Jump to content

Talk:Hockey stick controversy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Published comments regarding McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) are missing from discussion

The following discussion of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance in section 4.1 entitled Congressional investigations is incomplete:

". . . In comments on MM05 made in October, Peter Huybers showed that McIntyre and McKitrick had omitted a critical step in calculating significance levels, and MBH98 had shown it correctly.[153] In their comment, Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita examined McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that normalising data prior to principal component analysis by centering in relation to the calibration period of 1902–1980, instead of the whole period, would nearly always produce hockey stick shaped leading principal components. They found that it caused only very minor deviations which would not have a significant impact on the result.[130]"

Furthermore, the entire 6th paragraph of section 4.1 Congressional investigations contains statements regarding the peer-reviewed academic discussion of statistical methods related to the hockey stick which are not primarily related to investigations by the United States congress. This paragraph should be included with section 3.6.2 Principal components analysis methodology.

Thank you for considering these changes.

78Maori (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

___

Take the point about this deviating from the Congressional investigations heading, so have added a subhead Reconstruction methodology, while keeping the chronological sequence. The AR4 assessment notes that MM replied to the comments, so I've added that point. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

___

Mr. Souza,

Thank you for your prompt action in regards to my suggested changes for this article. I respectfully offer a few more brief suggestions that will increase the quality of the article.

1. The added section on methodology, 4.1 Reconstruction methodology, is a great improvement towards the article's clarity. However, the organization of the article could still be improved. The newly added section (4.1) is nested beneath section 4: Congressional investigations. The discussion within 4.1 has little, if any, to do with these political investigations. Therefore, despite the minor discontinuity in chronology, the phrases regarding the GRL comments and replies pertaining to MM05 should be transferred to the section in which MM05 is the primary focus, 3.6. The text regarding the series of GRL 2005 replies could become its own subsection or be added to the 3.6.2 Principal component analysis subsection.

2. Primary sources should always be used when available. Therefore the use of the reference to the IPCC AR4 report in place of the primary sources published in Geophysical Research Letters authored by McIntyre & McKitrick in response to the criticisms of Huybers (2005) and von Storch & Zorita (2005) should be avoided. I have included the primary source references below in a standard wikipedia citation format for your convenience (direct links to permanent pdf urls are found within):

  • McIntyre, Stephen; McKitrick, Ross (21 October 2005), "Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance"", Geophysical Research Letters, 32 (L20713), Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3220713M, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.

3. A qualified editor should provide a brief synopsis of the main points of the replies authored by McIntyre and McKitrick and published in volume 30 issue 20 of GRL in response to (a) the published comment by Huybers, and (b) the published comment by von Storch and Zorita in order to maintain NPVO.

Thank you again for your consideration of these requested improvements to the article. 78Maori (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Two issues: firstly, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. If a qualified editor is needed to provide a brief synopsis of the main points of M&M's replies, that's likely to infrige Wikipedia:No original research policy. Secondly, WP:NPOV requires us to give due weight to majority views: M&M are clearly a minority viewpoint, as shown well by the secondary source of the AR4 assessment. Your proposal would give readers the false impression that M&M's replies had gained general credence. . . dave souza, talk 06:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A knowledgable editor with some grasp of the subject might evaluate whether M&M's replies warrant any mention, per the pertinent criteria. 78Maori seems to have already determined that a synopsis should be provided. Which would be contrary to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A knowledgeable editor with a solid grasp of the subject decided to kindly explain the landscape to a newbie. Who would object? YoPienso (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for better explaining the motivation behind the citation of AR4 rather than the direct sources for the replies in GRL 2005 (hereafter referred to as MM05c,d). dave souza and J. Johnson) both bring up very interesting points regarding this decision, while dave souza also offered ideas regarding Wikipedia policy which I had not considered and have helped me to better understand his perspective. However, I have given this considerable thought over the past few days and remain of the opinion that my proposed changes should occur. With that in mind, I would like to cordially offer some counterpoints for your consideration:
  • re: No Original Research - Above, dave souza states, "...If a qualified editor is needed to provide a brief synopsis of the main points of M&M's replies, that's likely to infrige Wikipedia:No original research policy..."
According to the WP:NOR (my emphasis),

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

By this definition, the addition of brief summaries for MM05c,d (equivalent in length and scope to those of H05 and VZ05) to this article would not be a violation of WP:NOR.
  • re: Use of primary sources - Above dave souza states, "...Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources..."
Here is the relevant text regarding the WP:PRIMARY (my emphasis),

Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialised knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them...

Under these guidelines, a description of conclusions from a published, peer-reviewed, scientific article is clearly not a form of interpretation and is in accordance with the proper use of primary sources. In fact, this is exactly the way VZ05 and H05 are treated in section 4.1 of this article. Therefore, NPOV of this article would be improved by a consistent treatment of H05, VZ05, and MM05c,d.
  • re: Undue weight - dave souza states that: "...Secondly, WP:NPOV requires us to give due weight to majority views..."
According to WP:DUE,

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Precisely what this means is made more clear by this quoted text from WP:GEVAL (my emphasis),

There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

If hope that we can agree that (1) GRL is a reliable source, (2) published articles therein constitute "accepted academic scholarship," and finally that (3) MM05, (4) H05 and VZ05, (5) as well as MM05c,d are all significant to the discussion for the Hockey Stick Controversy article. Assuming this is the case, then the matter of undue weight would appear to be a non-issue.
Based on the current article and what I infer from the above comment by J. Johnson, we apparently agree on points (1) through (4) but point (5) appears to remain an area of disagreement. Yet if the criticisms by H05 and VZ05 are significant, then the authors' defense against each criticism (i.e. MM05c,d) are equally significant to the discussion. The inconsistent treatment of MM05c,d as compared to H05 and VZ05 implies disagreement with the conclusions which results in unnecessarily diminishing the article's NPOV.
  • re: IPCC AR4 citation and the case for MM05c,d as minority viewpoints -
The quote from dave souza preceding the previous paragraph continues, "M&M are clearly a minority viewpoint, as shown well by the secondary source of the AR4 assessment.""
What exactly does the IPCC AR4 WG1 have to say regarding MM05c,d? H05, VZ05, and MM05c,d are cited exactly once each in 6.6.1.1 What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show? which states in full:

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

As evidenced by this passage, the actual language of AR4 unambiguously contradicts dave souza's assertion that MM05c,d is "clearly a minority viewpoint." MM05c,d are not interpreted, nor are H05 and VZ05. This secondary source reference merely redirects to the primary sources of H05, VZ05, and MM05c,d for "further discussion." Indeed, the inclusion of the MM05c,d citations to AR4, combined with their equal treatment as compared to H05 and VZ05, counters the notion that consistently addressing each of these four sources within this article would become an issue of WP:WEIGHT or NPOV. Therefore, as I stated previously, the citation of AR4 is clearly inappropriate.
I hope that my reasoning is clearly stated as to why I stand by my suggestion to cite and summarise MM05c,d in a similar fashion as have been H05 and VZ05. I respectfully suggest that these changes be made to the article. If in fact you remain unpersuaded by my argument and are unwilling to make these changes, I welcome a thoughtful discussion on your justifications.78Maori (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow. What a wall of text. Well, I am not impressed. Your steadfast, intensely detailed special pleading for including M&M's response certainly suggests that you are not engaged in a neutral weighing of their significance. And the fact remains that however they argue it, their view is a minority one. That GRL published their replies does not constitute acceptance by the climate science community; that AR4 provided a citation to them (the approriateness of which is not for you to judge) does not confer "equal treatment" or equal status. Nor have you shown how the AR language "unambiguously contradict's" Dave's assertion. M&M raised a claim of error, others pointed out their error, which M&M failed to satisfactorily rebut. Their point was rejected by the majority, it is a minority view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for being overly verbose. Fair point. To borrow a quote from Pascal, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. Please understand that I began my participation in this discussion in order to improve the quality of the article. Perhaps I am being a bit too sensitive but I fear that we are possibly slipping into the beginning stages of a "food fight," something all of us would rather avoid to be sure. I hope that we can continue to remain civil in our future discussions.
With that said, I must respectfully contend that your comments are based strictly on various assertions. I hope that you'll forgive me for not accepting their validity at face value. Maybe it is best to proceed by piecemeal?
For starters allow me to inquire to the "meat" of your argument, where are the replies of MM05 (specifically to the content of MM05c,d) shown to be rejected by the majority? The rejection is certainly not demonstrated in the cited AR4, as I have shown previously. I would appreciate it greatly if someone would explain from where this interpretation is rooted. 78Maori (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You are quite right, I have been asserting some positions without providing detailed sourcing. However, I make no apologies for that. There is a general acceptance by the editors here that M&M have a minority view. Most of us accept that view because we have studied the literature (though I admit I have not kept up with it) and find it conformable to the majority view of the climate science community. (Of which the IPCC's several ARs are by and far the best secondary source.) I point out that several climate experts are present, so we also have some expert opinion on what the expert opinon is.
So where you insist that the article should go deeper into an issue that most nearly everyone who has looked at it consider to be settled, and you require an explicit demonstration (documentation?) that M&M are "shown to be rejected by the majority" while simultanously rejecting AR4, well, this does start to become tedious. The fact remains that M&M's criticism was itself shown to be faulty. That nobody responded to M&M's replies might be due to editorial policy (journal editors usually limit the number of rounds), or because no one thought any reply was needed. That there was no published poll of scientists on this point is because that is not how scientific consensus is done.
In the end this is a matter of WP:WEIGHT (which I paraphrase): If M&M's criticism was accepted by the majority it should be easy to find references to it (other than for criticising it). Even if it was accepted only by a significant minority, it should be easy to find some supporters. That there is no support for it, and in view of the criticism by leading scientists, M&M's subsequent comments have little or no notability. QED, "where this interpretation is rooted," that the absence of M&M05 is proper. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your contributing to this discussion, J. Johnson (JJ). Some disagreements persist but an open dialogue is always welcome.
It may be necessary to recap the pertinent issues of the discussion before we slide too far off track. There are a few issues at hand that remain contentious:
  • For which source is the proper citation for MM05c,d? dave souza cited the AR4 report which I agree is a fantastic secondary source for the subject matter. But why send readers on a pointless excursion to the 1000+ page AR4 report without so much as a page number to find the material? Yes, AR4 is a secondary source but (assuming the reader has the patience to search the large document for the single mentions of MM05c,d) AR4 does not provide any interpretation or additional context but merely references MM05c,d as sources for more information. Why not simply use the direct links to MM05c,d which I kindly provided in citation format for the editors? In light of this, the AR4 citation seems most unhelpful to the reader.
  • Should we or should we not provide a quick summary for both MM05c and MM05d? My suggestion is for something similar as to what was done for VZ05 and H05. And of course, a quick summary is in accordance with WP:NOR despite dave souza's misgivings stated earlier. Thus, the argument against including these two summaries hinges on WP:WEIGHT. Both JJ and dave souza argued this general point with assertions and in response I carefully, perhaps tediously, explained my position on this matter in my infamous wall of text comment (see above: re: Undue weight). For everyone's sake, I will not re-iterate each point, especially as I feel none of them (i.e. reliable source, academic scholarship, significant viewpoint, etc.) were adequately addressed by subsequent comments. Instead I will add even further support to my position by referring to WP:UNDUE which also states:

Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.

So MM05c,d certainly pass this simple test. In fact, lest we lose sight of the current situation, a mention of their existence was already added to the article following my initial suggestion, a decision for which I applaud dave souza. Yet even further support of summarising MM05c,d id found in another quote from WP:Undue which reads as follows (my emphasis):

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

As written, the article clearly does not accomplish this in regards to H05/VZ05 vs MM05c/MM05d.
  • Where should the text pertaining to H05, VZ05, MM05c,d, etc. reside? The entire 4.1 Reconstruction methodology subsection included under 4.1 Congressional investigations contains statements regarding the peer-reviewed academic discussion of statistical methods related to the hockey stick which are not primarily related to investigations by the United States congress. A more appropriate place for the Reconstruction methodology subsection would be within section 3.6 McIntyre and McKitrick 2005. This change would not disrupt the chronology of events significantly and would make for a better organized article overall with a more cohesive 3.6 McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 section
  • One final note of clarification. My previous wall of text comment may preclude most from a careful reading so it's understandable that some of its content has apparently been misconstrued. I would like to clarify at least one major misunderstanding before I continue. Nothing I have stated qualifies as "rejecting AR4," as JJ put it. What I reject is the following claim by dave souza (my emphasis):

M&M are clearly a minority viewpoint, as shown well by the secondary source of the AR4 assessment.

I fail to see how this statement is supported by the actual text of AR4 (see re: IPCC AR4 citation and the case for MM05c,d as minority viewpoints in my wall of text comment above for the direct quote from AR4).
Thank you for considering these changes that I believe will indeed improve the article's quality. I hope that after considering the basis for these suggestions, the discussion can continue to move forward in a thoughtful and amicable manner.
78Maori (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So by your statement of 2 April that "the citation of AR4 is clearly inappropriate" [emphasis added] you meant not the citation in AR4, but Dave's citation to AR4 (specifically, to Solomon et al.). Okay. But then I would have to disagree with your interpretation of that section of AR4. I think it is pretty clear: Solomon et al. addressed a point of criticism that was raised, and then rejected by other experts in the field.
The views of M&M are not "competing" with the majority view: they were rejected. I don't recall that even M&M have persisted in this particular criticism. If you can find any "representation in reliable sources" of this criticism please direct us to it. As I said before, if M&M's criticism had any credibility it should be easy to find supporters.
Allow me to point out that your interpretations of the several WP standards is a rather selective, and even strained. E.g., at WP:UNDUE you skated over the bit about "[g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". You have also misstated the bit about "[o]nce it has been presented and discussed" -- that was specifically about proofs of new theories, and I believe it is fairly understood that such proofs (and discussion) must be in favor of what is presented, not against it. I am not going any further into consideration of your other points because all this is too tedious too continue.
My assessment of all you have presented is that you have failed to present a convincing case for the inclusion you want; my recommendation is that you drop this. If you reject that you can, of course, ask for a poll of other edtiors, but I doubt if you will get much support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This has all been very informative to me despite our disagreements. I do not really see a reason to "drop it" as of yet because, with all due respect, I am not compelled by the vast majority of your arguments especially those that rely purely on assertion.

"I think it is pretty clear: Solomon et al. addressed a point of criticism that was raised, and then rejected by other experts in the field,"

If you persist in that stated belief and wish to further this discussion, please save us all some time by quoting directly from the Solomon et al. (AR4) where you believe MM05c (Reply to Huybers, 2005) and MM05d (Reply to von Storch & Zorita, 2005) are addressed.
This task is a bit tedious and I've already done the work so I don't mind assisting you again with this information. MM05c,d (along with H05 and VZ05) were cited once each in the AR4 in 6.6.1.1 What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show? The sentence in which they appear reads:

The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

How exactly is your (and dave souza's) statement supported by that sentence? I suspect that you may actually be confused on the specific issue which I have raised. Again I ask:
Why send readers to find the quoted sentence above in the massive 1000+ page AR4 manuscript (without even so much as a page number reference) more appropriate than linking directly to the documents?
Especially when considering that after tracking the citations down, the reader will find no additional context and end up having to locate the full text GRL for 'further information' anyway? Given these circumstances, I'm befuddled as to why changing the citation to the full text versions of MM05c,d is even a matter of controversy.

The views of M&M are not "competing" with the majority view: they were rejected. I don't recall that even M&M have persisted in this particular criticism. If you can find any "representation in reliable sources" of this criticism please direct us to it. As I said before, if M&M's criticism had any credibility it should be easy to find supporters.

I will be glad to provide some representation in reliable sources (if available) of M&M but I'm not sure as to which "views" nor to which "particular criticism" of M&M you are referring. After researching this topic quite a bit in recent weeks, I suspect that you're not actually referring to the content of the Replies (MM05c,d) which would render this particular argument of yours irrelevant for the discussion at hand. Of course, I very well might be mistaken so, if by chance you return to this discussion, would you please be more specific so my time in the future is better spent? A reference to the original M&M and/or the "rejection" would also be greatly appreciated since we are discussing the specifics of a technical matter.

Allow me to point out that your interpretations of the several WP standards is a rather selective, and even strained. E.g., at WP:UNDUE you skated over the bit about "[g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all".

The fact that these manuscripts were published in a reliable peer-reviewed scientific journal lends them quite a bit more acceptance than your implication that MM05c,d are "views of tiny minorities." Not to mention, explanations of pertinent minority viewpoints are quite appropriate within articles regarding controversies.

You have also misstated the bit about "[o]nce it has been presented and discussed" -- that was specifically about proofs of new theories...

Of course you are correct in that the context referred to a more specific case however your argument appears an exercise in contrarianism. (Generally speaking, why would something not be appropriate for inclusion to wikipedia once it has been presented in reliable sources?) Your sentence continues:

...and I believe it is fairly understood that such proofs (and discussion) must be in favor of what is presented, not against it.

The meaning of this statement is entirely unclear. I take it to mean that only support for theories are appropriate essentially relegating any criticism of a theory to the dustbin. I cannot imagine that is a correct reading. How this would apply to this specific discussion at hand of H05/MM05c/VZ05/MM05d if it did is not apparent either.
As is apparent, our discussion has become bloated due to a lack of focus. I have written quite a bit already and yet not even addressed the issue of the article's organization. In order to make it less tedious to follow I may reintroduce a few of the (relatively) autonomous parts of this discussion in new sections (assuming there is not a formal provision prohibiting this).
78Maori (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Bloated indeed, and I do not see how "reintroducing" a few elements would in any way make your commentary less bloated or less tedious. And might even amount to WP:REHASH (a form of tendentious editing). A quick scan of your newest comments (you should contemplate WP:TLDR) suggests they are just more of the same intense argumentation to little effect as you presented previously. Therefore I stand by my last comment, and particularly my recommendation that you should drop this. Please note that lack of any further comment here does not constitute acceptance, and any edits you make to the article will likely be removed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You have neglected to give direct answers to the specific questions I have raised previously which leaves one to assume that perhaps you are unable to provide suitably convincing answers. I find this to be odd behavior for someone so certain of their position. After all, one cannot possibly accept an argument that has never been properly expressed. I understand if you find this mode of discussion too tedious to continue but the fact remains: so long as the questions remain unanswered, the merits of your argument will appear weakened to objective readers.78Maori (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not "neglected", just not interested. The essential criterion of what are "suitably convincing answers" is: to your satisfaction. And I freely confess that I probably am unable to satisfy you in that regard (at least not within any reasonable soope of time and effort), but I do not consider this to be any fault of mine. But please note: the critierion for adding material is not your satisfaction, but consensus. That is, the satisfaction of the other editors. In that regard you must be "suitably convincing" to the rest of us. Which you are not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand that changes to the article do not hinge on my satisfaction with your arguments nor have I argued as such. I merely implied that your dodging of my questions weakens your argument as it suggests that you may not actually have any good answers. I hope the implication proves to be false and you are able to provide some form of argument that any thinking person-- whether in agreement or disagreement-- would objectively find supportable. (This is a personal hope and should not be construed as some misguided authoritative requirement on my part.) Of course, you are under no obligation to provide such answers but if you continue your refusal to do so in subsequent comments-- for whatever reason be it apathy, languor, inability, etc.-- then these future contributions of yours may begin to appear contrary to the interests of constructive dialogue. (If you have any interest in such constructive dialogue, I have highlighted the key questions in yellow above.)
78Maori (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your dodging of the perfectly adequate answers that you have been given suggests you have a rigidly partisan viewpoint that is contrary to the bases of constructive dialogue. Whether you think these answers are "not actually ... good" is immaterial. I am not interested in a debate, and your snide imputations ("apathy", etc.) cross over into incivility. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Of the 3 groups of questions/text that I highlighted above, the first two are related and refer to a point in which you made an assertion that was proven to be factually inaccurate. Why would anyone find an argument based on an inaccurate assertion to be adequate?
My last question was simply a request for clarification so that I may better understand your point and respond accordingly. At no point did you provide a response to this request. Therefore your response to the third point is absent which by any measure is less than adequate.
How my dissatisfaction with these responses (or lack thereof) suggests to you that I have a "rigidly partisan viewpoint" is fascinating to me. Perhaps you should regard your own advice on incivility?
Speaking of which... First of all, I did not claim to know your motivations. I only listed possible reasons that you might be unwilling to answer my questions. Secondly, the character of this list of potential reasons were prompted in part by your declaration to be "not interested" in such an endeavor. A civil individual with access to a thesaurus might describe such a lack of interest as being apathetic.
Our frustrations are clearly getting the best of both of us at this junction. I sensed from early on that we were headed towards a 'food fight' and, as my predictions are on the rarest of occasions, it appears I was correct. We might both be better served by a few days away from this particular Talk page. In the end we are working towards the same goal: improving the article. Going forward, I hope that we can concentrate on constructive dialogue regarding the article while addressing each other in a less adversarial nature. Food fights are not worth either of our time.78Maori (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You keep trying to spin the situtation, but the fact remains: you were given an adequate answer as to why your requested changes do not meet the Wikipedia standards for improving articles. What I am not interested in is a debate on the deep details of generally accepted matters. If this is too frustrating for you by all means lets end it. Are we done here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
1) For what it's worth, I don't see you as an opponent in a debate and I hope you don't see me as such either. I deliberately use the term discussion and see us as equal participants working towards a common goal. Besides, discussions of ideas can be a very pleasant thing... even on the internet (or so I've heard). ;)
2) I would greatly appreciate it if you would point me to where my answers were adequately answered? Our "adequacy gauge" is likely calibrated differently (which is fine!) but I am curious as to the degree of difference. A copy/paste'd quote or text highlight would more than suffice. Thanks.
3) I hadn't realized the discussion had delved so deeply into the topic. Where my questions did involve technical matters, I was primarily seeking clarification towards claims you made (e.g. specific views of M&M) so that I could contribute more productively. I would still welcome such clarifications but if you are uninterested in providing such a courtesy, I completely understand. (Disclaimer: If unclear and/or unsupported assertions are made in future discussions, please forgive me if I request clarification and/or supporting evidence. Old habits die hard.)
Thanks again for contributing to this discussion. 78Maori (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Since you asked so nicely, and assuming a straight-forward, sincere request for information.) Dave explained (06:42, 31 Mar) that M&M are clearly a minority viewpoint, as shown well by the secondary source of the AR4 assessment. Your proposal would give readers the false impression that M&M's replies had gained general credence." I also pointed out that you seemd to have "already determined that a synopsis should be provided", contrary to WP:NPOV. You then went into a deep argument purporting to show that M&M are reliable sources, based on their publication in GRL and citation in AR4; I pointed out (22:11, 4 Apr) that publication (even in a leadng journal such as GRL) does not constitute automatic acceptance, and that mention (citaton) in AR4 was recogntion of a criticism made, but rejected by the majority on the basis of the other sources cited. You then asserted (19:36, 7 Apr) that "rejection is certainly not demonstrated in the cited AR4". To which I explained ({{diff2|655424411|23:47, 7 Apr]) that lack of an explicit statement of rejection is immaterial, that having been refuted the determining factor (scientifically as well as for Wikipedia) is that there has been no support for M&M05.

I could go on, but that should be sufficient to settle the matter. Please note that 1) most (possibly all) of the editors here would consider those answers quite adequate, 2) we are not required to meet your personal criterion of adequacy, and 3) if you continue to debate, quibble, question, or "request further clarification" I will deem it deliberate provocation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

respectfully

the article is to long and jargony, eg "In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR)." eigenvector does not belong in the intro of a general audience encyclopedia; the essential point, afaik, is that they found a way of putting to gether diff data

Also, should there be a section on the allegations in a video on the berkeley earth website - criticizes mann in the strongest possible tone; as far as I can figure out, BE is talking about the trick to hide the high N latitude divergence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.255.234 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science."

No implications here, no. /sarcasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.73.171 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In similar way, article try to pretend that every "Climate Change supporter" is an "independent scientific saint", while every "Climate Change sceptic" is either financially backed by industrial/mining corporation (for sure terribly evil, wanting nothing less than turn Earth into plain rock), or worked for them in past... 88.101.66.17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Mod to first paragraph to better balance the weight of the scientific evidence, HIGH, versus the quasi-scientific, LOW, disputations and successful rebuttals of accusations of fraud, mis-used evidence, cherry picking, etc.

In the hockey stick controversy, the data and methods used in reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years have been disputed unsuccessfully within the scientific realm FOOT NOTE: whereas the disputations within the political realm have been quite successful up until recently.

The AR5 Synthesis report (Nov 2014) uses the word “unequivocal” regarding man-made, anthropogenic, climate change. (SPM 1. Observed Changes and their Causes Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green- house gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. {1} SPM 1.1 Observed changes in the climate system Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}

Reconstructions have consistently shown that the rise in the instrumental temperature record of the past 150 years is not matched in earlier centuries, and the name "hockey stick graph" was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperatures. These graphs were publicized to explain the scientific findings of climatology, and in addition to scientific debate over the reconstructions, they have been the topic of political dispute. The issue is part of the global warming controversy and has been one focus of political responses to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.[1]

Some of the repudiated disputations follow: The use of proxy indicators to get quantitative estimates of the temperature record of past centuries was developed from the 1990s onwards, and found indications that recent warming was exceptional. The Bradley & Jones 1993 reconstruction introduced the "Composite Plus Scaling" (CPS) method used by most later large-scale reconstructions,[2][3] and its findings were disputed by Pat Michaels at the United States House Committee on Science.

In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR). This showed global patterns of annual surface temperature, and included a graph of average hemispheric temperatures back to 1400.[4] In Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99) the methodology was extended back to 1000.[5][6] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern this showed, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming an Ice hockey stick's "shaft", followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the "blade".[7][8] A version of this graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), along with four other reconstructions supporting the same conclusion.[6] The graph was publicised, and became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9]

Those disputing the graph included Pat Michaels, the George C. Marshall Institute and Fred Singer. A paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas claiming greater medieval warmth was used by the Bush administration chief of staff Philip Cooney to justify altering the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment. The paper was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but on July 28, Republican Jim Inhofe spoke in the Senate citing it to claim "that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".[10]

Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations. 15:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Psw808 (talk)

WP:TLDR. BTW, why are these stale discussions not being archived? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Climate blogs

Hockey stick controversy#Climate blogs deals with the introduction of blogs from October 2004 to February 2005. This edit added "McIntyre compiled "Hockey Stick Studies" with an extensive list of publications, presentations etc. on multi-proxy analyses."<cited to>McIntyre, Stephen. "Hockey Stick Studies" (HTML). Retrieved 2015-08-19. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)
The earliest archive of this is in December 2009, the comments indicate a publication in July 2006. Clearly out of sequence, and a self-published source with no obvious significance. . . dave souza, talk 06:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

controversy ?

Using the word controversy only continues to cast doubt on Mann et al work, which is the intent of the POV of those using this word. The graph's supporting data has been available since Mann was first attacked by the deniers shortly after the IPPC 1998 report. The 2014 report has even more proof of his original research and it was been independently verified by numerous replications using different models by different international scientists.

This should be called: The Hockey Stick Climate Change Graph. Neutral.

It's not controversial within the ranks of a high (~97% group of international scientists. Using the word controversial continues the success of the deniers.

The individuals or fake science orgs who have only succeeded in casting doubt with clever, quasi-scientific arguments.

Do you want all the references? Just read the 2014 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. My god man... this is ludicrous.

1/2 billion dollars of funding which is either dark money with a trace or money tied usually to Big Oil, Kochs, etc.

There is very little controversy regarding this graph and it's implications.Psw808 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't really about the science; you want temperature record of the past 1000 years. Its about the disputes over the graph; those disputes exist, even though their substance is tiny in proportion to the noise William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The article about the science is hockey stick graph, the aim in this article is to cover the political and ideological attempts to discredit the MBH studies: sufficient science is covered to show that in context. If that scientific context can be kept clear, this article could certainly be trimmed to focus more on the non-scientific aspects. . . dave souza, talk 08:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying this. I thought the text so weak I didn't see it. Would it be appropriate to add more references to the last sentence, the summary, of the first paragraph such as Merchants of Doubt, Desmogblog, etc ? There is very little doubt regarding the source of much of the money funding the deniers and notwithstanding their cleverness, which is very strong, with their artful use of rhetoric attacking science to induce doubt in those without the time to read the IPCC latest Summary. I would suggest a link to that summary along with those mentioned above. There should be more references demonstrating how strong the science is supporting the graph and how all so called doubt about it have been dispelled for many years. Regards, PhilipPsw808 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll do what we can to strengthen the article, and have still to update it to IPCC's AR5. You're welcome to help, either by boldly editing the article – at worst, the changes will be undone and discussed – or by suggesting sources and revised wording on this talk page. However, we've got to be careful about using sources that explicitly mention the topic, and can't use selfpublished sources like Desmogblog or other blogs (with specific exceptions such as WP:NEWSBLOGs). Sorry it's sugh a maze, others will be glad to help with making edits which comply with the various policies. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dave: thanks for the feedback. Desmogblog.com is not a blog: it's a highly authoritative web site which early on began to expose the deniers of climate change: who the deniers are and who funds them. Is it any different than the theguardian.com . I've been told wiki links cannot be used as refs but I've seen them on other pages. thanks and regards, PHilipPsw808 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psw808, wiki links are good as a pointer to other pages, but they can't be used as the actual reference being cited: for example, a citation may have a link to a wiki article about the author or book, but the reference is the book itself and the wiki editor has to have read the book: there some leeway for using online versions of books, but care is needed to ensure the full context is taken into account. .dave souza, talk 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As for reliability of sources, they can be checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It has a box (down the page a bit, next to the contents list) to "Search this noticeboard & archives", and the first thing to do is see if anyone else has discussed it as a source. It shows five discussions, most recently this one which didn't go well. The previous one got more support, as well as opposition, so it could depend exactly how the source is used. In-text attribution could help with that, providing the weight given to the source can be justified. Thus, not definite acceptance as a RS, but possible if used carefully. Worthwhile trying to find other references that fully meet WP:SOURCES policy and the WP:RS guideline. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So...nothing at all appears in the article about the famous Mann-Steyn lawsuit over the "fraudulent" hockey stick? Astounding. But typical. Carry on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really "astounding", since it is already covered on the Mann and Steyn pages and has not yet reached a conclusion. TimOsborn (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
And more about what Steyn said and Mann did than the hockey stick controversy itself, so not appropriate for this article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

In graphic "Red line: rescaled IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1(c}, based on Lamb 1965 showing central England temperatures", there is some ambiguity. Most of the curve is Lamb(1965)'s *estimates* of Central England Temperature. See the (non-RS, but relevant cites) blog post That has a copy of Fig 7 from Jones etal(2009), which clearly distinguished between measured C.E.T. and the Lamb(1965) estimates for the earlier years. Lack of doing that has caused no end of graphical confusion.JohnMashey (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"1 September 2005 his staffer met statistician Edward Wegman to ask for an opinion on the validity of criticisms of the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 reconstruction. Wegman formed a team with his graduate student Yasmin H. Said" By the best information known, this is incorrect. The Sept 1 meeting was with Jerry Coffey, and Barton staffer Peter Spencer met with them a little later and provided documents. Said had been a grad student, but was then an (alcoholism-modeling) postdoc. "sent out to a number of referees" I think "reviewers" might be a more accurate term, although usage varies. I've added some More notes on Wegman Report talk page JohnMashey (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Citations screwed up in the rendering

I note continuing degradation of the citations. Most recently a script has replaced "et al." where it appears in a citation's |author= field, which did not take into account that the "et al." was also used in the CITEREF, breaking the link from the Harv templates. I haven't reverted that edit because those links do not work in the prior version. However, they don't work even back when I last worked on this (May 2014), and I am pretty sure that I checked all the links then, and they worked. Similarly, I am also pretty sure there was no big red "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ..." error back then, suggesting that these problem are not due to changes in the text, but changes in the wikicode. Something else by the last change: extraneous semicolons before the "et al.". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Really sorry about this, I've felt a bit overwhelmed by the citations. Will have to try to get this operational again, am struggling for time at present. . dave souza, talk 07:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

This section states that 8 INDEPENDENT evaluations concluded that no misrepresentation of the data was observed. Please cite the Independent" sources.

The EPA can hardly be considered to be INDEPENDENT! As a branch of the federal government, they ALL report to or are subject to the whims of the president, whom we all know is hell bent on pushing this agenda through. Anyone in the EPA who's conclusions did not agree with the presidents agenda must have known that it would likely cost them their job!

For Example:

June 2016

James Kallstrom, a former FBI assistant director, recently spoke with Megyn Kelly on her Fox News show "The Kelly File." Kallstrom told Kelly that orders have come down from the White House that the bureau cannot investigate ‘anything to do with Muslims’ and agents are “petrified” of losing their jobs if they do.

I would not consider ANYTHING any organization that accepts federal funding had to say on this subject to be accurate without TRULY independent verification.

""I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[205]"

" to HIDE the decline."

IF I were on the jury, I would conclude that these so called scientists knowingly and deliberately MANIPULATED THE DATA to accomplish their goal of deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas Engineer David (talk • contribs) 22:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

They're listed, and for more detail and sources see Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I appreciate that in the Soon and Baliunas controversy, the White House's Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Philip Cooney, a lawyer who had formerly been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, edited the draft first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment, as shown in the article. However, the various investigations were independent of each other. If you want something to appear in the article, you need to present reliable third party sources which directly refer to the topic of this article, not just your musings as an unlikely juror. . . dave souza, talk 04:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

````

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Named refs" not an appropriate "fix" for "duplicate refs"

@Mikeblas: Re your "fix duplicate ref def" edits (here and following): Please do not use "named refs" (the "<ref name= ..." construction) to replace short cites. The style established in this article is to NOT used named refs. Ideally all of the short cites (typically using {harv} templates) would use a page/location specification, and there would be fewer "precise duplicates". And if you wanted to go through the sources and get the particular page numbers, that would be an excellent contribution. But it is not an appropriate "fix" to merge short cites with "named refs". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @J. Johnson:! Perhaps you can help me understand your objection. This article has at least a dozen named references. Before the my edit to which your objecting, one was "<ref name="bbc">{{Harvnb|BBC News, 16 July|2004}}.</ref>" and another was "ref name="bbc">{{Harvnb|BBC News|16 July 2004}}.</ref>". Since the names are identical but the content of the reference text isn't identical, the article renders with one (the first) reference visible, the second reference obscured, and the error text "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "bbc" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).".
The fix I applied was to remove the second ref tag and replace it with a closed tag, as <ref name="bbc"/>. Both references are to the same item; so using a named reference produces a short cite with a linked identifier for navigation in the references section. The link still resolves to the correct item in the bibliography.
The references I fixed (for this issue) were to web pages, which don't have page numbers, so I'm not sure I understand your objection, or what you're proposing as an alternative remedy for the errors in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure. The "Cite error" problem you were addressing (in two citations of a BBC News item) has a bit of a history. Originally the article had two notes ("footnotes"), each containing a short cite (using {{harv}} templates) pointing to the full citation. Then some one decided we can't have duplicated notes (the <ref>...</ref> construction), so they converted them to the "named" form ("<ref name= ..."), making one note appear in multiple places. (Here, in one other place.) Unfortunately, the names used weren't identical, leading to the error, which you fixed.
My objection is that you fixed the wrong problem. The problem was not in the name inconsistency, but in merging separate notes with a named-ref. There is no reason for merging those two notes (aside from a wide-spread mania about "dup refs"), and various problems using named-refs, while there is no harm in having them separate. The better fix would be to undo the named-ref edits.
The "citation style" of the article was to use short cites instead of named-refs. That named-refs have crept into the article doesn't change matters: they are contrary to the established style, and should be removed. (Which I was working on three years ago, then got side-tracked to other matters.)
What I would propose is that all named-refs in the article be removed, reverting the notes back to short cite style. At the same time, multiple notes at the end of sentences can be merged, or some notes moved into the sentence to follow the content supported. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hockey stick controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A passerby's comments

Hi, I stumbled upon this page called the Hockey stick controversy. I have two comments; there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. The whole thing is a "controversy" because the results of two different methods are presented in the same graph. If you either increase the time resolution of the proxy part through Monte Carlo techniques or decrease the time resolution of the modern record to fit the historical one, neither a steep hockey stick will appear, nor modern "unprecendented" temperatures. This is nowadays well-known within the scientific community. The "controversy" comes from the misleading super-posing of two sets of data not really saying what some people claim. Apple and pears. The other part is the sources. For instance, claiming that fossil industry is behind "manufacturing" doubts: the Guardian. Really, such serious charges are validated using a liberal newspaper (and no evidence are presented in the articles either upon closer examination)? I think the whole controversy will clear up if you stick to scientific papers only. When you put politics in the mix., like "the Guardian", you are forced to either choose sides or let all sides have a say. In this case you are clearly not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.242.200 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

[Adding a section header for someone who commented without benefit of the "New section" tab at the top. And doesn't know about using the four tildes ("~~~~") to sign one's posts.]
These comments above are rather superficial, even unfounded. E.g., as I recall the Guardian is not cited for any claim that the 'fossil industry is behind "manufacturing" doubts' (Really!); that can be supported by much more reputable sources. I did a quick check, and it appears that the Guardian is cited only for statements of Fred Pearce, who was a participant in the controversy, and for which the Guardian is deemed a reliable record.
The controversy about the "hockey stick" can not be "cleared up" by "stick[ing] to scientific papers only" because much of it played out outside of the scientific press. E.g.: the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and reports from several "conservative" think tanks. Which certainly seems adequate to "balance" any liberal taint that may have drifted in from the Guardian. And also shows that the controversy was as much political as scientific. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/ https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html Hope somebody will clarify why he was wrong. 2A00:1370:812C:4261:E835:6380:711D:E90 (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

First, you need to clarify what you are trying to say. Are you trying to suggest any improvements to the article? If yes, which ones? If not, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mann's graph repudiated

Last year the British Columbia ruled against Mann with prejudice, as did a DC District Court in Mann v Steyn. It doesn't matter what data you put into Mann's computer program, you always get a hockey stick graph. Mann"has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale."

This article needs some serious revision, including links to the truth, instead of specious assertions that Mann's graph is at all credible. Hpfeil (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be completely misinformed. If you'd like to provide "links to the truth" for discussion on this page about article improvement, please ensure that the sources comply with WP:V and meet the standards of both WP:RS and WP:BLP as appropriate. Also, remember that Wikipedia gives due weight to mainstream science. . . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead is long

It should be shortened for readability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to fix it, currently it outlines a complex history – maybe make it into a summary section, then put a bare outline in the lead, taking care to reflect weight? Regrettably, am currently trying to work on another couple of pages with higher priority for me. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy/Archive_10&oldid=1157841837"