Talk:Michael E. Mann

Dead link

This

• Environmental Science & Technology, 31 August 2005, "How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton Celebrated a Global Warming Skeptic"

external link is dead - perhaps the article can be found elsewhere?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Its this one [1] (scroll down). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hockey stick - no image

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)

Michael Mann’s Nature Trick

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)

If there isn't a reliable source that discusses the trick, then this isn't the place to try to hash it out for inclusion. --Onorem♠Dil 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for refactoring, but I think there is ample consensus that this doesn't need to be here. Issues are: (1) republishing potentially stolen material, (2) the lack of authenticity means the material isn't a reliable source for anything, removing the need to discuss it here, (3) even if there weren't ethical / authenticity issues, we should only be discussing it when it's covered in reliable secondary sources, since it's a primary source, (4) if it is a real letter, it would presumably fall under copyright protection, meaning that republishing it in full is potentially problematic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the thing, there are lots of them and thats precisely why this is the right place to sort them out. WVBluefield (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have different definitions of lots...and possibly also reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, so BBC News, Wired, The Examiner, the Telegraph, and the Guardian are not reliable sources. Fascinating. WVBluefield (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we need the text of the letter here to do that though. I'm not really familiar with the issue, so forgive if I make a mistake here. I just looked at the link you gave, and of the three hits, the first one describes this as a complete non-story (ie, there's no evidence that Climate change has been shown to be a hoax). Another story just dealt with the hoax. The newsbusters story does seem to allege that this is a bigger deal, but it also less reliable than say, the NYTimes or WSJ. If you wanted to include information on the hack, that would seem to justified, but I don't see enough to support writing much on the impact of the hack yet. (Presumably the main papers will cover this soon, or it'll all blow over, which would be indicative of this not being a big deal). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) could you post some of those links then? I didn't see them in the link you gave. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, just saw some. The consensus of the ones I read WSJ Foxnews seem to basically summarize it as: climate skeptics smell blood in the water. That might be worth including, but it's different than them saying that global warming is now on unsound footing (ie, the scientific consensus has now shifted). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. These links, BTW, relate only to Mann and not the wider issue of the hacks. Wired, Guardian, BBC, Nature, The Telegraph, and UK Register.

What pisses me off so much is that the editros who were reverting me didnt even take the fucking time to read the information. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The ones I saw did seem to touch on the hack and it's implication. But you're right, they didn't address the "trick" whatever that is. I didn't see anything I would consider reliable (ie, blogs are right out) that mentioned that. Did I miss one? (Not being sarcastic, I just did a quick look). With regard to the post getting removed, I think removal was the right decision, but there could/should have more explanation in the edit summaries (or here). But I'm also not sure that rehashing that is likely to be terribly productive: I'd much rather address content issues to be honest. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A small bit of addition to the above comment. I actually did explain why the text was removed on WV's talk page [2]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After the second removal you did provide a short and completely unacceptable explanation that was little more than a link to WP:TP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WVBluefield (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. There may be reliable sources that discuss this email, and that discuss that there is some sort of a trick. Are there any reliable sources that actually discuss the trick itself? It appears that most of the sources that speculate on the trick are blogs and forums. Your original comment appeared to be asking for discussion here to figure out what the trick was so that it could be included. --Onorem♠Dil 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see above. WVBluefield (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@O: Well... if you consider RealClimate a reliable source (the subject of this page is an author of that blog), then the 'trick' is "just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear". -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing editing the thread? I though it was so offensive to you that it had to be deleted ASAP and wasnt worthy of any discussion at all. WVBluefield (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have questions that are unrelated to article improvement for this user, please use their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 21:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please strike, delete, or refactor that. I consider it a person attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. WVBluefield (talk) 22:49, 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.

There is an explanation of the 'trick' from the source here http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRU-update but context still needs work. My understanding is it means pre-1960, the graph shows reconstruction/proxy data, post-1960, instrumental data. This is a well known 'issue' given some proxys diverge from the instrumental record after that point. This may not be the appropriate place to discuss the controversy though. To explain the controversy, Jones explanation should be used, along with an explanation of the 'MXD divergence'.

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)

There will absolutely eventually be a section in this article titled "Controversy" that will be well sourced and present NPOV information. Those who would not like to see this happen are wasting their time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.213.19 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CRU hack, anonymous IP edit warring, etc

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)

This seems to be getting covered in Climategate, which I just saw on NPP. Just FYI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the hockey stick section. I'm not sure that should have been done as Mann seems to be the primary figure in a notable controversy in his field of work. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me, and I know what you're saying. But it was mostly quotation, bad style, and unbalanced. I've left a link "See also: hockey stick controversy" and the whole thing is discussed over at that page. Why duplicate it here? The first thing this article really needs is some reliable sourcing for what's already in the article... Alex Harvey (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree that the HSC stuff should all be done centrally William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)a

It still should be summarized here with a sentence or two or a short section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN, that's standard WP practice. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:34, 24 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)

See also to UEA controversy

At this point, a "See also" to the Climategate article might be the best interim solution. Added same. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While it's certainly wise to revisit this after the dust has settled, the fact of the matter is that events are added to Wikipedia the same day all the time, NOT_NEWS notwithstanding. Indeed, almost every time I learn about a news story on the TV or radio and visit the corresponding Wikipedia page I find that the news has already been incorporated into the Wikipedia article. Not a single sentence or word or letter or punctuation in any of the leaked emails has been challenged as inauthentic by any of their authors, and a fair number of the recipients of those e-mails have taken the trouble to confirm that they are authentic, and they have been widely quoted in highly reliable secondary sources such as the Washington Post.

Which, BTW, re:copyright, is fair use, so it would be entirely legal to quote the emails on Wikipedia just as the Washingto Post quoted them in their article. And given that some of the emails have become (in)famous, we will be compelled by the Wikipedia guidelines to add them, and to link to the complete text of them, for example the archive stores at Wikileaks. I notice Wikimedia hosts the Pentagon Papers: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers. As there, here we have public researchers conducting studies that are extremely important to the public.

Also, BTW, Mann and Jones are public figures, and the legal and ethical considerations in almost all countries that motivate BLP are far less for public figures than for private ones. Also, the e-mails involve their public work, indeed work that is of the most extreme importance to the public, none of them involve their private lives. The entire archive appears to be a prepared response to a FOI request that they decided to deny instead, it's all about the scientific work and not private stuff. Flegelpuss (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Although initially uncertain, F's words convince me that the link shouldn't be there for now William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I don't agree. We wouldn't like this if we did this sort of thing was done to, say, Lindzen, on the basis of some hacked email, that could be taken out of context, and we shouldn't like it any better, however we feel about Mann. ClimateGate seems to be more about Jones than anyone else. This goes strongly against my personal bias, of course, and I believe we all need to stand together to enforce the WP rules. WP should be about the rules, about objectivity, about encyclopaedic content... not about reaching compromises... A see also to "Climate Gate" has not had time to be established as significant in the life of Michael Mann. There's some pretty questionable stuff in there, sure, but I believe in the innocent till proven guilty thing. I've said a lot of crap in emails in my life, and god help me if someone reveals it all to the world some day. Let's do the right thing here... who knows... maybe others will copy us... Alex Harvey (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While the apparent discrepancy in what some editors feel is a BLP violation and isn’t a BLP violation tickles my funnybone in a way that’s most satisfying, I agree with Alex that this probably hasn’t reached enough significance in Mann’s illustrious career to warrant a significant portion of this article. A like to Climategate should suffice for now. WVBluefield (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I think the "See also" is well-justified, as it links to Mann's reaction to the controversy: [3] "Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, told the Washington Post that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious".

Not linking to a controversy that the subject himself has commented on would seem odd. Reverted WMC's delertion. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's extreme undue weight. Mann may have commented on it but he's not alleged, as far as I know, to have played any significant role in it. Your approach would imply that a link should be added to the biography of every scientist mentioned in or commenting on the e-mails, which would be absurd. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Mann hasnt been one of the individuals at the center of this. A brief look at the news articles reporting this story mention Mann many times. WVBluefield (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to read more closely then - brief looks aren't advisable if you want to get it right. Apparently Mann was the recipient of one of the e-mails. That seems to be the limit of his involvement. As I said above, it would be extreme undue weight to associate this incident with people on the margins of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is the, author, recipient, or mentioned by name in over 500 of the emails. He personally wrote over 130. Providing a link to the controversy seems to be required in this case. Q Science (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? You haven't provided any rationale for why it should be relevant to a biographical article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Dr. Mann is heavily involved in the controversy. Aside from the hacked emails he sent, received, or was mentioned in -- see, for instance, this mention in the NY Times [4]: "Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures." -- Andrew Revkin

How can a link to the controversy be "extreme undue weight", per Chris O?

Incidentally, Mann doesn't seem to be highly regarded by many of his colleagues, per the hacked emails. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems that ClimateGate is going to be relevant to this BLP whether the Wikipedia apparatchiki like it or not. Dr. Mann is certain to be called before at least one U.S. Senate investigation, and there have already been pressures in Pennsylvania for a criminal investigation of his role in the longstanding collusion revealed in the CRU communications. 71.125.136.27 (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

• There appears to be a plurality of editors here who feel that Mann's involvement in Climategate merits a section in the article, or at least a "See also" to that article. Mann's involvement is now documented in Reliable Sources, see for example Global Warming With the Lid Off: The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science., WSJ lead editorial, 11/24/09. Sample: "For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions."

Yet an edit war has erupted over this, with editors Atmoz and Stephen Schulz being most active in reverting any attempt to mention Mann's involvement. This seems (to me) both absurd and petty.

Are there any substantial arguments for excluding this, other than WP:I DON'T LIKE IT? Pete Tillman (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think there's a plurality supporting the inclusion, then you either can't count or don't know what plurality is. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal isn't a reliable source of anything. Arguments for not including it have been expressed above. I suggest you read them. -Atmoz (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. An editorial is a reliable source only for the opinion of a particular media outlet. It's not a reliable source for a statement of fact. I might add that, predictably, this particular issue is being driven by Mann being a hate figure for those of a certain political persuasion. It has very little to do with Wikipedia's own editorial requirements. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An editorial in one of the USA's two major national newspapers would seem a pretty definite indication of the notability of Dr. Mann's Climategate involvement. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Tillman, you might wish to take note of the fact that we do not in fact have an article called "Climategate". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mann is publicly responding to his emails and has being quoted by many sources [5] and [6]. This is not only part of his legacy now, but is emails and responses to them are affecting the whole climate debate. Something should be posted on his page about it.Hopkinsrocks (talk)

• My count of those who have expressed an opinion here:

Editors FOR including info re Mann & Climategate (a handy shorthand for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎), or a link to same:

• Tillman
• Q Science
• WVBluefield
• 71.125.136.27
• Flegelpuss
• 38.117.213.19
• Bfigura
• hopkinsrocks Hopkinsrocks (talk)

Editors AGAINST same:

• William M. Connolley
• Kim D. Petersen
• Alex Harvey
• ChrisO
• Atmoz
• Stephan Schulz (by multiple reverts)

But we also need to look at the quality of the arguments presented FOR & AGAINST. SFAICT, all the arguments that have been presented AGAINST have been refuted, or amount to WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. Further actual arguments welcome. Pete Tillman (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make an argument: WP:NOT#NEWS. I don't think we should be covering breaking news, at all. I'm surprised there isn't a flat rule against it. It seems discouraged, at any rate, in WP:NOT#NEWS. But look, we've all known about Mann for years. Now we've got it all in writing, from the horse's mouth, as it were. It's over. History will take care of the rest. I say, let's come back in a year or so, and there'll be no controversy that Mann's name will be forever linked to the Climategate scandal. For now, let's think about WP:NOT#NEWS. My view, for what it's worth. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement that the arguments presented against have been refuted is nonsense. The trouble you have is that you are trying to invoke the crystal ball, and jump ahead to a conclusion (just as Alex says (although i do not (unsurprisingly) agree with his read of the situation)). Once/If there ever comes substance behind the claims/predictions of Manns involvement (in something) then it will be integrated into the article. Speculations are not something to put on Wikipedia and especially not on a BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected

please add appropriate icon on the article page. i cannot edit it. 93.86.205.97 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)