San Fransisco Chronicle :

"Michael Mann, the director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, was among those whose e-mails were circulated as evidence of attempts to exclude scientists with differing opinions. He said the passages were cherry-picked phrases from casual conversations about the quality of peer review at certain publications and how bad science should be excluded. "They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign where they have stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words and I think this is rather telling," Mann said, pointing out that some of the e-mails were more than a decade old. "Those advocating inaction don't have the science on their side."

Also, Mann is mentioned 6 times on the Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident page.Hopkinsrocks (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Wiki page needs updatign to reflect mere fact that he is under investigation of Climate Gate*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgasbarro (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected

please add appropriate icon on the article page. i cannot edit it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this is really odd that all the global warming and climate change Wiki articles are locked, even to registered Wiki editors, and nothing about Climategate is being allowed in these articles. These leaked emails that include Michael Mann are pertinent information, and if Wikipedia wants to be known as a timely source for information, that should be mentioned in this article. If it was anyone else, like Michael Jackson, then the information is added immediately. For some reason some gate keepers seem to be preventing information from getting onto Wikipedia. It's an outrage. JettaMann (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of recent reports

I've removed the section titled "Review of recent reports". A "latest news" item (which is what this is) is inappropriate to any biographical article. We aim to produce balanced articles that adequately reflect a subject, and this is particularly important in the case of biographies of living persons. The University says it's reviewing some of the leaked emails, so let's allow them to get on with it. If anything comes of the review that reflects on Mann, then we can decide how to integrate it into the article. --TS 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the item TS removed (with the title slightly improved):

Review by PSU of recent concerns

See also: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Pennsylvania State University has announced a review of recently-released emails for the "concerns that have been raised" with regard to Professor Mann.

I kinda see Tony's point, but our article certainly paints a picture of an almost-blemishless scientific paragon. Ah, well, give it time... (hide the decline) Pete Tillman (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The announcement of a formal investigation on Mann is certainly a notable event and there is no good reason to exclude it from the article. WVBluefield (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! I read this article for the first time a couple of days ago. When I did, it appeared to be a puff-piece lauding the praises of Mr. Mann. It definitely isn't written from a neutral point of view. Some editors, particularly Atmoz, are deleting substantiated, footnoted, and referenced facts, simply because they don't like the content.Martylunsford (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I've made 5 edits in total to this page. [8][9][10][11][12] The only one that comes close to your accusation is the last. But it's the job of editors to screen "facts" before publishing them. Otherwise you'd have the Obama article calling him a Socialist and citing Fox News. The fact that PSU put out a statement denying comment is not a reason to put it in the biography of Mann (Dr, not Mr). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. -Atmoz (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think (hide the decline) tells you what you need to know: this is POV-pushing by the skeptics rather than an honest attempt at a biography William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you don’t think that a formal investigation by the university and hundreds of news citations make any of this relevant for even one sentence to be included in the article? How do you justify that when you fought so hard to include this edit? Some might see that as a double standard in how you approach notability. WVBluefield (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a review of some emails at this stage. We have a policy known as biographies of living persons, and the concern in this instance is undue weight to a minor matter. --TS 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Penn State is conducting a review of Dr. Mann's ethics, research methods and actions is undoubtedly a major event in the life of a professional researcher and not a "minor matter". jheiv (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your basis for stating that there is a review of "ethics, research methods and actions"? As far as i can see, the only thing that can be said is that the university is "looking into questions raised", as to what questions... that seems to be speculation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure the University announced that they're looking into questions raised regarding what Dr. Mann has eaten for lunch this week. Let us not be so dense Ms. Peterson, it derails actual debate (although, admittedly, not as much as this retort probably does). jheiv (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you are going into speculative land, then it most certainly is relevant for this debate. This is a biography, and it is biographical material that you want to add, thus a very strict adherence to BLP must be held. Now i will ask again: What is your basis for that statement? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Not to lay my finger too much into the wound, but you, Jheiv, have managed to put two errors into a two-word friendly address. Is it possible, that your understanding of the topic also suffers from preconceptions and haste? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Having let cooler minds prevail, I'm sorry for the ridiculousness of my last comment (and for misspelling your name). I also realize that Penn State has been very deliberate in their choice of words in the press release announcing the investigation, in fact, the investigation is really only to determine whether there needs to be an investigation (heh, PR people). As I cannot justifiably (with support from RS) say that Dr.Mann is being investigated for his conduct(/actions/etc) at this point, I have no argument. I will stand by my opinion that a university investigating one of it's professor's actions / methods / ethics is not a "minor event" but rather a very atypical and major event in the life of a professional researcher, however, as of now, that does not seem to be the case. Please accept my apologies.jheiv (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that there are dozens of sources reporting Mann’s investigation and his link to climategate, is anyone here still going to defend their indefensible position that this isn’t notable enough for this article? WVBluefield (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another, albeit columnar:

"...the jolly hockey stick merchant himself is also undergoing investigation – not to worry, it is of the most grudging and perfunctory kind – at Pennsylvania State University. The University’s statement announcing the investigation is so complimentary to Mann, it almost reads like the press release of the verdict, published prematurely." -- Gerald Warner column at the Telegraph, December 2nd, 2009. Warner proposes renaming the CRU as the "Piltdown Institute of Mann-made Global Warming." Heh. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I too, agree that this is notable and I'm worried that a biased administrator will lock out what are very relevant and appropriate edits. Please lift the lock so this material can be included. jheiv (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources report satire of Mann and "Hide The Decline"

• "Meet the new Climategate counter-culture" at The Daily Telegraph

• "E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science by John Tierney (scroll down), published: November 30, 2009 (ie, not his blog), NY Times.

• columnist L. Gordon Crovitz at WSJ (new 12/10/09)

I don't quite have the energy to write this up, but someone else might. Incidentally, the new Minnesotans for Global Warming video (link at the Telegraph) is very amusing. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can support adding this to the article as it is, because it would put undue weight on a bit of political agitprop. Mann is primarily known as a scientist. --TS 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony! I hope you're not in danger of becoming known as a Climategate humor denier?

You probly didn't like Gerald Warner's Phil Jones University crack, either? Tsk, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

i think it would fit nicely in 'cultural reference' section. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

edit protected

please add a link to CRU. it is highly relevant.

[13]

93.86.205.97 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You would need to show a consensus supporting addition of the link for an admin to do it. The dispute above shows no consensus which defaults to the current situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. No one needs consensus to add items. Consensus <> Fact. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

See also link to Hockey stick controversy

Separate point. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section suggests generally not repeating links there that are included in the body of the test. Since Hockey stick graph (which redirects to Hockey stick controversy) is in the lede, it would seem inappropriate to have it in the see also section. I would suggest changing the link in the lede to Temperature record of the past 1000 years (technically, what he did create) and keeping it as is in the See Also. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Article additions for when protection expires

Could the interested editors please "beta" test their proposed edits here on the talk page before the protection expires on the 14th? I'd like to see some consensus reached on the talk page so an addition regarding the controversy can be made. The alternative, I fear, is an edit war and an administrator full-protecting the page again and locking out important edits.

I would copy some of the edits from the history of the article, but it might be more appropriate for the edit authors to do so, as circumstances and facts have changed since protection. jheiv (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a change that was made and reverted before protection, you can briefly describe it in a new section and give a difference link to the revision. There is at least discussion above, so I hold out some hope that the consensus model of editing will be preferred when protection expires in a few days. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Addition

I realize the page is no longer protected, but I figured this is probably the diplomatic way to go anyway. I propose adding this:

In December 2009, as a result of the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎, Penn State University announced that they would be conducting an "inquiry" into the issues surrounding the leaked e-mails in at attempt to determine if a larger, formal investigation was necessary. Although the leaked e-mails are claimed to reveal Mann and fellow scientists exaggerating or fabricating global warming data, Dr.Mann said that the emails used terms "that can easily be misinterpreted by outsiders" and he is happy that the University is conducting the inquiry. Penn State also noted that some of the questions may have already been addressed in a 2005 National Academy of Sciences investigation of Dr. Mann and specifically his reconstruction of surface temperature records, an investigation that ultimately concluded that his work was sound.

jheiv (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail for something that so far is just an inquiry. Too much weight is put into what the definition of an inquiry is, and too much is put into what others claim (speculation) as opposed to what the inquiry is about. Drop everything from "in an attempt" to just before "Dr Mann said", and it may be acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not reporting speculation, per se, but actually the fact that it is speculated. Would something like this (direct copy and paste from Climatic Research Unit) be preferred?

Some climate change sceptics and bloggers have asserted that a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence that scientists had conspired to manipulate data and to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature. Critics of the climate change consensus assert that the e-mails undermine the theory that global warming is being caused by human activities and have dubbed the incident "Climategate."

jheiv (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favour of waiting (sorry, I know thats boring). The inquiry was announced in the middle of the media fuss, which appears to be largely fading. Apart from its announcement we know nothing whatsoever about it. Have they appointed people to do it? What is its remit? Etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point -- more information about the inquiry would most likely help address Kim D. Petersen's concerns as well. Since I've added it (and it looks premature), I'll revert now. We should however, address the inquiry if more information is released.

It's amazing how friends of the accused are allowed to prevent the truth from being spoken. It's amazing that three people, acting in unison, can prevent any substantive content to an article, which is a clear violation of WP:Ownership. Note to Schulz, WMC, ChrisO: This is NOT your web site. Do you NOT understand that? Are you hypocrites, and only apply WP when it suits your bias? 75.150.245.244 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archives

There are the older Talk:Michael_Mann_(scientist)/Archive_1 and the newer Talk:Michael_E._Mann/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.145.96 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved them to /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 respectively. —WWoods (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'trick' email.

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

---

Neutrality is not optional. Use of language which is, taken away from its original context, prejudicial, should be avoided in all article edits.

---

I reverted proxy temperature data from tree rings with more accurate data from air temperatures to deal with a decline in tree ring climate proxy metrics which renders them unreliable etc.

Whether the method is an improvement or not is a matter of controversy. The original text simply states what was done without drawing conclusions as to the validity of the method, and should be -- I think -- preferred.

Edrowland (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I hacked this a bit more [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't hack it. You removed it entirely. Could you please explain your rationale for doing so. Edrowland (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly not refer to it as a "trick", since that is not how Mann describes it, nor is it appropriate for the formal tone that we are supposed to be maintaining in an encyclopedia. We should also not editorialise to cast doubt on the methodology. Since it's been peer-reviewed and used uncontroversially for some time, there's no reason to believe that it's controversial in any scientific respects (as opposed to the manufactured outrage of political activists). William, I reworded Edrowland's contribution to ensure that it was more accurate and neutrally worded; could you explain why you removed it entirely? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

'trick' is the word that Mann himself uses in the Time article referenced in the following paragraph. It seems reasonable. But I would accept a compromise of "statistcal method" if that makes you happier, provided the desription of the method used is left intact. Grafting an unrelated series as padding data is most definitely controversial in any scientific respect, especially if the purpose of doing so is to 'hide the decline'. But my proposed wording did not actually comment on the validity; it only described the procedure that was used. Edrowland (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Definitely controversial" seems to be your own POV, seeing as the method has apparently been in use uncontroversially since 1998, in peer-reviewed papers. See [15] for background (the para that starts "No doubt"). It has only been "controversial" politically; I've yet to see any scientific source disputing the methodology. As for the wording, colloquial terms like "trick" and "hide the decline" may work in a conversational context between two scientists who know exactly what they refer to and where there isn't any scope for misinterpretation or confusion. They are not appropriate descriptions for general public use. You wouldn't find them being used in a formal paper, for instance. We've seen how the terminology has been used to stoke confusion and controversy; it's important that we describe the methodology clearly and neutrally, without misleading the readers. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip. --TS 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)