Talk:Michael E. Mann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.


Nothing in the article about Mann's lawsuit with National Review? Very little about the claim allegedly made by him that he is a "Nobel Prize Winner"? Okay, I guess pending lawsuits involve a lot of tricky questions for Wikipedia, but many people would never have heard of Michael E. Mann without the suit and would come here looking for more information about his case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. See the section above: reliable sources are only now becoming available, we need to review these and write cautiously as required for a BLP.
  2. You mean the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which was welcomed by the IPCC chair with the words "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee", and IPCC certificates were sent to those who had contributed substantially to the preparation of reports. Quite a few of those who received the certificates thought they had jointly received the prize along with the other scientists, but after a stushie in 2012 the IPCC issued a clarification that "it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner".
  3. Doubtless some people managed to pay no attention to all the attacks, publicity, congressional hearings and legal cases about Mann and somehow only heard about this lawsuit. We can only include information about the case that has been published by reliable sources, and must not give it undue weight. At the moment it's achieved far less prominence than the Cooch case. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree that lawsuit should be included as RSs become available, with due care as a BLP and remembering WP is not a newspaper. Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'ts now included, and I've clarified it using Newsweek as one of the sources. Maybe it goes into excessive detail of the CEI/NR allegations, we could trim that a bit by briefly describing the allegations rather than quoting them. . dave souza, talk 07:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks good. Yopienso (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

CEI and National Review won their appeal. It probably should be noted in the article that the ACLU and several Reporters organizations have filed Amicus Briefs in the case. The court accepted the ACLU's argument in favor of CEI and National Review in its totality, actually order the ACLU brief be filed as its response. Here is the order. [1]Poodleboy (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different court, and doesn't say what you think it says: their appeal was rendered moot, confirming the case was to go before a new judge. In January 2014 the appeals court under the new judge made the ruling discussed in the article. . dave souza, talk 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The arstechnica article is a better source than the newsweek article, it probably should be used instead or in addition, since the details are clearer in it. Perhaps the order should be added as a reference as well. It will be interesting if the ACLU's continues to make filings in the case. Poodleboy (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Good point, I've added the Ars ref in addition to Newsweek. I've a vague memory that the ACLU was concerned about the right to appeal in principle rather than specifics of the case, no doubt we'll hear eventually. . dave souza, talk 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Amazing how some people's selective memories always redound to the benefit of Mann. The brief signed by the ACLU, along with many others, did not just concern itself with when one could file an anti-SLAPP appeal. It also addressed the merits of the case, as this quote from Reuters makes clear: "A broad array of civil liberties groups from the right and the left, along with two dozen media companies and journalism organizations, has turned out to back National Review and CEI, arguing that free speech will be endangered if defendants can’t dispose of libel suits via anti-SLAPP motions. They also argue that the National Review and CEI attacks on Mann were opinions about matters of public importance..."(italics mine). The assertion that the briefs only concerned a broad "right to appeal" is simply false which comes as no great surprise given the rest of the BS in defense of Mann that appears on this talk page. (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Reuters? Link, please. We cover the issue in "The CEI and National Review argued that the case should be dismissed under SLAPP legislation, and that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure". The case is still in progress and obviously this isn't the place to give undue weight to attacks on a living person, or the generic principle that such attacks are supposedly a matter of free speech. . dave souza, talk 03:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dave on this issue; amicus attacks on the merits of the case do not appear legally relevant at this stage; if the ACLU supports the publishers at a later stage, that might be of interest. If the ACLU made a public statement of support, that might also be of interest, but the amicus briefs do not appear relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A further paragraph was added about the 11 August 2014 amici curiae brief which I reworded to comply with the court filing which had been put in as a source, but then I realised that WP:BLPPRIMARY policy is specific that we "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I've tried hunting for a better source, but the best was another court document, like the brief put online by factions opposing Mann. Please find a good secondary source and discuss it here before readding information about this most recent appeal against SLAPP dismissal. ... dave souza, talk 20:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Sean Higgins wrote in the Washington Examiner about the brief. This is not the best of sources, but the most recent discussion of whether the Examiner is a RS was inconclusive, and centered on its recruitment of amateur writers. Higgins, however, is a paid professional who previously wrote for Investor's Business Daily. Therefore, I suggest it as the secondary source you request. Yopienso (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a better one: "Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views" by Barnini Chakraborty, Aug. 14, 2014,
Also, Mark Steyn himself makes the same assertion, so the court document supports the living person's own assertion.
We know this brief was, in fact, filed, so let's say so. Yopienso (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources are required to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and Chakraborty's second paragraph is blatant nonsense undermining his reputation. This is Mann's bio, not Steyn's, so we can't use Steyn's self-published claims, but I've left the name of his counsel in, hoping that a better source turns up. . dave souza, talk 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's the blurb on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website. Yopienso (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we can probably accept that as a reasonably reputable source and a straightforward statement, so have edited accordingly. The section was getting overweighted with arguments against Mann's case, so I've added a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists showing scientific and journalistic support for him. Ir this keeps expanding, we may have to reduce it to a summary and split the content off into a sub-article. . . dave souza, talk 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how you can call this "blatant nonsense undermining his reputation":
Michael Mann, a prominent professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has long been a target of climate change skeptics for his work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades, and has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data.
I can imagine you would object to the word "claiming" and would prefer "demonstrating," but that would be a quibble, not blatant nonsense. Since everything in the paragraph is true and verifiable, I'm adding the article as a source.
  • Also, I'm reinserting Kornstein's page showing that he is representing Mark Steyn.
  • I disagree that "the section was getting overweighted with arguments against Mann's case. In fact, I don't see any, so am putting one in.
  • FYI, but not as something to add to the article, Time, Inc., NBC, NPR, Gannett, McClatchy, News Corp, The NYT, The WP, The National Press Club, Dow Jones (!!), the ACLU, and many others, are amici curiae of the National Review and CEI.
  • If the section gets bloated, I suggest eliminating details about Steyn, particularly his counsel. Yopienso (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the blatant nonsense, Mann's work is paleoclimate, not "work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades". Mann uses data collected and published by others, not "his data", and when has he sued groups about trying to "debunk" it?
  • The defense is covered by "they had merely been using exaggerated language which they said was acceptable against a public figure", and "the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion". The Fox News sourced opinion merely states the same thing in exaggerated language, so I'll remove that. As for counsel, previously Steyn's site was highlighted, the link to the counsel's page looks ok. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you biased against using Fox News as a source? That isn't an opinion piece, but an article in their political section. Our article agrees, He was promoted to full professor in 2009 and to "Distinguished Professor of Meteorology" in 2013. Doesn't say "paleoclimatology." His whole mission has become to convince Americans that temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades because of human activity and that we need to reverse the trend. P. xvi of his book The Hockey Stick . . . says the graph shows "that a sharp and highly unusual rise in atmospheric warming was occurring on Earth." On March 18, 2014, he wrote in Scientific American, "The dramatic nature of global warming captured world attention in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the 'hockey stick.'" The data Mann collects becomes "his data." He sued Tim Ball and the Frontier Center For Public Policy for libel. Ball makes a living out of trying to debunk Mann's data. Principia Scientifica--associated with Ball, writes, "Ball was the underdog made into the accidental hero of the climate wars story. He helped pave the way towards a new open platform for principled scientists on the Internet so that independent, unpaid researchers debunking the so-called 'greenhouse gas theory', the cornerstone of the pseudo-science of all global warming alarmism are finally being heard." That's their perspective, as Mann well knows. And so do you; I honestly don't get your objection. I'm restoring the Fox article as a source along with the link to the court document.
Shulman speaks for scientists, not journalists; virtually the entire US MSM has signed up in support of Steyn. Or rather, of Steyn's right to express rubbish. Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yopienso, Mann analyses (proxy) data collected by others, his work shows a declining trend in temperatures over the past thousand years or so. This contrasts with th modern instrumental record put together by others, which shows that "temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades". The famous MBH99 Hockey stick graph uses the instrumental record published by Jones and Briffa and credits them accordingly. I've not seen a reliable source for Ball's claims, but you should realize that data isn't theory: debunking "the so-called 'greenhouse gas theory'" says virtually nothing about Mann's work, the only connection is that his paleoclimate findings are consistent with the theory put together by others. Shulman speaks for scientists and for himself as a journalist, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press ably speaks for journalists. Hence some approximate balance. We can hope for some better sources to cover the outcome of this interminable law case in the New Year, so best wishes for then. Speaking of lawsuits, I think I'll now listen to The Makropulos Affair again, in holiday mood. All the best, . dave souza, talk 18:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not biased against using Fox News as a source, but I still recognise the piece is poorly researched. I'm perplexed by your decision to support the misleading suggestion that Mann initiated legal proceedings against Tim Ball simply for trying to debunk his data (which is nonsense). Really Yopienso, your reasoning here is very unsound. — TPX 18:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But, Dave, Mann's work shows an abrupt upturn at the end of the declining trend! He became an activist about the sudden warming, not the slow cooling.
One way Ball and Steyn try to "debunk" is by casting aspersions, just like Greg Laden and Richard Littlemore do in return. (Nasty blogosphere out there! Defame = debunk?)
Note how the SA refers to "Mann's data points," "his raw data," and "his data."
But let's not spend the holidays fussing over semantics. :) The section looks quite good to me now. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Just to note that if Chakraborty had written of Mann's work "claiming" that the measured 20th century upturn came at the end of a millenial declining trend, she'd have been right, but she didn't.
Mann started trying to show that the recent upturn was partly due to cycles including the AMO, but came under attack and by arguing back "became an activist" (instead of an inactivist?). In my understanding, defame means personal attack, debunk means disprove: Steyn's method is defamation by libel.
The SA quotes you cite are from a sentence starting with "A community skeptical of human-induced warming argued that Mann's data points...", this describes the contrarian arguments which Chakraborty repeats uncritically. Before that, the SA article correctly says the MBH method "analyzed paleoclimatic data sets" etc. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The defamation lawsuit section is poorly written. First, these sections should not begin by outlining alleged defamatory statements but by saying that Mann has filed suit for defamation. There is also excessive detail. No one except a tiny group of people with idiosyncratic views about cares what the National Review or Mark Steyn have to say about anything. And if the mainstream media, except for Fox News, ignores the details of the case it is because they are unimportant and fail weight. This is all better placed in a website dedicated to things like smoking does not cause cancer, the moon-landing was faked and professional wrestling is real. TFD (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, while the more detailed context can help understanding and may eventually be useful, there's an argument for trimming it drastically, as I've suggested above. Want to have a go at it? . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dave, Chakraborty wasn't outlining Mann's whole career; she was telling the reader what skeptics have been so upset about, which is his assertions of dramatic warming in recent decades. I.e., his hockey stick graph and its economic, political, and social ramifications. Not AMO. Here you can see that Ball made his allegedly libelous statement in the context of trying to disprove global warming. Chakaborty's assertion,"has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data," seems to refer to Mann's suing Ball and the FCPP. Like bloggers on the other side, Ball and Steyn and others blend defamation and debunking into a nasty mix.
  • I quoted from the SA to show that it is normal to refer to data a researcher uses as "his" (or hers) regardless of who collected it. In his own voice, Appell said, "More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data." That piece, btw, shows that attacks against Mann are because of the hockey stick, not his previous work. And yes, he's an activist, as he laid out in the NYT. That's why he started a climate blog and a Facebook page and wrote a book.
  • TFD, the section reads chronologically. I agree it would be better to start with a topic sentence on Mann's bringing a suit, and then explain why. As I said above, details about Steyn are unnecessary, although his alleged libel does need to be treated. Fox News is reliable for news. Michael Mann isn't in the MSM much, either, except for his own writing. Not much secondary stuff on him outside the blogosphere. Yopienso (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Fox News is rs, but the issue is not rs, it is Balancing aspects. For example, one could write a reliably sourced article Obama where 90% of it was about his relationships with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. But it would not be a neutral article because it would place undue emphasis. That Fox News and only Fox News gives it so much coverage is evidence that its emphasis promotes a U.S. conservative bias. If people want their sources of information to present that bias, they can always tune into Fox News. TFD (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been said several times before, but let me repeat it. Mann's claim to fame are his reconstruction of temperatures over the last about 2000 years. These are based on various proxies. They make up the "handle" of the hockey stick - a very slight decline with some variation. The "dramatic upturn" is from actual measured temperature records, and is essentially the same for the all the major instrumental temperature records, including HadCRUT, NASA GISTEMP, and Berkeley Earth. It's not the result of Mann's work, although he does, of course, cite the instrumental record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
TFD, faulty logic there; you can't reject a RS because other RSs haven't covered the issue.
Stephan, WP isn't a scientific journal. The section of this encyclopedic article is about Mann's defamation suit against Mark Steyn. As Mother Jones puts it, "Michael Mann, the perennially embattled climate scientist best known for his "hockey-stick" temperature graph. . ." That's what his book is about. The thrust of his activism is to defend the hockey stick, not his research in paleoclimatology. Steyn isn't disputing that. (I don't think you'll mind my indenting your text.) Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso, the hockey stick IS paleoclimatology. That's why Fox News is a bad source for this specific case, a business journalist with apparently no knowledge of the science opining on a scientific issue, and misleading readers. . dave souza, talk 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The UPTURNED BLADE of the hockey stick. We're all aware of the controversy over how he combined proxy data with instrumental temperature records. Yopienso (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yopienso, see Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." In this case since only Fox News reports it, the policy would mean we should exclude it. TFD (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to note that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is cited for the basics of the amicus brief, Fox News is a party to that brief, clearly isn't a third party source, and doesn't really add anything. I've left the Fox reference there, but would be happy to see it removed. . dave souza, talk 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Taking into account the suggestion of The Four Deuces above, I've revised the section to tighten it a bit and start with the context that "Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libelled." I've trimmed the alleged defamatory statements to what I think is a reasonable minimum for readers to understand the issues. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations..."[edit]

The article currently states, "They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations...", however the article neglects to mention what the allegations actually were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've added the allegations, quoting from the cited document (Foley, Scaroni, and Yekel) that exonerated him. Yopienso (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Reiterating false accusations looks like an attack page, I've simplified it to what the cited document summarises it as, accusations of research misconduct. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense; it's part of the story. Bill O'Reilly's very much alive, and we repeat allegations of conversations about vibrators and sexual fantasies. We repeat allegations of "willful, wanton, arbitrary, and egregious official misconduct" against Chris Christie. We repeat allegations of sexual misconduct against William Kennedy Smith that were dismissed. Etc., etc., etc. Please restore. Yopienso (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll just tuck them into the footnote. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The Thereza Imanishi-Kari BLP provides an example of repeating allegations of scientific research against a living person. Yopienso (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That was a really bad example, with a focus on the allegations rather than her exoneration, and misrepresentation of sources. Have tried to bring it up to BLP standards. . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If I were into barnstars I'd give you one for that clean-up. But your improvement still tells the reader what the accusation was--you didn't leave it at professional or research misconduct, but specified the fraud unit "accused Dr. Imanishi-Kari in 1991 of falsifying data." To me, that's proper, because the reader should know what the investigation was about. I put the allegations against Mann into the footnote as a compromise; feel free to move them up into the article. Yopienso (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent criteria for sources[edit]

Tillman, you just removed the qualifier, "who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax," after the name of Senator Inhofe, with the edit summary, "WP:BLP." Can you please explain your rationale? It sets Inhofe's request in context, and I can't see how it's out of place in a BLP on Mann. Neither do I see how it's wrong to ascribe that to Inhofe; I sourced it to his 2012 book entitled, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

But I don't have particularly strong feelings about that line. What bothers me is that in considering it, I went to Jim Inhofe's BLP, where I found the use of kinds of sources that are never allowed in this one on Michael Mann. Personally, I think if we know something is true, the 5th pillar WP:IAR lets us ignore the most stringent rules on sourcing, like not using blogs or tabloids. But that's just how I "plead the 5th." :) Nonetheless, we should be consistent--if the BLPs on climate activists, specifically, Mann, can be cited only to impeccable sources, so should the BLPs on climate deniers, specifically, Inhofe, and vice versa.

Technically unqualified sources I found in one section:

  • Inhofe on Voice of Christian Youth America's radio program 8 March 2012 James Inhofe Says the Bible Refutes Climate Change
This poorly cited ref is from Right Wing Watch, the organ of a partisan advocacy group.
  • Leber, Rebecca (November 5, 2014). "Congratulations, Voters; You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment". Retrieved December 17, 2014.
  • Plumer, Bradford (February 10, 2011). "Is This What The Climate-Change Debate Has Come To?". The New Republic. Retrieved March 16, 2011.
The New Republic is an editorial magazine.
  • "James Inhofe proves "flat Earth" doesn't refer to Oklahoma.". Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, April 13, 2004."
  • Charles P. Pierce. "In Praise of Oklahoma". The American Prospect. February 23, 2005.
The American Prospect is a partisan political magazine.
  • Four refs cited to primary sources--Inhofe's speeches in the Senate, whereas at this article "use primary sources with care" generally means "Don't use Mann's own words unless several MSM articles repeat them." Three are now dead links, while the fourth lists Marc Morano as a contact. Nothing bearing Morano's name is permitted on Mann's article.

N.B., I am not contesting the use of those sources; I'm protesting that reliable partisan sources or Mann's own words aren't admitted here. Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed this clause, as it was tagged for a cite, which wasn't supplied (and the tag removed). In any case, it's a gratuitous swipe that's irrelevant to that para.
Yes, I've also noted the double standard. Worth persevering to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced BLP material. Even for politicians. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Somehow you missed that I added a cite to his book titled Hoax, etc., 13 min. after you tagged it. About an hour later Dave added a ref that quotes Inhofe thusly: "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of 'manipulation of data.'" He's now undone your revision, which I think is proper. Without the clause, Inhofe's motive is misunderstood. It seems clear that he called for the investigation not so much as an impartial Senator concerned with fraud, but as a climate denier in a position of power. That's how I interpret this 2010 article in The Guardian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talkcontribs) 08:54, 7 January 2015‎
  • Inhofe speech July 28, 2003, in which he disputed Mann's work: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."[2] . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to why you posted that, but I rather doubt it was to provide a precedent for including as a reference in this article a court document in which Mann's paid counsel wrote on his behalf, "As the result of this research, Dr. Mann and his associates were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" (p. 2, paragraph 2). Yet that's precisely what it does, if you're saying that's a RS for Inhofe's views. I agree it is, and so is the lawsuit for Mann's. And so are his public figure (not private individual) Facebook page, the jacket flap of his book, and his old Penn State web page.
We all know that Inhofe has repeatedly called global warming a hoax, and that, until the IPCC issued the clarification, Mann repeatedly claimed to have won, or to have shared in the award of, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Posted it simply as a source confirming Bloomberg's (and our) wording, it's a public statement by Inhofe. Thanks for providing a reference to Inhofe's book, either source seems good to me. It's not a court document, and as discussed earlier there's specific WP:BLPPRIMARY policy that we don't use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
If what anyone has said about sharing the IPCC's half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is significant, there will be reliable secondary sources explaining the significance: we shouldn't go hunting for what they've said and adding it to all their bios. That's the difficulty with a developing situation, much appreciate your help with this. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It is fine to say that Inhofe called global warming a hoax because that is in the Bloomberg article.[3] The relevance is that he was an opponent of Mann's opinions and thought that an investigation would discredit it. It is not a good idea however to use primary sources, since they could inject synthesis. Adding that someone thinks global warming is a hoax tends to discredit anything they say or do. That is why right-wing media are eager to discredit Mann over alleged Nobel claims. If he was wrong on that, he is wrong on global warming. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No one (except Mann) denies that he once claimed to have shared the Nobel prize. No one (that I can think of) claims that Inhofe does not claim that global warming is a hoax. However, the first is more relevant to this article than the second. That the sources that support the first are more right-wing than those that support the second shouldn't affect reliability or significance. To clarify, there are no unbiased reliable sources which support the significance of the second, and no sources which support its significance to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of Mann denying that he erroneously believed/claimed he had won part of a Nobel Prize. As soon as the IPCC defined the matter, he accepted that he had "contributed toward" the prize but had not "been awarded" any portion of it. To me, the fact that he changed documents and stopped making the claim was the best way he could rectify his prior error. My rub is with WP editors who deny (or suppress the fact on technicalities) that he initially made the claim. Yopienso (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Care is needed with accuracy about language here, and I've not seen Mann claiming he "had won part of a Nobel Prize". The flysheet of his 2012 book says "he jointly received", the lawsuit press release he put on his Facebook page says "he was awarded". Of course in both instances the third person implies that it wasn't written by Mann. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
"Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It does not say that we should balance mainstream media with U.S. libertarian blogs. While it maybe that Bloomberg News is a biased left-wing source, it nonetheless is considered mainstream media. Note that they do not mention Inhofe's views on global warming in order to challenge his judgment, but to explain why he challenged Mann. Certainly you do not think he would have challenged the report if happened to support his views on global warming. I doubt too that it would have attracted the attention of so many editors. TFD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I have little doubt that Bloomberg News wouldn't have mentioned Inhofe's views if they didn't consider it relevant, but they didn't say it was relevant, and many, even academic, papers have digressions not really related to the theme of the article. It still seems synthesis to assert its relevance even to the extent of using it. In addition, it's even more of a "passing mention" than comments about the Peace Prize in mainstream media. In other words, Mann's statements about the Nobel Piece Peace prize are relevant, but not important. Inhofe's views on global warming are, perhaps, important, but not relevant. (They almost certainly should be mentioned in Inhofe's article.) We probably should include neither here, in the absence of reliable sources asserting facts and relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Inhofe has a history of attacking Mann's work going back at least to 2003, so his intervention is relevant, as discussed by Bloomberg. As you say, good sources are needed for anything about the "Nobel" allegations, which should really be discussed in a new talk section if you're proposing some. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Dave's comment of 16:56, 7 January 2015, thanks for explaining why you posted the source. But you're doing just what I'm talking about--presenting a public document, forbidden by the excerpt you pasted in from WP:BLPPRIMARY, and without the requisite secondary source. ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.") And, to use your word, it's "stale." Why is all that OK for a BLP about Inhofe, but not for one about Mann? Again, because both men have repeatedly made their opinions abundantly clear in public, I think WP:IAR applies. To both. Yopienso (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps have made it clearer at the time that this is a primary source supplementing the Bloomberg article. Regarding "stale", this was discussed above with reference to a legal news posting that was superseded by the more recent appeal hearing and the revised defamation suit filed by Mann's lawyer. Don't know if that source has discussed the changes, if it's important I'd have expected them to note it. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Was a consensus reached regarding the clause about Inhofe? It has been removed again [4] TimOsborn (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, I've restored it. Pete seems to be zealously trying to give equal validity to fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Multiple reliable sources are available to confirm Inhofe's reputation for making claims that global warming science is a hoax. His own April 1, 2012, book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is evidence of that, but it's really a primary source and the publisher WorldNutDaily Books has a dubious reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The most academic source I've found so far is John S. Dryzek; Richard B. Norgaard; David Schlosberg (18 August 2011). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0. The single most prominent Republican when it comes to climate change denial is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, famous for claiming in a Senate speech that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'   My understanding is that OUP books like this are peer-reviewed.
With greater relevance to Mann and the CRU email inquiries, a scholarly book published by Routledge Explorations in Environmental Studies: Gerald Kutney (3 February 2014). Carbon Politics and the Failure of the Kyoto Protocol. Routledge. pp. 107–109, 110–111. ISBN 978-1-317-91466-2. His infamous 'hoax' accusation appeared at the start of this long speech, and three more times near its end . These included "I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" as well as "With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is." In October 2004 he repeated on the Senate floor "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He issued a 20-page brochure under the seal of the US Senate, The Facts and Science of Climate Change which repeated the hoax claim and in a section titled "The IPCC Plays Hockey" disputed what it said was Mann's flawed, limited research. In August 2005 Inhofe invited fiction writer Michael Crichton to speak in the Senate as an "expert witness" disputing Mann's research. Inhofe had a leading role in a minority group Senate report, "Legal and Policy Issues in the CRU Controversy", published in February 2010. It presented claims that emails demonstrated unethical and possibly illegal behaviour, and listed as "Key Players" 17 scientists including Mann and Jones. On 26 May Inhofe formally requested the OIG to investigate the issues in relation to NOAA, it found no major issues or inappropriate actions. In his 2012 book The Greatest Hoax, Inhofe proposed slashing the budget of the "rogue" EPA, and stated "My point is, God's still up there…. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
That's a mixture of quote and summary by myself, it seems to me a better source than Inhofe's book for the statement we've already attributed to Bloomberg, so I'll substitute it. The detail should be useful in the Jim Inhofe article, though the book also covers other aspects less directly related to Mann. . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a source for relevance. I'm sure one can be found, but it is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Both Kutney and Bloomberg show clear relevance: the latter states "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of “manipulation of data.” Alternatively, we could summarise Kutney's account of how Inhofe as a long-term opponent of Mann's work used the emails to make further allegations before going a step further and arranging the investigation. Either way, it's important to show the context that this investigation was arranged by a politician opposed to Mann's science. The various accounts of the NOAA investigation take care to show Inhofe's position on the science. . dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Nit-pick about a false statement in the article[edit]

The article currently reads, in part, "... and concluded that there was no evidence of manipulation of data." That sentence is false for the primary and secondary usage of the word "manipulate." Data that are not manipulated are usually worthless; it was and it is the job of the CRU to manipulate climatology data. One can assume the writer meant the tertiary usage of the word "manipulate." Perhaps the article could be changed to reflect the fact that the data manipulation the CRU did in the past (and still does) was found to be non-fraudulent, and was found to be scientifically correct. As a science communicator, I think events that are controversial among non-scientists (such as the fake "climategate" hoax) need to be explained with hyper precision, and saying there was no evidence of data being manipulated is lazy. Data exist to be manipulated: that is what data are for. --Desertphile (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted the word "inappropriate" per the Inspector General's letter to Sen. Inhofe. YoPienso (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)