Jump to content

Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 16 August 2017 (→You'll need a reliable secondary source to use a label like "climate contrarian"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


What is Bishop Hill?

What is Bishop Hill? 99.181.159.117 (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the blog of the book's author. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Squarespace. 99.181.132.99 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Curry's new thoughts on the book

Dr. Curry recently posted this at her blog:

I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting Climate Etc., I engaged mainly at ClimateAudit). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion. The book itself, plus more significantly my vilification simply for recommending that people read the book, has pushed me over the ledge and into a mode of aggressively challenging the IPCC consensus.... Source: [1]

I'm not quite sure how to use this, but it's interesting. Scroll down to "JC’s message to Mark Lynas" for more. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this some thought, I've posted a quote from her essay at Judith Curry#An opening mind, which is probably the better place for her opinions. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Very happy to cut back; I have made a first pass. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I challenged your edit here [4] and here [5]; 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)[reply]
I want to hear this: are you saying that those people are not contrarians? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=795759330"