Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

Deletion of McKitrick quote

No good reason has been given for deletion of the McKitrick quote. The fact that the book is based on the work of McKitrick and McIntyre is grounds for including it, not grounds for deletion: it is highly relevant that McKitrick considers the book a good introduction to his work. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Second to this. Additionally, editor William M. Connolley has repeatedly removed this quote , with no attempt to form a consensus. These edits appear be at the limit for WP:3RR: Edit history.

On his first revert WMC commented, "rm McK - as the synopsis says, its rather about him, so lets not pretend he's neutral. oddly, we don't have space for MBHs reaction."

If we limited review/reception authors to neutral parties, the section would be much smaller. I think McKitrick's comments are helpful to our readers: he's certainly a good judge of whether the book covers his HS work fairly and lucidly. I agree that a reaction to the book from Prof. Mann or co-authors would be a good addition. Pete Tillman (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"considers the book a good introduction to his work" is actually better wording that the one in the article.

Also, the article it quite repetitive: it quotes about five deniers at length, who love the book for agreeing with them and call it "well-reasoned". This could be shortened like this: A and B called it a "detective story", C and D said it was "well-reasoned", while C and D found "lots of inaccuracies".

"Montford has not made any relevant scientific contributions" is an irrelevant argumentum ad hominem and should go. Also "might serve a psychological need in those who can't face their own complicity in climate change" - this is remote diagnosis. When reading this, I get the feeling that someone is trying to make those who dislike the book look bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Please change link to The Courier to The Courier (Dundee). 137.205.183.70 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable secondary source to use a label like "climate contrarian"

Obvious fact is obvious, right? Name one of the reviewers who isn't.

• Judith Curry
• S. Fred Singer
• Ross McKitrick
• An oil industry geologist: Joe Brannan [1]
• Quadrant: John Dawson [2]
• Christopher Booker
• Matt Ridley
• Peter Foster

"Contrarian" is me being nice. The paragraph is the denial industry echo chamber. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology." You're letting your personal views show. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So what? Are you trying to say that she should be removed from the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you want to use a label like "climate contrarian" then you'll need a reliable secondary source for each individual you want to describe that way. Even then it's questionable whether you should do that: we have wikilinks precisely so people can read up on who somebody is detail at the linked article: there is no need to repeat snippets everywhere. This is really basic stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, obvious facts do not need to be sourced - unless someone demands a source because it is not obvious to him. I infer that, for some weird reason, it is not obvious to you that Curry is a contrarian.

I do not insist on the "contrarian" label; I would prefer to reduce the amount of people quoted in the paragraph, because most of those people are nothing but yes-men of the denial industry, who agreed with the crazy conspiracy theories in the book before reading it and therefore were expected to love the book. Nobody who was not part of the scene gave a positive review.

After all, WP:FRINGE#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and WP:UNDUE apply here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Very happy to cut back; I have made a first pass. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, did you find any reply to "obvious facts do not need to be sourced" yet? All three of the "several reviewers" who "praised the book for its content" are still well-known climate contrarians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSOURCE: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Or, in other words, you'll need a reliable secondary source to use a label like "climate contrarian". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Your logic is missing one piece: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". So, who challenges the statement that those people are contrarians? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I challenged your edit here [3] and here [4]; if you want to make this change you'll have to find a reliable secondary source supporting it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear this: are you saying that those people are not contrarians? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To be more clear: The reason that statements have to be sourced is that there are people who say those statements are not true, and those people can read the source and find that they are wrong. This is why there is an exemption for statements that are obviously true: if nobody doubts them, you do not have to source them.

It seems to me that the contrarian-ness of the reviewers is an obvious fact that nobody would doubt, not even the seriously reality-impaired. But still, you insist on a source, and in the face of the obviously-true exemption, I do not understand why. So: Do you deny that it is obviously true? If not, what is this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the burden of proof here. It doesn't matter whether or not these people are climate contrarians. It doesn't even matter whether I believe they are climate contrarians. What matters is that I consider this a potentially contentious claim, and as such a claim that requires sourcing. See WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". This really is absolutely basic stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. You deny it is obviously true (you consider it "potentially contentious"). Thank you. (This is pretty weird.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

I think Editor Gadling's initial comment re "the denial industry echo chamber" is a clue to his personal beliefs here. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh really? Why do you think that? Could that be a clue to your personal beliefs?

Please try to inform yourself using scientific outlets and you will find that they tell another story than the media you usually frequent. Of course that is because scientists are in a conspiracy to hide the truth, right? Must be, otherwise you would be wrong, and that cnannot be... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are both falling into the trap of trying to determine the truth of this question and using that to determine the text. But that is not how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia is about verifiability and not about truth. See WP:VERIFY: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Jonathan A Jones (talk)

Wrong. You have consistently failed to read what I wrote. Please note that "obviously true" is different from "true". Every time I wrote "obviously true" you seem to have read "true". I have no idea whether you think "those people are contrarians" is true, I have never been interested in whether you think that, and I never will be. Material that is "obviously true", on the other hand, is not "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:VERIFY). Obvious facts that are obvious to everybody do not need to be sourced, only things that are likely to be challenged.

This unnecessary thread would not have started if you had not written "Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair", as if that were a contradiction to the "contrarian" label, and adding "You're letting your personal views show" as if adherence to the science as written in the journals, as opposed to the sham presented by right-wing media, were a personal view. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have anything more to add here, but for convenience I shall repeat the position in one place. I start at Wikipedia:Verifiability which is one of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. This states that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Since the material in question involves living people WP:BLPSOURCE comes into action, which states that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article"; note that this forms part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is one of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Finally WP:BURDEN states that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"; note that this is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability which is, as previously remarked, one of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. If you are uneasy with the idea that Wikipedia articles should follow its core content policies then you might be happier editing elsewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You have been telling me things I know from the beginning, and you continue doing so. Forget it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How is this NEUTRAL pov?

""and said that, unable to dispute this, climate deniers, "(or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) "" Not only does the "author", and I use that word very liberally, change the actual wording from the the ACTUAL book, but then takes a shit on it because of it's choice of words. Great. So classy wikipedia. I can't edit the article to just delete the ( ) part and change deniers to SCEPTICS, which they are actually describes as in the book!, but someone should. Just another liberal leftist shill page. Got it. Sukkit Aard (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the wording of Nick Hewitt, who's quoted from his review which says; "Unable to dispute the science, and reality, of climate change, climate deniers (or sceptics as they are disingenuously described in this book) have made sustained attempts to discredit climate scientists and the way they work." Why are you trying to deny the choice of words of the mainstream publication Chemistry World? . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

plot current data

This book was written about 10 years ago. Could someone update the plots in this article, as far as the data they are based on is still being measured? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaehlerm (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The first plot is historical, showing the context at the time the book was written, together with the IPCC 1990 figure the book misrepresents and its 1965 source. The second plot compares MBH99 with the 30-year global average of the 2013 reconstruction by the PAGES 2k Consortium, which is pretty much up to date. PAGES 2k have published some more papers this year, going into more detail on the same dataset, but don't add anything affecting the comparison figure. . . dave souza, talk

Recent changes to lead

In relation to these edits, please see the source: "He is the author of Bishop Hill, one of the main websites for global warming sceptics in the UK". Also, praised and criticized introduces false balance. Who has praised it? Not mainstream climate change scientists. —PaleoNeonate – 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly if you want to call it a "climate change denial blog" then you need sources that describe it as a "climate change denial blog": Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. And you can't combine sources that describe it as a "global warming sceptic blog" with sources (implicit or explicit) that say "global warming scepticism is climate change denial" to conclude that it is a "climate change denial blog": that's a textbook example of WP:SYN and we don't do that sort of thing. Secondly MOS:LEADREL says "harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article". Currently the body contains a "Reception" section which contains roughly equal amounts of praise (the first paragraph) and criticism (the second paragrpah), and the lead should reflect this balance if it refers to the book's reception at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

False balance, and the weight section was overloaded with an uninformed opinion from a blog, which I've removed as noted below. There are already sources in the article noting that this book promotes climate change denial, and due weight should be given to that in the lead. The skewing of the article to uncritical in-universe fringe views is a textbook case of WP:UNDUE weight to tiny minority views in a way which misleads the reader. . . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza has added that the book "was praised by opponents of mainstream science" without specifying that the two people still mentioned have doctorates related to economics and zoology, or identifying which unmentioned praisers (Quadrant, Financial Post, The Telegraph, Geoscientist, Judith Curry's blog) deserve such description. Dave souza removed Ms Curry's review saying the cite was a "blog" (in this case a climatologist's blog), removed a mention of Amazon saying the cite was "another blog" (in this case a Guardian blog), left in a negative review without noting that it's a dead link, left in Bob Ward's review in the Guardian while Andrew Montford's reply in a later Guardian article is absent. Dave souza added that the book "promotes climate change denial" while citing only the negative reviewers. Dave souza earlier added that Matt Ridley reviewed "while conceding that he had financial interests in coal mining" which isn't about the book. I suggest that this editing has caused the article's reviews section and lead sentence to become unbalanced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Blog source with BLP implications

The review section starts with fringe view proponents, starting with a blog source promoting attacks on mainstream scientists:

Several reviewers have praised the book for its content, writing style and accessibility. Climatologist Judith Curry called The Hockey Stick Illusion "a well documented and well written book on the subject of the 'hockey [stick] wars.' It is required reading for anyone wanting to understand the blogosphere climate skeptics and particularly the climate auditors," such as Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

On that basis, I've removed this part. The author has demonstrated her lack of expertise on this topic. . . dave souza, talk 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)