Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

More neutral title

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional perspective needed for balance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Unindented at this point)

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

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

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

"Companion paper"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article probation

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

Ongoing balance issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh? What about the paper's authors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muir Russell

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

As a result...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graph image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of duplication of authors names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source question

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

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

Requested page protection

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