![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've taken all the discussion off this page and onto the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. This was because I strongly dislike having the same war in two different places (or indeed the same peace: its the duplication that annoys). When I did that, I found that it was almost entirely duplicated. If you feel skeptical, you are of course feel free to check. William M. Connolley 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Much of the "controversy2 here duplicates material on the temperature record of the past 1000 years and to a lesser extent McI's page. Some is wrong ( [1] is described as being McI when its McK). Much is too personal (the papers are MBH, not Mann). I'd like to see a lot chopped out and ref made to the T rec page William M. Connolley 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We have a link to the controversy page, but nothing here about the controversy, which seems odd.
Plus, Mann's list of publications seems far too long. Needs pruning to the 5 or 6 most important, to be consistent with similar articles, IB.
Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hockey Stick is controversed, both from its statement and its sublying method. At least it was at the time of the publication. In addition, it is still now in spite of IPCC claims.
It is essential for the understanding of this important controverse, would it be a breakthough or a falwed work, would it be solved or still debated, to mention that historians have reported a warm Middle Age througout the humanity, with sure data about agriculture and about freezeing dates. The human records available to historians state the Middle Age was warm. Mann has claimed the contrary, supported by the huge propaganda means of IPCC. One explanation would be that his method is wrong, e.g. from a flawed normalization technique. Another explanation would be that History holds data mostly only for the northern hemisphere, for a +2 or +3 degrees in the northern emisphere together with a very surprising simultaneous -? degree in the southern hemisphere, African equator and other places where writting was not at work. Adding a dozen of words on this essential controversy IS essential for understanding the scientific context when Mann work was published, would you support his work or not.
Therefore, I plainly restore this usuefull and legitimate dozen of words toughly deleted with no explanation by software engineer KimDabelsteinPetersen, whereas these words make reference to well known historical data collected by historians, e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.
( Furhermore, as a scientist specialized in the most sophisticated and advanced statistic data and processes, I state that statistic models on complex phenomenons are usually less reliable than historical records when these are available. Climate is undoubtfuly a complex phenomenon or, to be more explicit, a complex set of complex phenomenons. Therefore, if both sets of claiming clash although each seems to be consistant and produced from state of the art techniques, the historical records shall prevail unless sure explanation arise for explaining the clash in another way. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.22.25 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 May 2007
If the edit in question is this [2] then its badly written. OK, the English can be fixed, but the POVness is harder. As KDP says, you want Hockey stick controversy (or temperature record of the past 1000 years) for this, but its already in there William M. Connolley 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the minimalist change made a few seconds ago (insertion of "controversial" about "hockey stick graph"), I suggest a revamping of the structure of the article, which is made confused from useless redundancies.
Paragraph "He is best known ..." just before section ""hockey stick" graph" section should be spitted and inserted in this very section : first sentence after (or at the end of) paragraph "Scientific American..." , second sentence after the quotation paragraph about his statement on "consensus". - added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2007 22:59 GMT -
Since Mr. Petersen seems to act as if he was the personal owner of this article, or at least the guardian delegated by the owner, which to my knowledge is none of us neither Dr. Mann himself, here are some info on the minimal change introduced by me a few minutes ago, then deleted by Mr. Petersen, then restored, then deleted, then restored: 1- The hockey graph has always been deeply controversial since it negates the well-known most important periods of climate change in the past millennium: the warm Middle Age and the Little Ice Age, both of them too clearly written in the human History for being simply negated. 2- Although his work was, on the best, relatively small compared to the hugeness of the task of measuring the temperature throughout continents and centuries, he used his position in IPCC for enforcing his graph as a so-called scientific worldwide consensus in 2001 which it was certainly not. 3- The hockey stick graph was shown in the peer-reviewed literature as being produced from a flawed statistical methodology and also a doubtful choice and use of proxy data. Dr Mann has tried to deny this but many experts are far from being convinced by his arguments. 4- The hockey stick is withdrawn by IPCC itself in 2007 report. For each of these reasons, using "controversial" for his "hockey stick" graph is not a too hard word; for the conjunction of them it is probably strongly moderate. Therefore stating his 1998 hockey stick graph, used as 2001 IPPC graph, is "controversial" is not a POV but a moderate statement. - xavdr 14th July 2007 01:23 GMT -
In order to make this article honnestly informative, we have to add the following info inside this very article (not deported to remote articles) :
1- 1998 "hockey stick" graph, for which Mann is originaly famous far outside the scientific world, did negate (thorougly) warm Middle Age and (almost thoroughly) Little Ice Age,
2a- it was conflictual e.g. against the reports made by historians such as
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie from strong and numerous evidences,
2b- it has been stated by IPCC 2001 as a consensus,
2c- this consensus has been withdrawn by IPCC 2007.
(3) Furthermore, I state again that the current structure of the article is not proper so as it even triggers logical redundancies. In order to clean that the paragraph "He is best known ..." has to be dispatched into previous/next ones.
- xavdr / 82.243.22.25 15th July 2007 01:17 GMT -
(
) copied from the place inside of the body of xavdr's July text in wich William M. Connolley had inserted his August remark
This
external link is dead - perhaps the article can be found elsewhere?-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an image of the hockey stick graph in this section? It's impossible to make it out in the spaghetti graph. -- 90.210.96.120 ( talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
please add appropriate icon on the article page. i cannot edit it. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section titled "Review of recent reports". A "latest news" item (which is what this is) is inappropriate to any biographical article. We aim to produce balanced articles that adequately reflect a subject, and this is particularly important in the case of biographies of living persons. The University says it's reviewing some of the leaked emails, so let's allow them to get on with it. If anything comes of the review that reflects on Mann, then we can decide how to integrate it into the article. -- TS 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite have the energy to write this up, but someone else might. Incidentally, the new Minnesotans for Global Warming video (link at the Telegraph) is very amusing. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Separate point. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section suggests generally not repeating links there that are included in the body of the test. Since Hockey stick graph (which redirects to Hockey stick controversy) is in the lede, it would seem inappropriate to have it in the see also section. I would suggest changing the link in the lede to Temperature record of the past 1000 years (technically, what he did create) and keeping it as is in the See Also. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Could one of the self professed AGW experts explain to me what Michael Mann’s “Nature Trick” is?
<refactored, apologies, but see below>
The article doesn’t specify what the trick is or what exactly they are trying to hide so we should try and hash it out here and try to include it in the article.
Much thanks. WVBluefield ( talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
So, to address the content, there's a nice summary of this by Nate Silver here. I probably wouldn't claim that's Silver's a RS, since he does admit to having slightly liberal politics, but I do trust his ability to do statistical analysis. He reads this as a tempest in a teacup, which would seem to jibe with what the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews links above seem to say. Basically, the 'trick' was how to jazz up a graph for impact, not tweaking data. I'm not saying that's the end of it, but that does seem to be the consensus of the reliable sources I've seen. If there are others (RS's that is, not blogs) out there with differing views, it'd be nice to see them.
Otherwise, is there any oppostion to adding a section reviewing the data theft, and summarizing the reaction? For the reaction, I'd probably go with what I have above about climate change skeptics smelling blood in the water, but there being no net change in the scientific consensus. --
Bfigura (
talk)
03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Could the interested editors please "beta" test their proposed edits here on the talk page before the protection expires on the 14th? I'd like to see some consensus reached on the talk page so an addition regarding the controversy can be made. The alternative, I fear, is an edit war and an administrator full-protecting the page again and locking out important edits.
I would copy some of the edits from the history of the article, but it might be more appropriate for the edit authors to do so, as circumstances and facts have changed since protection. jheiv ( talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I am a climate change skeptic and I fully agree with William M. Connolley et al. that none of this CRU hack stuff should be appearing in Mann's or Jones' biographies, by appeal to WP:NOT#NEWS. If wrong doing has occurred, let's all agree that the dust hasn't settled, and it's hardly clear exactly what that wrong doing might have been, or what the significance is of it, at this stage. In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment.
I believe a better & more maintainable solution for Mann's biography would be to remove this hockey stick controversy section from his biography altogether and leave that argument for the article on the temperature record. See what we achieved at Ross McKitrick's page for comparison.
The article needs a bit of a clean up too.
Would anyone support me on this? Alex Harvey ( talk) 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
User Alex Harvey writes "In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment." What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia merely states notable information. It is not concerned with "hacking" or any other "ethical problem". It reports sourced notable information. Thats it. If it is notable and sourced- it must be included in the article. Period. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be useful for editors to compare this bio for Michael E. Mann with the bio for Stephen McIntyre (particularly the discussion/talk page). There are undeniable facts: (1) there is a "Hockey Stick Controversy"; (2)Michael E. Mann is the subject of an investigation Pennsylvania State University which announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann; and (3) the data supporting the "Hockey Stick Graph" was dumped or otherwise destroyed. These simple and uncontroversial statements are not disputed and are verifiable through any number of qualified referenced articles, but are not included in the bio. Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One month on, Schulz, like the famous Sergeant with the similar name, still knows and sees nothing. Notice he doesn't actually say what is wrong with those three statements, since of course there IS a hockey stick controversy, (just as there IS a Climategate controversy that Mann is at the center of), Penn State IS looking into his conduct, and the CRU did admit that unaltered source data was destroyed, and yes, this has been reported in numerous sources, including the NYT, LAT, the Telegraph, and several other sources listed in Wikipedia's infamous Reliable Sources.
There are the older Talk:Michael_Mann_(scientist)/Archive_1 and the newer Talk:Michael_E._Mann/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.145.96 ( talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutrality is not optional. Use of language which is, taken away from its original context, prejudicial, should be avoided in all article edits.
I reverted proxy temperature data from tree rings with more accurate data from air temperatures to deal with a decline in tree ring climate proxy metrics which renders them unreliable etc.
Whether the method is an improvement or not is a matter of controversy. The original text simply states what was done without drawing conclusions as to the validity of the method, and should be -- I think -- preferred.
Edrowland ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about Mann being credited with the "trick". There was no good reason to delete it. Vividuppers ( talk) 11:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In a widely discussed email found in the leaked files, Mann is credited by Phil Jones as the inventor of the 'trick' of padding smoothed temperature proxy data with instrumental temperature data in order to hide a decline in the temperature proxy data, Vividuppers ( talk) 12:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources emphasize the word "trick," so we're no better. Its continuous removal is unacceptable whitewashing.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
please add a link to CRU. it is highly relevant.
93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As the whole hockey stick controversy is a major part of this guys bio i feel a section should be included about it. I will write it up over the next few days and post it here for discussion. Should anyone wish to contribute to this addition please feel free to do so. Should anyone have any objections please feel free to explain your reasons here. Kim you say in the talk above that it is already linked in the article, i`m sorry but i do not see it mentioned anywere in the article. -- mark nutley ( talk) 21:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
To speak of a "hockey stick controversy" in a biography of Mann is a bit like speaking of an "evolution controversy" in a biography of Darwin. This is a loaded phrase and must be approached carefully. Mann's findings as expressed by that long, flat hockey stick handle are now accepted by the mainstream, having been tested repeatedly and extensively. So any coverage of scientific controversy must be informed by this fact.
There have been political controversies--Mann's findings are not popular in some countries, and there have been some rather silly attempts to twist his clearly understood and harmless words into something nasty. I'm against the idea that we should give emphasis to such attempts, because even though we're in the thick of it now in a few months we'll have a better idea about whether anything will come of it. We can afford to wait. There is no deadline. -- TS 01:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
-- mark nutley ( talk) 09:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed the links from "Hockey stick graph" which was a redirect to the controversy article and added a link to the controversy at the end of 1st paragraph. Also removed the "see also" links as they are and were all linked within the article text. Vsmith ( talk) 03:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:external media is commonly used for a direct link to a nonfree image, and placed in the same spot as a free image would be, for the reader's convenience. It's a fairly new, but useful, template.
Other examples of use:
etc etc
I think it's a nice innovation, and am surprised it would result in controversy. You never know, I guess.
Context: I added one of these (to a portrait of Mann, from his site, diff), Atmoz reverted (twice), then ChrisO reverted. We used to have a photo of Mann here, but it was deleted, for bad license ims. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This is probably an issue for a MoS RfC I would think. jheiv ( talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Climate expert in the eye of an integrity storm at Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2010
Interesting profile & news story, by veteran science reporter (& media hottie) Faye Flam. Happy reading-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The Collegian reports that Penn State will release the findings of their investigation later this week. jheiv ( talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf The University has decided that further investigation of Allegation 4 is required by a diverse selection of distinquished science faculty. I'm sure the page locking crowd will manage to squeeze in that they decided to not pursue Allegations 1 - 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO - I've made a couple of changes to your last edit. Mainly I wanted to break it up a little, so I've split into two paras, being basically 1. Climategate emails released and Mann's reaction to them, then 2. Inquiry held and (initial) findings released. Also, I don't think it's fair to characterise the inquiry as "Clearing Mann of professional misconduct" as it has left open the fourth allegation. I also made the point that no actual allegations were made against Mann. Thepm ( talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I noted Atmoz removed the apparent Curriculum Vitaepartial bibliography
[15] in the article and then Scjessey promptly reverted the edit. I plan on removing it again (and from any other scientists I find it on, so far only
Jim Salinger and
David Wratt) because I can't find the same dull section in an article about a scientist outside of GW/CC. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not about a scientist outside of GW/CC that has it, but rather that it appears with some consistency in general.)
I realize this sounds like I'm pushing an agenda, but I have consulted other researchers outside of GW/CC, specifically:
Readers who really are interested in the research papers my Mann are about 2 or 3 clicks away, I'd imagine, given the external links to the scientists' personal site. In general, however, I feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to the average Wikipedia reader.
Further, in many of these papers Mann isn't the lead author (I realize there is no brightline on this) and if these papers that are listed are really of any notability, that material should be merged into the appropriate section in the scientist's article.
I'd like to note one other problem I'm having with the section -- it was under the head "Selected Publications" -- my question is, selected by who?
jheiv ( talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links -- I'll check them out -- another problem I can't get my head around is the fact that most of these articles are not available to a user who isn't subscribed to either the journal or to a consortium service that provides access. This doesn't make much sense to me -- as if they were links rather than just mentions, they would probably be removed due to WP:EL sections 6 or 7. jheiv ( talk) 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I Restoried it (well, I added it originally) because the papers *are* the scientists work; the rest is fluff. You may find it dry and borig; so what? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing all recent pubs is a bad idea. You make him look emeritus. Recent pubs are a scientists lifeblood. One without recent pubs isn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Why bother. It's obvious that several of the editors here will bend over backward to purge this article of RS facts based on the incredibly flimsy excuse of how "some people" will take it. Grant money confirmed by RS WSJ AND USF, on his CV, but no, no inclusion, because it's only the value of TS's house. The central product of Mann's work is the Hockey stick which the UN stopped using in 2006, but that's not worth mentioning apparently. Direct evidence from CRU email leak (let's not automatically assume it's a hacking incident, as those who wish to discredit what is astoundingly convenient an otherwise indicative of a whistleblower) that the tree ring data which supposedly accounts for 1000 years of warming doesn't accurately match up with the last 40 years of instrument reading, but no, the user has to find the article on their own for that. Proprietary code (source not released so it could be independently analyzed) was discredited by Steven McIntyre in 2003 when he ran red noise through it and still got a hockeystick, later the function that produced the artificial result was identified in the alleged source code analyzed by Eric S. Raymond, but no, that can't possible be newsworthy. Now we have Phil Jones admitting in the RS Daily Mail there hasn't been warming since 1995, (That's the past 15 years for anybody whose wondering how this jives with the CRU's claims up to 2007 that the temperature was never hotter), but no, I'm sure we'll figure out how this isn't relevant. Here's a head start for you: I added Phil Jones to the list of scientists that say global warming isn't happening, so run over there Atomz, TS, ChrisO, or one of these other apologist propagandists that claim to be editing a serious encyclopedia. Wikipedia: Great if you want to know specs on a Blue ray or what an imperative programming language is, but nothing but an elaborate hoax for perpetuating whatever bullshit is currently fashionable on the left in the face of overwhelming evidence. You're intellectual dishonesty is killing what should be a great resource for students. Yes, I am impugning your motives, and I don't care what rules and guidelines it violates because you are all frauds. Read this discussion page and tell me I'm wrong. You're a joke, but Goebbel's would be proud. 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip. -- TS 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
How dare you accuse others of what you so clearly practice, TS. 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To unregistered user at domain:173.168.129.57 First of all register otherwise no one will take you seriously. Secondly, TS is absolutely right. Bill Heller ( talk) 02:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose adding that Michael Mann received $541,184 in stimulus money in June 2009. [1] In fact I don't see any discussion s on this here so I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here. JettaMann ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here is wrong: (a) it would have been far better discussed *first* - are you in a hurry? and (b) the second part should have read please remove it if you disagree. Please do *not* attempt to imply a burden on editors removing material - it won't work, but it will irritate William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure its relevant -- its almost like saying that Mann enjoys going to the Dunkin Donuts on College Avenue... so what? At least my two cents. jheiv ( talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The grant was funded by the National Science Foundation. The fact that the right wing does not want science funded is not news, and is not an appropriate topic for this article. Mann has had many grants, this one is not special. - Atmoz ( talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've taken all the discussion off this page and onto the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. This was because I strongly dislike having the same war in two different places (or indeed the same peace: its the duplication that annoys). When I did that, I found that it was almost entirely duplicated. If you feel skeptical, you are of course feel free to check. William M. Connolley 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Much of the "controversy2 here duplicates material on the temperature record of the past 1000 years and to a lesser extent McI's page. Some is wrong ( [1] is described as being McI when its McK). Much is too personal (the papers are MBH, not Mann). I'd like to see a lot chopped out and ref made to the T rec page William M. Connolley 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We have a link to the controversy page, but nothing here about the controversy, which seems odd.
Plus, Mann's list of publications seems far too long. Needs pruning to the 5 or 6 most important, to be consistent with similar articles, IB.
Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hockey Stick is controversed, both from its statement and its sublying method. At least it was at the time of the publication. In addition, it is still now in spite of IPCC claims.
It is essential for the understanding of this important controverse, would it be a breakthough or a falwed work, would it be solved or still debated, to mention that historians have reported a warm Middle Age througout the humanity, with sure data about agriculture and about freezeing dates. The human records available to historians state the Middle Age was warm. Mann has claimed the contrary, supported by the huge propaganda means of IPCC. One explanation would be that his method is wrong, e.g. from a flawed normalization technique. Another explanation would be that History holds data mostly only for the northern hemisphere, for a +2 or +3 degrees in the northern emisphere together with a very surprising simultaneous -? degree in the southern hemisphere, African equator and other places where writting was not at work. Adding a dozen of words on this essential controversy IS essential for understanding the scientific context when Mann work was published, would you support his work or not.
Therefore, I plainly restore this usuefull and legitimate dozen of words toughly deleted with no explanation by software engineer KimDabelsteinPetersen, whereas these words make reference to well known historical data collected by historians, e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.
( Furhermore, as a scientist specialized in the most sophisticated and advanced statistic data and processes, I state that statistic models on complex phenomenons are usually less reliable than historical records when these are available. Climate is undoubtfuly a complex phenomenon or, to be more explicit, a complex set of complex phenomenons. Therefore, if both sets of claiming clash although each seems to be consistant and produced from state of the art techniques, the historical records shall prevail unless sure explanation arise for explaining the clash in another way. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.22.25 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 May 2007
If the edit in question is this [2] then its badly written. OK, the English can be fixed, but the POVness is harder. As KDP says, you want Hockey stick controversy (or temperature record of the past 1000 years) for this, but its already in there William M. Connolley 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the minimalist change made a few seconds ago (insertion of "controversial" about "hockey stick graph"), I suggest a revamping of the structure of the article, which is made confused from useless redundancies.
Paragraph "He is best known ..." just before section ""hockey stick" graph" section should be spitted and inserted in this very section : first sentence after (or at the end of) paragraph "Scientific American..." , second sentence after the quotation paragraph about his statement on "consensus". - added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2007 22:59 GMT -
Since Mr. Petersen seems to act as if he was the personal owner of this article, or at least the guardian delegated by the owner, which to my knowledge is none of us neither Dr. Mann himself, here are some info on the minimal change introduced by me a few minutes ago, then deleted by Mr. Petersen, then restored, then deleted, then restored: 1- The hockey graph has always been deeply controversial since it negates the well-known most important periods of climate change in the past millennium: the warm Middle Age and the Little Ice Age, both of them too clearly written in the human History for being simply negated. 2- Although his work was, on the best, relatively small compared to the hugeness of the task of measuring the temperature throughout continents and centuries, he used his position in IPCC for enforcing his graph as a so-called scientific worldwide consensus in 2001 which it was certainly not. 3- The hockey stick graph was shown in the peer-reviewed literature as being produced from a flawed statistical methodology and also a doubtful choice and use of proxy data. Dr Mann has tried to deny this but many experts are far from being convinced by his arguments. 4- The hockey stick is withdrawn by IPCC itself in 2007 report. For each of these reasons, using "controversial" for his "hockey stick" graph is not a too hard word; for the conjunction of them it is probably strongly moderate. Therefore stating his 1998 hockey stick graph, used as 2001 IPPC graph, is "controversial" is not a POV but a moderate statement. - xavdr 14th July 2007 01:23 GMT -
In order to make this article honnestly informative, we have to add the following info inside this very article (not deported to remote articles) :
1- 1998 "hockey stick" graph, for which Mann is originaly famous far outside the scientific world, did negate (thorougly) warm Middle Age and (almost thoroughly) Little Ice Age,
2a- it was conflictual e.g. against the reports made by historians such as
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie from strong and numerous evidences,
2b- it has been stated by IPCC 2001 as a consensus,
2c- this consensus has been withdrawn by IPCC 2007.
(3) Furthermore, I state again that the current structure of the article is not proper so as it even triggers logical redundancies. In order to clean that the paragraph "He is best known ..." has to be dispatched into previous/next ones.
- xavdr / 82.243.22.25 15th July 2007 01:17 GMT -
(
) copied from the place inside of the body of xavdr's July text in wich William M. Connolley had inserted his August remark
This
external link is dead - perhaps the article can be found elsewhere?-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an image of the hockey stick graph in this section? It's impossible to make it out in the spaghetti graph. -- 90.210.96.120 ( talk) 01:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
please add appropriate icon on the article page. i cannot edit it. 93.86.205.97 ( talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the section titled "Review of recent reports". A "latest news" item (which is what this is) is inappropriate to any biographical article. We aim to produce balanced articles that adequately reflect a subject, and this is particularly important in the case of biographies of living persons. The University says it's reviewing some of the leaked emails, so let's allow them to get on with it. If anything comes of the review that reflects on Mann, then we can decide how to integrate it into the article. -- TS 03:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite have the energy to write this up, but someone else might. Incidentally, the new Minnesotans for Global Warming video (link at the Telegraph) is very amusing. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Separate point. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#See_also_section suggests generally not repeating links there that are included in the body of the test. Since Hockey stick graph (which redirects to Hockey stick controversy) is in the lede, it would seem inappropriate to have it in the see also section. I would suggest changing the link in the lede to Temperature record of the past 1000 years (technically, what he did create) and keeping it as is in the See Also. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Could one of the self professed AGW experts explain to me what Michael Mann’s “Nature Trick” is?
<refactored, apologies, but see below>
The article doesn’t specify what the trick is or what exactly they are trying to hide so we should try and hash it out here and try to include it in the article.
Much thanks. WVBluefield ( talk) 15:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
So, to address the content, there's a nice summary of this by Nate Silver here. I probably wouldn't claim that's Silver's a RS, since he does admit to having slightly liberal politics, but I do trust his ability to do statistical analysis. He reads this as a tempest in a teacup, which would seem to jibe with what the Wall Street Journal and FoxNews links above seem to say. Basically, the 'trick' was how to jazz up a graph for impact, not tweaking data. I'm not saying that's the end of it, but that does seem to be the consensus of the reliable sources I've seen. If there are others (RS's that is, not blogs) out there with differing views, it'd be nice to see them.
Otherwise, is there any oppostion to adding a section reviewing the data theft, and summarizing the reaction? For the reaction, I'd probably go with what I have above about climate change skeptics smelling blood in the water, but there being no net change in the scientific consensus. --
Bfigura (
talk)
03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Could the interested editors please "beta" test their proposed edits here on the talk page before the protection expires on the 14th? I'd like to see some consensus reached on the talk page so an addition regarding the controversy can be made. The alternative, I fear, is an edit war and an administrator full-protecting the page again and locking out important edits.
I would copy some of the edits from the history of the article, but it might be more appropriate for the edit authors to do so, as circumstances and facts have changed since protection. jheiv ( talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I am a climate change skeptic and I fully agree with William M. Connolley et al. that none of this CRU hack stuff should be appearing in Mann's or Jones' biographies, by appeal to WP:NOT#NEWS. If wrong doing has occurred, let's all agree that the dust hasn't settled, and it's hardly clear exactly what that wrong doing might have been, or what the significance is of it, at this stage. In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment.
I believe a better & more maintainable solution for Mann's biography would be to remove this hockey stick controversy section from his biography altogether and leave that argument for the article on the temperature record. See what we achieved at Ross McKitrick's page for comparison.
The article needs a bit of a clean up too.
Would anyone support me on this? Alex Harvey ( talk) 04:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
User Alex Harvey writes "In any case, the idea of using Wikipedia to report on information obtained by computer hacking is fraught with all sorts of ethical problems that makes my head spin at the moment." What exactly do you mean? Wikipedia merely states notable information. It is not concerned with "hacking" or any other "ethical problem". It reports sourced notable information. Thats it. If it is notable and sourced- it must be included in the article. Period. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be useful for editors to compare this bio for Michael E. Mann with the bio for Stephen McIntyre (particularly the discussion/talk page). There are undeniable facts: (1) there is a "Hockey Stick Controversy"; (2)Michael E. Mann is the subject of an investigation Pennsylvania State University which announced that it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann; and (3) the data supporting the "Hockey Stick Graph" was dumped or otherwise destroyed. These simple and uncontroversial statements are not disputed and are verifiable through any number of qualified referenced articles, but are not included in the bio. Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One month on, Schulz, like the famous Sergeant with the similar name, still knows and sees nothing. Notice he doesn't actually say what is wrong with those three statements, since of course there IS a hockey stick controversy, (just as there IS a Climategate controversy that Mann is at the center of), Penn State IS looking into his conduct, and the CRU did admit that unaltered source data was destroyed, and yes, this has been reported in numerous sources, including the NYT, LAT, the Telegraph, and several other sources listed in Wikipedia's infamous Reliable Sources.
There are the older Talk:Michael_Mann_(scientist)/Archive_1 and the newer Talk:Michael_E._Mann/Archive_1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.145.96 ( talk) 16:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutrality is not optional. Use of language which is, taken away from its original context, prejudicial, should be avoided in all article edits.
I reverted proxy temperature data from tree rings with more accurate data from air temperatures to deal with a decline in tree ring climate proxy metrics which renders them unreliable etc.
Whether the method is an improvement or not is a matter of controversy. The original text simply states what was done without drawing conclusions as to the validity of the method, and should be -- I think -- preferred.
Edrowland ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I've restored the sentence about Mann being credited with the "trick". There was no good reason to delete it. Vividuppers ( talk) 11:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In a widely discussed email found in the leaked files, Mann is credited by Phil Jones as the inventor of the 'trick' of padding smoothed temperature proxy data with instrumental temperature data in order to hide a decline in the temperature proxy data, Vividuppers ( talk) 12:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources emphasize the word "trick," so we're no better. Its continuous removal is unacceptable whitewashing.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
please add a link to CRU. it is highly relevant.
93.86.205.97 ( talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As the whole hockey stick controversy is a major part of this guys bio i feel a section should be included about it. I will write it up over the next few days and post it here for discussion. Should anyone wish to contribute to this addition please feel free to do so. Should anyone have any objections please feel free to explain your reasons here. Kim you say in the talk above that it is already linked in the article, i`m sorry but i do not see it mentioned anywere in the article. -- mark nutley ( talk) 21:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
To speak of a "hockey stick controversy" in a biography of Mann is a bit like speaking of an "evolution controversy" in a biography of Darwin. This is a loaded phrase and must be approached carefully. Mann's findings as expressed by that long, flat hockey stick handle are now accepted by the mainstream, having been tested repeatedly and extensively. So any coverage of scientific controversy must be informed by this fact.
There have been political controversies--Mann's findings are not popular in some countries, and there have been some rather silly attempts to twist his clearly understood and harmless words into something nasty. I'm against the idea that we should give emphasis to such attempts, because even though we're in the thick of it now in a few months we'll have a better idea about whether anything will come of it. We can afford to wait. There is no deadline. -- TS 01:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
-- mark nutley ( talk) 09:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed the links from "Hockey stick graph" which was a redirect to the controversy article and added a link to the controversy at the end of 1st paragraph. Also removed the "see also" links as they are and were all linked within the article text. Vsmith ( talk) 03:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Template:external media is commonly used for a direct link to a nonfree image, and placed in the same spot as a free image would be, for the reader's convenience. It's a fairly new, but useful, template.
Other examples of use:
etc etc
I think it's a nice innovation, and am surprised it would result in controversy. You never know, I guess.
Context: I added one of these (to a portrait of Mann, from his site, diff), Atmoz reverted (twice), then ChrisO reverted. We used to have a photo of Mann here, but it was deleted, for bad license ims. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This is probably an issue for a MoS RfC I would think. jheiv ( talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Climate expert in the eye of an integrity storm at Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2010
Interesting profile & news story, by veteran science reporter (& media hottie) Faye Flam. Happy reading-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The Collegian reports that Penn State will release the findings of their investigation later this week. jheiv ( talk) 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf The University has decided that further investigation of Allegation 4 is required by a diverse selection of distinquished science faculty. I'm sure the page locking crowd will manage to squeeze in that they decided to not pursue Allegations 1 - 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO - I've made a couple of changes to your last edit. Mainly I wanted to break it up a little, so I've split into two paras, being basically 1. Climategate emails released and Mann's reaction to them, then 2. Inquiry held and (initial) findings released. Also, I don't think it's fair to characterise the inquiry as "Clearing Mann of professional misconduct" as it has left open the fourth allegation. I also made the point that no actual allegations were made against Mann. Thepm ( talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I noted Atmoz removed the apparent Curriculum Vitaepartial bibliography
[15] in the article and then Scjessey promptly reverted the edit. I plan on removing it again (and from any other scientists I find it on, so far only
Jim Salinger and
David Wratt) because I can't find the same dull section in an article about a scientist outside of GW/CC. Please correct me if I'm wrong (not about a scientist outside of GW/CC that has it, but rather that it appears with some consistency in general.)
I realize this sounds like I'm pushing an agenda, but I have consulted other researchers outside of GW/CC, specifically:
Readers who really are interested in the research papers my Mann are about 2 or 3 clicks away, I'd imagine, given the external links to the scientists' personal site. In general, however, I feel that it is unnecessary and cumbersome to the average Wikipedia reader.
Further, in many of these papers Mann isn't the lead author (I realize there is no brightline on this) and if these papers that are listed are really of any notability, that material should be merged into the appropriate section in the scientist's article.
I'd like to note one other problem I'm having with the section -- it was under the head "Selected Publications" -- my question is, selected by who?
jheiv ( talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links -- I'll check them out -- another problem I can't get my head around is the fact that most of these articles are not available to a user who isn't subscribed to either the journal or to a consortium service that provides access. This doesn't make much sense to me -- as if they were links rather than just mentions, they would probably be removed due to WP:EL sections 6 or 7. jheiv ( talk) 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I Restoried it (well, I added it originally) because the papers *are* the scientists work; the rest is fluff. You may find it dry and borig; so what? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing all recent pubs is a bad idea. You make him look emeritus. Recent pubs are a scientists lifeblood. One without recent pubs isn't William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Why bother. It's obvious that several of the editors here will bend over backward to purge this article of RS facts based on the incredibly flimsy excuse of how "some people" will take it. Grant money confirmed by RS WSJ AND USF, on his CV, but no, no inclusion, because it's only the value of TS's house. The central product of Mann's work is the Hockey stick which the UN stopped using in 2006, but that's not worth mentioning apparently. Direct evidence from CRU email leak (let's not automatically assume it's a hacking incident, as those who wish to discredit what is astoundingly convenient an otherwise indicative of a whistleblower) that the tree ring data which supposedly accounts for 1000 years of warming doesn't accurately match up with the last 40 years of instrument reading, but no, the user has to find the article on their own for that. Proprietary code (source not released so it could be independently analyzed) was discredited by Steven McIntyre in 2003 when he ran red noise through it and still got a hockeystick, later the function that produced the artificial result was identified in the alleged source code analyzed by Eric S. Raymond, but no, that can't possible be newsworthy. Now we have Phil Jones admitting in the RS Daily Mail there hasn't been warming since 1995, (That's the past 15 years for anybody whose wondering how this jives with the CRU's claims up to 2007 that the temperature was never hotter), but no, I'm sure we'll figure out how this isn't relevant. Here's a head start for you: I added Phil Jones to the list of scientists that say global warming isn't happening, so run over there Atomz, TS, ChrisO, or one of these other apologist propagandists that claim to be editing a serious encyclopedia. Wikipedia: Great if you want to know specs on a Blue ray or what an imperative programming language is, but nothing but an elaborate hoax for perpetuating whatever bullshit is currently fashionable on the left in the face of overwhelming evidence. You're intellectual dishonesty is killing what should be a great resource for students. Yes, I am impugning your motives, and I don't care what rules and guidelines it violates because you are all frauds. Read this discussion page and tell me I'm wrong. You're a joke, but Goebbel's would be proud. 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 06:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've twice removed portions of a discussion from this page because it was being used to promote opinions about the subject matter, rather than discuss the content of the article. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, opinions on the merits of the subject matter, nor for scandal mongering or gossip. -- TS 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
How dare you accuse others of what you so clearly practice, TS. 173.168.129.57 ( talk) 06:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To unregistered user at domain:173.168.129.57 First of all register otherwise no one will take you seriously. Secondly, TS is absolutely right. Bill Heller ( talk) 02:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose adding that Michael Mann received $541,184 in stimulus money in June 2009. [1] In fact I don't see any discussion s on this here so I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here. JettaMann ( talk) 19:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to add it, and if anyone disagrees we can discuss why here is wrong: (a) it would have been far better discussed *first* - are you in a hurry? and (b) the second part should have read please remove it if you disagree. Please do *not* attempt to imply a burden on editors removing material - it won't work, but it will irritate William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure its relevant -- its almost like saying that Mann enjoys going to the Dunkin Donuts on College Avenue... so what? At least my two cents. jheiv ( talk) 02:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The grant was funded by the National Science Foundation. The fact that the right wing does not want science funded is not news, and is not an appropriate topic for this article. Mann has had many grants, this one is not special. - Atmoz ( talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)