![]() | 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 |
I added a sentence about why SM started ClimateAudit, User:William M. Connolley edited my work and now I've edited his. Let me explain my last edit.
As always, edits and comments are welcome. — Chris Chittleborough 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Additional changes made to this article:
Added two external links to realclimate.org criticism of McIntyre's 2003 & 2004 papers. C Wu
I don't think it's fair to say that the NAS and the House Committee "largely or wholely" supported M&M. I think it's fair to say that the NAS actually acknowledged some of M&M's technical criticisms, but concluded that the hockey stick graph was largely correct, at least back to AD 900. "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than at any period of comparable length since AD 900."
As for the House Committee: there was a report commissioned by the committee written by a statistician named Wegman, but there was also a great deal of testimony taken, and some of it strongly disputed the conclusions of Wegman's report. It would be less POV to say that Wegman's report supported M&M, but not the House Committee (which in any case is not a relevant body to participate in a technical debate). ::: Mitch Golden
First, lets be clear that the NRC report has far greater credibility than the Wegman report - the latter did indeed largely parrot M&M's criticisms (this http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf is also rather interesting...). However the NRC report didn't. For example the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/06/nrc_report_not_as_interesting.php for Nature and Science William M. Connolley 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have greatly expanded the discussion on the two reports. I feel that it is appropriate to have this discussion here, since the M&M paper and its validity is really McIntyre's main claim to have an entry in Wikipedia at all. I believe I have correctly summarized the conclusions both papers had with respect to the M&M work.
I have included a link to Gerald North's talk at Texas A&M. It is very informative to the attitude of the NRC report. (I don't recall where I found it.) I am concerned that this video may eventually go away, but perhaps we can find a written, and more permanent version of it.
Hopefully, this is acceptable to everyone.
— Mitch Golden Sept 4, 2006
Please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to this article, and is a policy (not just a guideline). Cheers, CWC (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
About the link; it is not external! We need to make a reference to it because the subject of the article himself stated that there were attacks coming from realclimate. Now, the link is to a wikipedia article about a blog (that meets the Wikipedia standards), but not to a blog. Thus, by adding the link we simply give the reader better ability to compile relevant information that is already in wikipedia. Therefore, there is no problem. Brusegadi 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
On Dec 21, William M. Connolley removed the point that MBH had asserted that the past 25 years were the warmest in the last millenium. Here is the relevant sentence from their abstract:
The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.
reference here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html MGolden 02:00 2 Jan 2007 (UTC)
Accordingly, I am going to put this text back into the article, since it is relatively important - it identifies a point of difference between the NRC report and MBH.
Just to be clear - I'm one of RC too, in case you didn't know. The page already says "The NRC differed from MBH largely in the strength of their conclusions" so what you want is already in there. Given the lack of quantification in the NRC report, thats about as strong as you can get. And also... this isn't the place for fine detail on NRC/MBH - this page is about McI. And... as I said: no-one is using your preferred term "reasonable certainty" William M. Connolley 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I just removed a whole pile of back and forth points from the discussion of the Wegman and NRC reports. The editors were evidently trying to either inflate or deflate the credentials of the various authors. One person adds a quote from McIntyre that none of the NRC authors were qualified, then someone else adds text to claim that they were. This is silly. This is McIntyre's biography.
I also added back a sentence that indicates that the NRC report appeared to express concern with the MBH conclusion about the heat of the late 1990s.
Mgolden 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of the two 2006 reports is extremely slanted. McIntyre's analysis was largely statistical, and Wegman confirmed McIntyre's criticism of MBH98 (incompetent analysis of cherry-picked data) and disproved the claims of "multiple independent reconstructions" (that's why Wegman did that social analysis). Nor do we currently mention that the NAS panel said current reconstructions were only accurate for the last 400 years (not 1000 as Mann and his disciples once claimed) and that bristlecone pine ring widths are not valid temperature proxies (which means that none of the then-current reconstructions are trustworthy, because they are all heavily influenced by bristlecone data, which has a strong hockey stick shape).
How did the article get so slanted? Consider this edit, in which a respected Wikipedia administrator removes an important fact (that Wegman is a world-class expert on statistics) under cover of an extremely misleading edit summary.
Aside: on the rather important question of whether the current warm period is warmer or cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, McIntyre has noted some interesting data suggesting that northern Sweden is currently warmer than in the MWP — in fact, as warm as the Holocene Optimum.
Cheers, CWC (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added back McIntyre's background in oil exploration and a link to CGX Energy's annual report as proof. 67.168.34.90 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me but: (1) I posted proof of his background in oil exploration, in the form of an annual report from a publicly traded company and (2) you apparently do not know what an adhom is Chris; it is no more an adhom to state this fact than it is to state the other biographical details. I'm new to wiki, so I'm going to read up on how to handle this sort of nonsense. In the meantime, here is the CGX annual report... http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf ... where it is as plain as day that CGX is in the oil exploration business (see page 4) and McIntyre's relationship with the company is described(see page 13). One is tempted to say that Wikipedia has, or at least should have, far higher standards. GrifM 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has had severe POV problems for a long time. Recent edits have made them much worse, as can only be expected when one of the main editors has a massive WP:COI. The article as it stands violates WP:BLP and WP:OR as well as WP:NPOV. It also contains multiple falsehoods. I have therefore tagged it as {{ POV}} and {{ Disputed}}. CWC 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Forget the falsehoods for now, they're less important than the blatant POV & OR problems. Here's a very incomplete list:
More to come. CWC 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any requirement for the factual dispute tag (as contrasted to the POV tag). I have removed it. Hal peridol 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a quote indicating that Stephen McIntyre is a skeptic? If not he should be removed from the catagory. -- Theblog 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see any POV problems with the article in its present state. If anything, it is rather bland. Can we remove the tag, or failing that, can someone point out the specific POV problems so they can be fixed? Raymond Arritt 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The surface temperature record appears to have a number of problems. Steve McIntyre found one of them. [7] GISS has just admitted it and credited Steve McIntyre for finding it. [8] GISS has not clarified how many years of the temperature record will be affected by this correction. RonCram 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I understand what you are saying here. You have a point. I was planning on addressing the issue in the article itself, explaining that some of the corrections to the temp record issued by NASA were not anticipated by McIntyre. This deserves much better explanation than the article currently provides. RonCram 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Following McIntyre's major victory re the "Y2K" bug in the GISS "data", his website has been hammered into silence by a DDOS attack. [9] I wonder how many of the people who edit this article will be glad about that, if only in private? CWC 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In Talk: Global Warming under 'New NASA Data' we have discussed that the years are not statistically different. So, besides needing a source you would need to reach concensus since there are other sources that would claim the above. Brusegadi 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't McIntyre prove that 1998 was not the hottest year on record? And isn't this a highly significant piece of information, considering the endless political blather about how "1998 was the hottest year on record, and this proves global warming is mostly due to human activity"?
We should mention something about McIntyre's discovery that 1934 was hotter than 1998. -- Uncle Ed 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A section removed from Instrumental temperature record said this:
I'm wondering whether or not some of this information should be added to the two brief sentences in this article. This discovery is a major career point for McIntyre. (The statement "It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record" is no longer factually accurate.) Revolutionaryluddite 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Is their a better source for the fact that McIntyre "holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto"? There is also no sourcing for the claim that "He was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT". Revolutionaryluddite 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
McIntyre has coauthored a few published papers. There is no mention of this here. There should be.
On a recent edit, Brusegadi asked a good question:
Actually, I think this is partially (perhaps mostly) incorrect.
IIRC, SM once wrote that he was using his blog somewhat like a scientist's logbook. So some of the posts are very much work-in-progress, and others are more final. In some cases, but not all, discussion between SM and others in the comments adds considerably to the analysis — someone will try a different statistical technique or a different plot, and post the results, often as a graph.
Another point is that SM looks at recent data as well as paleo-climate stuff. So I've changed the description of ClimateAudit.org from "a blog devoted to the discussion of paleo-climate data analysis" to "a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data". Please feel free to improve my wording. Cheers, CWC 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In updating some refs, I pulled up his short bio, written by him. In this autobiography, he gave his name as Steven McIntyre. Any thoughts about that? Obviously one concern is that it's not really written by him, but the author on the Word document is listed as Stephen McIntyre. (Obviously, that could be spoofed, but it does make clear that the author knew how to spell Stephen's first name.) Perhaps this is just one of those Bob/Robert things, but I thought Steph/ven was usually written one way or the other for a given individual and not alternated between. Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Dates on blog posts are not reliable, for the reasons I stated prior to removing the whole section of original research, making them a poor source for assertations about when a blog started. John Nevard ( talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article it states that McIntyre studied PPE at Oxford, and a short self-published biography is cited. Although it is clearly not a reliable source I wouldn't normally have a problem with it being used to reference something clear-cut like degrees studied for and obtained. Unfortunately, in this case it seems rather suspicious. He apparently graduated from Toronto in 1969 and then from Oxford in 1971. Yet the Oxford degree course, one of the most prestigious programmes in the world, is normally 3 years. Can something more reliable not be found? Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this article after reading the one on
James Hansen. On Hansen's page it says the issue with the data moved 1934 in front of 1998 for the warmest year measured. On this page it says the mistake didn't lead to any changes in hottest year.
Which one is it? the Hansen article has references concerning the warmest year change. This article doesn't. Before I change the entry using the reference from the Hansen article, I wanted to make sure there weren't any objections among those that watch this page.
Pgrote (
talk)
17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to modifying language to the section regarding McIntyre's contribution to the global climate record? "The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C". The citation for this language can be found in the GISS website itself at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html. Is there any reason to minimize this statement in terms of it's impact on the 2000-2006 data? I've tried to correct this minimization in the past only to have the edits reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition I previously have tried to add the following comment from realclimate.org which states the following as a result of McIntye's finding: There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). "Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC." Any objection to including this statement? This is consistent with what McIntyre has said on his blog and is confirmed by what is on the GISS and realclimate web-sites? Is there any reason to omit this information from this biography as it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college. Showman60 ( talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like there is no objection to inclusion of that information in the biography based on it's accuracy. As of now only one person views the statement as trivial. The impact and the amount of discussion generated by McIntrye's analysis regarding the 1934/1998 arrangement certaintly would refute the opinion that the statement is trivial. IF trivia is the basis for exclusion, please provide the Wikipedia "trivia" standard if there is one by which statements can be judged as trivial or not for inclusion in Biographies. We can then measure this statement against that criteria and have others weigh in as to whether it meets or exceeds that standard for inclusion. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I remerged the Climate Audit stuff back into this article. It's the primary reason McIntyre is notable and should be in this article. Other semi-notable people with blogs have the blog content with their bio, see e.g. Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com. - Atmoz ( talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
For the moment, I'm with Atmoz William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to marginalise McIntyre's contribution to the paleoclimate debate, i.e. again by suggesting the whole thing was was all about one article by Mann. McIntyre's criticisms, as least as I understand the matter, affected the IPCC2001 report where Mann's hockey-stick graph had been adopted, where the medieval warm period had been removed after the original IPCC1995 assessment. As such, McIntyre's contribution was much bigger than "exposing an error in Mann et al". The wording in the article should be edited to include mention of this. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of politeness, shouldn't this tag now be removed per spirit of Wikipedia Foundation's treatment of BLPs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 ( talk • contribs)
Is there some reason for having the one long quotation,
twice? —WWoods ( talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to verify these references, and came up blank. ClimateAudit is not mentioned in the linked WSJ article at all, and the WaTimes link for the other source is broken. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In light of the breaking information related to “Cliamtegate” in November 2009 involving the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and dissemination of thousands of emails from the aforementioned CRU, the information regarding McIntyre should be revisited and revised. Particularly regarding the "hockeystick" dispute. At a minimum links/references should be inserted to the following wikipedia article [24]-- Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Highly-POV article, sample quote: "Hopefully, the profile of Stephen McIntyre by The Wall Street Journal will be the last dying gasp of the skeptics. These people were created by industry money, but only flourish because of the ethic of "balance" that exists in journalism."
We certainly wouldn't permit this in the article, by BLP rules. It doesn't seem appropriate as a link, either. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (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) 03:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that McIntyre doesn't have a graduate degree was added to the article, with the explanation that "I think since he is known for commenting in a technical way on scientific matters, the lack of an advanced degree is worth explictly noting". I respectfully disagree. Should An Inconvenient Truth include the fact that Gore doesn't have an advanced degree (he has a BA)? Should Mann state that he is not a statistician, since his most well known paper was largely an exercise in the statistical handling of existing data? I'm certain that both of these would be deleted as POV, as the implication is that this makes their views somewhat inferior. -- Spiffy sperry 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the lead to this articles reads to me as an attempt to downgrade McI from scientist/statistician to blogger. He is clearly more than a blogger... I certainly knew of McI before I had ever seen his blog. His notability comes from his acknowledged contribution to the hockey stick debate, and his published scientific papers. I suppose I would hesitate before going with "scientist", but only because he has only come to science late in his career (after retirement?). The reference to Michael E. Mann in the lead also reads to me as an attempt both to denigrate McIntyre, i.e. to convey his life as sort of devoted to throwing mud at his arch-enemy Michael E. Mann which makes him sound rather petty, and provides a somewhat gratuitous link to Mann's page. Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
He's a blogger. That doesn't mean he can't make contributions. There are bloggers who have made occasional journalistic contributions also. The guy has thousands of head posts and reply posts. Look at the totality of his blogging oevre versus his published work (one decent article in GRL, some comment replies and 2 EnE peices, and the GRL was from 4 years ago). There's nothing wrong with calling him a blogger. And I am a he-man conservative. 52.129.8.47 ( talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Climate sceptic received funding from industry [28] William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The article provides a POV accusation “speculate over his funding”. However, it does not state McIntyre's position. McIntyre's bio states: "My research on climate topics has not been supported by any company, but has been carried out entirely for personal interest and actually at the expense of business opportunities." I recommend summarizing McIntyre's position by adding after the following paragraph: "McIntyre says he funds himself." This would be referenced to “Short Bio: Steven McIntyre” (currently Ref #3)(The bolding is only to highlight the addition for this discussion) DLH ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the sources for biog here rely entirely on mcI's self-pub biog. Is that regarded as acceptable? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading through the " ClimateGate" emails recently and one thing I noticed is that Climate Audit regulars were the primary source of the FOIA requests that are one of the central issues in that controversy. Thus, I believe that future books about this controversy will probably have a lot of information on McIntyre's site. I understand that a draft for a separate artice is in the works. I think there is enough information out there currently to start a separate article, but there definitely will be so once more books on ClimateGate get published. Cla68 ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Added Climate Audit as the most immediately applicable topic, having been started & run McIntyre. Added " Climategate as McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times. DLH ( talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick ( Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American. 99.181.158.51 ( talk) 03:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Al Gore and the An Inconvenient Truth, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.
How did the BEST project come about?
A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick]. I reviewed the paper that the hockey stick was based on, and I became very uncomfortable. I felt that the paper didn’t support the chart enough. A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components. So I was glad that I had done that.
Given the favorable things you’ve said about climate science critics such as Watts and McIntyre, do you think you were called to testify because Committee Chair Ralph M. Hall thought you’d come down against the mainstream consensus? Before my testimony, there were news articles in prominent newspapers already claiming that I had a bias, that I had an agenda. I don’t know where they got this from. Well, I can guess. I think they were predicting what I was going to say in the hopes of discounting it when it came out. I’m not even going to guess at the Republican committee chair’s motivations. Having testified before Congress, I have a sense that most members of Congress are serious, that they are thoughtful, that if they have a point of view that disagrees with what you call the mainstream, it’s because there have been legitimate skeptics who have raised real issues that have not necessarily been answered. I don’t care whether I’m speaking to a Republican or a Democrat; science is nonpartisan. And I believe that my refuge is sticking to the science. I have no agenda. I have no political reasons for saying one thing or the other. I stick to the science. I think that’s what I’m good at. And if I say something that’s surprising, that’s good. That adds to the discussion.
Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?
No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.
I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.
99.181.155.142 ( talk) 05:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Stephen has a match BA does not make him a "mathematician". At best a "mathematician by training". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.141.52 ( talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
. . .
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (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 |
I added a sentence about why SM started ClimateAudit, User:William M. Connolley edited my work and now I've edited his. Let me explain my last edit.
As always, edits and comments are welcome. — Chris Chittleborough 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Additional changes made to this article:
Added two external links to realclimate.org criticism of McIntyre's 2003 & 2004 papers. C Wu
I don't think it's fair to say that the NAS and the House Committee "largely or wholely" supported M&M. I think it's fair to say that the NAS actually acknowledged some of M&M's technical criticisms, but concluded that the hockey stick graph was largely correct, at least back to AD 900. "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than at any period of comparable length since AD 900."
As for the House Committee: there was a report commissioned by the committee written by a statistician named Wegman, but there was also a great deal of testimony taken, and some of it strongly disputed the conclusions of Wegman's report. It would be less POV to say that Wegman's report supported M&M, but not the House Committee (which in any case is not a relevant body to participate in a technical debate). ::: Mitch Golden
First, lets be clear that the NRC report has far greater credibility than the Wegman report - the latter did indeed largely parrot M&M's criticisms (this http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf is also rather interesting...). However the NRC report didn't. For example the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/06/nrc_report_not_as_interesting.php for Nature and Science William M. Connolley 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have greatly expanded the discussion on the two reports. I feel that it is appropriate to have this discussion here, since the M&M paper and its validity is really McIntyre's main claim to have an entry in Wikipedia at all. I believe I have correctly summarized the conclusions both papers had with respect to the M&M work.
I have included a link to Gerald North's talk at Texas A&M. It is very informative to the attitude of the NRC report. (I don't recall where I found it.) I am concerned that this video may eventually go away, but perhaps we can find a written, and more permanent version of it.
Hopefully, this is acceptable to everyone.
— Mitch Golden Sept 4, 2006
Please note that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to this article, and is a policy (not just a guideline). Cheers, CWC (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
About the link; it is not external! We need to make a reference to it because the subject of the article himself stated that there were attacks coming from realclimate. Now, the link is to a wikipedia article about a blog (that meets the Wikipedia standards), but not to a blog. Thus, by adding the link we simply give the reader better ability to compile relevant information that is already in wikipedia. Therefore, there is no problem. Brusegadi 18:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
On Dec 21, William M. Connolley removed the point that MBH had asserted that the past 25 years were the warmest in the last millenium. Here is the relevant sentence from their abstract:
The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.
reference here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html MGolden 02:00 2 Jan 2007 (UTC)
Accordingly, I am going to put this text back into the article, since it is relatively important - it identifies a point of difference between the NRC report and MBH.
Just to be clear - I'm one of RC too, in case you didn't know. The page already says "The NRC differed from MBH largely in the strength of their conclusions" so what you want is already in there. Given the lack of quantification in the NRC report, thats about as strong as you can get. And also... this isn't the place for fine detail on NRC/MBH - this page is about McI. And... as I said: no-one is using your preferred term "reasonable certainty" William M. Connolley 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I just removed a whole pile of back and forth points from the discussion of the Wegman and NRC reports. The editors were evidently trying to either inflate or deflate the credentials of the various authors. One person adds a quote from McIntyre that none of the NRC authors were qualified, then someone else adds text to claim that they were. This is silly. This is McIntyre's biography.
I also added back a sentence that indicates that the NRC report appeared to express concern with the MBH conclusion about the heat of the late 1990s.
Mgolden 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of the two 2006 reports is extremely slanted. McIntyre's analysis was largely statistical, and Wegman confirmed McIntyre's criticism of MBH98 (incompetent analysis of cherry-picked data) and disproved the claims of "multiple independent reconstructions" (that's why Wegman did that social analysis). Nor do we currently mention that the NAS panel said current reconstructions were only accurate for the last 400 years (not 1000 as Mann and his disciples once claimed) and that bristlecone pine ring widths are not valid temperature proxies (which means that none of the then-current reconstructions are trustworthy, because they are all heavily influenced by bristlecone data, which has a strong hockey stick shape).
How did the article get so slanted? Consider this edit, in which a respected Wikipedia administrator removes an important fact (that Wegman is a world-class expert on statistics) under cover of an extremely misleading edit summary.
Aside: on the rather important question of whether the current warm period is warmer or cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, McIntyre has noted some interesting data suggesting that northern Sweden is currently warmer than in the MWP — in fact, as warm as the Holocene Optimum.
Cheers, CWC (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added back McIntyre's background in oil exploration and a link to CGX Energy's annual report as proof. 67.168.34.90 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me but: (1) I posted proof of his background in oil exploration, in the form of an annual report from a publicly traded company and (2) you apparently do not know what an adhom is Chris; it is no more an adhom to state this fact than it is to state the other biographical details. I'm new to wiki, so I'm going to read up on how to handle this sort of nonsense. In the meantime, here is the CGX annual report... http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf ... where it is as plain as day that CGX is in the oil exploration business (see page 4) and McIntyre's relationship with the company is described(see page 13). One is tempted to say that Wikipedia has, or at least should have, far higher standards. GrifM 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has had severe POV problems for a long time. Recent edits have made them much worse, as can only be expected when one of the main editors has a massive WP:COI. The article as it stands violates WP:BLP and WP:OR as well as WP:NPOV. It also contains multiple falsehoods. I have therefore tagged it as {{ POV}} and {{ Disputed}}. CWC 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Forget the falsehoods for now, they're less important than the blatant POV & OR problems. Here's a very incomplete list:
More to come. CWC 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any requirement for the factual dispute tag (as contrasted to the POV tag). I have removed it. Hal peridol 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a quote indicating that Stephen McIntyre is a skeptic? If not he should be removed from the catagory. -- Theblog 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see any POV problems with the article in its present state. If anything, it is rather bland. Can we remove the tag, or failing that, can someone point out the specific POV problems so they can be fixed? Raymond Arritt 03:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The surface temperature record appears to have a number of problems. Steve McIntyre found one of them. [7] GISS has just admitted it and credited Steve McIntyre for finding it. [8] GISS has not clarified how many years of the temperature record will be affected by this correction. RonCram 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I understand what you are saying here. You have a point. I was planning on addressing the issue in the article itself, explaining that some of the corrections to the temp record issued by NASA were not anticipated by McIntyre. This deserves much better explanation than the article currently provides. RonCram 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Following McIntyre's major victory re the "Y2K" bug in the GISS "data", his website has been hammered into silence by a DDOS attack. [9] I wonder how many of the people who edit this article will be glad about that, if only in private? CWC 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In Talk: Global Warming under 'New NASA Data' we have discussed that the years are not statistically different. So, besides needing a source you would need to reach concensus since there are other sources that would claim the above. Brusegadi 21:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Didn't McIntyre prove that 1998 was not the hottest year on record? And isn't this a highly significant piece of information, considering the endless political blather about how "1998 was the hottest year on record, and this proves global warming is mostly due to human activity"?
We should mention something about McIntyre's discovery that 1934 was hotter than 1998. -- Uncle Ed 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A section removed from Instrumental temperature record said this:
I'm wondering whether or not some of this information should be added to the two brief sentences in this article. This discovery is a major career point for McIntyre. (The statement "It's unclear what effect the error had on the global temperature record" is no longer factually accurate.) Revolutionaryluddite 21:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Is their a better source for the fact that McIntyre "holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto"? There is also no sourcing for the claim that "He was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT". Revolutionaryluddite 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
McIntyre has coauthored a few published papers. There is no mention of this here. There should be.
On a recent edit, Brusegadi asked a good question:
Actually, I think this is partially (perhaps mostly) incorrect.
IIRC, SM once wrote that he was using his blog somewhat like a scientist's logbook. So some of the posts are very much work-in-progress, and others are more final. In some cases, but not all, discussion between SM and others in the comments adds considerably to the analysis — someone will try a different statistical technique or a different plot, and post the results, often as a graph.
Another point is that SM looks at recent data as well as paleo-climate stuff. So I've changed the description of ClimateAudit.org from "a blog devoted to the discussion of paleo-climate data analysis" to "a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data". Please feel free to improve my wording. Cheers, CWC 11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In updating some refs, I pulled up his short bio, written by him. In this autobiography, he gave his name as Steven McIntyre. Any thoughts about that? Obviously one concern is that it's not really written by him, but the author on the Word document is listed as Stephen McIntyre. (Obviously, that could be spoofed, but it does make clear that the author knew how to spell Stephen's first name.) Perhaps this is just one of those Bob/Robert things, but I thought Steph/ven was usually written one way or the other for a given individual and not alternated between. Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Dates on blog posts are not reliable, for the reasons I stated prior to removing the whole section of original research, making them a poor source for assertations about when a blog started. John Nevard ( talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In the article it states that McIntyre studied PPE at Oxford, and a short self-published biography is cited. Although it is clearly not a reliable source I wouldn't normally have a problem with it being used to reference something clear-cut like degrees studied for and obtained. Unfortunately, in this case it seems rather suspicious. He apparently graduated from Toronto in 1969 and then from Oxford in 1971. Yet the Oxford degree course, one of the most prestigious programmes in the world, is normally 3 years. Can something more reliable not be found? Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this article after reading the one on
James Hansen. On Hansen's page it says the issue with the data moved 1934 in front of 1998 for the warmest year measured. On this page it says the mistake didn't lead to any changes in hottest year.
Which one is it? the Hansen article has references concerning the warmest year change. This article doesn't. Before I change the entry using the reference from the Hansen article, I wanted to make sure there weren't any objections among those that watch this page.
Pgrote (
talk)
17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any objection to modifying language to the section regarding McIntyre's contribution to the global climate record? "The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C". The citation for this language can be found in the GISS website itself at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html. Is there any reason to minimize this statement in terms of it's impact on the 2000-2006 data? I've tried to correct this minimization in the past only to have the edits reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In addition I previously have tried to add the following comment from realclimate.org which states the following as a result of McIntye's finding: There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). "Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC." Any objection to including this statement? This is consistent with what McIntyre has said on his blog and is confirmed by what is on the GISS and realclimate web-sites? Is there any reason to omit this information from this biography as it seems to stand as something as important as the jobs he's had since college. Showman60 ( talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like there is no objection to inclusion of that information in the biography based on it's accuracy. As of now only one person views the statement as trivial. The impact and the amount of discussion generated by McIntrye's analysis regarding the 1934/1998 arrangement certaintly would refute the opinion that the statement is trivial. IF trivia is the basis for exclusion, please provide the Wikipedia "trivia" standard if there is one by which statements can be judged as trivial or not for inclusion in Biographies. We can then measure this statement against that criteria and have others weigh in as to whether it meets or exceeds that standard for inclusion. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I remerged the Climate Audit stuff back into this article. It's the primary reason McIntyre is notable and should be in this article. Other semi-notable people with blogs have the blog content with their bio, see e.g. Philip Plait#Badastronomy.com. - Atmoz ( talk) 18:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
For the moment, I'm with Atmoz William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to marginalise McIntyre's contribution to the paleoclimate debate, i.e. again by suggesting the whole thing was was all about one article by Mann. McIntyre's criticisms, as least as I understand the matter, affected the IPCC2001 report where Mann's hockey-stick graph had been adopted, where the medieval warm period had been removed after the original IPCC1995 assessment. As such, McIntyre's contribution was much bigger than "exposing an error in Mann et al". The wording in the article should be edited to include mention of this. Alex Harvey ( talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Out of politeness, shouldn't this tag now be removed per spirit of Wikipedia Foundation's treatment of BLPs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 ( talk • contribs)
Is there some reason for having the one long quotation,
twice? —WWoods ( talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to verify these references, and came up blank. ClimateAudit is not mentioned in the linked WSJ article at all, and the WaTimes link for the other source is broken. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In light of the breaking information related to “Cliamtegate” in November 2009 involving the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and dissemination of thousands of emails from the aforementioned CRU, the information regarding McIntyre should be revisited and revised. Particularly regarding the "hockeystick" dispute. At a minimum links/references should be inserted to the following wikipedia article [24]-- Strix Varia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strix Varia ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Highly-POV article, sample quote: "Hopefully, the profile of Stephen McIntyre by The Wall Street Journal will be the last dying gasp of the skeptics. These people were created by industry money, but only flourish because of the ethic of "balance" that exists in journalism."
We certainly wouldn't permit this in the article, by BLP rules. It doesn't seem appropriate as a link, either. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:35, 30 November 2009 (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) 03:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that McIntyre doesn't have a graduate degree was added to the article, with the explanation that "I think since he is known for commenting in a technical way on scientific matters, the lack of an advanced degree is worth explictly noting". I respectfully disagree. Should An Inconvenient Truth include the fact that Gore doesn't have an advanced degree (he has a BA)? Should Mann state that he is not a statistician, since his most well known paper was largely an exercise in the statistical handling of existing data? I'm certain that both of these would be deleted as POV, as the implication is that this makes their views somewhat inferior. -- Spiffy sperry 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the lead to this articles reads to me as an attempt to downgrade McI from scientist/statistician to blogger. He is clearly more than a blogger... I certainly knew of McI before I had ever seen his blog. His notability comes from his acknowledged contribution to the hockey stick debate, and his published scientific papers. I suppose I would hesitate before going with "scientist", but only because he has only come to science late in his career (after retirement?). The reference to Michael E. Mann in the lead also reads to me as an attempt both to denigrate McIntyre, i.e. to convey his life as sort of devoted to throwing mud at his arch-enemy Michael E. Mann which makes him sound rather petty, and provides a somewhat gratuitous link to Mann's page. Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
He's a blogger. That doesn't mean he can't make contributions. There are bloggers who have made occasional journalistic contributions also. The guy has thousands of head posts and reply posts. Look at the totality of his blogging oevre versus his published work (one decent article in GRL, some comment replies and 2 EnE peices, and the GRL was from 4 years ago). There's nothing wrong with calling him a blogger. And I am a he-man conservative. 52.129.8.47 ( talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Climate sceptic received funding from industry [28] William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The article provides a POV accusation “speculate over his funding”. However, it does not state McIntyre's position. McIntyre's bio states: "My research on climate topics has not been supported by any company, but has been carried out entirely for personal interest and actually at the expense of business opportunities." I recommend summarizing McIntyre's position by adding after the following paragraph: "McIntyre says he funds himself." This would be referenced to “Short Bio: Steven McIntyre” (currently Ref #3)(The bolding is only to highlight the addition for this discussion) DLH ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the sources for biog here rely entirely on mcI's self-pub biog. Is that regarded as acceptable? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading through the " ClimateGate" emails recently and one thing I noticed is that Climate Audit regulars were the primary source of the FOIA requests that are one of the central issues in that controversy. Thus, I believe that future books about this controversy will probably have a lot of information on McIntyre's site. I understand that a draft for a separate artice is in the works. I think there is enough information out there currently to start a separate article, but there definitely will be so once more books on ClimateGate get published. Cla68 ( talk) 16:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Added Climate Audit as the most immediately applicable topic, having been started & run McIntyre. Added " Climategate as McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times. DLH ( talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick ( Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American. 99.181.158.51 ( talk) 03:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Al Gore and the An Inconvenient Truth, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.
How did the BEST project come about?
A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick]. I reviewed the paper that the hockey stick was based on, and I became very uncomfortable. I felt that the paper didn’t support the chart enough. A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components. So I was glad that I had done that.
Given the favorable things you’ve said about climate science critics such as Watts and McIntyre, do you think you were called to testify because Committee Chair Ralph M. Hall thought you’d come down against the mainstream consensus? Before my testimony, there were news articles in prominent newspapers already claiming that I had a bias, that I had an agenda. I don’t know where they got this from. Well, I can guess. I think they were predicting what I was going to say in the hopes of discounting it when it came out. I’m not even going to guess at the Republican committee chair’s motivations. Having testified before Congress, I have a sense that most members of Congress are serious, that they are thoughtful, that if they have a point of view that disagrees with what you call the mainstream, it’s because there have been legitimate skeptics who have raised real issues that have not necessarily been answered. I don’t care whether I’m speaking to a Republican or a Democrat; science is nonpartisan. And I believe that my refuge is sticking to the science. I have no agenda. I have no political reasons for saying one thing or the other. I stick to the science. I think that’s what I’m good at. And if I say something that’s surprising, that’s good. That adds to the discussion.
Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?
No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.
I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.
99.181.155.142 ( talk) 05:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The fact that Stephen has a match BA does not make him a "mathematician". At best a "mathematician by training". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.141.52 ( talk) 08:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
. . .
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)