Talk:Soon and Baliunas controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Remove possibly POV material?

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of RS material

@Pete Tillman let's not waste time trashing around, this is a content dispute, not a BLP vio issue. Twice now [1][2] you've removed reliably sourced content that is correctly cited. It may perhaps be a better idea for you to raise your concerns at WP:RSN. The content is notable, five reputable newspapers [3][4] [5] [6] [7] have carried this story. Whether or not we agree with what the news sources are reporting is immaterial.--Semitransgenic (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

BLP Noticeboard report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climategate 2.0 emails

A number of emails regarding this controversy were included in the latest release.So far only reported by skeptic websites (that I've seen), but the emails don't portray the campaign against Soon, Baliunas and Chris de Freitas in a good light, and there's plenty of context included. See [8] , [9], [10], [11] etc. Need a RS report to go in the article, probably not a long wait, so this is a heads-up. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

De Freitas wrote in to WUWT, enclosing a copy of a letter from the journal's publisher, Otto Kinne, saying "Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor." As this was a blog comment, not really usable here. The emails are quoted and discussed at Jeff Id's, [12]. Fascinating (and disquieting) reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Stephan: I formed my opinion by reading the original emails. You can, too, if you like: [13]. And please, comment on edits, not the editor! Thx, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Poujeaux, anyone who wants these points discussed in the article needs a reliable secondary source to do any analysis of the emails. Note the discussion at #Rejection by four reviewers above: Kinne "confirmed" that on 3 July, then backtracked a few weeks later and wrote "CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication." as well as "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication." . . . dave souza, talk 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the wiki rules, that's why I did not edit the page. Wiki would rather rely on a claim from a Guardian journalist - presumably from some anonymous source - than the statements of de freitas and Kinne. Talking of backtracking you seem to have backtracked from your incorrect claim above that Kinne admitted the paper was flawed and should not have been published :) Poujeaux (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not my claim nor incorrect, the published view of reliable secondary sources :-) . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative versions on reviewer comments

I looked up Pearce, he does not cite his source though I have e-mailed him asking for it. I have Clare Goodess who makes it clear the resignation was not over percieved imperfections in the review process, not that De Freitas ignore his reviewers. Importantly she writes after the incident and has very little reason to cover for Freitas, so she is a strong source. Her words confirm de Freitas (which we can use the guardian article for, and Monastersky.) I believe the problem is that many sent in unsolicitied views on the paper, which is why people got confused, even the e-mailers.--Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what Pearce says, but such correspondence isn't accepted as a reliable source, he'd really have to publish it. In his case WP:NEWSBLOG should be ok. Remember that he's commenting in 2010 in the light of reading the hacked emails, including the de Freitas email of 3 July 2003 which preceded the arguments over reform of the peer review process in the Journal, and the resignation of editors starting with von Storch on 28 July. Monastersky's article was published on 4 September 2003, the one by Goodess in November 2003. She wrote:
"The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper - which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted. This left many of us somewhat confused and still very concerned about what had happened. The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published."
In English English, "apparently" used like that often implies "not really". She didn't say anything then about the editors who'd resigned by 4 September having found out that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it, but scientists are careful to respect anonymity of peer review and she may have been careful not to say too much. She did comment on Pearce's 2010 article without objecting to his statement about the reviewers, a curious oversight but not conclusive either way. . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Soon et al. on the divergence problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tillman, this is not about NPOV. This is about data presented in peer-reviewed scientific papers. The rebuttal to S&B (in EOS) was devastating, in showing that S&B confused precipitation records for temperature records, used regional proxies as if they were global, and a spectrum of other glaring scientific errors. Subsequent papers (such as Osborn and Briffa 2006) corrected these mistakes and comes to opposing conclusions. Now, if S&B (or anyone else) would publish a peer-reviewed paper contesting the EOS paper, and/or Osborn and Briffa, then we can use that paper in this page. But in absense of peer-reviewed scientific publications to the contrary, S&B 2003 goes into history as a fundamentally flawed, and debunked, 'scientific' paper. No matter what bloggers or Soon himself say outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.2meters (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Text of proposed addition, diff

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

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

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

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

• Note that there are apparently two versions of the M03 spag. graph online: [14]. SM used the one from EOS; the version I link at von Storch's website is slightly different. Here is what appears to be the as-published EOS version]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Deguddling

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

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

Funding

I put the text related to funding in a separate section, since it seems out of place in the section "later investigations". Also, I added an earlier (NYTimes) reference to the $53,000 funding by API, and added references to other funding sources. Please edit the text if you feel it is not clear enough, or does not flow well. But please do not remove the references (to US Air Force and NASA grant publications) without discussing their legitimacy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2meters (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The US Air Force and NASA grant publications are primary sources so need a secondary source for any interpretation or drawing conclusions: fortunately, Clare Goodess covered this point in her article for the SGR Newsletter, so I've added the points she makes. dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the secondary source, Dave. Section is much better ref'ed now.2meters (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Disputed" tag

User 'Darkness Shines' added the 'disputed' tag, so that now this page prominently displays the text "factual accuracy is disputed". Can somebody explain for which part of the text the factual accuracy is still disputed ? Are we waiting for a response from Pierce on the reviewers issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2meters (talk • contribs) 08:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The user has not responded to discussion which covered the points raised, so I've removed this stale tag. . dave souza, talk 19:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

None of the reviewers recommended rejection, this was pointed out before yet the article still says all four recommended rejection. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And your source for this claim? --SMS ^Talk 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Already given above. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And already pointed out above that this primary source predates its author's climbdown and admission that the review process failed. Secondary sources reject your tendentious WP:REHASH of this claim, please supply a proper source or accept that the article is properly sourced and accurate. . dave souza, talk 20:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can we come to a consensus on this "factual accuracy is disputed" 'tag' issue ? For starters, do we agree that the "factual accuracy" here is only "disputed" for the sentence ...partly because they found out that the four reviewers of the paper had recommended rejecting it,[26] ? If so, then can we at least agree that the tag does not belong at the top of the page ? And if not, which other facts are in dispute ?2meters (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)