Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy

More neutral title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus - Page not moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Soon and Baliunas controversy → Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years —

Wouldn't Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years be a more neutral title for the article? I thought controversy was a POV. Smartse (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the controversy. --TS 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that a word to avoid? Specifically, that states "make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict" - this article is currently the only use of "Soon and Baliunas controversy" that I can find which suggests it needs renaming.As this paper has been discussed in multiple RSs and is apparently notable by its own right, perhaps we should widen its scope to discuss more of what the paper actually said. I think that there have also been papers that refuted the views put forward which could also be included. Smartse (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem sourcing the controversy. Editorial staff walked out as a result, and the publisher repudiated the paper. That's about as far from "business as usual" as these staid, conservative academic journals get. --TS 14:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is adequately covered in the individual articles I suggest a merge as wikipedia is not served well by many articles covering the same ground. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I split this one out from Climate Research (journal) as I felt that it was overbalancing that article--in effect, the entire article was a "coatrack" for the discussion of the dispute. The dispute has become relevant recently because of the hacking and release of emails, some of which comment on this paper and on the problems at Climate Resarch. We could, perhaps, merge it to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. --TS 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that the willie soon and the balinanus articles have more than enough space to cover this awkward content fork. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. Well perhaps the material in those articles should be trimmed and referred to this one. The controversy may well be more significant then either of those scientists individually--or more to the point, it probably has a significance distinct from those two (I'm sure, quite conscientious and blameless) scientists. --TS 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No those scientists are both quite blatant anti global warming oil industry funded individuals the controversy is certainly part of their biogs. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It isn't overly related to the CRU hacking in my opinion, most of the sources were written years before that happened. I agree that there is space in the WS and SB articles to cover this, but does it not make more sense to discuss it in one article and link to it from both rather than having similar content duplicated in each article? Tony feels strongly that it shouldn't be in the CR article but again it needs mentioning in that too, again meaning that it makes more sense to have one article covering it. As I said above, I think we should rename it and add more information on what the paper discussed, since it is clearly a notable paper. I don't personally see how this can be called a controversy but the CRU hacking isn't... it probably isn't worth getting into that here though! Smartse (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a one off event does not need a separate article from the two biogs. I just think this spreads us too thin! It is the main event for these people but by no means the only significant one. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I look at it, the fuss concerns a single paper and is mostly related to the journal. The situation has become something we want to cover now because of its significance in the fuss following the Climatic Research Unit hacking. Covering it once here, with links from the biographies of Soon and Baliunas, is more encyclopedic, and more generally useful, than covering it several times, in Soon's biography, Baliunas' biography, and the articles on the journal Climate Research (journal) and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and who knows, perhaps tomorrow om Michael E. Mann. Covering it in detail just once with links from those articles is best. --TS 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd that it should suddenly be a scandal because MM was lobbying against it. Everyone knew at the time that the paper had gotten through the review process but had major flaws. Many scientists were lobbying to boycot the journal at the time, half the editorial board of the journal resigned over it. I added the section to the Willie Soon page (he is first author so it is really his paper) in May I think this article could easily redirect to Willie Soon#Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper it is not as if the Willie Soon article is all that big Polargeo (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell this article is mainly my text from the Willie Soon article anyway with a bit tagged on. Polargeo (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway because it is what Soon is most famous for it should be covered in detail in his biog. Another stubby article mostly copied from other places does not really serve wikipedia well. Polargeo (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TS that it is best to have one article linked to from the others. PG, you say it should redirect to Willie Soon, but why not to Baliunas (or the CR article) instead? I myself hadn't heard about this until the CRU hacking and I guess that that is also the case for most of our readers. Having a separate article allows us to go into more detail than would be suitable on a bio page. I still think that the article can be expanded so it isn't so stubby. Smartse (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably weren't aware of it because it is an old news story which has come up again as a new news story. It didn't need a separate article then and I don't think it does now. The old story was pretty big at the time. Wikipedia is not the news, a section in the Soon article dealt with this perfectly well. Soon is the first author. I imagine we wouldn't even be having this discussion about multiple articles if it was "Soon et al., 2003" and not "Soon and Baliunas, 2003" Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's probably the case but it is clearly a notable paper and should therefore be discussed in depth. Maybe it has only become notable since the CRU hack and so while in 2003 it didn't need an article of its own it does now. We still don't have all the details about the actual paper (this discusses more about it) such as it contradicting the hockey stick graph. I don't see how it is possible to cover this in detail and in context in a single bio article without being undue. Btw it is also discussed on Hans von Storch's bio too. Smartse (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

More possible sources: [1] [2] [3] I'll try and add details from these soon. We haven't mentioned that the paper was also published in Energy & Environment yet. Smartse (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The contradiction of the hockey stick graph by a paper that is demonstrably wrong is a scientific dead end. An article could have been written the first time round, it was a big enough story then. I suppose I just don't understand the eagerness to do it now. I feel strongly that the creation of unnecessary articles dilutes wikipedia. It seems that this is just a reaction to the latest news story. Polargeo (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To Polargeo, I should say that what informs my thinking on this matter is the Coatrack essay (WP:COATRACK). It isn't policy but I think it provides good guidance for how to treat controversies that relate to one or more people (and in the case of Climate Research, an organization). The gist of this, supported in large measure by the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), is that it's best to write the article about the event rather than as part of somebody's biography, where it may outweigh anything else about them. --TS 13:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Willie Soon is a career skeptic. There is no BLP issue here. It is also his research paper, not some controversy that just happens to involve him, it is a controversy about his paper. Polargeo (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't see any reason why this article should not be named after the paper. It diffuses the neutrality issues and forces us to write directly about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't particularly like the current title, but the proposed title is non-descriptive to the extent of being misleading. A title such as the one proposed, might make a good article - but would (imho) do an intercomparison/description of the various aspects and conclusions of "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years" (such articles to some extent exists Temperature record of the past 1000 years as well as Hockey stick controversy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this specific title. The article is not about "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", but rather about the reaction to this one specific paper. With the proposed title we'd need to write an article about the topic, not about the reception of the paper. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur, it is the proposed title, not a rename in specific that i disagree with. (if that wasn't already clear) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support for the same reason Viriditas cites above, but with one reservation. While I agree with Guettarda that the article was written to be about the reaction to the paper, it really describes both the paper and the reaction, and a more neutral title would be an improvement, with the controversy covered in appropriate detail within. I am concerned is that it's not clear from reading the title by itself "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years" that it's the name of a paper. That may be part of what Kim was getting at as well? Perhaps "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (paper)" would be better? --DGaw (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Kim. Polargeo (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There does not appear to be any consensus for a move, so I recommend that this discussion move towards closure. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional perspective needed for balance

Most of the information and supporting quotations come from those critical of Soon and Baliunas, their paper, or the journal. A controversy by definition has more than one side, does it not? If there is to be a separate article describing it, as the title suggests, the perspectives of Soon and Baliunas, their supporters, or the journal should also be described. --DGaw (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The journal realized it had made a mistake and that the article had not been peer-reviewed to the correct standard. Polargeo (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tagged added by DGaw. Unless the editor has specific suggestions for improvement, there's no point of having the tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In light of Viriditas' comment I have replaced the POV template with a POV-check template. I would ask the tag not be removed until the article has been reviewed and/or edited, and consensus regarding its neutrality has been reached. --DGaw (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since have expressed an interest in adding two POV-related tags, perhaps you could take a brief moment from your busy schedule of tagging and check the article for yourself. Have you reviewed the article for neutrality? I don't need consensus to remove the tag. You need consensus to add it. And you also need evidence that there is a neutrality problem in the first place. Awaiting your response to my original and subsequent requests. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the dialogue, but you should be aware that your reference to "my busy schedule of tagging" comes across as sarcastic, and therefore uncivil, though I am sure that was not your intent. I did check the article for myself, which is why I tagged it, and do intend to update the article. In the meanwhile, the proper use of the POV-check template is: "Use this boilerplate when there is no active discussion of a dispute on the talk page, but the article does not appear to conform to NPOV guidelines." You are mistaken about a consensus being required to tag an article; articles are tagged because there is a lack on consensus: the tag means only that someone feels that the article is POV. In this case, at least two people do.

In the meanwhile, I have identified my reasons for concern above. While there is no rush, if you are concerned about the wait, however, you could get started by finding counterbalancing views from the pro-Soon & Baliunas camp yourself, and including them. I'm sure you are as interested in an article that is regarded as fair as I am. --DGaw (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read through and reviewed the article I personally think that it is about as supportive of the Soon paper as it is possible to get without being biased towards Soon. This argument of DGaw is therefore a bit bewildering. I am removing the tag. Polargeo (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Polargeo, thanks for your thoughts. The key phrase in your comment is "I personally think." While I understand and respect your position, I am not convinced, nor from his note below is Pete. And that's all the POV tag means: that there is disagreement over whether the article is NPOV. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV (see the NPOV policy pages for further details).

As for the content, the article should not be supportive of the paper, or supportive of the opponents of the paper. That's not Wikipedia's job, nor ours as editors. The article should fairly document the positions held by those involved in the controversy, whether we think they are "right" or "wrong", and describe them as neutrally as possible.

--DGaw (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I was doing some minor edits and cleanup here when Dgaw added the tag. I think it's well-justified , and I have on my to-do looking for balancing RS's for this article.

Note that one purpose of the tag is to notify readers that some editors feel the article is unbalanced. Thus Viriditas' earlier comment, "Unless the editor has specific suggestions for improvement, there's no point of having the tag." is off the mark, imo. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes his comment is incorrect but the fact that a single editor wanted the tag (rather strangeley and misguidedly imo, and yes it is my opinion!) does not mean a tag should stay. Polargeo (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(passing through) Should not the title be "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", which article first summarizes the paper, then discusses the post-publishing fallout, then academic response to the article? And when the article states someone came to a different conclusion based on validated data, what exactly was that? "Different" doesn't say anything and leaves it completely up to the reader. I detect a tagging-discussion vortex forming, best for all to stay away and focus on the content.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense to me. The structure of the article is already partly aligned that way: it starts by talking about what the paper is about, then talks about the controversy, and that would be a more neutral framing. This might be a good edit to make down the road, if we can reach consensus about the overall tone of the article. --DGaw (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said at the top and I still think it's the most sensible option. Smartse (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The paper itself isn't important. The controversy over the paper is. --TS 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Based on what? --DGaw (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; never mind. I've now read your comments higher on the page, and think I see what you're saying. I do agree that the controversy is important. Still, I agree with Vecrumba and Smartse that we could find a way to select a name that is more neutral without neglecting the importance of the controversy. Maybe the second paragraph of the current History section could begin a new section called, "Publication and Controversy" for example. --DGaw (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally think this should not be a separate article. But as it is a separate article controversy is about as accurate a name for this article as we can get because it is the controversy that we are reporting (WP:NOTNEWS being ignored here). Both over the climate change article and the reaction to it. Polargeo (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Tony Sidaway (trying to keep comments in chronological order...), Cold fusion is simply titled that, not Cold fusion controversy (indeed, the latter was created as a fork and eventually deleted). Articles on a work should be the title of the work. If the article were not significant, i.e., fringe, then why would there be the need for controversy? There's been considerable coverage in the press, science programs, et al. on what constitutes normal cycles and what does not, particularly if measurements appear to conform to prior cycles at first glance. I think the subject is far better served being (a) about the contents of the paper, (b) its publication and (c) ensuing controversy (fallout) and (d) academic reaction. What's the point of stating it's the argument that is significant if we don't explain in detail what it is that is being argued about in the first place? This isn't the Hatfield-McCoy feud, which was more about the feud than about how it started.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The significance of the controversy is the effect on the journal, Climate science. This article was spun off from that one because it was obviously making it a bit of a coatrack. The paper itself, having been repudiated, is of no other significance. --TS 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The paper has been shown to be incorrect, it's assumptions were incorrect (which should have been picked up in the review) and its results are not verified when the correct assumptions are made and the correct data is used. It is the demonstration of the paper's inaccuracy and the failure of the peer review process that caused the controversy. Now it seems some wish this to be changed into an article on solar variation causing all current climate change with lots more support for the paper to make this supposedly more "neutral!!!". This article which was split because of coatrack issues and is really very neutral is now being hijacked in an attempt to make a WP:POVFORK. My solution would have been a redirect to Willie Soon#Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper and clean it up after all this fuss dies down. Now we have this pointless extra article to deal with. Polargeo (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith," Polargeo. As for "Now it seems some wish this to be changed into an article on solar variation causing all current climate change with lots more support for the paper..." Really? Can you please point out specific examples of this within the text of the article? --DGaw (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not yet but if its name was changed as you suggest that would be the result. Polargeo (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not advocating for the paper at all (not sure I'm included). Regardless, it still bears mention what it is that the paper said (summary) so that the brouhaha makes sense. That mention is in no way advocacy for the content of the paper. You can't dispute a member of the Flat Earth Society without at least first stating their position is that the earth is flat. Certainly there should only be one place that discusses the controversy in detail, I don't care if it's here or elsewhere. For now at least it appears to be here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It does say what the paper said e.g. "It concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium"."[2] I actually added that to the Willie Soon article myself after reading the paper. Adding much more about the details of the paper is getting decidedly promotional. Polargeo (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If a reader wishes for more info than just the main conclusion of the paper then I would suggest following the links to the actual papers. Polargeo (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true but the fact that we haven't mentioned that the main problem was that they were refuting the hockey stick graph, which appears to be one of the main reasons for the controversy arising, needs to be rectified. Smartse (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem to say that this is at odds with some of MM's results. However to say it "refutes" the hockey stick you would need really good sources to back that statement up. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the Soon paper reflects every previous view of global climate history prior to the hockey stick (Mann et al. 98) appearing, including the prior IPCC report. And the solar hypothesis preferred by Soon has had reams of supporting books and papers over several centuries and was the dominant hypothesis over most of this century too. It was the hockey-stick graph that was the outlier and which should have been more carefully peer-reviewed because it was later refuted by two McIntyre papers and two independent panels who concluded the peer-review system had broken down. Neither of these McI papers or these reviews have been refuted (spinning by the press and blogosphere notwithstanding). Futhermore the hockey-stick graph is even superceded by Mann's own later works which have rediscovered a Medieval warm period which his earlier work had somehow mislaid. Both of these later works though apparently use important Finnish lake proxies upside-down as revealed and officially commented by McI and admitted by Kaufmann in a derivative Arctic hockey-stick graph. The real "controversy" is that poor papers are only challenged if they are politically incorrect rather than just plain incorrect.JG17 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindented at this point)

That's an interesting perspective, JG17. If you can provide the requisite reliable sources we can write it up. --TS 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Scientific considerations aside, the Soon paper has been a lightning rod for accusations of "science" driven by an agenda. The article could provide some real value—as opposed to just being a list of who said what and who resigned over what—if it can cut through the wailing and gnashing of teeth from both "sides"  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

JG17, if you find commentary by Soon &/or Baliunas re their paper (etc), that would also be helpful in balancing the article. See the following section. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC), who intends to read the S&B paper RSN....

"Companion paper"

I've removed a rather sketchy link to a different paper, which is described without explanation as a "companion paper to the controversial Climate Research paper discussed here." I think this needs more context. If it's already referred to in the article then it can be used as a reference. If it isn't, and it's important (reliable sources say it's important to the controversy, that is) then some explanation of its relevance is due. If not, then we're not a link farm. --TS 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony: see "The authors of 13 papers cited by Baliunas and Soon rejected the conclusions drawn from their Climate Research and Energy and Environment papers.[6]" in our article. Yes, better integration desirable, but we already have a ref to it. And one link hardly constitutes a "link farm." Try being collegial, OK? It's a work in progress, and it's annoying to be second-guessed. Regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be as collegial as you like, but I don't see the relation between ""The authors of 13 papers cited by Baliunas and Soon rejected the conclusions drawn from their Climate Research and Energy and Environment papers" and your decision to put a reference to this paper into the external links section. If the paper was repudiated by those cited in it, why on earth would we want to put an unqualified, context-free link from this paper to that one? All the more reason, I should have thought, to avoid creating any reference to the material that is not clearly qualified. The controversial nature of Energy & Environment should also be covered, I should think, lest anybody mistake it for a reputable academic paper. --TS 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be important as some sort of background positioning in terms of (a) conflict of peer-reviewed academic opinion on climate change and (b) conflict introduced by non-peer-reviewed opinion published as research. Links to bunches of papers, whether peer reviewed or not, belong to some other Wikipedia article on climate change that is linked from here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading this ref (#6) more closely, it appears the E&E paper is one of two "nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors)". So it looks like we can safely lump them together in the article discussion, perhaps with this quote.

I have yet to read either one, but would note that Soon & Baliunas' conclusion, that the MWP was probably about as warm as the CWP, is (once again) widely accepted, even by (forex) Keith Briffa -- despite Michael Mann et al.'s earlier efforts to dispose of it (for the flat "handle" of the original Hockey Stick graph. IMS, even Mann's current proxy temp charts show a pretty warm MWP. So Soon & Baliunas' work looks (imo) better now than perhaps it did at the time they published it. It's also clear (from the leaked emails) that the "Hockey Team" devoted considerable efforts to denigrate S&B's work, (not to mention to "get Von Storch") and we need a RS to report this. A recent reappraisal of the whole affair by a RS would be ideal. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What a work says and its reliability doesn't change based on what's said in private about it. Saying something bad about "A" in private neither lessens nor improves the intrinsic quality of "A". And leaks are always presented with an agenda, whether good or bad. It's WP:OR for us to weigh in whether the "denigration" was justified or not. Lastly, I rather expect that reliable sources aren't going to change regarding S&B, it's not like they were working with data unavailable to other researchers.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[cut my own comment - Tony and Polargeo are right, has nothing to do with article] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete, you're saying the Medieval Warm Period is now widely accepted--well if this article were about that period I think I'd be asking for a reliable source. But it isn't. It's about a controversy in which half the editorial board of a journal walked out because of concerns over a dubious peer review process, and an investigation that resulted in the repudiation of the paper's conclusions. --TS 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed this is not about the science. This is about the controversy. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia about the science. Trying to make this another one is simply content forking. Polargeo (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking aloud and didn't mean to cause confusion. I did pursue the conversation with KDP here, if anyone's interested.

What I was hoping for was, "A recent reappraisal of the whole affair by a RS would be ideal." Which, of course, may not even exist. But we did start this conversation noting that Soon & Baliunas's side of the controversy seems under-reported in our article, and that's still a problem. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I guess we need to find if they have written about it. --TS 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing balance issues

Referencing one of the edits to this article on January 15, I disagree that the tag is "unneeded." On the contrary, the edits added last week may further reinforce the article's point of view. I am not reverting most of the edits, but I am restoring the tag, which was removed without discussion. See the earlier discussion of the subject here.

To see why the article may be unbalanced, consider that the article title says this was a controversy, meaning a dispute between sides holding opposing views. There is a lengthy discussion of one of these views, the position taken by those critical of the paper, including multiple quotes from those involved. What was the position of the other side? Is there no one to quote who was supportive of the process at the time? If everyone was critical, then there was only one side, and therefore no controversy, and the article is mis-titled, and perhaps even a candidate for deletion. If there was a controversy, there was at least one other side that is missing, and the article is unbalanced.

The positions of Soon and/or Baliunas themselves, or the editors who declined to make the changes to the review process might be a good place to start, if appropriate sourcing can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGaw (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you really tagging the article based on the lack of mention of sources you don't even know exist? Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm tagging the article because it presents only one side of a controversy that it says existed, and is therefore unbalanced. Please restore the tag. DGaw (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that there is another side? We can't report on sources that don't exist. We're supposed to provide balanced coverage of existing sources. Not of "all imaginable" sources. Guettarda (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for a non-subjunctive appeal to actual information, and if none is forthcoming I'll propose the removal of the tag. --TS 00:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no subjective appeal here. The article says a controversy existed. A single viewpoint is presented. A controversy must by definition have more than one side. The article is therefore unbalanced. QED. DGaw (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're using an {{unbalanced}} tag to propose a rename? Guettarda (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm using an {{unbalanced}} tag to indicate that the article is unbalanced, because I'm accepting the premise that this was a controversy. Only if there was no other side is this not a controversy. --DGaw (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Then what sources do you think are not given balanced coverage? Guettarda (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At present? Those currently cited in the article. WP:NPOV and WP:BLP require that the controversy be impartially described. Right now, only one is. If there are sources who can be quoted to describe the position of the opposing side, they can be added. Otherwise, the existing quotes can probably be refactored. As the WP:NPOV page says, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --DGaw (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed it already. My thought was that there needs to be some evidence that sources exist before we even consider whether such a tag is appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The evidence that more than one side must by necessity exist lies in the word "controversy." Was there a controversy or wasn't there? DGaw (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy arose over the failure of peer review at a scientific journal. You seem to be attempting to reframe it, appealing to sources that you have not demonstrated exist. --TS 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not reframing anything. You say a controversy arose. The word "controversy" means a disagreement between two or more groups with differing views, so if you are correct, there must by necessity be at least two sides to describe. Otherwise there was no controversy. You understand? So what, in your view, were the two sides in this controversy? --DGaw (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that the nature of the controversy was that a scientific journal was faced with a revolt by its staff over being forced to publish a substandard paper due to the failure of peer review? Do you understand that the controversy arose because scientific publishers aren't expected to have such lax standards? --TS 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that you are not neutrally describing the controversy, but framing it in a way that would appeal to one side? "Substandard paper?" "Failure of peer review?" Do you understand that Wikipedia describes disputes, it does not participate in them? "Wikipedia articles are to be written in a way that does not evaluate positions. By writing from a neutral point of view about something to which you're opposed, you are not implying that the belief is equal, you are merely accepting that an encyclopedia is not the place to be evaluating the contrasting views."

Do you believe that those on both sides of the controversy would agree that their positions are fairly described here? --DGaw (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm describing what happened according to every known reliable source. You haven't yet described or sourced facts to contradict that description. --TS 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened is not at issue, so far as I'm aware. The impartiality of the description is. One concern, for example, the extensive critical quotations from one side of the dispute, in the absence of any from the other. --DGaw (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There are as far as I'm aware quotes from both sides: the editors and the publisher. --TS 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What about the paper's authors?

This is still on my list -- has anyone else looked yet, to see what they have said? Might be worth emailing them.

DGaw's view that the page is presently unbalanced seems reasonable to me. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And your source for the authors' views is...? Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Willie Soon's reply to M Mann in EOS here fully available thanks to Willie Soon at harvard here Polargeo (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also several letters relating to controversy posted at Harvard CFA by Willie Soon this directory Polargeo (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The authors weren't really involved in the dispute, but their opinion could be useful if they have written or spoken about the affair. --TS 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look through the various letters posted by Willie Soon at Harvard CFA (Directory link above) I think you will find he was actively defending his corner throughout this. There is some mention of the controversy and reply by Soon on methodological flaws in this Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Polargeo, for taking the time to hunt this stuff down.

As for the authors not being involved, I don't think we want to get too narrow here. The controversy started with The Team getting upset by The Skeptics "taking over a journal!" (M. Mann) and/or being upset over the content of the S&B (et al) papers. If S&B can defend their content, that's relevant. Ultimately (imo) the controversy is about whether the S&B analysis is correct. The rest is politics, and mechanics.

For that matter, we should probably include something about the pertinent Climategate emails re S&B -- assuming there has been RS coverage. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To the original point at the top of this thread, alas, Soon and Baliunas brouhaha while apt probably does not pass muster as an encyclopedic title.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tillman, it has nothing to do with the "Team", unless you are going to rewrite history. At least according to von Storch[4] who was a central character in the controversy - and i really doubt whether anyone can call him a member of the "Team". The only involvement here is the 12 author paper in EOS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate that getting too far into the science could be unbalancing in its own way. Making this article a coatrack for Willie Soon's one or two papers. There were without doubt methodological errors in his work, this is why the resignations and mass storm amongst scientists at the time. This was never just a Soon vs. Mann, this was a Soon vs. most of the climate science community (I was finishing my PhD at the time and remember it well, the resignation had to happen because scientists were boycotting the journal en masse). I think it very valid to put Soon's views on this issue in the article, however, not to the extent we have extensive coverage of poor quality work. If getting into the science views then the EOS article Mann et al. should be more prominant as this was clearly the majority viewpoint amongst climate scientists at the time. Polargeo (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Structure

As an outsider, this article reads largely as though it is a simple disagreement on interpretations between scientists. In fact it appears that the allegation is that S&B paper is fundamentally flawed; "Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends."

I'd suggest a separate section for "Claimed Errors in the Paper" so that someone looking at this article can quickly see what the source of contention might be.

I'm hesitant to just go ahead and make the changes due to the seemingly sensitive nature of the subject. Would appreciate any comments. Thepm (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus on flaws..." would be best, however, that's open to assertions (here at talk) that there is no consensus, et al.; also that any representation of "consensus" is WP:OR by the editors here. It would be extremely useful if we can locate any peer-reviewed articles specifically alluding to scholarly/academic consensus on Soon and Baliunas' paper. If we simply list a Chinese menu of complaints it's not going to make for very good or informative narrative.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons you note, I'd be hesitant to use "Consensus" as it is much more open to argument. The main paper cited as debunking Soon And Baliunas is Mann et al 2003. However in light of the recent CRU hacking incident and some of the fallout from that, I be hesitant to call this a consensus view (although it was co-authored by 12 people). The paper is available at http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf.

The key criticisms (on my reading) are 1. that Soon & Baliunas conflated precipitation proxies and temperature proxies and 2. That regional temperature changes were taken as global changes.

I'd be happy to take a crack at a separate section covering the key criticisms. I'd guess it could be done in two or three short paragraphs and would give the reader the 'meat' of the dispute.

Thepm (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The paper certainly presents cogent arguments as to the shortcomings of "SB03," as they've dubbed the Soon and Baliunas and Soon et al. papers. I would still look for a word to properly/generally characterize the group of critics (as specifically reflected in the list of co-authors). "Mainstream"? "Proponents of global warming"? The nature of the source should accompany the contentions by the source including article section titles.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we actually need to lable the authors. Do we? I'd suggest we just note "Key Criticisms." I think the fact that it's a peer-reviewed paper in an established journal speaks for itself. I'm less inclined to make a call on who's right/wrong than I am to be clear on exactly why the paper led to the upheaval that it did. Thepm (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the hacking incident, discussions on how to counter arguments, etc. privately and how that discussion is engaged in is not a barometer of nefarious intent of those involved nor does it in any way lend scholarly legitimacy to their opposition.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything like that. I do feel that recent events in the climate science arena have highlighted that there are a broad range of views and that the science is not entirely settled. That's my reading anyway. Thepm (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted some headings to break the article into manageable bites and noted some key criticisms that resulted from Mann et al 2003. As a result, I deleted the references to the press release as it seemed a bit redundant in light of the actual paper that the press release appeared to be based on. Thepm (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Muir Russell

It may be worth noting that the Muir-Russell report on CRU [5] covers this in section 8.3, broadly in agreement with the treatment on this page. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result...

I don't much care for "illusion" but the text Cla has added here [6] is fine, so I don't greatly care what he sources it to William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks reasonable to me as well. Smartse (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be sourced to a crank book. If the information is notable, it will have been reported elsewhere by an undisputably reliable source. Chariots of the Gods might get the dimensions of the pyramids right, but we wouldn't use it to source that info in preference to a book by a reputable archaeologist. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim just added the "failed verification" tag to the addition. This is the text that I was paraphrasing. You all can decide if it should be reworded or not: "The paper had been extremely controversial, contradicting the mainstream consensus that the Medieval Warm Period was probably only a regional phenomenom. In the face of all this opposition, the paper had gained little traction in terms of changing mainstream scientific opinon on the existence of the Medieval Warm Period." I think my summary of that text was accurate. Cla68 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla, that is not an accurate quote from the book. You are missing something in the middle there - aren't you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are the sentences that I was paraphrasing? Why don't you suggest some alternate wording that you could agree with? Cla68 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are taking two sentences from the book, which are interspaced in the book by two other sentences containing 86 words. When you put quotation marks around something - we assume that you are accurately quoting the book - not cherry-picking sentences. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That text translates as the book saying that the paper gained no ground with mainstream science opinion because it contradicted the science. That is a weak circular argument and not really worthy of any paraphrasing. Polargeo (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)}Its just not supported by the ref. tHI doesn't state that "scientific criticism" was the reason for it not getting traction, in fact it doesn't mention what criticism it received - nor whether it was papers, talk-show mentions, or blog posts - just that there was climatologists "fall[ing] over them selves to attack..." and that the board resigned - all of which should have made it gain "little traction", and be a "huge disappointment to the sceptic community" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In between those two sentences is this sentence, "Climatologists from around the world had fallen over themselves to attack the paper... So great was the uproar, in fact, that several scientists resigned from the editorial board of Climate Research." I stand by my summary. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get the "scientific criticism" part from? Scientific criticism is a specific description, and doesn't come implicitly from it being scientists that criticise. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Montford is clearly wrong. The source cited further down in the article, from one of the scientists who resigned, says that they resigned because of the publisher's intervention and the inability of the editors to publish an editorial disagreeing with the S&B paper. They didn't resign because of an "uproar" - they resigned because they couldn't assert editorial independence.[7] Frankly this is a pretty good demonstration of why Montford is a bad source - he's clearly putting his own subjective interpretations on the account. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording might benefit from a little tightening, but we can do better than that on sourcing. We wouldn't source ben article on evolution to a creationist text, and this sourcing has similar problems. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the citation needs to come out until there is some clarity about what exactly it supports. In particular, I note that this appears to be Cla68's subjective interpretation of Montford's subjective interpretation. Surely we can do better than that? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice from an earlier discussion that the Muir Russell report covered this subject. The team assembled by Russell, I seem to recall, did include relevant domain experts and is a reasonably credible source, whereas crank books are anything but. Perhaps that source's comments on the subject should be expanded into this article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We have three editors (me, WMC, and Smartse) supporting inclusion, two against, and one who says that it isn't worded correctly. Kim, why don't you suggest alternate wording? Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? If no one has a suggestion I guess I'll just try to reword it. I suggest that instead of reverting it that you make an alternate suggestion if you don't agree with it. Cla68 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest another reference for the sentence instead. Since WMC's support is based purely on liking the text (which is correct btw), and not on whether it is supported by the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) WMC supports your text but unfortunately your source does not support the text. A rewording is problematic because your source is clearly not adequate to make such judgements based on the text of the actual source you have presented here. Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at Muir Russell. It does cover the controversy briefly (pages 63-64 but it doesn't seem to address the specific assertion made in the article - that "As a result of the scientific criticisms, the paper apparently made little impact on the prevailing scientific opinion, at that time, that the Medieval Warm Period was primarily a regional phenomenon." Now, this assessment appears to be Montford's own subjective opinion. Does anyone know of a corroborating source? Cla68, what is the source that Montford cites for this assertion? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few single sources in the article, including use of the book Climate Cover Up. Why the issue with this source and not those others? Cla68 (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim has pointed out that this source doesn't support the statement it's being cited for. Since those sources are not being cited for that statement, they're not the focus of this discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kim is wrong, the source certainly supports the statement mark nutley (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in cla`s addition. Saying the book is crank is ridiculous, look at some of the scientists who have praised it for gods sake mark nutley (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Cla's rewording does not really convey the reasoning why the paper had little impact (as conjectured in the source) it now just states an indisputable fact that the paper had little impact on the science. This is fine but it does appear to be part of a spam the book campaign which from recent events appears designed to get a reaction from other editors. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree. Cla is quite apparently not interested in the content here - but only in placing the book in the references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to get a look at the relevant page myself via Amazon.com. The text of the relevant section, in its entirety and without ellipses or paraphrasing, is as follows:

The paper had been extremely controversial, contradicting the mainstream consensus that the Medieval Warm Period was probably only a regional phenomenon. Climatologists from around the world had fallen over themselves to attack the Soon and Baliunas paper, mainly on the grounds that many of the proxies used in the study were precipitation proxies rather than temperature proxies. So great was the uproar, in fact, that several scientists resigned from the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal which had published the paper in the first place. In the face of all this opposition, the paper had gained little traction in terms of changing mainstream scientific opinion on the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. It had been a huge disappointment for the sceptic community.

Montford cites no sources whatsoever for this or any other statement on the page. It seems to be essentially an unsourced expression of his personal viewpoint. At best, if we were to use this, it would have to be specifically attributed to Montford: "According to the climate sceptic Andrew Montford...", per WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, OK, so there are problems with that text: Climatologists from around the world had fallen over themselves to attack is just silly and So great was the uproar, in fact, that several scientists resigned is deliberately deceptive. But It had been a huge disappointment for the sceptic community. is really rather telling, and entirely accurate - the "skeptics" had indeed pinned a lot on the paper, and were disappointed when it blew up and sank without trace. Can we use Montford for that quote - he is, I think, a reasonable source for the opinion of the "skeptic community", since he is one and is very much in touch with them? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is something which he is competent to discuss, so I've added that mention to the article with a specific attribution to Montford, as an attempt to compromise on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Graph image

The graph image doesn't appear to be directly related to this article. Does anyone know why it was included? Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't you guess? This is a page about a temperature reconstruction. Well, not quite, but maybe a "reconstruction" William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We should always try to include relevant images in articles if we can. The graph shows many temperature reconstructions and as the article is about a paper which showed the opposite to all of these, and there was a controversy surrounding it, having this image provides context for the reader. Smartse (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I added a caption to try show the relevance, which wasn't much evident before. Shouldn't we also try to add a graph showing the temperature history that Soon and Baliunas came up with so that readers can compare the two? Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the caption - the graph isn't "accepted by the mainstream of climate scientists" it's just the data that came from 10 different studies. If you can make a similar image showing S+B's data, then please go for it. Smartse (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That graph does appear to include to include histories from 10 different papers, but five of the 10 appear to be from the RealClimate/CRU group of scientists, whose work is somewhat, to say the least, controversial. Also, why these 10? Are these the only histories of temperatures? Thus, I'm still not seeing the relevance of this graph to Soon and Baliunas' paper. There needs to be a more direct connection. For example, I notice that Mann testified at a federal legislative hearing in which he stated that S&B had "gotten everything wrong." Ok, well, if Mann referenced his own work in that testimony, then I don't see a problem with including his hockey stick graph in this article, because it would be related by the sources. See what I'm getting at? Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the graph caption to describe what it actually shows, but I have to admit I'm not entirely clear myself about its direct relevance to this article. It needs a clearer explanation of its relevance if it's to be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you dispute the accuracy of the image, it should be discussed at File_talk:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png rather than here. Personally I think it's a relevant image, and that it's the best image that we have at the moment. If someone wants to make a better one, then great but until then I think we should keep it. Smartse (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of duplication of authors names

WMC removed information which I had cited to a press release from Harvard University. I do not feel that using this source for this information is a problem, because all I used it for was to give the names of the three co-authors of the long version of Soon and Baliunas' paper, which their department at Harvard should serve as a reliable source for and for the paper's publication dates, for the same reason. If anyone else has an opinion, please jump in. Cla68 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Qualify my comment, he didn't remove the source, just the three co-author's names. I don't see why they can't be named in the article. Anyone else disagree? Cla68 (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it, I think WMC removed it as they are already listed in Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#Impact_of_the_criticisms but the publication section seems like a better place to include it. Maybe the second mention should be removed instead. Smartse (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You could try reading what I wrote, which is to say, the authors names were already there. I removed your pointless duplication. I've also re-titled this section since you've now noticed it was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WMC. Repeated links etc. really not worth fighting about. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to restructure the article and include the coauthors links further up the page then feel free but not the affiliations of third or fourth coauthors, unless a source can be found that dwells on this. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it looks like most feel that the Publication section is appropriate to list all the author's names. Their affiliations were listed in the Harvard press release. I feel that the source in this case is fine. Are there any objections? Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the names up to the publication section but didn't readd their affiliations until we have what appears to be an agreement here on it. To restate, I feel that it's ok to state their affiliations. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Harvard press release was likely written or significantly contributed to by Willie Soon. That is the way any university I have worked in deals with it. I draft a press release on an interesting piece of my research and the press department copyedits it and puts it out. Also after linking to the Idso's bios I see it as complete overkill to specifically say that the Idso's are afilliated to a center set up by the Idso's. Then to state the affiliation of the fifth and final author to a center that has since had a name change and had two alternate "interim directors" assigned to it [8] is not helpful. If anyone needs information on these extra coauthors they can link to the bios. I know it is a minor thing but the affiliations are unnecessary. Polargeo (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave that alone for now unless other editors chime in with a different opinion. On another note, I'm probably going to expand the "Criticism and controversy" section, so I think I'll probably move down to that section the line about Freitas "who is known as a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming" from Publication to that section and expand on that part of the controversy. Cla68 (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion

By the way, I'm finding that there is more information on this topic than I expected. Thus, I'm expanding it with an eye to nominating it for Good Article. Please everyone, remember it's more helpful to point out issues with the article on the talk page rather than just removing content. I appreciate everyone's helpful suggestions above and hope that they continue. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Cla. I always meant to get back to it. It's a better, more balanced article from your efforts. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or, if you think the content you add is likely to be controversial - or if you add it and it turns out to be removed, ie controversial - it is more helpful to discuss it on the talk page rather than just add it back in William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP, so, if the information is sourced correctly and is phrased neutrally, there shouldn't be any problems that would warrant wholesale reverts of significant portions of text. Any wording disputes shouldn't be that drastic. Cla68 (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, you didn't listen. I edited the new section you added, removing chaff, and then realised there was no point having it at all. Insofar as that stuff is relevant, it is just part of the history, and can be folded in at the relevant place, which I've don't. We don't, for example, need Michaels' opinion: it is just an opinion piece, not very notable, and demonstrably wrong. So if you think it is exciting it could go on his bio, as an example of the sort of things he says William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted and added reliable sources. Please discuss this here before you remove any other material. GregJackP Boomer! 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Ball in the CFP isn't an RS either. Looking at the WSJ page, I see a lot of emails but no interpretation. Nor do I find the word "fire". Could you please say exactly which part of that rather long page you're finding the word in? And you've reverted all the rest of my changes without even addressing them. Michaels' opinion remains just his opinion and doesn't belong here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure he is. You just don't agree with him. I'll look up some stuff and reply to the remainder of your comment later today. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Michaels' opinion was referenced in the Guardian article, so it is appropriate to include it as a reference. Cla68 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Source question

Claire Goodess of the Climatic Research Unit published an editorial on this topic on the website of the Scientists for Global Responsibility here. If no objections, I think that source is reliable for documenting Goodess' opinion on this topic. Cla68 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that this source is already used in the article. Again, if no objections, I'll be retaining it for the same reason listed above. Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested page protection

I've just reverted WMC's last removal of sourced material and requested full page protection until the ArbCom decision is completed, both at WP:RPP and to several ArbCom members. GregJackP Boomer! 22:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove possibly POV material?

There's a paragraph in our "Criticism and controversy" section that reads:

Questions also were raised about connections between the paper's authors and oil industry groups: five percent of the study, or $53,000, was funded by the American Petroleum Institute[neutrality is disputed]. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute. Sourced to the Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper.

I question whether 5% funding is notable enough to mention, and also the mention of the Marshall Institute consulant gigs. No further info re that given at the source, so we can't judge significance, if any. I don't think we have such an ID for any other participants in the article. The whole para could be taken as a veiled attempt to brand S&B as "oilco shills". Propose striking it, unless someone cares to defend notability, pref with a better source. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Rply to Semitransgenic: Sorry, didn't see your ref -- I was out the door moments later, headed to the airport ;-[

The problems with your adds (and the originals) is, none of this stuff has any RS'd link to Soon's work -- rather it appears to be a WP:SYN attempt to demonstrate "guilt by association". We don't customarily list funding sources for other climate scientists, even less so on controversy-type pages. Obvious BLP problems here.

The only thing we need was already disclosed on the original paper:

"Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies." Source: Soon & Baliunas 2003

Given the BLP implications, I've reverted your add. Please discuss here before re-adding it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. You left in the Harvard Crimson, but took out Reuters, the Chicago Tribune, and the Guardian. Reuters clearly connects the funding with the paper (on page 2), as does the Guardian. The CTrib is just a reprint from Reuters, as far as I can see. S&B 2003 is not, of course, a reliable source, since even the publishers agree that it has been published in error. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of RS material

@Pete Tillman let's not waste time trashing around, this is a content dispute, not a BLP vio issue. Twice now [9][10] you've removed reliably sourced content that is correctly cited. It may perhaps be a better idea for you to raise your concerns at WP:RSN. The content is notable, five reputable newspapers [11][12] [13] [14] [15] have carried this story. Whether or not we agree with what the news sources are reporting is immaterial.--Semitransgenic (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree -- this remains a BLP problem, and I guess I'll pass it on to the BLP noticeboard. You are adding in financial support stuff for (apparently) Soon's entire career, in an article about a dispute over a specific paper. This belongs (if aywhere) on Soon's wikibio page -- not here, unless you have impeccable RS connections to this controversy. I didn't see such in the cites you provided.

Moreover, you aren't noting that Soon acknowledged the outside support in the original paper, a NPOV problem. I'll tag for now, and prepare a BLP notice as time permits. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

these are the facts, as reported by reputable sources, and Soon has confirmed that he has received over $1million in funding from energy companies, there is no BLP issue. The article should outline the researcher's funding record because it is notable, in the context of the article, which is about a controversial paper, co-authored by a scientist well known for his stance on global warming. It's of interest in an encyclopaedic context, because a general reader will now have a better overview of the controversy surrounding Soon. Ignoring this recent assessment of Soon's funding, over an extended period, as reported in the press, doesn't make sense, because it has a direct bearing on our view of Soon and his earlier research. This has nothing to do with a "guilt by association" problem, it's simply how it is: he is a scientist with a track record of receiving funding from the energy industry and other groups who are opposed to climate change legislation. Why does aversion to detailing these facts exist here? It has been widely reported.Semitransgenic (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rejection by four reviewers

"The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it.[13]" -- sourced or not, this is flatly false. None of the reviewers recommended rejection, all made suggestions for improvement (which suggestions were incorporated by S&B in the final version). -- Craig Goodrich 216.10.193.23 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source needed. The existing claim is reliably sourced and I see no reliable source for you claim. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is directly contradicted by the second round of leaked emails, in De Freitas own correspondence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.120.71 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

@ 203.59.120.71, you don't cite a source for your assertions but I can guess where you got it. A reliable source would be needed, and there appear to be problems with your argument. Gavin Schmidt as an expert on the topic area replies to 483: [Response: Look at the date of that comment - 3 July 2003. Then look at the dates of everything else, including the resignations. They all happened afterwards - because the Kinne statement was not accepted at face value - and rightly so. Indeed, email 1719, reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. And since the final paper was clearly flawed (conclusions not following from the analysis among other problems), no-one involved was reassured by Kinne's statements. Especially not Hans von Storch (email 2106), and it was the refusal of Kinne to consider the draft editorial and new practices, that in the end led to his resignation at the end of July (email 3013). This is a story about scientists standing up for standards, however you would like to twist it. - gavin] That's not an ideal source, but it raises issues which your non-source fails to address. . . dave souza, talk 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stephan has it rght,[16] a reliable secondary source is needed if we show anything contradicting the reliably sourced statement by Pearce, and the leaked email is a primary source. As shown above, it appears to be out of context and superseded by later discussions. . . dave souza, talk 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. That's certainly not De Freitas's position, and he should have his say, for fairness & NPOV. We don't leave up inaccurate statements by usually RS's if there's good reason to doubt an assertion. Pearce might have gotten this one wrong -- or, more likely, presented only one side of the story. Which is a recurring theme around here....

Best to have Freitas from a 2ry RS, of course. And we know he's paying attn, so may not be long. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, for negative and inflammatory BLP information, when a primary source disagrees with an obviously biased secondary source, that is enough to remove the negative information. In this case, I believe that it is ok to leave the negative information as long as both points of view are provided. That way the reader will at least know that there is a disagreement. The current wording is an obvious BLP problem. Q Science (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When a reliable secondary source makes a statement, and unpublished speculation based on a primary source attempts to contradict that statement, the statement stays. We don't include "points of view" which only appear in blog speculation or in original research by WP editors. . . dave souza, talk 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From Climategate 1, via the EPA Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment et al, there is an email from Otto Kinne, the publisher of Climate Research

Dear colleagues, In my [June, 20 2003] e-mail to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask C[limate] R[esearch] editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.

I am not sure how a source can be more reliable than the epa. In addition, there are no sources claiming that the quoted email is fake, including the person it appears to be from (Otto Kinne) and the people who appear to have received it. Q Science (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have your agreement that the EPA is a reliable source, but don't see how you think this is their view. The email in question was quoted by Peabody Energy as described on p. 49: "Peabody Energy then quotes a statement from the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, which attempts to defend de Freitas’ decision to publish the Soon and Baliunas paper", from E-mail file 1057941657.txt, (July 11, 2003) which also includes scientists' discussion of Kinne's email. The EPA analysis p. 51 notes "However, Climate Research publisher Otto Kinne later admitted in a statement published in the journal that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published, expressed regret that the journal had lost three editors due to the controversy, and promised to strengthen the journals’ peer review policies (Kinne, 2003)." That later statement by Kinne is dated August 5,[17] so the sequence described above is well supported. . dave souza, talk 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed that it was their view, just that it is a reliable source. I think that all of what you said should be included and that the current text (as recently restored by Stephan Schulz) is a BLP violation. BTW, simply saying that the paper is flawed does not mean that the reviewers pointed out the problem. If the flaws were pointed out after publication (as other emails indicate), I don't see a problem, that is how the process works. Q Science (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The current position of this bit is out of sequence, the article as a whole is a bit of a guddle. Don't think it's a BLP vio, but it's out of context. Will try to sort it out in the near future, when time permits. . dave souza, talk 09:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the source instead of blindly undoing, you would see that Clare Goodess was on the editorial board of Climate Research at the time of the controversy and resigned over it. She affirms, 7 years before Pearce's article, that there were four reviewers "none of whom recommended rejection." This was the original language and citation of this article until 10 Sept 2010 when some IP user (not unlike myself) changed it to "all" and inserted the Pearce citation. Reaffirming Goodess' comments is this article in The Chronicles of Higher Education [18] which states, "Four of the scientists reviewed the paper. After the authors had dealt with the reviewers' comments, Mr. de Freitas accepted it for publication." "Comments" are not recommendations for "rejection." Again, this is 7 years prior to the Pearce article at the actual time of the controversy. Are we to believe that Pearce, 7 years later, has access to some secret knowledge for which he provides no source? Both the Goodess and Chronicles sources have held up elsewhere on Wiki for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.22.219 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your sources contradicts Pearce. Monastersky only talks about comments. I don't know how many papers you review, or how, but I give comments wether I suggestion acceptance or rejection for a paper. And, from reviews of my own papers and the different PCs I've been in or organized, this seems to be the norm, not the exception. Goodess, on the other hand, writes, that the paper had "apparently gone to four reviewers..." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest looking at "Pals" PDF attached here. I make no claim that it is RS itself, but it certainly cites RS sources that may be useful here. Arguing endlessly about the 4 reviews may not be productive. de Freitas edited 14 papers by "pals" and 13 by others. "Pals" papers averaged 194 days from Receive to Accept, non-pal papers averaged 261. Soon&Baliunas got through in 140. Recall that de Freitas' earlier paper had been reviewed by Soon and Boehmer-Christiansen. If de Freitas wanted positive reviews for S&B, might he have figured out how to get them?JohnMashey (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

John: I think you just rediscovered human nature!

Regardless, thanks for this contribution, and all the others. Even if I seldom agree with them, you always "stay cool" and on-message. Best for hols, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• We know no reviewers rejected this paper, so I have removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Tagged as inaccurate until such a time as this is removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is this "we"? As discussed above, the sources being discussed don't contradict Pearce's assessment in his book that the board subsequently realised that reviewers had recommended rejection. When three resigned, Kinne admitted that the paper was flawed and should not have been published without revision. I've clarified that point in the article, more adjustments can be made. Please provide proposals on this talk page with appropriate citations if you want to differ from Pearce's published assessment: note that he clearly read the email from Kinne that the fuss seems to be about. . dave souza, talk 23:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the e-mails, none of the reviewers recommended rejection, you are adding information you know to be false. Tagged again as not factual. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"The emails" is not a useful reference. Which emails? I don't think the traffic between the reviewers and de Freitas is public, nor even the names of the reviewers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[19][20] Pearce was wrong. You are also using one persons opinion as a statement of fact, what makes you think this is reasonable? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines, you're using the blog Watts Up With That? to argue that a reputable journalist's published work is wrong: please take more care, WP:BLOGS are largely not acceptable as sources, as was specifically pointed out in the WP:ARBCC sanctions which apply to this article and topic area. What makes me think the point reasonable is that Pearce's book is a reliable source (note that I'm citing the book, not the online article which gives less detail). Even if we accept that the email republished on Watt's blog is shown correctly, note the date: 3 July 2003. Pearce mentions this email in his book, and then states that, [after von Storch had resigned on 28 July], "Kinne himself backtracked a few weeks later, admitting that publication had been an error and promising to strengthen the peer review process." Kinne's retraction was prepublished on August 5.[21] So, Pearce's argument is reasonable, he was a journalist reporting on the topic at the time and had communications with those involved. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but we need a much better source than a questionable blog to determine the facts. . dave souza, talk 12:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard report

I've filed a BLP violation report here. Your comments are welcome. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My specific complaint is that this article is being used as a WP:Coatrack to comment on 20 years of Dr. Soon's research funding, which has the appearance of supporting the Greenpeace effort "Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal" to bring disrepute to Soon. To quote WP:COAT: "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed." --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, we are citing reliable sources, not Greenpeace, if there is an issue with the sources we are currently using, probably best to post on the reliable sources notice board. I don't agree that this is coatracking, and essays are opinion pieces, they are not policies. --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi, the RS's are citing (and using) the Grenpeace report. It would mislead our readers not to include the source. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. The sources are citing documents obtained by Greenpeace under FOI. Reuters (the cited source) claims to have seen the actual funding documents, and they should be reliable on that point. Greenpeace was just a conduit. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian account opens with "Documents obtained by Greenpeace..." and goes on (in Para 3) to link to the Greenpeace site I mention above, So Greenpeace is linked by the media, and needs to be linked here, too. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

if necessary, I don't see a problem adding something like: "According to Reuters and The Guardian, documents obtained by Greenpeace, under the US Freedom of Information Act, indicate that..." --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Climategate 2.0 emails

A number of emails regarding this controversy were included in the latest release.So far only reported by skeptic websites (that I've seen), but the emails don't portray the campaign against Soon, Baliunas and Chris de Freitas in a good light, and there's plenty of context included. See [22] , [23], [24], [25] etc. Need a RS report to go in the article, probably not a long wait, so this is a heads-up. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a stupid question? Since de Freitas has never worked at CRU, and the emails that were referenced were not to the CRU, why are these alleged messages present in emails hacked from CRU? Sailsbystars (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

De Freitas wrote in to WUWT, enclosing a copy of a letter from the journal's publisher, Otto Kinne, saying "Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor." As this was a blog comment, not really usable here. The emails are quoted and discussed at Jeff Id's, [26]. Fascinating (and disquieting) reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that is De Freitas' publication of Kinne's preliminary opinion based on anonymous reviews provided by De Freitas to Kinne. Kinne later very much changed his opinion on the paper. Anyways, what I see is not "plenty of context included", but "mountains of context removed", and the resulting mess formatted in a way that makes it nearly impossible to figure out what is original email by whom, and what is Watt's commentary. I'm also astonished why Pete seems to form his opinion based on what he admits is not a RS. Insisting on reliable sources is not some kind of cargo cult or rain dance. We do it because, well, unreliable sources are not reliable, and what they publish is often crap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephan: I formed my opinion by reading the original emails. You can, too, if you like: [27]. And please, comment on edits, not the editor! Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Already discussed under #Rejection by four reviewers above: the comment made by Gavin Schmidt puts these "skeptic" claims in context, and he has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy which they lack. . dave souza, talk 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There are competing views of Gavin's reputation, Dave, as I'm sure you know. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

By "competing", you seem to mean fringe blogs versus the AGU and of course a good track recod in published papers. . . dave souza, talk 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave -- you might try extending AGF outside of wikipedia. Your constant resort to namecalling ("Denier" , "Fringe" etc etc.) really isn't helpful. As you know, there are fruitcakes on both side of the CAGW debate. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Pete, not to my knowledge, but then your qualifier "CAGW" rather than 'AGW" is rather a giveaway. . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sailbystars, the reason is that it was CRU people, mainly Mike Hulme, who started kicking up a fuss and complaining. So de Freitas replied to him and it got into the climategate dossier. In fact two of the important emails were in the original climategate release two years ago. 1057944829 is the email from de Freitas whaere he explains what happened and rebuts the criticisms. Then in 1057941657, the publisher Otto Kinne confirms that de Freitas handled the paper correctly. Anyone interested in the facts can read these emails. Poujeaux (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Soon et al. on the divergence problem

I've added an interesting quote from this paper, in which Soon et al. point out the difficulty in calibrating Mnn et al.'s tre-ring tmp reconstructions, because of the late 20th century divergence problem. Mann et al. 2003, the rebuttal we discuss at some length in our article, argue inter alia that this doesn't cause a significant problem.

Steve McIntyre has just published an interesting reanalysis of M03, and posted an alternate version of M03's spaghetti graph. I strongly suggest you read both M03 (full text ref's in article) and McIntyre's rebuttal before the inevitable discussion of whether his re-analysis is a WP:RS. I'm prepared to argue strongly that it is. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, so have removed it. Also note that S&B is very much discredited, so any statements in it are questionable and need a secondary source. If McIntyre gets it published in a peer-reviewed journal, that will be interesting. . dave souza, talk 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I present below the text of my addition, which Dave reverted after 10 minutes. As you can see, the first para. should be uncontroversial.

I'm very much concerned that Wikipedia is inadvertently contributing to damaging Willie Soon and Sallie Baiunas]'s professional reputations, a [WP:BLP]] violation of the most serious character. The Climategate 2.0 emails reveal questionable actions by M. Mann and colleagues to discredit Soon, Baliunas, and Chris de Freitas, their editor -- see Climategate 2.0 emails above . I have long felt that S&B's work didn't get a fair appraisal.

I'm also annoyed at the knee-jerk rejection here of McIntrye's work, which strikes me, as a statistics-literate geoscientist, as in many cases more careful than the peer-reviewed literature he criticizes. So I'm prepared to vigorously defend this piece of SM's work, which can perhaps be a test-case for common sense. Just asserting "It's not a reliable source" won't work. Please read the relevant works, then discuss. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"It's not a reliable source." M&M have had massive problems with crappy work before - maybe you remember RadianGate (or maybe not?). S&B is a lousy paper. It would be a lousy paper no matter what other people did or did not try to do about it. It's bad science (and the "science" part of that description is generously stretching the definition). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephan: "M&M have had massive problems with crappy work before." The radian error you mention was minor, and corrected promptly and publicly. Note also that your personal opinion comment could be considered to violate BLP.

"S&B is a lousy paper." This is your opinion, shared with others. There are two sides to the story. At present, we present only one. Do you think that meets the requirements of WP:NPOV? -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I note that neither you or Dave has replied re what I see as a grievous breach of BLP, as noted above. Odd. So I guess I'll take this to BLPN. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Look forward to discussing it there. Do please add a link to the section. Also, I should point out that Climate Change sanctions still apply. . dave souza, talk 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Text of proposed addition, diff

Soon et al. also discussed the impact of the divergence problem on the validity of temperature reconstructions:

Strong evidence has been accumulating that tree growth has been disturbed in many Northern Hemisphere regions in recent decades... [cites literature], so that after 1960-1970 or so, the usual, strong positive correlation between the tree ring width or tree ring maximum latewood density indices and summer temperatures have weakened....

This matter has largely been unresolved, which means that global or Northern Hemisphere-averaged thermometer records of surface temperature cannot be simply attached to reconstructed temperature records of Mann et al, based mainly on tree-ring width, which cannot yet be reliably calibrated, to the latter half of the 20th century.

In a 2011 re-analysis, Steve McIntyre writes that Mann et al. (2003) did not directly respond to the divergence issue problem raised by Soon et al... Instead, Mann et al. presented an expanded spaghetti graph (their Figure 1), showing six reconstructions, in support of their argument that the divergence problem was unimportant. McIntyre points out that Mann et al.s Fig. 1 deletes the Briffa data that shows the divergence problem. McIntyre presents a new graph including this data, and speculates that, had Hans von Storch and others seen this graph, they " might have given more consideration to Soon et al's criticism of the serious problem arising from the large-population failure of tree ring widths and density to track temperature."

• Note that there are apparently two versions of the M03 spag. graph online: [28]. SM used the one from EOS; the version I link at von Storch's website is slightly different. Here is what appears to be the as-published EOS version]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

E&E is not a reliable source. ClimateAudit is not a reliable source. And S&B completely misses the point, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, I don't find "E&E is not a reliable source. ClimateAudit is not a reliable source." to be a thoughtful response. Good grief, E&E is where Soon et al published the paper this article is about!!

Heigh-ho, it's off to RSN I guess. No surprise.... Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Pete, E&E is a social science journal following a political agenda, and as such is only a reliable source on itself: in other words, it's a primary source. The blog ClimateAudit is not a reliable secondary source, as I'm sure you know. Just because a blogger (and Chairman of the Board of a mining company) is now making a fuss about a hitherto unnoticed part of this failed paper doesn't justify adding it to the article. . dave souza, talk 18:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

E&E in not where they published the paper this article is about. If it were, there would be no controversy - everybody knows that E&E is an outlet for papers with no scientific merit (which is why it's not a reliable source). The controversy arose because the paper was published in Climate Research, which was regarded as a proper scientific journal. S&B later published a somewhat extended version in E&E, in what I can only call a questionable double publication. What I don't find helpful is repeatedly bringing up known ba sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Deguddling

The sequence was completely guddled, so I've reorganised and moved sections to reflect more closely historical sequence. Have now started on improving the text, this is work in progress. . .— Preceding unsigned comment added by dave souza (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 December 2011‎

Looks good so far! Sailsbystars (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)