Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Graph

The aim of this page (or at least my aim in starting it) is to take material from Temperature record of the past 1000 years, and Michael Mann (scientist) and Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (curiously little there) and put it into a central place to avoid duplication and mess. And to allow the other articles to focus on their substance William M. Connolley 12:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is a great idea. TheronJ 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The graph used on this page should be the graph at issue (i.e. Mann's graph). As it is, Mann's graph is the blue line in the current muli-line graph. The bold black line in the current graph is even more extreme than Mann's blue line, and I question why this graph is used when it is the original work of a Wiki user. There are plenty of graphs from peer reviewed journals available, and the obvious choice for this page would be the so-called hockey stick graph itself as it appeared in the ITCC.Bdell555 14:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Errrm, graphs in PR journals tend to be copyright. The *data* in the graph is sourced from the given PR sources, so what is the problem? William M. Connolley 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphs in US Government sources could be used and would be an improvement. The current graph invites readers to compare the bold black line against that data FROM OTHER SOURCES AND METHODOLOGIES for dates prior to the beginning of that line. Again, this is comparing apples to oranges. For what it is worth, that black line data disagrees with the anomaly temperature data recognized by the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, etc. Finally, that most problematic line is boldened to obscure the other lines, a technique no respectable peer reviewed journal would engage in. But this is all beside the point that this is not the graph that this article is about anyway.Bdell555 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you care to point to a possible replacement, we could consider it. Otherwise its all a bit vague. I very much doubt that the black line disagrees. Please point to something is disgrees with William M. Connolley 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The graph which gave rase to this "hockey stick controversy" could be cut from

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1000YrRecords.jpg

That is a .gov source which I believe gives rise to no copyright issues under Wiki policy.

Actually, not everything on a .gov server is public domain. Only works performed by US federal gouvernment employees as part of their official duty are. Images prepared by others on behalf of the gouvernment will be under copyright (which can be held by either the creator, a third party, or, somewhat suprising, even the US gouvernment). Unless we have an explicit statement about that image, we probably cannot use it. Also, there is no good legend with the image - it looks like it contains unsmoothed data without any confidence intervals. We can replot the same from the original data. I'm fine with having the bare hockey stick in addition to the image with all the reconstructions. We need the other, though, because it gives a very succinct statement about part of the debate. --Stephan Schulz 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is Wiki policy to have to ask for permission to use images from US Government publications. In any case, for a complete "debate", the IPCC graph which Mann's graph replaces should also be provided.Bdell555 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On your user page you claim that you do not believe much... See WP:Copyrights#Image_guidelines for the Wikipedia policy on images. Images need to be either freely usable (with possible attribution requirement) (e.g. PD, GFDL, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licenses are ok), or a specific fair use case has to be made. Making a fair use case here would be hard, as an equivalent image can be easily created from the available data.

I also suggest we build a Wiki article based on the facts as opposed to your "doubts", and the facts are that the party supplying the temperature anomaly data for the bold black line themselves concede that their numbers disagree with other sources. They say that it is because "the global and hemispheric anomalies used by IPCC and in the World Meteorological Organization and Met Office news releases were calculated using optimal averaging" (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/).

Actually, they say "The more elementary technique (used here) produces no estimates of uncertainties, but our results generally lie within the ranges estimated by optimum averaging", i.e. there is no statistically significant difference. --Stephan Schulz 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, why not present the IPCC and/or WMO temperatures instead of or as well?Bdell555 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Create a plot. If it sigificantly differs from the current one, we can talk. If not, this is just hot air. --Stephan Schulz 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not creating a plot using sources you select or sources I select. The issue is creating a plot at all that combines hemispheric studies with global studies and short term studies with long term studies while dismissing "local" studies as if the hemispheric and global studies are not themselves aggregations of local studies.Bdell555 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are not. Glad that that is solved now. --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2 paras cut

I removed:

'Among the charges against Mann et al. is that the graph grafts the surface temperature record of the 1900s (which in Mann's graph was shown in red) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. It has been argued that two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

Another criticism is that the surface record differs significantly from the satellite temperature record [1] and the surface record has been claimed by some to be the product of urban heat islands.

The second is about the instrumental temperature record; crit of it belongs there, not here. The first doesn't really make sense (and the records aren't all tree rings). The pre-1900 reconstruction is supposed to be temperature, and has been calibrated against the instrumental record; so it makes perfect sense to graft them together William M. Connolley 14:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1) This article is about a graph that uses the surface temperature record as its input for its 20th century data points and using other instrument sources would have produced a different result. Some reference should be made to that. Why not use the satellite temperature record?

The various sfc records are essentially all the same. You can argue that there should be different ones more to your liking, I suppose. But any dicussion of that belongs on the ITR page. The satellite record is (a) too short to calibrate the longer records and (b) doesn't differ significantly from the sfc and (c) exists in multiple versions. You did know point (c), didn't you? William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't prefer "different ones". What I prefer is more than one, while you apparently want readers to remain ignorant of any issues concerning the surface temperature record which Mann relies upon, and thereby constitutes part of the "hockey stick controversy".Bdell555 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

2) The primary source of the pre-1900 data is tree rings. The primary source for the post-1900 data is the surface temperature record. This is comparing apples to oranges. At a bare minimum it should be acknowledged that the two periods are coming from different sources. Moreover, calibrating recently laid rings against known temperatures that existed at the time could mean using a temperature series seriously contaminated by heat island and other local errors. If the calibrating temperatures are wrong, the whole tree ring temperature reconstruction for the distant past is also compromised.Bdell555 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Its from 1860 rather than 1900. There aren't a lot of heat islands in the forests. You are pushing far too much you own personal views here. If you can find some nice refs about the problem of calibration, then feel free to add them William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very correct that there "aren't a lot of heat islands in the forests"! That's why when you want to conclude that the earth was cooler, use tree ring data, and when you want to conclude the earth is comparatively warmer, use surface temperature data that is influenced by heat islands!! I dare say you are every bit as shrewd as Professor Mann!Bdell555 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For my part I have removed

"However a number of other reconstructions, shown in the graph, produce broadly the same result especially around the Medieval Warm Period.

This sentence essentially suggests the scientific consensus agrees with Mann's implication that there was no MWP or LIA. Just because some Wiki-user has made a dubious graph which suggests there was no MWP or LIA does not make it the professional consensus.

You septicism is showing through now. The graph is excellent; it shows all the reconstructions fairly. You don't like the *fact* that none show a warmer MWP, but it remains a fact. William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am not a global warming skeptic. I don't think the skeptics have made adequately made their case. What I take issue with is not global warming but the number of people out there like yourself who do not want both sides of the argument presented to the general public. As for the facts, you are the one who has reverted my citations of studies supporting a MWP without explanation or argument.Bdell555 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to mention studies that have concluded there was no MWP or LIA then fine, go ahead. But it should also be stated in the interest of informing the reader that previous IPCC reports clearly indicated a MWP and LIA and that Mann's graph represented a divergence from that. I fail to see why it was necessary to delete that fact in particular.Bdell555 16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some Wiki user" has gone to the considerable trouble of integrating all available peer-reviewed studies into a comparison graph. If you don't like it, show where he failed. I'm also sure Robert (aka Dragon's Flight) will integrate any other peer-reviewed study from a reliable source that you can offer. IPCC reports before the 2001 TAR did not offer any temperature reconstruction, but just a qualitative graph of what was back then the best guess. --Stephan Schulz 16:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are "all" studies included on this graph or just the ones that support a particular point of view? If, with no small indulgence, we say that it is perfectly reasonable to compare recent data to data from 1000 years ago gathered by another method, then there are MANY studies which could have been used instead of or in addition to that bold black line. It just so happens that bold black line goes straight up whereas satellite data, to take just one example, does not. A "qualitative graph" that reflects "best guess" is, in fact, more respectable that a quantitative graph that claims greater accuracy than is available, especially when that new graph stands in contradiction to accepted knowledge at the time.Bdell555 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from the image page, Robert used all studies for the relevant time period listed at [2], except for repetitive ones and one that did not supply the data in replottable form. Again, if you are aware of any other quantitative temperature reconstruction for the time in question that was published in a reputable scientific publication, bring the source, and we will integate it. I'm not aware of any conflicting studies. As for the satellite temperature record, you are a few years to late. The satellite data has been revised a couple of times as more and more problems were detected, and is now in good agreement with the surface record and model predictions. See e.g. the final report of the US Climate Change Science Program to congress[3], which states in the abstract; "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies." (emphasis added) --Stephan Schulz 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An article at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999GeoRL..26.1445B supplies replottable data for 858 years, data which indicates that "Neither instrumental nor proxy data in Idaho northeast valleys show unusual warming during the twentieth century." Perhaps you could explain to me again why that is not worthy of inclusion but that bold black line which only goes back a few decades is.

The study you reference is not a global or hemispherical temperature reconstruction, but only a local one. And the "bold black line" is the actual instrumental surface temperature record, which, in contrast to the satellite data, has held up very well over the years. Several studies have e.g. shown that the urban heat island effect has no discernable influence on it. --Stephan Schulz 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So the creator of the graph believes it legitimate to globalize selected hemispherical temperature reconstructions, but no such expansion can occur to a study that doesn't support the warming hypothesis? The cited source for that bold black line (the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) also found that global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005 and yet I cannot perceive that from your graph.Bdell555 20:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot see the difference between a hemispheric reconstruction and a local one, discussion becomes somewhat pointless. Most reconstructions are northern hemisphere, as there are more proxies available there. As the graph ends in 2000 and the temperature is smoothed, it's no surprise you cannot see short-term trends after 2000....--Stephan Schulz 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What I cannot see is how a hemispheric (or global) reconstruction can be made without looking at any locations. A local study is evidently junk science to you, but if you repeat junk science over enough times in different locations it turns into real science? Meanwhile my opened eyes are supposed to be blind to any difference between a hemispheric study and a global one. Last time I lost a silver dollar on the sidewalk I searched for it on the sidewalk on the other side of the street because more light was "available there". Was that logical? If you are prepared to defend this graph that uses sub-global studies to support global conclusions then in the name of consistency I take it you are not one of the many who reject a MWP and/or LIA by arguing that any such thing was merely a hemispheric phenomenon. If the "graph ends in 2000" I take it you are prepared to to concede that 2004 should not be so prominently stamped in the top right?Bdell555 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. A local study is not necessarily junk science, but it gives information about local climate only. A hemispheric study given information about changes of temperature at all latitudes from the equator to the pole. It's not as good as a global study, but it is a lot better than a local study. And no, I do not reject MWP and LIA. I find evidence for the LIA more convincing than for the MWP, but neither is completely settled. And, btw, both are compatible with the Mann et al reconstructions if you allow for the confidence interval. The graph is clearly labelled, and it is clearly stated that the 2004 data point is there for comparison only. --Stephan Schulz 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simultaneously claim that information from a particular location gives information about "local climate only" while claiming that the information provided by a particular location as part of a larger area study provides information about more than just its local climate. Moreover, the studies you cite as hemispheric do not provide data "at all latitudes" from zero to 90. The fact of the matter is that BOTH contribute information about the global climate. I have cited 5 studies from different areas of the world to start with and your reaction is not to challenge the validity of their procedures but instead to simply dismiss them by saying they could not possibly say anything about global climate. If "you allow for the confidence interval" then you have to allow that the Mann graph may say nothing and may support nothing. You rejected the alternative graph I suggested on the grounds that it has no error bars while simultaneously having no problems at all with the original research graph which includes Mann's graph without error bars! Finally, it looked to me that that 2004 data point was from the bold black line series data. If you are now claming that 2004 data point comes from some other source then what is that source? 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I might add that the issue relevant to the "hockey stick controversy" was whether Mann was justified in ignoring satellite data in 1998, not 2007.

In 1998, the satellite data was available for 19 years only. Moreover, it does not show surface temperatures (which Mann et all reconstructed), but temperatures from a broad stretch of the atmosphere. Why should he compare apples and oranges?--Stephan Schulz 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't, but given his willingness to switch from tree ring data to surface temperatures, I think one can ask why switch to oranges instead of bananas. The data used for that bold black line does not use air temperatures over the oceans as it does for land, either.Bdell555 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I cut this line from the article,

"This is a curious comment, because the borehole data suggest cold temperatures early on (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-19.htm) and (as shown by the figure above) other studies find the MWP to be no warmer than in MBH."

I am reluctant to cut rather than change or expand but I don't see how to revise this one. The citation shows warming from AD 1500, which argues in favour of a LIA that our infamous hockey stick graph does not recognize (so why the editorial comment?) It also mentions "other studies" which supposedly contradict what is said just prior to "This is a curious comment..." but does not list them. I should think one could provide some evidence these studies exist (aside from referring to our "bold black line" graph, which by the way includes our "hockey stick graph" and thereby begs the question).Bdell555 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the borehole data does suggest a cool LIA. So the borehole data makes the 20th C even more exceptional - the warming is greater. So McK's comment makes no sense William M. Connolley 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

McKitrick is comparing the 20th century to the MWP, not the LIA, to conclude that the 20th century is not exceptional. The citation you gives provides no data prior to 1500, so is irrelevent to that particular point. In any case, it is for the reader to decide what "makes no sense" or is "curious". Also, why do you refuse to list these other sources you speak of? Bdell555 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any borehole data suggesting a warm MWP. Which are you (or McK) thinking of? I'm not quite sure how to interpret these other sources you speak of - if you mean other temperature reconstructions, they are listed on the graph. You have looked at the graph and noticed that none show a warm MWP, haven't you? Or are you still asserting that disenting studies have been suppressed? In which case you need to understand the difference between individual locations and hemispheric averages William M. Connolley 20:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are straw manning McKitrick here by claiming his contention is that there was a MWP clearly warmer than today when in fact he is instead claiming that today's warmth is not drastically different, and therefore not exceptional, relative to the MWP. And although it is hard to read because the bold black propaganda line is obscuring the others, I'd say the red line, and possibly others, support McKitrick's contention. Also, one of the lines is Mann's own graph, so you are essentially saying, look, Mann's implication that there was no MWP or LIA is proven because Mann implies that. This is a logical fallacy called begging the question.Bdell555 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It becomes increasingly clear that you don't know what you are talking about. AFAIK, the borehole temperatures support *colder* earlier times, not warmer. The link I provided supports this. McK is claiming... who knows what (aside: McK is very much a minor partner in all this: McI is the one that has done all the work: just look at climate audit). McK, however, does not cite his borehole evidence, and neither do you. Please tell us exactly which evidence you are thinking of William M. Connolley 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

To repeat myself, the evidence relevant to McK's comments here is pre-1500 data, not post, and you citing post-1500 AD data. If you want to consider post-1500 AD bornhole evidence perhaps you would not object to adding this link to your article as well: http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

But McK has not provided this early borehole data, and nor have you. Where is it? William M. Connolley 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to Article Readers

I have attempted to provide more balance to this article but my edits have been reverted wholesale and I fail to see the point of extended revert war. So I would just caution you that a critical criticism of Mann's graph is that it implies no Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age and these phenomena are well documented in other sources. For example, studies in support of a global MWP and/or LIA include those that looked at

- radiocarbon dating of marine organisms in sediments of the Sargasso sea bed (LD Keigwin, "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274, 1996, pp. 1504-1508)

- extractions from Kenyan lake bed sediments (D Verschuren, "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa during the past 1 100 Years", Nature, v.403(6768), Jan 27 2000, pp. 410-414)

- oxygen 18 isotopes from Peruvian glaciers [4] and a well-dated stalagmite in a South African cave (Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v.96, 2000, pp. 121-126)

- sea levels over the last 1400 years [5]

Instead of adding a criticism to the citation of such studies the mention of them is simply reverted wholesale, apparently to protect your innocence from the conclusions of scientists. Apparently you are also not supposed to know that Mann used tree ring data for the part of his graph that is flat and what the limitations of tree ring data are. Finally, you are evidently also not supposed to know that the US National Assessment nonetheless reproduced Mann's graph without error bars and described it as applying globally [6], although I can't imagine why that was reverted as well. I suppose it might cause you to have an excessively inquiring mind concerning the conclusions of the US National Asssessment as well!Bdell555 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from a reader. It does not surprise me that someone with a known connection to Mann has been heavily editing the page in an egregious manner. I sorta thought the graph was bunk but figured I'd read this article to get a better feel for it. Seeing the behavior of the Mannbots, I'm now convinced. The pseudo-scientist has no clothes. Thanks to Raymond or whatever your name is. I've always suspected you guys where con men. Now you've confirmed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.78.140 (talk) 21:17, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

These things are already covered in Hockey_stick_controversy#National_Research_Council_Report as well as in the second figure. In looking at the history, these were also both present in the reverted version being complained about on 20 January. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

why is this not Mann's graph?

OK let's start a fresh para here. This is too long.

In a nutshell this article purports to deal with the controversy over Mann's "hockey stick" analysis. So why is the only thing I see NOT Mann's graph?

This is absurd. The entry claims to discuss the contoversy but displays someone elses graph in place of the one in question!

Much of the controversy is that the graph was so widely published by the UN , IPCC , the Canadian gov. and half the media outlets of the planet that it has become widely accepted by many as a true representation.

Are we really to believe that it is now impossible to get any copy of this widely published graph to place on Wikipedia?

Willaim Connerly, you seem to the self appointed guardian of your version of the truth on climate topics here and it is you doing your typical "slash and burn" editorial on any content that does not fit your personal world view.

You started this topic, and have spent considerable effort argueing why you cant post Mann's graph for copyright reasons.

Why dont you ask your close collaborator and co-author on "realclimate" Micheal Mann ?

Unless of course your real motive for starting this page was misrepresent the record on this issue.

If you have not already done so could you please ask Micheal Mann to add his graph to this page or give you permission to do so. That will end all copyright arguements and excuses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.144.113.77 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Without endorsing any of the ad hominem arguments in the above (or the misspellings), I agree that the graph in question should be on the page. I see that the BBC seems to have had no problem with posting it on their web site. While IANAL, I believe that in the US, a posting of that graph in question would be Fair Use anyway. For example, look at the text under "Licensing" below this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Calderhall.jpeg I believe that that is how the IPCC reproduced the graph, and the BBC in turn.

Regarding asking Mann about it, the copyright doubtless doesn't belong to him (or Bradley and Hughes) anyway. It doubtless belongs to the journal in which it is published. That being said, I've never heard of a scholarly journal ever coming after someone for reproducing a chart from a paper, especially in a situation like this. Mgolden 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: the graph on the page doesn't show any error bars, as the MBH graph did. Since the errors are quite relevant to the discussion (and are mentioned in some of the quotes), that would be another good reason to show both the original chart from the IPCC TAR (which is here, and seems intended for redistibution) and the amalgam graph that is there now. Mgolden 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard to reconcile?

I don't understand this sentence from the introduction: "It is hard to reconcile that statement with the above graphs which show a continual warming since the coolest part of the Little Ice Age around 1650 AD." Looking at the graphs, I don't think that the available data supports an inference that there was statistically significant warming from 1650 to 1900. Is there some other source? My preference would be to remove it, since it seems POV anyway. Mgolden 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added IPCC Chart

I have added the IPCC chart and rewritten the introduction. While IANAL, I am nearly 100% certain that the use of the chart from the IPCC is Fair Use under US law. Those interested can read the summary of Fair Use put out by the US Copyright Office here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html As you can see, the law specifically allows for Fair Use in the context of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research", virtually all of which apply here.

While I have reorganized and shortened the introduction, my goal was not to reduce or strengthen the description of either side of the commentary.

It is my belief that the article itself is still too repetitive, especially the section under "Mann", but I will not touch it for now.

Mgolden 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Having both the hockey stick (with the original uncertainties) and the other reconstructions improves the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New graph is good. Note that the article was pasted together from material from several articles so could definitely do with some editorial compression William M. Connolley 19:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially in the "Mann" section. I don't have time to do this today, but will try to get to it in the next few days. Mgolden 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One other thing: I don't think you should have removed the sentence about overestimating the stability of the temperature and underestimating the temp in the MWP. If you go back and read what it said, the question you should have addressed isn't whether it's true, but merely that it is what M&M are contending. The point isn't to resolve the controversy in the introduction, just to state it. And it is most certain that M&M contend this (especially McKittrick). Therefore, I ask you to revert your own change. Mgolden 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly disagree that McI - and hence M&M - are saying this. McI has a very strict line that he doesn't believe any of these reconstructions actually are any use (if the article doesn't say this it should!) and hence there are no grounds for saying the MWP should be warmer. McK (who I have the impression is now, and perhaps always was, is very much the junior partner in all this) has strayed from this on occaision William M. Connolley 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that McI makes the claim that these reconstructions aren't useful. I also agree that the McI is the senior partner so far as the math goes. McK has definitely made statements that the MWP was warmer than now and that the present climate is not unusual.

We can leave it this way for now, since the gist of the disagreement is adequately represented. When I turn to it again later this week I will try to add some of M&M's statements to clarify their position(s) - probably not in the introduction. 66.234.42.38 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Borehole comments

The current page includes the following paragraph in the section characterizing criticisms of Mann:

"After auditing the work of Mann et al. (1998), McKitrick commented, "The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)"[13] However, the borehole data suggest cold temperatures early on[14] and (as shown by the figure above) other studies find the MWP to be no warmer than in MBH."

At first glance, this paragraph seems to be describing McKitrick's comments.

In context, most people will read this paragraph as summarizing McKitrick's views, while the subsequent paragraph addresses Mann's response.

In fact, the last sentence is an attempt at rebuttal, and is directly contrary to McKitrick's views.

Since this article's title is "Hockey stick controversy" is would have thought that Mann's response would stand on its own (i.e. its not our job to say what Mann's response should have been).

For this reason, and primarily this reason, the sentence should be removed.

I have serious problems with the graph itself, but this article is not the place to argue over the reading of the borehole data. This article is for discussing the hockey stick graph, the criticisms leveled against the graph by well known figures, and the responses to those criticisms by well known figures and entities (collectively, the "Hockey Stick Controversy").

In other words, original arguments about why the hockey stick is or is not accurate, do not belong here.

I am accordingly removing the sentence.

24.128.51.0 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see whyn this should be read as summarising McK's views, since as you say its clearly contradictory and starts with "However...". This article should discuss the controversy, and evidence for and against, which is why the sentence is relevant and should stay William M. Connolley 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First, my decision to edit this was because I genuinely misread the sentence as representing McK's views. I had to read the paragraph twice more to figure out what happened. Even if the sentence were to have a place in the article, it should be located in a place where that doesn't happen. The context is two paragraphs describing McK's paper, the second of which contains a long quote from McK. This is followed by three paragraphs describing Mann's response. The sentence in question is at the end of the long quote. I initially read it as being part of the long quote.

In general, these five paragraphs are summarizing McK's criticism followed by Mann's response. This isn't the place for adding what random Wikipedians believe Mann SHOULD have said. Mann et all can speak for themselves, and they have done so at length. They likely haven't focused on the Borehole data because the IPCC graph you referenced is demonstrably subject to the same types of statistical problems as the hockey stick.

No one is saying what Mann *should* have said. Its adding data relevant to this point William M. Connolley 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean here by They likely haven't focused on the Borehole data because the IPCC graph you referenced is demonstrably subject to the same types of statistical problems as the hockey stick - you mean the borehole data is subject to McKs crit? Why should it be? But if its "demonstrably" so - please demonstrate William M. Connolley 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The current article references the conference paper in which McK addresses this very issue[7]. McK directly addresses the issue of what the Borehole data says, and specifically identifies problems with the IPCC graph. Reciting the same IPCC data that McK debunks as if it rebuted McK does not make sense. Citing an article which attacks McK's debunking WOULD be a valuable contribution here, but it should probably go after Mann's response to McK. 66.92.77.23 17:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be similarly wrong to add to an article about the Scopes Trial arguments which support the theory of evolution and which, while contemperaneously available, never played a role in the trial.

If Mann or somebody else publishes an article asserting that McK is wrong, then it will become part of the controversey. It should probably still be listed after the section summarizing Mann's original response, since he was first and since he wrote the original article.

In summary:

1. This article is not the place for original arguments about the validity of the hockey stick. There have been numerous commentators who have commented directly and can be referenced here.

2. This part of the controversy is, at its core, about statistical methods of analysing data to determine the presence of trends. Graphs generated without taking in to consideration McK's criticisms have little or no rebutal value, since he is essentially saying the the graphs are invalid and appear to support conclusions that the underlying data does not.

3. If such comments do have a place in this article, they should be put in a separate section. Somebody who goes to this article is likely looking for a quick summary of what the major players said with references to where and when they said it. IF we need a section discussing whether they were correct or not, it should be separate from the section which explains what was actually said.24.128.51.0 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are completely (and obviously) incorrect about point #2. You are more subtly wrong about 1 & 3 - relevant data should be mentioned William M. Connolley 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that you have never read the citation[8] immediately prior to the misplaced text. This citation directly (and devastatingly) addresses the 2001 IPCC report and the borehole data graph that it includes. Obviously, citing this same graph that McK debunked as if it were a response to McK's debunking is ludicrous.66.92.77.23 17:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have read it. It doesn't address the issue of deducing trends. It complains about the underlying data. And the point is not to cite that same graph but the various other ones William M. Connolley 17:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted sentence started: "However, the borehole data suggest cold temperatures early on[14]" where [14] was a reference to the 2001 IPCC borehole data. Can we at least agree that it doesn't belong there since its not responsive to the issues raised in the preceding McK statements and papers.

After the McK position is presented, the next statement ought to be something that responds to the McK position. The current article follows up McK's claims with Mann et al's response to his claims. I don't think this can be significantly improved upon.66.92.77.23 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've abandonded your defence of pt 2. Good. However, the borehole data clearly *is* relevant, since it contradicts McK's point. And of course it isn't the IPCCs data. Its merely being reported by the IPCC William M. Connolley 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. McK's conference paper specifically addresses and debunks this borehole graph. I think that automatically makes this irrelevant. Here's an over the top anology. Tell me where it fails:

Person A says "The sky is always dark, as you can see in this picture."

Person B says "Person A's picture was taken at night, if you looked at the sky during the day, it might not be dark"

Person C says "Here is a link to a picture of the sky taken by person A; as you can see it is dark"

Person C's statement is irrelevant because it merely regurgitates evidence that person B has acknowledged and dismissed.

Person D says "Here is another picture taken during the day. As you can see, the sky is also dark during the day".

Person D's statement is relevant because it adds something new.

Person E says "Person B didn't didn't notice the 24 hour clock in the background of Person A's picture. Clearly this picture was taken at noon."

Person E's statement is relevant because, although it refers back to Person A's picture, it points out a flaw in person B's analysis of the picture.

2. I am not aware of (but would be interested in seeing or getting a reference to) a series of borehole data that:

A. shows that the global MWP (if any) was colder than the current warming period and

B. does so with sufficient confidence that it does not fall victim to obvious statistical flaws, such as those McK pointed out in the original hockey stick.

If you have a reference to such a dataset, then by all means you should add it to Temperature record of the past 1000 years. I personally would find it educational. I am modestly bothered by the way that the borehole data in the current 1000 year graph stops at 1500 when we have past statements from Huang supporting the MWP. I would like to know if he has changed his tune because he found contrary evidence, or if he truncated his data because the consequences of publishing data that supports the MWP became too great.

If RealClimate.org posts an article saying that McK is wrong BECAUSE of this borehole data, then it has become part of the hockey stick controversy and should be added to this page. I don't think this has happened. If it has, please add a reference to this page. If RealClimate.org hasn't made such a statement well... it's your blog isn't it? By publishing such an article, RealClimate.org would be putting its credibility behind the data set as a way to debunk McK. By definition that makes it part of the hockey stick controversy. (but I still think it should go after Mann's initial response.) 66.92.77.23 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

McK's conference paper specifically addresses and debunks this borehole graph - I don't believe this. Please quote from the paper where he does this William M. Connolley 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the last sentence of the second to last paragraph in section 2 (on page 6). Here is the entire paragraph:

Huang and coauthors published their findings in Geophysical Research Letters6 in 1997. The next year, Nature published the first Mann hockey stick paper, commonly called “MBH98.”7 Mann et al. followed up in 1999 with a paper in GRL (“MBH99”) extending their results from AD1400 back to AD1000.8 In early 2000 the IPCC released the first draft of the TAR. The hockey stick was the only paleoclimate reconstruction shown in the Summary, and was the only one in the whole report to be singled out for repeated presentation. The borehole data received a brief mention in Chapter 2 but the Huang et al. graph was not shown. A small graph of borehole data taken from another study and based on a smaller sample was shown, but it only showed a post-1500 segment, which, conveniently, trended upwards.

I'm sure you are going to tell me that you disagree with McK, which is fine. But merely regurgitating this graph hardly rebuts McK's point.

I would very much like to know what happened to the Huang data showing a very substantial MWP between 1997 and 2004 when he published the 500 years of data that now resides in our 1000 year graph. Its entirely possible that some new source of error was found that rendered borehole data from before 1500AD unreliable. Maybe new data was found which explicitly contradicted the old data. It is also plausible that publishing the 1000AD to 1500AD data would again have provided evidence of a substantial MWP, and that this would have had substantial negative consequences for the authors' future in academia. Whatever the reason, I am curious.66.92.77.23 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, at last its beginning to make sense. Certainly I disagree with McK. You are wrong to say that McK "debunks" the post-1500 graph; he talks negatively about it but thats another matter. He is wrong to say that only the post-1500 segment is used: thats all the data; it hasn't been cut. He also neglects to mention who authored the study used in the IPCC... and it was: Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang, Po-Yu Shen. Thats the same Huang (re-reading your comments I see you're aware of that. McK doesn't seem to be). So the interesting question is, why (in 1998) did Huang publish a *shorter* record, using (as McK points out) fewer points, that disagrees with the earlier study? Its an interesting question (which I asked here a little while ago). The answer appears to be data quality: the earlier stuff isn't so good. Certainly, no-one cites it anymore William M. Connolley 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the link. However, there is nothing there to support your assertion that data quality is to blame. There is just a carefully nuanced statement from Huang that doesn't really say anything. At the time, I believe that it is you who wrote "Hmmm. I'm not impressed by Huang's reply to you. If the 1997 paper is still valid, why doesn't he mention it? If its invalid, I can understand his reticence." You subsequently assume that his reticence must be because "the 1997 is now invalid, for whatever reason".

An alternative explanation is that in the current academic environment, anyone whose scientific results disagree with the current consensus will be assumed to have made some error in measurement and/or analysis. People who can't measure or analyze things properly have trouble getting grants and tenure track positions. A scientist could avoid this problem by avoiding datasets that he believes would result in papers that contradict the current consensus, and by making carefully nuanced statements that neither agree nor disagree with older work which no longer supports the consensus.

Since the validity of past proxy data tells us a lot about how much we can trust more recent proxy data, I'd like to know. 66.92.77.23 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit its not proof, and probably not usable on wiki. I included it only for info. You can be paranoid if you want An alternative explanation... but then std assumption is that later papers override previous ones. However... McK is the Master of the Audit, no? Even now, without a doubt, he is working on these two datasets to see which one is correct... no? William M. Connolley 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the doubts created by McK and friends are substantial, and rise well beyond the level of paranoia. Keep in mind that no conspiracy is required for the proxy data to appear to support an invalid conclusion. A simple widespread belief that supporting the consensus will help your career would be sufficient.

I remember a recent Nova where they interviewed a wide variety of scientists researching Native American settlements in the Americas. When the consensus was that no humans could have reached North America before 13500 years ago, scientists stopped digging at that depth or simply didn't report what they found out of fear that their methods would be called into question. Nobody ever gathered all the scientists together and said "we've got to hide pre-Clovis settlement of the Americas". But the scientific consensus nonetheless resulted in the supression of contradictory data for a period of decades, ending only quite recently.66.92.77.23 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh... and the "substantial MWP" is not correct either. As Pollack points out (pers comm) there is essentially no 20th C data in the HPS curve, so it ends effectively in 1900, not 1990. So their "best guess" MWP is colder than present William M. Connolley 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All this is interesting... but we're drifted far from the point, which was your assertion that McK's conference paper specifically addresses and debunks this borehole graph. The discussion we've had doesn't support that assertion - McK clearly hasn't debunked the 500y borehole graph. You agree? William M. Connolley 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original statement by McK which got us started and which remains in the article as a quote attributed to McK:

The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence.

As I said earlier, I am not aware of (but would be interested in seeing or getting a reference to) a borehole dataset that:

A. shows that the global MWP (if any) was colder than the current warming period and

B. does so with sufficient confidence that it does not fall victim to obvious statistical flaws, such as those McK pointed out in the original hockey stick.

66.92.77.23 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that McK's asserted flaws have something to do with the borehole data. They don't.

No-one uses the borehole dataset McK uses anymore. McKs assertion that his conclusions are "fully in line with the borehole evidence" conveniently forgets that. And even McKs data shows the present to be colder than the MWP William M. Connolley 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

McK says the borehole data is consistent with the hypothesis that the 20th centurey is unexceptional when compared with earlier centuries.

I am asking for a 1000 year borehole data set which you believe is accurate and which contradicts his claim.

Since I am fully expecting the current warming period to be substantially warmer than the several hundred years preceding it, the 500 year data set would only be of great interest to me if it contradicted that expectation (which it doesn't).66.92.77.23 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The borehole data was skewed, because Mann did not take into account that as CO₂ levels rise, the tree rings grow faster, as they do when it is warmer. A scientist recompiled the graph, taking out the skewed borehole data, and there was no rise in the graph at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eniteris (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Graphs

There is nothing visual to show readers that there is anything disputed here. Both graphs are hockey-stick shaped. There should be one for Mann, one for his scientific opponents - or no article at all.

Moreover, the text should not make the case that Mann was right all along but remain neutral. It can, of course, list everyone who backs him up with endorsements (e.g., UN panel says he was right). But if we list endorsements, we should include partial endorsements or counter-endorsements (is that a word? ;-) too. --Uncle Ed 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed... the opponents don't *have* a reconstruction. Have you not been paying attention? And... you're falling foul of undue weight again. This isn't two equal sides. The point about the sphagetti graph is that it already contains many non-MBH graphs (I don't suppose there is any hope in asking you to avoid personalising this as the septics do?) William M. Connolley 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the edits, but I think that his key point is a good one. When the hockey stick graph was featured prominently in the TAR, readers inferred that global temperatures had been nearly constant over the preceding 1000 years (right up until the current warming period), and that there was no Medieval Warming Period (or at least not a substantial global one).

Now we know from Mann that the graph means nothing of the sort, and was only intended to illustrate how little we know about the climate over the past 1000 years. As it says in the article "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article".

But it is the elimination of the MWP and LIA that riled critics, and anyone who reads the article should come away with this understanding.

I think that the best way to do this, would be to include a graph from one of the first two assessments and thus visually communicate how the Mann graph represented a change from the conclusions of earlier IPCC reports. 66.92.77.23 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case you want MWP and LIA in IPCC reports, but prepare to be disappointed, since the SAR sez two periods which have received special attention... These have been interpreted, at times, as periods of global warmth and coolness, respectively. Recent studies have re-evaluated the interval commonly known as the MWP... the available evidence is limited (geographically) and is equivocal William M. Connolley 20:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear. I don't want the article to say that there are "two equal sides".

1. I want it to say that there is a dispute.
2. I want it to say what the dispute is about.
3. I want it to say who is on each side of the dispute.

Is that part clear now? (I'll have more to say in a moment.) --Uncle Ed 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it now says that, I've removed the tag. If you mus re-add it, at least point it to the right talk section :-( William M. Connolley 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William, Figure 4.3 on page 31 of the Wegman report shows a reconstruction using centered PCA methodology and compares it to Mann's MHB98 reconstruction. Your claim that opponents do not have a reconstruction is false. Given that you have obvoiusly read the Wegman report and this glaring omission made by you I have trouble believing your objectivity. --GTTofAK 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A little reading is a dangerous thing. No, this is not a temperature reconstruction, and they do not claim it is.--Stephan Schulz 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I say "temperature reconstruction"? I don't think I did because there is no such thing. Figure 4.3 from the Wegman report is the actual PCA reconstruction from the Proxy data. What you call a "temperature reconstruction" is the trend line of the PCA reconstruction with the Y axis converted to temperature. Figure 4.3 is a perfectly accurate, complete, and immediately understandable PCA reconstruction of the proxy data using both Mann's faulty MBH98 methodology and a correct PCA methodology. It should be included in any article that discusses this issue and should most certainly should be included here. --GTTofAK 09:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No - fig 4.3 is only one proxy that goes into the reconstruction, not the full reconstruction. Please read the caption William M. Connolley 10:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Citecheck needed

The Hockey stick controversy article needs a citecheck badly: five out of the six pro-Mann cites I checked simply did not support claims made. One cite did have a second cite that did support it, so I simply deleted the link (to an irrelevant Jonathan Chait op-ed bashing Republicans that did not mention the hockey stick controversy). The other four have had tags added. That is not an endorsement of the rest of the article; at this point, I simply don't trust the article, because someone appears to be subtly POV-pushing by using original research and seemingly credible cites that don't actually support the claims made, but I don't have the time to do that systematic a digging (often, a several-thousand word article is cited for an issue), and experience has taught me that this topic is too hot-potato for my tastes, since Wikipedia is just a hobby for me. I'll notify WMC and Uber, and let them hash it out. -- THF 11:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're bound to interpret something saying Wegman wsan't PR as pro-Mann. I don't. But anyway. Some of your crits appear to be valid. I didn't add them.

The report was not subject to formal peer review. - I think the ref supports that. North says The Wegman report was sent out to several readers just before its release. This was quite a different procedure from the NRC one. But we must not be too harsh here since the NRC has a time honored framework and a very competent staff for this kind of vetting and this was not available to Dr. Wegman

"makes no difference" - agreed. I've replaced it with an RC post on the same subject William M. Connolley 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The two cites critiquing social network analysis were tagged as not supporting the actual information. The first seems to support the first sentence, actually, but the second sentence is left unsupported (except perhaps by implication). I'll replace that cite with , and [ http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Engineering-Systems-Division/ESD-342Spring-2006/E21D4F9E-7543-488A-927F-831FE2F0F783/0/final_team_struc.pdf] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hal peridol (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I have fixed several other cites and dead links, but I would like an explanation for the WP:SYN and failed verification tags on the cites discussed above. The statement from the article is: Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science. Both references provided discuss and measure social networking and coauthorship in science. Hal peridol 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN is an issue of original research. One is not allowed to create original analysis of issues in Wikipedia articles by drawing together disparate cited sources and drawing original conclusions. A cite must be a cite with respect to the subject of the article. A 2001 analysis of social networking cannot possibly be a critique of Wegman's 2006 report, and thus any citation to it has to violate WP:SYN. It's fairly clearly explained there. Similarly, the 2006 MIT cite says nothing about Wegman as best I can tell. -- THF 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - as you have some concern with that, I have checked [9]: it has specific criticism on this point, and I've added a citation of a transcript of the Congressional hearings [10], , with criticism of the social networking analysis.Hal peridol 20:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I objected to the Crooked Timber post, but if I did then, I don't now. -- THF 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the remainder of the links and repaired the dead ones. Per my statement of 14:43 09/04/2007, I'm going to delete those tags and then eliminate the cite-check tag (in two actions to clarify that one is a rv of THF) - hopefully this is OK with all. Thanks, Hal peridol 15:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POV text

(As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)". This text is too POV to remain, though with great rework might be encyclopedic. --Skyemoor 12:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from McKitrick. You've now removed half of his quote, the second quotation mark, and the reference. I'm restoring. -- THF 12:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My error, I thought it was an editor's viewpoint. ––Skyemoor 13:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A note

The main thing wrong with this page is that it was thrown together by taking HSC type stuff from a whole pile of different pages. It badly needs melding together properly William M. Connolley 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Scientifically the drama is not very interesting, but it's had a lot of attention in the press so it should be smartened up. Maybe I'll try some copyediting. Raymond Arritt 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to eliminate the sections entitled Mann and McIntyre; most of the information repeats that in the other sections, and it looks to be simpler to insert any relevant remaining information into the other existing sections than to rewrite keeping Mann and McIntyre intact. Hal peridol 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this reads better - feel free to revert if you disagree :) Hal peridol 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

William, you are doing it again

Your recent edits are exactly the kind of thing that caused me to bring your edits up on the COI Noticeboard. Durova reminded you of the importance of not appearing to have a COI and asked you not to edit subjects that you are closely related to, like Michael Mann. Your recent edits have all attempted to suppress valid information from reliable sources and appear to be nothing but an attempt to protect your friend and co-worker, Michael Mann. I will revert your edits and bring the subject up again on the COI noticeboard if you revert. RonCram 13:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I don't recall any prohibition on me editing Mann related articles, do please quote more exactly. In the meantime, please don't blanket-revert but try to consider the actual matter at hand William M. Connolley 13:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

William, her exact quote was "So I advise Connolley to exercise care with regard to WP:COI where edits regard colleagues with whom there might be an appearance of impropriety." You have violated this in an extreme manner. Some of these edits are the exact deletions you made that caused me to bring this to the COI Noticeboard. RonCram 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I expected: you can't justify asked you not to edit subjects that you are closely related to, like Michael Mann. I don't regard myself as banned from editing this article, as you appear to want. I'm disappointed that you are using threats to try to have your own way on this article and don't appear to be prepared to discuss the substance William M. Connolley 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

William, I am perfectly willing to discuss your edits but I am not certain this is the correct forum. You say you don't regard yourself banned from editing this article and that is technically true, but your actions violate Durova's request. I really thought you would not want to be known as a repeat offender but now you are deleting again the exact same valid and reliable information that was your first offence. In your edit summary you write "rm claim... its true, but MBH claim it too - see lower sections)" I do not what you are referencing with "lower sections" but it appears that you are deleting McI and McK's claim of vindication and leaving Mann's claim of vindication. That is not NPOV. You also deleted evidence that Mann's hid data in a CENSORED subdirectory that was contrary to his conclusions. This is a major part of the controversy that is very notable and there is no justifiable reason to delete it. It is obvious that your COI is preventing you from editing objectively. RonCram 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you are making things up again. This is obviously the correct forum for discussing this page. The censored part is just an unfortunate name, and is no major part of the controversy - to listen to you, one would think that the controversy wa full of large numbers of major parts. This article is not here to reference every single post that CA has ever made. As for the rm claim [11] - what are you talking about? That para about NRC/Weg ends with only M&M claiming victory - clearly that is unbalanced, which is why I removed it. COI: I disagree with you William M. Connolley 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Censored" is a technical term having to do with data analysis and implies nothing untoward as it does in common usage. Ron knows this, or at least he should know it given his long interest in the hockey stick episode. Ron, surely you would not want to play on confusion over the different meanings of the word "censored" to push your own POV, right? Given your admirable concern for transparency I don't believe you would want to take a chance on misleading the reader. Raymond Arritt 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

William, there is no reason to remove information which other editors consider useful. That serves no purpose. If it bother you so much, why don't you go over to the Frasier episode entries, and delete details which seem trivial to you? Wouldn't that be just as useful, if you want entries to be so pithy? The point is there is no reason to feel anyone needs to continually scrutinize others' entries for every bit of extra detail. If you remove it, and the other person cares enough to restore, that is no reason to fight tooth-and-nail for ervey edit, revert and delete which you consider justified. You can simply make a compromise, i think. --Sm8900 17:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that this is a stable, well-crafted page. It isn't. Its a mish-mash from different sources still in need of ediing for consistency. It *does* need scrutinising. And it needs to be balanced: which means removing excess detail where appropriate William M. Connolley 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

well, thanks for your reply, regardless of what the situation may be, I guess. Appreciate any ability to discuss this openly. --Sm8900 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you are suggesting that "Censored" is "a technical term having to do with data analysis and implies nothing untoward as it does in common usage." You also suggest that I should know this. I do not know it to be true and you have provided no citation to support your claim. On the other hand, I have supplied a citation from Natuurwetenschap & Techniek showing that Mann's withheld data from his article that was contrary to his conclusion. Perhaps you are back to your old habit of deleting my entries without bothering to read the citations I provide? I am restoring the information. RonCram 14:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps as a nonscientist you are indeed unaware that "censored" data are not arbitrarily doctored. Had you spent two seconds on a Google search for "censored data" instead of immediately leaping to the interpretation that best fit your preconceived notions, you would have found this [12] useful discussion as the first hit and this [13] slightly more technical discussion a little further down. Raymond Arritt 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I was unaware "censored" could have that meaning. However, it changes nothing. The claim against Mann is that data contrary to his conclusions was found in the folder. Again, I really wish you would read the citations I provide before you delete my entries. Here is the quote:

"The “Censored” Folder As the story unraveled, more intrigue came to the surface. McIntyre: “On Mann’s FTP site, the directory for the North American network contains a subdirectory with the striking name BACKTO_1400-CENSORED. The folder contains PCs that looked like the ones we produced, but it was not clear how they had been calculated. We wondered if the folder had anything to do with the bristlecone pine series: this was a bulls eye. We were able to show that the fourteen bristlecone pine series that effectively made up Mann’s PC1 (and six others) had been excluded from the PC calculations in the censored folder. Without the bristlecones sites, there were no hockey sticks for Mann’s method to mine for, and the results came out like ours. The calculations used in Mann’s paper included the controversial bristlecone pine series, which dominate the PC1 and impart the characteristic hockey stick shape to the PC1 and thereafter to the final temperature reconstruction. Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to their claims.”

“Imagine the irony of this discovery.After we published our findings in Energy and Environment,Mann accused us of selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a folder labeled CENSORED.” [14] (page 9 of 12)

Now Raymond, as I am sure you know, it is considered highly unethical for a scientist to exclude data that is contrary to his conclusions. For example, if a researcher tried out a new cancer treatment on 35 subjects and 25 subjects died from the treatment and 10 survived, could he claim to have “cured 10 out of 10 patients?” Of course not. Scientists are required to report data or tests of their data that do not support the conclusions. You also know that NAS and other groups have said that the bristlecone pine series is not a good proxy for temperature. The CENSORED folder showed that when Mann tested without bristlecone pine series he found no hockey stick. The results came out like McIntyre's showing that 20th century temps were unexceptional. Instead of reporting that finding, Mann made the claim that his method was robust and not dependent on any particular series. This folder shows Mann knew that claim was untrue. Since this article is about the controversy and you represent Mann's side of the controversy, I suggest that you do not get to decide for McIntyre's side what information is important to include. It is completely POV to attempt to exclude this reliable and notable information. RonCram 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I suggest yoy check Wahl and Amman again. Table 1 here shows that all the non-hockey reconstructions fail statistical validation. I think that is a fully adequate and much simpler explanation for not including the results (not the data!) in a paper, especially as space is usually severely limited anyways. --Stephan Schulz 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you are missing the point. Wahl and Amman have their own statistical problems and also use the discredited bristlecone pine series. The point here is that Mann tested his multiproxy approach without the bristlecone pine series (becasuse it was known not to be a valid temperature proxy) and could not generate a hockey stick, so then he withheld that information and instead claimed his approach was robust and did not depend on any series. According to the data in the "CENSORED" folder, Mann knew that statement was false. RonCram 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, this is poor stuff. RA has pointed out to you something you could easily have found out yourself. The reason you didn't find it out is becasue you didn't want to know it - its far more fun to fling around the word CENSORED like McK does. As for the notability of the info... if neither NRC nor Wegman picked it up, then it isn't. If they do, it may be William M. Connolley 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

William, the information RA supplied has no bearing on this discussion. The key point is the data Mann was keeping in subdirectory named BACKTO_1400-CENSORED was contrary to his conclusions. This information was picked up by the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, which is undoubtedly a reliable source. Your claim that it has to be picked up by Wegman or NRC is not valid. I notice that you did not dispute any of the facts reported by Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. As I pointed out before, Mann's defenders do not get to determine what evidence is a part of the controversy. Such a stand is completely POV. The fact is Mann withheld data contrary to his conclusions and made specific claims in the Nature article about the robustness of his multiproxy approach that he knew were false. This is part of the controversy and there is no reasonable reason to exclude it. RonCram 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but the statement "Mann ...made specific claims in the Nature article about the robustness of his multiproxy approach that he knew were false" may be legally actionable, and raises serious concerns with respect to WP:BLP. You are not merely saying that they were false, but that he knew they were false at the time -- a far more serious allegation. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I believe I have only repeated the story as presented in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek and in the claims of Stephen McIntyre on www.climateaudit.org. See comment 186 and 197 here. [15] I have attempted to be very careful with the facts, but the fact you reacted the way you did proves this is a serious and notable situation that deserves inclusion in this article. RonCram 22:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

N&T merely reprints M&M's stuff - it adds no value and is no more a RS than CA is William M. Connolley 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let my express my profound difficulty in reconciling WMC's astonishing assertion with the core policies of Wikipedia. When a fact-checked publication prints something, that's a WP:RS, not matter where the stuff they printed came from. WMC, your COI here is overwhelming your understanding of the basic principles of Wikipedia. CWC 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What make you think that the popular science magazine H&T is a "fact-checked publication"? Ie. on what grounds do you make this claim? --Kim D. Petersen 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, every other 'popular science' magazine I know of is fact-checked. Moreover, I have great difficulty envisaging a popular science magazine staying in business without fact-checking. (Popular pseudo-science magazines are a different story.) This argument is not, of course, conclusive, only strongly suggestive. Does anyone here know Dutch? CWC 08:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RonCram obviously does, since he cited the N&T article. If he cited the article and doesn't know Dutch, that raises some serious questions. I can read Dutch a bit, with help. Raymond Arritt 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Editorial Question

In this sentence: "The IPCC AR4 reports that the extent of any such biases in specific reconstructions... is uncertain ... It is very unlikely, however, that any bias would be as large as the factor of two suggested ", is the italicized section intended to be a literal quotation? It appears to be, and further appears it could be the result of a plausible typo (two apostrophe's for a quotation mark) but I hesitate to correct it without certainty. -- Charlie (Colorado) 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a literal quote. Don't understand what you mean about typo William M. Connolley 19:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The two apostrophes is the way you start and end italics in Wikipedia. Here is an example. RonCram 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NRC report

Each side of the hockey controversy feels the report vindicates some or all of their positions. In particular, M&M has noted the documents questioning and/or recommendations on the use of Mann's principal components, shredded bark samples, cross validation statistics, etc. as at least partial vindication of their positions (see their NAS presentation PDF). Obviously, Mann et. al. note that the NAS/NRC endorsed their results, at least in broad terms. I am thinking that several points (paraphrases) of those report items that support M&M should be included in this section. In addition, a followup of the respective party's criticism(s) of the report ought to also be noted. Maxparrish 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added four points regarding findings that supported M&M (and perhaps some VS) criticisms. I tried to be as clinical as possible, and BTW, these points are mentioned by McIntyre in several posts at his site. I would also add the report's note about the net effect of metrics. For those who may wish to edit this, note that I am unclear as to how each of these points are 'small in effect' EXCEPT that the report did note Mannian's PC method made no practical difference AND the other points are subsumed by over all confirmation of his findings by other studies. [User:Maxparrish|Maxparrish]] 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted [16] MPs addition of a pile of details. Its not clear to me why these are supposed to belong at the top above the conclusions of the report William M. Connolley 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think it belongs in a summery of the report (which the top is) because it's the reports tasking was NOT to just decide on the final validity of the MBH reconstruction, but also to identify the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, and any problems with these approaches. M&M and Von Storch both made presentations on their major concerns of the MBH methdology and data (in M&M's case) that were addressed in the body of the report, such as not recommending those items I listed. Moreover, one section on metrics concluded that all constructions are less confident than once thought. To present "just" the conclusions is to ignore a some of the results of its tasking.

So the structure, I suggest, would be to summerize the report (as I edited) to reflect the weakenesses found, then explain why they did not affect the results. Then note any criticisms of the report by the sides of the controversy. The "pile of details" is summerized by four sentences, not much to add to summerize it as accurate.

PS - If you think any of the four are inaccurate, let's discuss. If you think it belongs elsewhere, let me know. Thanks. Maxparrish 00:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think it belongs in a summery of the report... - perhaps you do, but the NRC themselves disagreed with you, since these points of yours *don't* appear in the summary, indeed they are rather a long way down into the report. You clearly want to put the weaknesses of MBH (as you put it) right at the front, which is your POV, but why should anyone else agree with that? William M. Connolley 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if the NRC summary doesn't have this level of detail, and we are summarizing their position, these details obviously don't belong, and would likely not belong in a article dedicated to this report. --Skyemoor 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If we are informing and explaining the "hockey stick controversy" then we are explaining whatever aspects of any event, report, article, public statement, etc. that gives a full and balanced view, giving both sides their equal due.

I don't see that we are crabbed by paraphrasing only 'their position as they see it (only) in the conclusion', we are summerizing the report itself wherein it impacts the "Hockey Stick Controversy". After all, the title of the section is NAS report, presumably that includes contents, its findings, its recommendations, its conclusions. I agree, however, that the level of detail needs to be consistent. Going into each statistical shortcomming, "up front" may be better addressed in a summary quote on metrics and data. Maxparrish 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comment to Skyemoor. Also, permit me to assure you on my POV. In this forum I have no interest in my POV regarding 'weaknesses'. However, I do have a POV regarding fully informing the reader, and providing balance to the differing sides of a public controversy. Your earlier edit of my restatement summerizing M&M's criticisms of MBH was an excellent example of how I wish to provide balance (one side says this is X, the other side says this is Y). Whatever my own hockey stick POV, your edit was perfect.

While I would not select the word "small" to characterize the "finding" on effects (its a bit more complex in this carefully worded report that sometimes defered on effects regarding MBH). However, I tried to clinically reflect what the report conveyed on methods, data, recommendations, and conclusions that relate to the Hockey Stick Debate.

That being said, I asked for and am open to suggestions. From the above comments, I ought to just summarize the "shortcommings" in the intro and move the body contents from "up front" to behind the reports main findings. As the points raised by M&M and VS are methodological, I'm going to suggest the following structure:

NAS Report

para 1 Intro

para 2 Main Findings

para 3 M&M and VS view of findings ('shortcommings').

para 4 Criticims of M&M view of findings

para 5 Other NAS criticisms, and/or defenders.

Yes? Maxparrish 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you give M&M and von S priority? I like it the way it is now. There already is an intro which seems quite acceptable - certainly, adding only "shortcomings" into the intro would be unbalanced William M. Connolley 18:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC) William M. Connolley 18:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the current outline effectively informs the reader of all the pertinent areas and at the proper level of detail. --Skyemoor 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"US Congress"

Where is the evidence that the review was requested by the "US Congress"? A letter from Joe Barton and another member does not constitute a request by Congress. Actual verifiable evidence needs to be linked or this phrase will be corrected. --Skyemoor 13:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Weg was at the behest of Barton and we should say so (the source supports this). NRC less sure William M. Connolley 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored essential information about Mann's data withholding

Essential information was deleted without reason regarding Mann's data withholding that caused Congress to investigate. I also restored info about McI and McK claiming vindication. William removed that portion on McI and McK's claim of vindication saying Mann also claimed victory. If so, someone should provide a citation. But whether Mann did or did not claim victory is no reason to censor McI and McK's claim of vindication and the link so readers can examine the facts for themselves. RonCram 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This has all been discussed to death. Please see above. In particular, it is most unseemly to POV-push by including the "censored" name of the directory ("censored" here being a technical term with no pejorative implications). At some point, persistence becomes tendentiousness. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's position on this controversy? Is Mann right, or are M&M right? --Uncle Ed 13:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ron, please don't lecture people on what is "essential" and what isn't. As to the claims of victory... if you insist. Ed: I don't think I understand. Is this some kind of subtle trick question? William M. Connolley 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

William, I think Ed's question is interesting for discussion. If Wikipedia had a position, then the article has to support that position. If Wikipedia's policy is NPOV, then it has to represent both sides of the controversy. That means that you and Raymond (since you represent Mann) do not get to make all the decisions about what elements of the controversy are important to the other side. As I (and Durova) have pointed out before, William, you need to be especially careful when suppressing information that is negative toward Mann since you have an apparant WP:COI. RonCram 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the stupid word games, Ron. I don't represent Mann William M. Connolley 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a word game, William. You volunteer your time, along with Mann, to RealClimate (a global warming website hosted by a highly paid PR firm) so it is clear you share a common bond with Mann. Having co-authored a general publication paper with Mann, you were seen to have an apparent WP:COI by Durova. Raymond has consistently demonstrated the same attitude toward global warming in his edits that you show. You cannot consistently edit from one POV and then claim to be objective. Such a claim has no credibility. BTW, I asked for someone to provide a citation showing Mann's claim of vindication and you did so. Thank you. RonCram 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More stupid word games, which is pointless. I've also modded "provided to McI" - I don't think it was - it was made publically available William M. Connolley 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

William, that change is fair. However, you deleted the main point again about the CENSORED folder without any comment here on the Talk page. Your unceasing censorship of this essential point about the controversy shows you are violating the advice given regarding your WP:COI. RonCram 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The C point is the same as above; the word games, it seems, continue William M. Connolley 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much von S?

This [17] looks like too much von S. Its a blog entry which just about everyone agrees is badly wrong anyway. The text before it could do with some context-ising too William M. Connolley 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

von Storch's piece is a bit too self-congratulatory to be used as a serious reference. Though Ron may enjoy his comment later on in the blog discussion, "we do not think that McIntyre has substantially contributed in the published peer-reviewed literature to the debate about the statistical merits of the MBH and related method." Raymond Arritt 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that section - I just added a bit of context-ising. It is interesting that neither of you seem to object to the paragraph of comments from Mann at the top of the updates section, or the paragraph of Mann at the end of the previous section, that also come from blogs, including Mann's own blog! I agree von S's comments are smug and he deserves all the criticism he gets later in the blog. I would be happy to see his comments reduced but not eliminated entirely. It does give some insight into the current thinking of at least some people. Please let's remember this page is about the controversy, so all sides should be presented. Paul Matthews 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really mind stuff from reliable blogs (Natures is reliable because its from Nature, I suppose, but it is also rather new. The main points I would argue is that there is (a) too much of it and (b) its badly wrong. Cutting it down to satisfy (a) can't be too hard; can we find a RS for (b)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I have removed the last para which was opinion. But it is true that they published a paper in 2004, it is true that other papers have criticised reconstructions and it is true that the IPCC now uses a number of reconstructions that differ from eachother (referred to by some as a 'spaghetti graph'). Paul Matthews 08:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some more from lower down - von S has an extensive comment discussing his view of M&M, which seems highly relevant William M. Connolley 08:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. So your solution to 'Too much von S' is to ... add more von S! Paul Matthews 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly an ideal solution I agree. However the new bit is an original view on this process William M. Connolley 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exponential growth?

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1855 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1905 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, period increase.74°C

between 1955 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, period increase .64°C

between 1985 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, period increase .885°C

between 1995 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .885°C per decade rate of increase .885°C, period increase 1.770°C

Expanding the original data, (despite the increased vulcanism from Pinatubo in the eighties which is thought to be working against the curve), and adding the same rate per Decade for 1995-2005 as for the period 1985-2005 (despite 11 of the last 12 years have been the hottest in history) to a table that compares the observed data to a fibonacci series and holds the same rate of increase as 1985, the observed rate models higher than the fibonacci values through 2065.

Table revised due to error in column 1995 Rktect 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Period begins	1855	1905	1955	1985	1995	2005	2015	2025	2035	2045	2055	2065	2075	2085	2095
Fibonacci°C		0.045	0.074	0.119	0.193	0.312	0.505	0.817	1.322	2.139	3.461	5.6	9	14	23
ObservedData°C		0.045	0.074	0.128	0.177	0.424	.848	.986	1.530	2.367	3.674	5.615	8.461	12.924	19.73

Rktect 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect has provided this discussion with a good illusionnist trick.

About the endegeneous analysis of this time serial :

- The temperature curve was dicreasing between 1900 and 1910 and between 1940 and 1970 but nothing of it explicitely appears in his table,

so as the half-century-shifted-by-5-years uninnocent steps gives the illusion of a regular exponential.

- The major volcanic eruptions of Pina Tubo occured in early 1990s cooling global temperatures right then,

so as the tabulated exponential keeps the illusion for its very latest columns.

So the illusionist exponential mentionned by Rktect is a pure alarmist illusionist trick, with no honnest rendering of the endogeneous serial.

About the exogeneous underlying physiscs :

- The volcanic activity has been especially quite in 20th century but the table comment introduces the sole major volcanic event since 20 years as being of negative influence on his exponential table, which is right but since 1994, and thus suggesting that taking into account all volcanic activity would not damage his exponential, which is badly wrong.

- The analysis of Optical Thickness of the atmosphere shows it improves at a regular rate of 0,03 per decade out of ~0,14 in 1994 (when most dusts produced by the major eruptions of Pina Tubo volcano had been cleared out of the atmosphere), as published by NASA/GISS and commented by CO2 Science. Of course Optical Thickness is bounded by 0 (void space) and can not keep deceasing that rate for the 21rst century.

- Is it claimed that the Optical Thickness decrease dwarves by 20 vs. 2.4 w/m2 the forcing of CO2. It can be easily checked by a rough look at the global temperatures around the years of major volcanic eruption (e.g. early 1990s) that increase of optical thickness by 0.1 led to decrease of temperatures by several tenths of °C.

- This has to be modulated with one or the other component of solar activity such as global irradiance which varies by 0,2%,just as temperatures °K (= °C+273.) in 20th century, or magnetism vs. cosmic rays which are claimed to facilitate the creation of low altitude clouds.

- For those who still believe in a CO2-driven global temperature increase, the effect of incresae of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic, not exponential, unless you also believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is right now coming exponentially from the ocean following a fast positive feed-back. Actualy, reconsitutions show CO2 rate seems to be driven by temperature although very weakly and very slowly along centuries and milleniums. So even aCO2-only fully attributed 20th century global warming would not generate temperatures growing with such an exponential way along 21rst century.

So the tabulated exponential mentionned by Rktect is a pure alarmist illusionist trick, with :

- not honnest rendering of the endogeneous serials,

- no mention to the doubtfulness of exponential forecasts when taking a look at the exogeneous underlying physics.

--Xavdr 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, the effects of Pinatubo did take a while to diffuse globally. I also forgot to mention that the references are in .pdf format so you can mark up the graphs and get different results if you focus on things like vulcanism.

WG4 AR1,

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

Using periods of different length and with the same ending point to compare rates of change in the IPCC model appears to reduce bias. Different periods could have been chosen, but it would skew the results; for example the periods 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 have the same extreme warming slope. The IPCC methodology allows them to average both warm and cool slopes in the same period and by looking at periods of different lengths with the same endpoint to avoid the bias of selection without a standard.

Re the rate of C02 being logarithmic, the release of Methane from the Siberian bogs has increased the concentration of Methane threefold and affected the warming dramatically threatening to reduce the number of phytoplankton in the oceans who act like the forests who are also under attack to scrub the C02 from the atmosphere resulting in a surcharge to its concentrations into the exponential warming range. Scenario A2

Rktect 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All in a good cause by Orson Scott Card

I provided a link to an editorial piece by Orson Scott Card, an established free-lance journalist, novelist and literature professor at Southern Virginia University. The link has been deleted twice, apparently for POV reasons. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy which says that NPOV is non-negotiable. Here is the link:

• All in a good cause by Orson Scott Card, March 8, 2007

In addition to writing books, plays and magazine articles, Card writes a column for the weekly newspaper Greensboro Rhinoceros Times. As editors of Wikipedia, you do not have to like Card's POV, but you have to allow him to speak because this is published in a reliable source. This is especially true since this article is about a controversy. NPOV, which we know is non-negotiable, is most important to preserve on controversial subjects. There is no reason Card should be censored. Besides, Raymond, I thought you said there was nothing new in the article anyway, so what is the big deal? RonCram 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See: WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Are we to include a link to every ill-informed op-ed by a non-scientist which adds nothing new to the debate? I don't think so. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The linked article does make some genuine points, but is too long-winded and somewhat lacking in references. Can you find a better version? ^rossnixon 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I think the article would benefit by having at least one piece written by a journalist for the average person. Everything else is written by scientists for scientists. I still don't understand your position, Raymond. In one post you say it contains Card's speculations and in another you say there is nothing new here. They can't both be true. It looks as though you are against the piece being included even if you have to give reasons that are mutually exclusive. Kim, I do not understand the appeal to WP:WEIGHT. Are you saying a one line link takes up too large a percentage of the article? I don't buy that. One of the values of an encyclopedia is the references (or links for online encyclopedias) so students and researchers can learn more. Since this is a controversy, readers want to know what others have said about it. Ross, the media has not done a good job of covering this controversy. This is the only piece I know of written by a journalist for the average reader. As an editorial, it is not expected to provide references. There is no valid reason to prevent Wikipedia readers from access to this article. RonCram 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misspelled "opinion columnist" as "journalist". Hal peridol 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A journalist is not just a reporter. One definition for journalist is "a writer for newspapers and magazines." [18] That certainly applies to columnists. It is common practice to refer to columnists as journalists. Try googling "George Will journalist" and see how many hits you get. There is still no valid reason to keep Card's piece out of the article. RonCram 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The link has been deleted again and again without a valid reason being put forward for the deletion. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy to only tell one side of a controversy. The article links to no other piece written by a non-scientist for average readers and no other link discusses the unethical behavior of Mann in a manner quite as telling. It is a very poor encyclopedia that has an article on a controversy and will only let one side of the controversy tell its story. RonCram 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be seven external links entirely critical of the "Hockey stick" reconstruction currently. The only new information presented by the OSC opinion piece seems to be his imputation of deliberate fraud by Mann and Santer. Hal peridol 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is important new information then. The link should stay. ^rossnixon 01:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is this "new information" then? --Kim D. Petersen 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted it without commenting on the new data I identified. Please do not revert without making some kind of contribution to the discussion, either here or on the subject line of the edit. RonCram 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot include an op-ed. Per WP:EL - there is no chance that this will be used to improve the article - so it should not be linked. --Kim D. Petersen 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, best not to make such insinuations. Just the argument that it's an op-ed is enough. Raymond Arritt 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. And you were right in deleting it. --Kim D. Petersen 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was right to delete it but he is not right that the argument it is an op-ed is enough. This is not Wikipedia policy. You will have to come up with a better reason for keeping the link off of the page. RonCram 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An Op-Ed is by definition not a WP:RS to other than the writers opinion - its graded just above blogs etc. Ie. it can be used to tell us about someones opinion - but nothing more. (see for instance this). And its rather irrelevant to the current article what OSC thinks or not. --Kim D. Petersen 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim's response is very much on-point. An op-ed is useful only for providing us the author's opinion. The question then becomes, Is there any reason why we should care about this author's opinion on the matter? In the present case the answer is a resounding, obvious no. We might care about the opinion of the Director of the World Meteorological Organisation, or an accomplished statistician, or maybe a geographer. But in this case we're dealing with a "free-lance journalist, novelist and literature professor." He may well be good at what he does. But he has no background or expertise in anything remotely relevant to the hockey-stick controversy, so that his opinion on the matter is no more noteworthy than that of the guy down the street. Raymond Arritt 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It certainly adds to the conversation. Blueboar's comments are sensible. He says op-eds are reliable for that person's opinion. Wonderful. Blueboar's statement is not always accurate because some columnists write with a more "investigative reporter" style - such as Jack Anderson before he died or Bill Gertz today. In the main, Blueboar is correct. So how does that change these? Blueboar says you cannot treat statements from the column as fact but must attribute them to the columnist - "According to New York Times collumnist Thomas Freedman." Fair enough. But here's the rub. I was not even trying to get Card's statements into the article. Blueboar's comments do not rule out using an op-ed in an External Link. Card's comments have to do with unethical behavior of Mann and as a long-time political columnist, I think he is probably an expert on unethical behavior. I only wanted to provide a link so others can read Card's thoughts on the controversy. If you do not allow me the link, then I will have to settle for placing Card's thoughts into the text of the article. RonCram 01:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At issue here, Raymond, is whether Card advances an argument for his contention or merely expresses an opinion. If he advances an argument, readers are entitled to hear it. I want to hear from all sides. I don't need to simply hear an opinion that provides no new evidence or argument. Can we keep that distinction clear?Bdell555 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you will have to go elsewhere. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources and verifiability. OSC's comments fail both. Whether he has an "argument" or not is completely irrelevant. Its an Op-Ed written by a non-expert (ie. out per WP:RS), its the opinion of someone who isn't relevant in any form or manner here (neither as an expert or as a scientist) and thus out per WP:WEIGHT. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)