Talk:Michael E. Mann/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed new section, Public outreach on global warming

-- -or some such title. Prof. Mann been publishing a number of op-eds in such prominent outlets as the New York Times. He has a new one, If You See Something, Say Something, NY Times JAN. 17, 2014.

Sample pullquote:

The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress....

I've seen a number of these -- maybe you have too -- and realized we don't really have a place for them. Probably we should. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of these (including the new NYT one) listed at Mann's website here. So here's a start on a few more for the proposed new section:

• PNAS op-ed "Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference" , March 17, 2009. Possible quote: well, I don't see an obvious one. Still, he seems to like it. Maybe you'll see one.

• "Something Is Rotten at the New York Times", Dr. Michael Mann tries to put the pieces together on why the New York Times miscommunicated the findings of the IPCC report., HuffPost Green, 11/21/2013. Quote:

"[T]he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its 5th scientific assessment, providing the strongest evidence to date that climate change is real, caused by us, and a problem. ... Rather than objectively communicating the findings of the IPCC to their readers, the New York Times instead foisted upon them the ill-informed views of Koch Brothers-funded climate change contrarian Richard Muller, who used the opportunity to deny the report's findings." -- OK, this one needs work, but this is a rough draft, OK? More later, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not unusual for scientists to write letters, opinion pieces and generally make themselves available for comment with the intent of clarifying or improving understanding of a particular issue. Richard Alley, Matt Ridley, Richard A. Muller, Judith Curry are notable examples. There are hundreds more. I see no reason why we need a special section devoted entirely to this topic in their pages, nor here, and I do hope this suggestion has no bearing on Mann's ongoing legal case, which must address the question whether or not he is a public figure. For this reason, I think we should stay clear of inappropriately named section headers that might be construed as opportunistic. — TPX 12:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that Dr. Mann is unusually active (and prominent) in this area, but perhaps this can be grafted into an existing section. This is just an exploratory idea. No, I wasn't contemplating any lawsuit stuff, Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• A new op-ed, at the Guardian: "Approving Keystone XL could be the biggest mistake of Obama's presidency" By Michael Mann, 31 January 2014. Look to me like we have enough material for a section -- I'll try to find time to put something together soon. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You will need a secondary source that supports whatever it is you're trying to say. "My impression is..." will carry no weight if you want to write a section claiming a BLP is involved in some kind of "Public outreach" campaign. All I see is you collecting clippings that say "Mainstream scientist keeps talking about mainstream science," which is not much of a story. --Nigelj (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Mann's recent NYT op-ed, "If you see something, say something." is attracting some 3rd-party commentary: forex, "The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down", by S. Fred Singer at the American Thinker. Singer's article has this quote from Ross McKittrick:

"OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself."

Singer also comments on Mann's recent accusations of fellow climate scientist Judith Curry for 'smearing climate scientists.’, being a ‘serial climate misinformer', being 'anti-science' (etc). [All quotes from Curry's article, below.] Here's Singer's quote of Curry's reply:

"Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being 'anti-science,' I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide."

Curry also has some commentary on this, and on the Mann v. Steyn/National Review lawsuit (for BG, not a BLP RS): (Redacted) by Judith Curry. I'll watch for other RS commentary. Interesting times. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So, an emeritus activist with only fringe support gets an article in American Thinker which looks at best to be a fringe publication, any mention of this looks completely undue. Pete, you seem to be pushing an agenda here. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 15:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Pete, you're getting out of hand here: you should know that someone's blog is unacceptable as a source and shouldn't appear here per WP:BLPTALK. Curry's blog opinions are only useful as a possible source about Curry. . dave souza, talk 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Steyn's opinions of Mann are (predictably) pungent: (Redacted) May not be BLP-grade RS, I dunno. Certainly reliable for Steyn's opinion.Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Redacted, as above. If Steyn's opinions were sufficiently notable they'd be published in a reliable source. . dave souza, talk 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Curry on Mann v. Steyn:

"JC message to Michael Mann (Redacted) --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As above, that says something about Curry but is irrelevant to Mann's bio. . dave souza, talk 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest opening a new section titled either "Public advocacy," which would reflect the layman's perception of his articles in The Guardian and The NYT, or "Atmospheric Business and Policy," which is the title he (or Penn State?) gives to one of his "research specialties." Mann has broadened his work into the public square, as seen in this recent article, widely reprinted, that he wrote for The Guardian,":

Until the public fully understands the danger of our present trajectory, those debates are likely to continue to founder. ¶ This is where scientists come in. In my view, it is no longer acceptable for scientists to remain on the sidelines. I should know. I had no choice but to enter the fray.

From a more academic standpoint, his Penn State web page explains the specialty:

Atmospheric Business and Policy

Policy and business issues regarding our moral and ethical obligations to future generations with respect to the environment.

It seems to me that since his public advocacy is so important to Mann that he finds staying on the sidelines unacceptable, we should include it as a vital role he considers a duty. Yopienso (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Many scientists have broadened their work into the public sphere. Earlier I provided the example of Richard Alley, who writes the occasional column,^[1] makes himself available for media enquiries and is the host of a BPS television series. Or else Judith Curry, who quite possibly is one of Pete's favourite climatologists given the number of occasions he copies passages from her media appearances and blog. Let's try Roy Spencer, "the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show". No 'Public outreach' section on his entry either. A selective approach with questionable timing, I must say, absent reliable sources that makes any of the above notable. Nothing that meets the test so far. — TPX 01:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"absent reliable sources that makes any of the above notable"? An article in The Guardian or in The NYT is notable in its own right.

Our article on Alley mentions the PBS show. (Although someone tagged that section as irrelevant to the subject some time ago. Irrelevant?? How can that be irrelevant to Alley?)

Our Spencer article dwells heavily on his non-academic activism.

Except for two lines on RealClimate, this article mentions nothing of Mann's activism. He is much more than an academic, and it is unfair to him to ignore his public advocacy. I suppose I'm too naive to understand what the objection is here. Yopienso (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't keeping close tabs on this the past weeks/months. Apparently some editors think the suggestion has to do with casting Mann as a "public figure" so as to make his lawsuit harder to win. I can't speak for anyone else, but it has nothing to do with my opinion that his advocacy should be noted here. (How would a Wikipedia article influence court proceedings, anyway?) In any case, he has long called himself a public figure on Facebook, so that question is moot. Yopienso (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything about 'public figure' at that Facebook link. Please be careful about the way you represent sources, even on Talk pages, per WP:BLP. --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Look again. It's immediately below his profile pic at the top:

Public Figure

Michael E. Mann, Climate Scientist; Distinguished Professor, Penn State University; Author of "Dire Predictions" & "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars"

Yopienso (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy over whether or not Mann is a public figure. Listen to him on MSNBC from 1:19 to 1:34 wrt to a book he wrote "in which I describe these amazing, um, experiences that I've had as uh as a completely you know uh accidental and uh unintended uh public figure. Um I-I've become a public figure in this larger debate over climate change . . ."

How does that threaten him or the science or Wikipedia? Why should we suppress that information? Yopienso (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that mention his writings in order to establish that they are significant. That does not include fringe sources or editorials. And basically all that will establish is that a climate scientist writes about climate science, which would require one sentence at most. Whether it is "fair" to ignore his writings is a call that reliable sources must make. TFD (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Er, have you noticed that what we're discussing are Prof. Mann's opinion pieces? And, as another editor has already mentioned, op-eds in major newspapers by major public figures are notable of themselves -- this is well-established at WP:N.

• Also, more than one editor has mentioned their opinion that Prof Mann is discussing climate science in his op-eds. What he is actually discussing is policy: specifically, he's advocating for specific policies based on his beliefs. See, for example his Keystone pipeline op-ed. This isn't science, but it is both notable and newsworthy. And Mann himself clearly feels what he's doing in public outreach is important. Discussion of this aspect of Prof. Mann's career in his wikibio is overdue. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mann is an activist and the article needs to show that. I will add emphasis to the sources provided below for those who prefer to skim rather than read, leaving context for those who don't.

• "Michael Mann: The Penn State professor who went from stormless scientist to climate crusader." By Anna Orso of The Patriot-News, online at pennlive.com. After introducing the symbolic image of Mann's daughter and a polar bear, Orso rehashed Mann's recent op-ed in the NYT, noting that he was not approached by the Times but that he asked for the space. Excerpts:

“It is no longer acceptable for scientists to remain on the sidelines.” (Quoted from his op-ed.)

“I became an accidental and reluctant public figure.” (Quoted from a recent Penn State talk.)

Suing for defamation is one way to not stand on the sidelines. But for Mann, engaging with the community and disseminating what he believes is true information is the important part of his role as a climate scientist.

The professor operates active Twitter and Facebook accounts. In several weeks, he’ll take part in an “Ask Me Anything” session on Reddit. For him, it’s about engaging with the community.

“For me to be able to get my message out there without a middle man works, and so I enjoy it, and I’m very engaged in that,” he said.

• Mariah Blake, writing in Mother Jones, wrote, "Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test." Quoting Mann: "'As the staid scientific journal Nature put it, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the accepted scientific evidence, and we must fight back against the disinformation that denies this real and present danger to the planet,' he explained on the liberal blog ThinkProgress."
• Sarah Rafacz, in The Daily Collegian, wrote,

When Michael E. Mann and his colleagues published the “hockey stick” curve a decade and a half ago, he said he found himself as a reluctant and accidental public figure in the climate change debate.

Two weeks ago, he was recognized for his outreach efforts to educate the public about climate change by the National Wildlife Federation as the recipient of its National Conservation Achievement Award for Science .

What is the National Conservation Achievement Award for Science? A prize from the National Wildlife Federation celebrating ""Dr. Mann’s tireless work to advance our understanding of climate science, help the public understand global warming and speak out for what must be done to confront it is an invaluable contribution to this and future generations of Americans." The prize was created to honor "individuals and organizations that have made outstanding contributions to protecting wildlife through education, advocacy, communication and on-the-ground conservation."

• A'ndrea Elyse Messer, in the Penn State News, covers the awarding of that prize to Mann, adding, "He was recently included in the Bloomberg News list of 50 Most Influential People under the category Thinker."
• Mann himself lists a section on his CV entitled "Public Outreach" that is too lengthy to paste in here. It's about a quarter of the way down, between "Professional Activities" and "Books." I'll copy it below under a hat.

Can anybody tell me why Mann's amply demonstrated and reliably verified activism should not constitute a section in this article? Yopienso (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Public Outreach," An Excerpt from Mann's CV

Public Outreach: Popular Media (interviewed/quoted/cited): Movies/Documentaries: Greedy Lying Bastards (March 2013), Last Hours (October, 2013), Years Of Living Dangerously (Showtime Series, Spring 2014) Television: CBS Evening News, NBC Evening News, ABC Evening News, NBC Today Show, CNN, CNN headline news, CNN (Lou Dobbs show), CNN (Campbell Brown Show), MSNBC, MSNBC (“Up with Chris Hayes”), MSNBC (“All In with Chris Hayes”); MSNBC (“Now with Alex Wagner”), MSNBC (“Hardball with Chris Matthews”), MSNBC (“Andrea Mitchell Reports”), ABC Nature’s Edge (with Bill Blakemore); PBS, BBC; CBC Television (George Stroumboulopoulos Show, Canada); Current TV (“The Young Turks” with Cenk Uygur); Current TV (“The War Room” with Jennifer Granholm); ABC (Lateline Show; Australia); RT Network (Thom Hartmann Show); Al Jazeera English (“Inside Story”); Al Jazeera America (“Inside Story”); The Weather Channel, The Research Channel, Accuweather (and numerous local television news programs) Radio: BBC, NPR (“All Things Considered”; “Talk of the Nation”; “Earth and Sky”; “Science Friday”; “Diane Rehm Show”; “On Point with Tom Ashbrook”), PRI (“To The Point”); Fox News (“Alan Colmes Show”), Michael Smerconish show; WPSU, WCBS, Voice of America; CBC Radio (“The Current”); Stand Up! With Pete Dominick (Sirius/XM radio); Majority Report with Sam Seder; Ring of Fire with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pennsylvania Public Radio; “Explorations in Science” with Michio Kaku; WAMU radio (Kojo Nnamdi show); On the Green Front with Betsy Rosenberg (Progressive Radio Network); KTRH radio (Houston), Radio PA (Harrisburg), WWL Radio News (New Orleans), WFAE (“Charlotte Talks”, Charlotte) (and numerous others) Print (weekly/monthly): Time, Newsweek, Life, US News & World Report, New Republic, The Atlantic, Economist, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Mother Jones, American Prospect, The Nation, Chronicle of Higher Education, Miller-McCune, Macleans (and numerous others) Print (weekly/monthly, scientific): Scientific American, New Scientist, National Geographic, Discover, Science News, Science, Nature, Popular Science, Seed, Cosmos, Geotimes, Weekly Reader (“current science”), Audubon Magazine (and numerous others) Print (daily): USA Today, New York Times, New York Times "Science Times", New York Daily News, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, National Journal, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, International Herald Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Miami Herald, Washington Times, Christian Science Monitor; National Post (Canada); London Times (UK), The Guardian (UK), Die Welt (Germany), Le Monde (France), Pravda (Russia) (and numerous others) Print (daily, syndicated): AP, UPI, Reuters, Scripps Howard, Knight Ridder, McClatchy, Ascribe, Greenwire Online: Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, Discovery Channel online, National Geographic online, LiveScience (and numerous others) Profiles: Scientific American, Discover, Fortune, New Scientist, Mother Jones, Audubon Magazine, Yale Alumni Magazine, Harrisburg Pariot-News, Williamsport Guardian, The Independent (UK), Le Monde (France), Die Zeit (Germany) Other: Museum of Modern Art (New York), assistance with exhibition on “Design and the Elastic Mind”, Fall 2007 Op-Eds/Commentaries published: The Guardian (Jan 31, 2014); EcoWatch (Jan 30, 2014); The New York Times (Jan 19, 2014); The Virginian-Pilot (Jan 8, 2014); Scranton Times-Tribune (Dec 20, 2013); Huffington Post (Nov 21, 2013); EcoWatch (Nov 16, 2013); Huffington Post (Oct 31, 2013); The Guardian (Sep 28, 2013); Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Sep 27, 2013); Huffington Post (Sep 27, 2013); LiveScience (Sep 26, 2013); Richmond Times-Dispatch (Aug 24, 2013); Centre Daily Times News (Jun 27, 2013), Harrisburg Patriot-News (Jun 13, 2013), Huffington Post (May 13, 2013), Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Apr 12, 2013), The Scientist (Mar 27, 2013), Huffington Post (Feb 4, 2013), Popular Science (Dec 12, 2012), Huffington Post (Sep 24, 2012), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Sep 12, 2012), Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Aug 7, 2012), The Daily Climate (Aug 6, 2012), The Vancouver Sun (June 7, 2012), World Financial Review (May/June, 2012), The Reporter (May 14, 2012), The Helsinki Times (May 9, 2012), The Mark News (April 20, 2012), The Trentonian (April 13, 2012), CNN (March 28, 2012), Orange Country Register (Mar 16, 2012), BBC Knowledge (Feb 2012), BBC Focus (Dec 2011), Politico (Mar 8, 2011), New Scientist (Nov 2, 2010), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Oct 9, 2010), Washington Post (Oct 8, 2010), Minneapolis Star-Tribune (Jul 29, 2010), Voices of Central Pennsylvania (Feb 2010), Washington Post (Dec 18, 2009; reprinted in Miami Herald 12/19/09, Salt Lake Tribune 12/18/09, and Monterey Herald 12/21/09), Harrisburg Patriot-News (Feb 11, 2007), St Louis Post-Dispatch (Feb 23, 2006), The Press (NJ; Feb 7, 2006), Roanoke Times (Feb 7, 2006), Middleton Times-Herald (NY; Feb 7, 2006), Akron Beacon Journal (Feb 6, 2006), Anniston Star (AL; Feb 5, 2006), Newark Star-Ledger (Feb 5, 2006), Salt Lake Tribune (Feb 3, 2006), Post Standard (NY; Feb 2, 2006), Providence Journal (Oct 3, 2003), Seattle News-Tribune (Aug 10, 2003) Letters published: Louisville Courier-Journal (Jan 21, 2014); Richmond Times-Dispatch (Aug 5, 2013); Bismarck Tribune (Sep 15, 2012); The Garden Island (Sep 14, 2012); U-T San Diego (Aug 30, 2012); Wall Street Journal (Mar 22, 2012); Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Feb 28, 2012); The Australian (Feb 3, 2012); Wall Street Journal (Feb 1, 2012); Wall Street Journal (Dec 5, 2011); Scientific American (Oct 2011); Newsweek (Mar 15, 2010); Wall Street Journal (July 15, 2010); Wall Street Journal (Dec 31, 2009); Washington Post (Dec 1, 2009); Harrisburg Patriot-News (Oct 18, 2009); New York Times (Mar 20, 2007) (and numerous others) Review quotes: The Big Pivot by Andrew Winston (book, due out 2014); The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway (book, due out 2014); Fore and the Future of Practically Everything by Richard L. Handy (book, 2013); Banned on the Hill by Franke James (book, 2013); The Zero Footprint Baby by Keya Chatterjee (book, 2013); The Year of the Bad Decision by Charles Sobczak (book, 2013); Rising Seas: Past, Present, Future by Vivien Gornitz (book, 2013); Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact by Hunt Janin and Scott A. Mandia (book, 2013); Overheated by Andrew Guzman (book, 2013); The Aviator by Gareth Renowden (book, 2012); Snowcial: An Antarctic Social Network Story by Chelsea Prince (book, 2012); Navigating The Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Ethics by Donald Brown (book, 2012); A Burning Question (film, 2012); The Evolution of Everything by Mark Sumner (book, 2010); Storm World by Chris Mooney (book, 2008); Climate Change: What it Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren”, edited by Joseph Dimento and Pamela Doughman (book, 2007) Press Conferences: American Geophysical Union (5/30/02); European Geophysical Union (4/23/09); National Science Foundation (8/11/09); Resource Media (11/24/09); American Geophysical Union (12/17/09); National Wildlife Federation (8/25/10); PennEnvironment (9/8/10); Prism Public Affairs (11/18/10); European Geophysical Union (4/26/12); Truman National Security Project, PennFuture, Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition & selected members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly (1/14/13); PennEnvironment (6/5/13) Guest contributor to: One Degree (The Weather Channel); Seed Magazine; Climate One (The Commonwealth Club), The Weather Underground Co-founder and contributor, climate science website, "RealClimate.org" (founded 12/04) Science Advisor for Showtime series, Years of Living Dangerously, 2013- Scientific Advisor for Polar Bears International, 2010- Science Advisory Board Member, Climate Change Communication Network, 2010- Science advisor for Climate Communication, 2011- Advisory Board, OurEarth.org, 2008- Science Advisory Council, 1Sky, 2008- Content Committee, Climate Solutions Project, Bowman Group, 2007- Advisory Committee, “CLUES” (museum/community partnership of the Franklin Institute Science Museum, Phila. PA), 2009- Advisor to numerous policy makers, public policy experts, governmental and non-governmental organizations (1999-)

Why? Because, apparently, of some obscurity in American law that perhaps can be interpreted that "comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures".(my emphasis)[2] Therefore it is not very surprising that a small slew of American websites and local newspapers are trying to ascribe to Mann some of the characteristics of a "public figure" just at the moment. That is no reason why Wikipedia has immediately to join in the name-calling. We have no deadline, and there will be secondary sources that reliably address the issue directly at some point in the future. What is being suggested here would be unacceptable WP:SYN for WP:BLP. --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the synthesis? Mann claims in his own words to be a public figure. See Facebook and MSNBC. He copiously lists his "public outreach" on his CV (see just above). Yopienso (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What is far more interesting and relevant is, why are these aspects of his work and his many awards (details of most of which have been available online for a long time) suddenly so important to the denialist blogosphere and to the right-wing US press? That we can't answer without reliable sources, that are unlikely to be available for a while. And we certainly can't cover one half of this story (the part that suits these fringe minorities) and not the other. --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You did not answer my question about a point you said made my suggestion unacceptable.

I am not part of "the denialist blogosphere" or "the right-wing US press" and don't keep up with them. ::::Your job as a WP editor is not to second-guess why material is added, but to help judge if it is relevant and well-sourced. Until today the article depicted Mann as only an academic, omitting his active public outreach. Please help make this a neutral, well-rounded BLP! I know from past experience you are no crank, but a knowledgeable, capable contributor. Yopienso (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I see it's pretty urgent here too. Couldn't wait for the discussion to finish? --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. The sources are solid. Yopienso (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, that looks good. . dave souza, talk 11:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/mann_public_figure.png?w=640 --Nigelj (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Certainly wotsup isn't a rs, so why link to it? Much more useful to go to https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist?ref=stream which has the words in grey, suggesting a standard Facebook category, but their help pages don't clarify that. Much more to the point, "This was a debate I never really signed up for,” he told a room of 54 scientists at Penn State on Wednesday. “I became an accidental and reluctant public figure."[3] No doubt this has been cleared with his lawyers, as from what I recall there are various legal categorisations of "public figure". Hence a minefield for us. . dave souza, talk 19:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources.... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed...to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So we cannot use Mann's columns to support any claims about him, other than reporting what he said in them. And columns written about him may not be acceptable either. Most of his opponents for example are not rs for science, which is the subject in which Mann specializes.

However, if mainstream news media have an article about how fringe theorists are attacking Mann's columns, then we could add it.

TFD (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed we don't need to be publishing the author's own opinion of his work. This shouldn't even need discussing. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed This entire article is incredibly one-sided in favor of Michael Mann, and reads as if it were written by Mann himself. WP's credibility on this entire issue has been greatly damaged over the William Connolley affair. It can ill afford to be seen, playing favorites again. Mann's central role in the Climategate affair, the "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as relates to the "hockey stick," the upside-down Tiljander series -- these and other less-savory aspects of Mann's career deserve space along side, if not instead of, much of the self-aggrandizing propaganda displayed here. Kaewon F. Addus (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read what credible sources have to say on such matters before embarrassing yourself further. — TPX 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Seems like a lot of the entry is shilling for the guy. I'm not particularly interested, but the sentiment and the language use indicate that it's pretty biased towards him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.118.160 (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The only way to fix that is for enough like-minded editors to participate. Yopienso (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In the news

This article has been in the news. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a blog, and probably not a WP:NEWSBLOG, so it doesn't need that much notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Google News shows: this in Ars Technica and this in The News & Advance. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Claim

He is widely thought to have claimed his certificate (discussed below) was a joint award of the Nobel Prize to himself and several others. Is there any reliable source for this claim? If so, it should be put in the article. Also, whether he had a mistaken perception, or deliberately inflated his list of awards. Half the time, when I see his name, it is attached to some humorous comment like , 'Dr. Mann, the Nobel fantasist', so there is some interest in this. The Wikipedia article should be a source of reliable information on this point. 2.28.140.201 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPTALK you'll need to provide good quality reliable sources verifying your claims before going any further: Wikipedia biographies are not a source for unpublished gossip. You appear to be misinformed at best, see below: many scientists were given the impression that they shared in the award of the prize to the organisation which they were part of. As for the gossip you're reading, climate change deniers are indeed putting such stuff about, but we need a published reliable secondary source before even considering discussing such smears in the article. . . dave souza, talk 23:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the point, a source is needed. There are no claims made, but requests for info. Do you have a source for your gossip that 'many scientists were given the impression that they shared'?

I, too would like to know if Mann ever really said he had won a Nobel Prize. A report from a reliable source is needed before putting that statement in the arcticle. If his supporters will not confirm or deny, no doubt others will do the needed research.

And look below and see they have. Is there any case for *not* saying that Mann made a false claim to be a Nobel winner, and later covered up by saying 'everyone else was doing it'? 24.130.15.8 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The case is set out in WP:BLP: we don't include accusations of misconduct unless there is a very good source complying with that policy. Why are you making these false statements? . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What accusations of misconduct? The IP said "that Mann made a false claim to be a Nobel winner." That is true, Dave, and you know it. I would soften the term "false claim" into "mistakenly believed himself," but he did claim it and the claim did turn out to be false. Mann himself is an unimpeachable source for this; his Facebook advocacy page where he calls himself a public figure and actively presents his ideas is a perfectly reliable source for this information, as is his original lawsuit. Primary sources CAN be used, with care. Yopienso (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally put quite a bit of effort into editing the mistaken notion that Mann was a Nobel laureate, again with due care as a BLP, and my efforts seem to have been satisfactory. The blogosphere made some stir about the issue, but IIRC the MSM did not. Therefore, our responsibility is to record Mann's actual part in the awarding of the prize but not the sniping about whether he personally was a laureate. Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm striking my own comment because I do not wish to participate in this kind of editing. The IP asked a good question and got shut out. Mann himself admitted to and explained that he thought he could call himself a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize until the IPCC issued its corrective. Yopienso (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the IPCC.[4] If you are reading what you say you are, you are obviously not reading news sources. I recommend actual news sources instead of blogs. TFD (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

REALITY CHECK

Yes, IP, it is true this was a topic of considerable interest to Mann's opponents.

Dave and TFD, I doubt you'll agree, and I will not push this issue, but since we all know Mann did claim to be a Nobel Prize recipient, causing the topic to be bandied about a great deal by his opponents, we should also acknowledge that the "sniping," as I put it above, was with heavy enough guns to prompt an official response from the Nobel Committee IPCC. The brouhaha was covered almost entirely by sources not up to WP:RS standards, so it would be wrong to cite to them or even mention them, but I think we should note the Nobel Committee IPCC's statement.

I also submit for your consideration this telephone interview (and transcript) between a professional journalist and whoever answered the phone in Norway. The journalist is Charles C. W. Cooke, with the National Review Online--yes, the very outfit Mann is suing. Still, it's a credible report.

For the record, Mann has corrected his website(s) and CV on the matter. His legal complaint, filed Oct. 22, 2012, in which he referred three times to having received a Nobel Prize, is available online.

• p. 2 parr. 2: "As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
• p. 3 parr. 5: "a Nobel prize recipient" (referring to Mann)
• p. 6 parr. 17: "In 2007, Dr. Mann shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph."

My specific suggestion is to expand the brief paragraph about the Nobel Prize:

In celebration of the joint award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC and to Al Gore, the IPCC presented Mann, along with all other "scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports", with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC." To clarify subsequent questions as to whether the scientists who worked on the IPCC reports were themselves laureates, the Nobel Committee issued a statement explaining, "The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC." Yopienso (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Y. Your suggestd add looks good to me. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Cooke's transcript, he was speaking to Nobel Committee on the phone. Unusual to find a committee so unequivocal, so to speak: as you say, he was actually speaking to whoever answered the phone.

Mann's legal complaint, filed Oct. 22, 2012, was written by his lawyer, it's submitted by Cozen O'Connor and signed by John B. Williams. Obviously I'd expect Mann to have agreed to it, but the wording didn't ring any alarm bells at the time. Unsurprising considering that AP announced the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as "Gore, scientists share Nobel Peace Prize" and quoted Pachauri as saying "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee".

You suggest we should note the Nobel Committee's statement: that's actually an IPCC statement, which we cite as references 55 and 56.

Do you have a reliable secondary source connecting the 2007 IPCC certificate and the 2012 IPCC statement specifically with Mann's bio? There's a danger of synthesising the argument put in the unreliable National Review Online that this was in some way nefarious behaviour by Mann, and hence producing a BLP violation from primary sources. dave souza, talk 07:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Nobel Committee is unequivocal about the issue. However, the entire Nobel Committee did not answer the phone. Presumably, the person who answered is a staff member and not an actual committee member. This well-known blogger whom you respect got a written answer straight from the top. So did this RS wrt to Monckton, not Mann, but including a general statement.

When you quibble about the legal complaint made on Mann's behalf by his lawyer and when you blame Mann's erroneous claim on Pachauri, you are adding to the perception that our article is a hagiography.

I totally goofed on labeling the IPCC's statement, and am correcting it in this same post. Thanks for catching it.

Your third point also adds to the hagiography perception. We have the same problem at the Thomas Jefferson article with an editor who sees his duty as protecting TJ's image. (Yes, I know that is not a BLP; same defense-of-an-image principle, though.) I think the NRO is reliable, but agree it has a COI. Any speculations as to how Mann came to make his erroneous claim would be inappropriate; I make none.

Finally, what do you think of my suggested expansion? Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Much as I respect the prof. bunny, he's not a reliable source for this. His article does indicate that Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute, was asked a personal question by "swift-boater" Marc Morano and gave a reply with falsehoods about Mann. Not wise, if true. dave souza, talk 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is, "I take note of what you write and that the IPCC issued the diploma in question. It still stands that Mr. Mann is not a personal Nobel laureate." Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I merely point out what the AP reported, as discussed below, a rs is needed to start connecting this to Mann. While I've not got a rs to hand, my understanding is that his lawyers redrafted the legal complaint leaving out the Nobel issue, as a revised complaint. . dave souza, talk 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On the rewrite proposal, the first part is the same as the existing wording but in a different order. That looks ok to me. The second part is similar to the wording in footnote 55, " The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and the prize was not an award to any individual involved with the IPCC." If I recall, someone moved that from the body text into a footnote. You've added "To clarify subsequent questions as to whether the scientists who worked on the IPCC reports were themselves laureates" which looks like original research, guessing at the motives of the IPCC which are not mentioned in their statement. Source? . . dave souza, talk 20:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is obvious. The statement is corrective. We could say, "To answer subsequent questions" or "To correct misconstruals."

Larger context: The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC offiicial, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.” Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, if Good Lord, Monckton is no Nobel laureate | Article | The Punch is a rs, something I've not checked, then Nobel Peace Prize Committee secretary Geir Lundestat was asked about the issue in 2010, so that might have caused the issue of the IPCC statement. Of course Monckton isn't a scientist and wouldn't have qualified for the IPCC certificate, so that's maybe unfounded speculation. Got a source for what purpose made IPCC issue the statement? . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As above, the IPCC issued the statement to correct the notion that any officials or scientists were Nobel laureates or prize winners. Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the alarm bells. The lawsuit was precisely what sounded them. Mann had been calling himself a Nobel laureate for almost five years on Facebook, his faculty bio, and IIRC, his CV, with only his opponents calling him on it. It was making the claim in a legal document that prompted the statement from the IPCC. (Also see this hostile, non-RS opinion piece for context. As you noted in a recent edit summary, the law weaves tangled webs. As WP editors and human beings, we need to be sure we are reflecting reality and not adjusting it on technicalities to suit our preferences.)Yopienso (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't consider it relevant that other scientists who contributed to AR4 also made the same mistake? Sourcing is a problem because the media did not consider the issue noteworthy, but that is no reason to at least not consider the background in which the error was made. Can you kindly produce a source that says it was a legal document that prompted the statement from the IPCC, as opposed to bloggers and critics who contacted them directly? — TPX 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it's relevant. Not having a source, I won't press the argument that the legal document prompted the statement. My understanding is that bloggers and journalists contacted them after the document was made public. Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It might also be noted that the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory said that Pachauri had sent a letter to lead authors of AR4 saying that he had "been stunned in a pleasant way with the news of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC. This makes each of you a Nobel Laureate and it is my privilege to acknowledge this honour on your behalf". Despite that, I've not seen any instances of Mann calling himself a Nobel laureate: all the quotes I can recall are along the lines of he shared the prize with all the other IPCC scientists. Got a source otherwise, as well as a source for whatever prompted the IPCC to issue its new statement? . . dave souza, talk 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You're bordering on tendentiousness there, about not seeing Mann call himself a laureate. It's the kind of lawyerliness that is unconstructive. I used the word to mean the many times and places he claimed to have been awarded or shared in or received the prize. These are synonyms for being a laureate. Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not having a source, I won't press the argument that the legal document prompted the statement. What we know is that the statement was a corrective. Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This non-RS lists 12 AR4 contributors who have used imprecise language when proudly referring to their IPCC work. Christopher Monckton made the same mistake, though the site owner missed or omitted his name. Richard Warrick is another researcher at fault. [5] By focusing on Michael Mann, and only on Michael Mann, his critics (including NRO) get to imply there is something uniquely unpleasant about him, whereas broader context shows the error is widespread. — TPX 20:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, others were faulted, too; I saw a number of them when I was looking into this a year or two ago. Above, I've linked to a hostile article that started out with Jaccard and finally got around to Mann at the end. Yopienso (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: there are undoubtedly blogs speculating that Steyn or his lawyers seized on the wording of Mann's original defamation suit to allege that he'd misrepresented himself as a Nobel Laureate, and so was a liar who would therefore lose his case. Anything suggesting this argument is clearly contentious, and so cannot appear in Mann's bio without a reliable secondary source. The generic issue of the IPCC issuing a clarification is fully and appropriately covered at 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, reliable sources covering multiple scientists could be used to add to the coverage in that article. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The following quote appears on the Courthouse News website in an article dated November 7, 2012. It should be noted that Courthouse News is considered a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia. Here is the quote(I apologize for the length):

"Though Mann claims in his complaint that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim. In 2007, the Norwegian Nobel Committee split the Peace Prize between former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that year. 'The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC,' the IPCC said in a statement. 'Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: 'X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize In 2007'"(italics mine). http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/07/52068.htm

I will reiterate, Courthouse News IS a reliable secondary source, thus those claiming that Mann "never claimed to be a Nobel Laureate" or that they have never "seen any instances of Mann calling himself a Nobel Laureate" can no longer do so, unless they plan to lie or laughably assert that Mann had no involvement whatsoever with the legal filing in question. Of course, if such a pathetically disingenuous defense is proffered, those defending Mann will have to answer the question as to how Mann's lawyers came to labor under the impression that he was a Nobel Laureate. Also, I find it unusual that the same people who are employing the "Mann never claimed to be a Nobel Laureate" defense are also stating that numerous OTHER IPCC scientists also made that mistake. Obviously, you can't argue that Mann never claimed to be a Nobel Laureate and then turn around and say, to paraphrase, "hey, he did, but so did everyone else". As the above quote makes clear Mann did, in fact, make such a false claim. Mann has being calling himself a "Nobel Laureate" for years, and as this piece in Courthouse News makes clear, he even did so in a filing before the court. Anyone familiar with the case will know that Mann was forced to refile after Steyn and his lawyers pointed out to the court that Mann was lying about being a Nobel Laureate, again, something Mann had been doing for years. Regarding the claim that it was an honest mistake because multiple IPCC members did the same, why are we not provided with this supposed list of scientists who are claimed to have made such a mistake by those making that very assertion in defense of Mann? Those who are defending Mann are demanding that RELIABLE secondary sources(an important distinction) be provided to back claims that Mann was peddling the Nobel Laureate falsehood, yet we are just to supposed to accept at face value an assertion made concerning these supposed "other scientists"(if you are going to demand reliable sources, you can't cite unreliable ones). Sorry, it doesn't work that way. All I have seen in regard to these scientists is one opinion piece naming precisely three people, Mann among them. Furthermore, that opinion piece STRONGLY implies that the three named scientists were being dishonest in failing to correct the false impression they were Nobel Laureates. Another commenter states that there is a non-RS(an inherent problem right off the bat)source listing a dozen individuals who have used "imprecise language" concerning their Nobel status. That assertion is just plain false, as a cursory perusal of that site will reveal. The source in question indicates that 12 individuals have been falsely labelled as Nobel Laureates, while only a few of them have referred to themselves in such a fashion. Thus the claim that 12 people called themselves Nobel Laureates is not even supported by the non-RS "source" that is cited. The only reliable secondary source that has been provided names Mann, and Mann only, as an IPCC member who falsely called himself a "Nobel Laureate". Therefore, the declaration that Mann has improperly been singled out is, in a word, garbage. Furthermore, approximately 9000 people contributed in some way to the IPCC report. Even if we take the false claim, based on a non-reliable source, that 12 people also wrongly called themselves "Nobel Laureates" at face value, the notion that 12 out of 9000 people somehow represents a "widespread" error is simply asinine. In closing, I would like to add that I cited this source on the talk page for this entry approximately a year ago, and the same person now pretending he has the final say regarding the editing of this page pretended the same then. But that is irrelevant. I will also concede that my claims about Mann that are not backed by a reliable source are not relevant. I am making such concessions so that no one can attack the statements that are backed by reliable secondary sources by pointing to statements I have made that may not be backed by such sources. What is relevant is that multiple editors have demanded a reliable secondary source detailing Mann's claims of being a Nobel Laureate and whether he made such a claim in a legal briefing. The source provided unequivocally answers those questions. Simply fascinating that this editor now pretends that he knows of no reliable secondary source that can provide the answers he demands, despite the fact he was made aware of this very source months ago. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an issue of the detailed wording of Mann's lawsuit, and the arguments put on both sides: Wikipedia isn't the place to exaggerate or give undue weight to such arguments when used against a living person. The assertion that Courthouse News Service "IS a reliable secondary source" looks dubious, context has to be taken into account and as a source the most recent discussion I've found suggests it's questionable.[6] The linked article is a news piece which looks rather stale, if this is such an important point what more recent coverage discusses it? Note that the article is dated Wednesday, November 07, 2012, and a footnote adds Editor's Note: In its original report, Courthouse News reproduced statements from the complaint that characterized Mann as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. It put these references in more accurate context on Nov. 20.. . . dave souza, talk 03:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sloppy, is how I would characterize the section of your reply that pertains to me. The point here is that nobody has done a comprehensive survey of how many scientists made the same mistake. And such an undertaking would be impossible, now that people have had time to correct the record. Do you believe for a single moment that NRO or Mark Steyn are interested in informing their readers that other scientists, from different fields, committed the very same mistake? Of course not. Their sole purpose is to direct negative attention to Michael Mann. Single him out. Smirch his character. All the more reason to request multiple high quality sources before articulating the issue as broadly and as fairly as possible. — TPX 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

THIS IS A NO-BRAINER

Did anybody click on the link to Mann's own Facebook page I posted above on 28 Feb. 2014? Here's the most pertinent part of his longish post:

After the receipt of the award, the IPCC sent certificates to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, and IPCC staff congratulating them for “contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC.” A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award.

There is no question that Mann claimed to be a Nobel laureate, and everyone on this page knows it.

Look at footnote #17 on this old version of the BLP; a CBS headline blared, Mann, Nobel-Winning Climate Scientist, Cleared of Wrongdoing.

Courthouse News Service is certainly a reliable secondary source: the LA Times and the Boston Globe subscribe to it, according to the Columbia Journalism Review. The entry on the RS Noticeboard Dave linked to casts no aspersions on the CJR but merely shows the Bradley Manning case was outside its purview of civil litigation.

Wrt to "stale" news, most topics in WP are not covered in recent news articles. The news about Mann's initial claim that he was a Nobel laureate and his later withdrawal of that claim is stale news, but just because the flap occurred a couple of years ago doesn't mean we should ignore it.

This BLP is about Michael E. Mann. The fact that other scientists also claimed the awarding of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC made them co-recipients is irrelevant to this article. Yopienso (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The 'Courthouse News Service article was about the case in general, it was later amended to make the correction, which appears to have been seized on by opponents of Mann as a slur on his character. There was a good reason that the various scientists including Mann thought the earlier description reasonable: in 2007 the chairman of the IPCC had announced that "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee". The clarification was issued by the IPCC in a statement of 29 October 2012. As you've noted earlier, when Mann received that clarification, he issued a statement acknowledging the clarification of proper terminology, while noting that "A number of IPCC authors, including myself, understood from this commendation that it was appropriate to state that we either "shared" or were a "co-recipient" of the award. What make this a big enough deal to highlight it as part of Mann's biography? It's an issue of IPCC language which is appropriately covered at 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. If it's only covered in passing in one courthouse news report, that seems inadequate for a BLP. . dave souza, talk 07:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes it a big deal is the media coverage:

• Courthouse News Service: "Though Mann claims in his complaint that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his research on global warming, one of the actual 2007 winners recently repudiated that claim."
• CBS News
• Mark Steyn at the National Review--who Mann is suing
• Mann's legal complaint: "As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." (p. 2) ". . . to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient." (p. 3)
• Mann on Facebook 1. Claiming the prize. 2. Acknowledging his error.
• Counterpunch, just last week: "The modus operandi of this orchestrated climate denial syndicate is to go after high profile targets, like Nobel Peace Prize winners, people like Michael E. Mann, climatologist, Pennsylvania State University (creator of the “hockey stick” in 1998), who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”)."

The issue isn't properly confined to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize article; the issue was huge with Mann, and Counterpunch shows it lingers.

I couldn't find your point about Courthouse News. I was responding to your statement that it looked "dubious" as a reliable secondary source. The editor who discussed its coverage of Bradley Manning may have been mistaken about its limited purview; read the last paragraph here about its increasing scope. In any case, it has U.S. Senate Press Gallery credentials. Only "bona fide correspondents of repute in their profession" are accredited. Yopienso (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, we have a test for determining if something is important: How much coverage of this topic has been published by reliable sources and what balancing aspects are there? This is an important point given the amount of vitriol directed at Michael Mann from a distinct minority. — TPX 09:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Current version (i.e. with no mention of Nobel claim) seems appropriate to me, given the various considerations of notability, reliable sources, and BLP. It has been common for people to misunderstand/misinterpret how IPCC contributors should be acknowledged. Search my WP contributions (Special:Contributions/TimOsborn) for "Nobel" to find many pages that I've corrected in this respect, not just Mann's. I don't see that its notable if Mann made such a claim and then corrected it in a legal dispute that is as yet unresolved. Yopienso attempts to bolster its notability by listing "big deal" media coverage. The first one listed seems OK but the rest are irrelevant and thus notability of this issue is still lacking (CBS and Counterpunch make their own claims about the Nobel prize but say nothing about what claims Mann made; Mann's facebook page -- really?! you think that counts as big deal media coverage? Mann's legal complaint isn't media coverage; and Steyn/National Review -- really?! you think that counts as a neutral view when they are parties to the legal dispute?). TimOsborn (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The court case apparently began on 22 October 2010. Courthouse News Service covered it on 7 November, then on 20 November amended wording "that characterized Mann as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize" to "put these references in more accurate context". That's stale because the complaint was amended and submitted to another court: we'd need the context of further coverage in Courthouse News Service, and if they're not longer highlighting this issue, neither should we.

CBS News is from 1 July 2010 so precedes the IPCC's repudiation of its chairman's earlier statement that "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates". The headline referred to "Nobel-Winning Climate Scientist', but headlines written by copy-editors are notorious for being exaggerated, the body text rightly says "The review also noted that Mann's work on the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received recognition (along with several hundred other scientists) in the form of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."

Steyn's piece is a blog, even if he was praising Mann we couldn't use that source in a BLP, and he's clearly making defamatory statements.

Mann's legal complaint is a primary source. I don't think we can use such legal documents in BLP articles, and it is superseded by the revised complaint which apparently revised the wording we're discussing.

As Tim indicates, Mann's facebook page is a primary source and not independent coverage.

Arguably, Counterpoint this August worded their article poorly when mentioning "high profile targets, like Nobel Peace Prize winners, people like Michael E. Mann .... who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”)." They should have checked it more carefully, but that's their error and not Mann's. Wikipedia isn't the place for righting this great wrong and they obviously didn't base that on our articles, if anyone's concerned, better to write to Counterpoint to tell them about the IPCC's 2010 guidance. . dave souza, talk 11:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: There is no question that Mann claimed to be a Nobel laureate, and everyone on this page knows it.

I am not discussing WHY Mann thought he was a Nobel laureate, but that he DID think he was. Both Tim and Dave agree he did.

With all due respect, Tim (and I do respect you), as a colleague of Dr. Mann's, your opinions and comments are hardly neutral.

History doesn't go "stale." I am not alleging Mann still claims to have won a Nobel prize, but suggesting we include the fact that he did previously claim to. Many people read what Mann's opponents wrote about the issue, and when they come to Wikipedia to find the facts, those facts should be here.

Steyn's piece is a valuable and acceptable source for this claim. "The Corner" is a WP:NEWSBLOG by professional journalists in the NRO, a RS; it's not some random blog by Randy in Boise.

Wrt to sourcing from Mann's Facebook page, which he uses as a public forum to advocate his views, see WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Yopienso (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When I google ""mark steyn" "michael mann"" I get lots of hits in mainstream media about how Steyn made claims against Mann's research and has now been sued for defamation. But when I google ""mark steyn" "michael mann" "nobel prize"", the only hits are from the echo chamber. I think you need to show that the Steyn's claim, true or not, has received coverage in reliable secondary sources in order for us to include it. Steyn is not so significant on his own that every comment he utters should be added to articles about every subject that he comments on. TFD (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I follow your logic. In this case, though, Steyn is very significant to Mann's lawsuit, and the Nobel claim is very significant to Steyn's rhetoric against Mann. Steyn's and Mann's own writings are reliable for their own opinions without secondary sources. Part of "the echo chamber" is being sued by Mann; he's not ignoring them, so therefore our BLP shouldn't. As you know, the chamber consists mainly of climate blogs and conservative and libertarian organs. The blogs are RSs for their writers' opinions, most of whom Mann mentions in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. (On p. 199 he names McKitrick, Watts, Fuller, Delingpole, and Horner, who "spread the allegations in 'the Internet echo chamber'.") Again, they are very significant to Mann, and therefore to his BLP. Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that the echo chamber is relevant to the article, therefore everything that emanates from it is relevant. But it is only relevant to the degree that it is reported in reliable sources. Why should we repeat Steyn's claims (or observations) that are not mentioned in mainstream media? "Due and undue weight" says, "Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There's an intellectual fairness to the policy. The discussion of the quality of the research exists in mainstream media, hence we can present various views. But the Nobel Prize story does not exist there so we only have Steyn's view. Similarly climate change skepticism is relevant to the topic of climate change, but that does not mean that articles about climate change science must include each and every objection. TFD (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "Nobel Prize claim" is central to the lawsuit. If we discuss the lawsuit, we need to mention the "Nobel Prize claim" there, and the actual commentary [that the claim that he is a "Nobel Prize" winner is completely untrue). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How can it be central to the lawsuit? It's not even part of the amended complaint, the original case it was part of is done. Hence the need for a source if you're claiming it's a live issue, or indeed significant to Mann's bio. . . dave souza, talk 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TFD: I'm saying the controversy in the echo chamber between Steyn and Mann is relevant to the article and that their own writing is a RS for their opinions and comments. Clearly, everything that emanates from it is not relevant.

We should repeat Steyn's comments even if not reported in the MSM because Mann attaches such importance to them.

We also have Mann's view of the Nobel Prize story. Yopienso (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the Nobel issue is central to the lawsuit, mainstream media do not mention it. That btw is why all those conservative blogs exist, so that people who think the mainstream media is dominated by liberals or the new world order or whatever have a place where they can read the truth. There are Wikis that summarize these views. But the policy here is that what is relevant is what the mainstream determines is relevant. So comments by Steyn or even Mann are only important if the MSM say they are. TFD (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As above, the Nobel issue is no longer relevant to the continuing lawsuit. Apart from that, fully agree regarding sources. . dave souza, talk 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TFD: While WP holds to the mainstream scientific and academic views in its articles, major MSM are not our only RSs. Both the American Thinker and the NRO are RSs, as are other conservative and libertarian organs. A source doesn't have to be liberal in order to be a RS; it just has to be, well, reliable. (Wow! They've really overhauled WP:5 since I last looked.) Notice how the word "mainstream" is twice used at WP:NPOV.

I think this issue presents an appropriate time to ignore all rules: by including it, sourced to Mann's Facebook page, Steyn's columns at NRO, the American Spectator, American Thinker, The Blaze, the NRO, etc., we can properly inform readers who have heard about it there or in the climate blogs. By "properly inform" I mean acknowledge there was confusion about Mann being Nobel a laureate, but that he quickly rectified his claim when apprised of the actual nature of his certificate. We improve WP when we clear up an issue for readers looking for sourced facts.

@ Dave: You are correct that Mann has deleted the Nobel issue from his lawsuit. That, however, doesn't change the fact that he initially pressed it, or that his detractors seized upon it. This is what some readers will want to know about. It's simple: after Pachauri's announcement and the receipt of the certificate, Mann started saying he had won or shared in a Nobel prize. Once the Nobel Committee and the IPCC clarified the issue, he not only stopped saying that, he updated his documents. That sounds, um, noble to me. Yopienso (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Or he decided he had better stop saying it after he got caught. It all comes down to: what was his state of mind? Did he knowingly make false statements? I am genuinely unsure, but it is sure that the statements were false. I do not think more than that can be put in the article without proof, or at least citing a published essay on the subject that goes through all the evidence. 24.130.15.8 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include accusations from mind-readers, see WP:BLP for the standard of sources required. Thanks, dave souza, talk 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources. But even if they were, they would represent an insignificant fraction of reliable sources. And that is the relevant policy - "neutral point of view" - "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Readers don't come here to find out what CNN etc. aren't telling us. I assume you believe global warming is a hoax and this is smoking gun evidence, which makes it really important. But this is not the forum to alert the public. TFD (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that even if they aren't RSs--and the NRO and Thinker probably are--we Ignore All Rules in order to better serve our readers, i.e., improve the encyclopedia. I think readers come here to check out the allegations made in the echo chamber. I know I did.

Your assumption is incorrect; I'll email you with more details. Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If we can find a single reliable source for the fact that he claimed to be a Nobel Laureate, and that he removed the claim after being told he was wrong, we could consider adding the material, although it might be WP:UNDUE weight. I consider it "interesting". There's no requirement that a significant number of the thousands of available sources mention the subject; only if some reliable sources contradicted the statement, would we have to consider the question under WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I submit that his Facebook public figure activist page is a RS for this. He was very open first about asserting he was a Nobel laureate and then about retracting the claim when the IPPC and the Nobel committee clarified the issue. But I presently think this should be in a footnote due to the perception by some that there was something nefarious afoot, which never was. Yopienso (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

While I accept that you fully appreciate the need for any coverage to be careful, it's policy (WP:WELLKNOWN) that "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." [italics in the original] Unreliable sources are trying to parlay this clarification into a smear, we need multimple reliable third party coverage before we make an issue of it. . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because, as the talk page has demonstrated, readers come here to find out the facts about the Nobel claim after reading about it elsewhere, I submit that the article would be improved by telling them. This would be a case of WP:IAR.

Some may have read about it on the back jacket flap on Mann's book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, which says, "In 2007, he jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize along with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . ." Although Mann may not have written that himself, many readers would assume he did. In fact, most of us have probably read blogs pouncing on it as an Aha! moment. Mann makes no such claim in the book itself. It seems to me our article is improved by including the fact that he quickly clarified the point when it became an issue. Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with the Nobel Prize

After almost a week I've looked at the article again and have several suggestions I think will be fairly uncontroversial:

• The hockey stick is his best-known contribution to climate study, so should be named in the lede.
  

Suggestion: He is well-known for the "hockey stick graph," a product of his pioneering techniques to find patterns in past climate change and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."

• The Nobel Peace Prize is unquestionably prestigious, and Mann is proud of his contributions toward it, but it pales in comparison to other awards; first, because it is not scientific, and second, because his "share" in the prize is so small.

Suggestion for final sentence of first paragraph: The "hockey stick graph," based on the MBH99 paper, was highlighted in several parts of the report, and received wide publicity.

• The Nobel Prize should be covered in section 2.2, about the IPCC report. No mention of the confusion over who won it should be made there. (I have no draft to present.)
• The controversy over Mann's claim and clarification belongs in a new section under controversies.

Suggestion: Change the name of section 3 to "Controversies" and make section 1.1 the hockey stick and section 3.5 the Nobel Peace Prize. See my simultaneous post above. Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• The hockey stick is already named in the lede, in a clearer manner than proposed above.
• The Nobel Prize is covered under awards, why should it be covered in section 2.2 about the 2001 IPCC report? Don't forget it was awarded in 2007 for the IPCC work generally, not just that specific report.
• The alleged "controversy over Mann's claim and clarification" still lacks the required third party high quality coverage to meet BLP standards. Making a section about this is wildly disproportionate. . dave souza, talk 21:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

After another brief hiatus, I find several flaws in my suggestions, such as misidentifying some sentences and paragraphs to which I referred. I believe I could write an improved edition of the lede and several portions of the article that you would appreciate, but have decided it's not worth my effort. We would continue to disagree, however, on the controversy about the Nobel Prize, which he touted on the book jacket flap and years later in his lawsuit, and which was reported in the National Review Online, a RS, and on his activist Facebook page, a RS for his own views. So be it. Yopienso (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not rs. It is a journal of "opinion and analysis", not news, and Cooke was writing for "The Corner", their on-line blog. His best-known contribution is "Teach Holocaust Denial and be Proud of It" (May 9, 2014.)[7] Opinion pieces do not meet rs. TFD (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. The Corner, according to our article, consists of "postings from many of the site's editors and affiliated writers discussing the issues of the day." Any blog under the editorial review of a RS--which the National Review is--is reliable. Do you seriously suggest Cooke made up or distorted the phone conversation he reported? He's been with the NR for over 3 years and is no whacko.

Did you read Cooke's piece on the 8th-grade assignment on Holocaust denial, or were you fooled by the misleading headline? Yopienso (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I did read the article, although first I read a commentary about it in The American Thinker. It's a wacky idea and could be seen as holocaust trivialization.

The ""News organizations" section of the "Reliable sources" policy is clear. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The reason is that publications do not have editorial control over the "facts" presented in them. Many partisan columnists have in the past not correctly reported spoken words, the most well known lately perhaps was "You didn't build that." It could be that Wikipedia's standards for reliability and neutrality are too high, but that is an argument for the policy pages.

TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Rarely" ≠ "never."

Again, do you seriously suggest Cooke made up or distorted the phone conversation he reported? Has the editorial staff retracted or amended the piece?

The Romney campaign's spin on Obama's poorly enunciated idea has no relevance to Cooke's report of his phone call to the Nobel Committee. Yopienso (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, although I have no idea if it is an exact transcription of the call. Cooke does not say to whom he spoke, nor does the voice identified as "Nobel Committee" claim to have read Mann's claims. In any case it is a primary source. Indeed there are exceptions to policy on editorials, but our desire to discredit a living individual in order to discredit climate change science is not one of them. Wikipedia standards require that sources used for facts are reliable, that articles be based on secondary sources and that facts presented are considered significant in mainstream sources. It is especially important for biographies of living persons, regardless of whether they support or oppose mainstream science. In fact I have argued against editors who have tried to bend the rules to put right-wing writers in a bad light. TFD (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a direct, although inconclusive, answer on whether you are suggesting Cooke invented or distorted the phone conversation. Since you read the actual piece, you will have noticed Cooke included a recording of the conversation. The transcript omits some ums and ahs and minor interruptions. It says "an" once when the speaker said "this." But it's as faithful as such transcripts generally are. I categorically state I believe the call was genuine and the transcript is reliable.

Our "desire to discredit a living individual in order to discredit climate change science"? Not your desire nor mine; to whom are you speaking? As you know--if you read the email I sent you a month ago--I do not dispute anthropogenic warming, and I wrote 2 1/2 years ago, "I suggest the following as a compromise that maintains Mann's integrity and is informative to our readers." I was subsequently accused of "blatant whitewashing."

This conversation is not productive so far as improving the article goes, so I'll desist now. At least I made a stalwart, if vain, attempt to bring common sense into this issue. Please feel free to have the last word. I wish you well. Yopienso (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

The numbers in the first sentence of the current revision do not add up:

Michael E. Mann (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years.

Do the math. I have. If Mann has been contributing to the science of climate change for two thousand years, he cannot have been born in 1965. -- ô¿ô 00:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-jiggered to avoid longevity and odd 2000/1000 conflict with the hidden link. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations..."

The article currently states, "They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations...", however the article neglects to mention what the allegations actually were. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've added the allegations, quoting from the cited document (Foley, Scaroni, and Yekel) that exonerated him. Yopienso (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reiterating false accusations looks like an attack page, I've simplified it to what the cited document summarises it as, accusations of research misconduct. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense; it's part of the story. Bill O'Reilly's very much alive, and we repeat allegations of conversations about vibrators and sexual fantasies. We repeat allegations of "willful, wanton, arbitrary, and egregious official misconduct" against Chris Christie. We repeat allegations of sexual misconduct against William Kennedy Smith that were dismissed. Etc., etc., etc. Please restore. Yopienso (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll just tuck them into the footnote. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Thereza Imanishi-Kari BLP provides an example of repeating allegations of scientific research against a living person. Yopienso (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was a really bad example, with a focus on the allegations rather than her exoneration, and misrepresentation of sources. Have tried to bring it up to BLP standards. . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If I were into barnstars I'd give you one for that clean-up. But your improvement still tells the reader what the accusation was--you didn't leave it at professional or research misconduct, but specified the fraud unit "accused Dr. Imanishi-Kari in 1991 of falsifying data." To me, that's proper, because the reader should know what the investigation was about. I put the allegations against Mann into the footnote as a compromise; feel free to move them up into the article. Yopienso (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit?

Nothing in the article about Mann's lawsuit with National Review? Very little about the claim allegedly made by him that he is a "Nobel Prize Winner"? Okay, I guess pending lawsuits involve a lot of tricky questions for Wikipedia, but many people would never have heard of Michael E. Mann without the suit and would come here looking for more information about his case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.104.9 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. See the section above: reliable sources are only now becoming available, we need to review these and write cautiously as required for a BLP.
2. You mean the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which was welcomed by the IPCC chair with the words "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee", and IPCC certificates were sent to those who had contributed substantially to the preparation of reports. Quite a few of those who received the certificates thought they had jointly received the prize along with the other scientists, but after a stushie in 2012 the IPCC issued a clarification that "it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner".
3. Doubtless some people managed to pay no attention to all the attacks, publicity, congressional hearings and legal cases about Mann and somehow only heard about this lawsuit. We can only include information about the case that has been published by reliable sources, and must not give it undue weight. At the moment it's achieved far less prominence than the Cooch case. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• There's what appears to be a fair-minded article on the lawsuit at Newsweek: A Change in the Legal Climate by Kurt Eichenwald January 30, 2014. Looks like a good RS basis for a lawsuit section in our article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree that lawsuit should be included as RSs become available, with due care as a BLP and remembering WP is not a newspaper. Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'ts now included, and I've clarified it using Newsweek as one of the sources. Maybe it goes into excessive detail of the CEI/NR allegations, we could trim that a bit by briefly describing the allegations rather than quoting them. . dave souza, talk 07:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. Yopienso (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

CEI and National Review won their appeal. It probably should be noted in the article that the ACLU and several Reporters organizations have filed Amicus Briefs in the case. The court accepted the ACLU's argument in favor of CEI and National Review in its totality, actually order the ACLU brief be filed as its response. Here is the order. [8]Poodleboy (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different court, and doesn't say what you think it says: their appeal was rendered moot, confirming the case was to go before a new judge. In January 2014 the appeals court under the new judge made the ruling discussed in the article. . dave souza, talk 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The arstechnica article is a better source than the newsweek article, it probably should be used instead or in addition, since the details are clearer in it. Perhaps the order should be added as a reference as well. It will be interesting if the ACLU's continues to make filings in the case. Poodleboy (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point, I've added the Ars ref in addition to Newsweek. I've a vague memory that the ACLU was concerned about the right to appeal in principle rather than specifics of the case, no doubt we'll hear eventually. . dave souza, talk 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Amazing how some people's selective memories always redound to the benefit of Mann. The brief signed by the ACLU, along with many others, did not just concern itself with when one could file an anti-SLAPP appeal. It also addressed the merits of the case, as this quote from Reuters makes clear: "A broad array of civil liberties groups from the right and the left, along with two dozen media companies and journalism organizations, has turned out to back National Review and CEI, arguing that free speech will be endangered if defendants can’t dispose of libel suits via anti-SLAPP motions. They also argue that the National Review and CEI attacks on Mann were opinions about matters of public importance..."(italics mine). The assertion that the briefs only concerned a broad "right to appeal" is simply false which comes as no great surprise given the rest of the BS in defense of Mann that appears on this talk page. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reuters? Link, please. We cover the issue in "The CEI and National Review argued that the case should be dismissed under SLAPP legislation, and that they had merely been using exaggerated language which was acceptable against a public figure". The case is still in progress and obviously this isn't the place to give undue weight to attacks on a living person, or the generic principle that such attacks are supposedly a matter of free speech. . dave souza, talk 03:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dave on this issue; amicus attacks on the merits of the case do not appear legally relevant at this stage; if the ACLU supports the publishers at a later stage, that might be of interest. If the ACLU made a public statement of support, that might also be of interest, but the amicus briefs do not appear relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• A further paragraph was added about the 11 August 2014 amici curiae brief which I reworded to comply with the court filing which had been put in as a source, but then I realised that WP:BLPPRIMARY policy is specific that we "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I've tried hunting for a better source, but the best was another court document, like the brief put online by factions opposing Mann. Please find a good secondary source and discuss it here before readding information about this most recent appeal against SLAPP dismissal. ... dave souza, talk 20:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sean Higgins wrote in the Washington Examiner about the brief. This is not the best of sources, but the most recent discussion of whether the Examiner is a RS was inconclusive, and centered on its recruitment of amateur writers. Higgins, however, is a paid professional who previously wrote for Investor's Business Daily. Therefore, I suggest it as the secondary source you request. Yopienso (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a better one: "Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views" by Barnini Chakraborty, Aug. 14, 2014, FoxNews.com.

Also, Mark Steyn himself makes the same assertion, so the court document supports the living person's own assertion.

We know this brief was, in fact, filed, so let's say so. Yopienso (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are required to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and Chakraborty's second paragraph is blatant nonsense undermining his reputation. This is Mann's bio, not Steyn's, so we can't use Steyn's self-published claims, but I've left the name of his counsel in, hoping that a better source turns up. . dave souza, talk 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the blurb on the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website. Yopienso (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can probably accept that as a reasonably reputable source and a straightforward statement, so have edited accordingly. The section was getting overweighted with arguments against Mann's case, so I've added a statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists showing scientific and journalistic support for him. Ir this keeps expanding, we may have to reduce it to a summary and split the content off into a sub-article. . . dave souza, talk 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how you can call this "blatant nonsense undermining his reputation":

Michael Mann, a prominent professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has long been a target of climate change skeptics for his work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades, and has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data.

I can imagine you would object to the word "claiming" and would prefer "demonstrating," but that would be a quibble, not blatant nonsense. Since everything in the paragraph is true and verifiable, I'm adding the article as a source.

• Also, I'm reinserting Kornstein's page showing that he is representing Mark Steyn.
• I disagree that "the section was getting overweighted with arguments against Mann's case. In fact, I don't see any, so am putting one in.
• FYI, but not as something to add to the article, Time, Inc., NBC, NPR, Gannett, McClatchy, News Corp, The NYT, The WP, The National Press Club, Dow Jones (!!), the ACLU, and many others, are amici curiae of the National Review and CEI.
• If the section gets bloated, I suggest eliminating details about Steyn, particularly his counsel. Yopienso (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the blatant nonsense, Mann's work is paleoclimate, not "work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades". Mann uses data collected and published by others, not "his data", and when has he sued groups about trying to "debunk" it?
• The defense is covered by "they had merely been using exaggerated language which they said was acceptable against a public figure", and "the comments at issue were constitutionally protected as opinion". The Fox News sourced opinion merely states the same thing in exaggerated language, so I'll remove that. As for counsel, previously Steyn's site was highlighted, the link to the counsel's page looks ok. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you biased against using Fox News as a source? That isn't an opinion piece, but an article in their political section. Our article agrees, He was promoted to full professor in 2009 and to "Distinguished Professor of Meteorology" in 2013. Doesn't say "paleoclimatology." His whole mission has become to convince Americans that temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades because of human activity and that we need to reverse the trend. P. xvi of his book The Hockey Stick . . . says the graph shows "that a sharp and highly unusual rise in atmospheric warming was occurring on Earth." On March 18, 2014, he wrote in Scientific American, "The dramatic nature of global warming captured world attention in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the 'hockey stick.'" The data Mann collects becomes "his data." He sued Tim Ball and the Frontier Center For Public Policy for libel. Ball makes a living out of trying to debunk Mann's data. Principia Scientifica--associated with Ball, writes, "Ball was the underdog made into the accidental hero of the climate wars story. He helped pave the way towards a new open platform for principled scientists on the Internet so that independent, unpaid researchers debunking the so-called 'greenhouse gas theory', the cornerstone of the pseudo-science of all global warming alarmism are finally being heard." That's their perspective, as Mann well knows. And so do you; I honestly don't get your objection. I'm restoring the Fox article as a source along with the link to the court document.

Shulman speaks for scientists, not journalists; virtually the entire US MSM has signed up in support of Steyn. Or rather, of Steyn's right to express rubbish. Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, Mann analyses (proxy) data collected by others, his work shows a declining trend in temperatures over the past thousand years or so. This contrasts with th modern instrumental record put together by others, which shows that "temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades". The famous MBH99 Hockey stick graph uses the instrumental record published by Jones and Briffa and credits them accordingly. I've not seen a reliable source for Ball's claims, but you should realize that data isn't theory: debunking "the so-called 'greenhouse gas theory'" says virtually nothing about Mann's work, the only connection is that his paleoclimate findings are consistent with the theory put together by others. Shulman speaks for scientists and for himself as a journalist, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press ably speaks for journalists. Hence some approximate balance. We can hope for some better sources to cover the outcome of this interminable law case in the New Year, so best wishes for then. Speaking of lawsuits, I think I'll now listen to The Makropulos Affair again, in holiday mood. All the best, . dave souza, talk 18:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not biased against using Fox News as a source, but I still recognise the piece is poorly researched. I'm perplexed by your decision to support the misleading suggestion that Mann initiated legal proceedings against Tim Ball simply for trying to debunk his data (which is nonsense). Really Yopienso, your reasoning here is very unsound. — TPX 18:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

But, Dave, Mann's work shows an abrupt upturn at the end of the declining trend! He became an activist about the sudden warming, not the slow cooling.

One way Ball and Steyn try to "debunk" is by casting aspersions, just like Greg Laden and Richard Littlemore do in return. (Nasty blogosphere out there! Defame = debunk?)
Note how the SA refers to "Mann's data points," "his raw data," and "his data."
But let's not spend the holidays fussing over semantics. :) The section looks quite good to me now. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Just to note that if Chakraborty had written of Mann's work "claiming" that the measured 20th century upturn came at the end of a millenial declining trend, she'd have been right, but she didn't.

Mann started trying to show that the recent upturn was partly due to cycles including the AMO, but came under attack and by arguing back "became an activist" (instead of an inactivist?). In my understanding, defame means personal attack, debunk means disprove: Steyn's method is defamation by libel.

The SA quotes you cite are from a sentence starting with "A community skeptical of human-induced warming argued that Mann's data points...", this describes the contrarian arguments which Chakraborty repeats uncritically. Before that, the SA article correctly says the MBH method "analyzed paleoclimatic data sets" etc. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The defamation lawsuit section is poorly written. First, these sections should not begin by outlining alleged defamatory statements but by saying that Mann has filed suit for defamation. There is also excessive detail. No one except a tiny group of people with idiosyncratic views about cares what the National Review or Mark Steyn have to say about anything. And if the mainstream media, except for Fox News, ignores the details of the case it is because they are unimportant and fail weight. This is all better placed in a website dedicated to things like smoking does not cause cancer, the moon-landing was faked and professional wrestling is real. TFD (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, while the more detailed context can help understanding and may eventually be useful, there's an argument for trimming it drastically, as I've suggested above. Want to have a go at it? . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Dave, Chakraborty wasn't outlining Mann's whole career; she was telling the reader what skeptics have been so upset about, which is his assertions of dramatic warming in recent decades. I.e., his hockey stick graph and its economic, political, and social ramifications. Not AMO. Here you can see that Ball made his allegedly libelous statement in the context of trying to disprove global warming. Chakaborty's assertion,"has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data," seems to refer to Mann's suing Ball and the FCPP. Like bloggers on the other side, Ball and Steyn and others blend defamation and debunking into a nasty mix.
• I quoted from the SA to show that it is normal to refer to data a researcher uses as "his" (or hers) regardless of who collected it. In his own voice, Appell said, "More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data." That piece, btw, shows that attacks against Mann are because of the hockey stick, not his previous work. And yes, he's an activist, as he laid out in the NYT. That's why he started a climate blog and a Facebook page and wrote a book.
• TFD, the section reads chronologically. I agree it would be better to start with a topic sentence on Mann's bringing a suit, and then explain why. As I said above, details about Steyn are unnecessary, although his alleged libel does need to be treated. Fox News is reliable for news. Michael Mann isn't in the MSM much, either, except for his own writing. Not much secondary stuff on him outside the blogosphere. Yopienso (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Fox News is rs, but the issue is not rs, it is Balancing aspects. For example, one could write a reliably sourced article Obama where 90% of it was about his relationships with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. But it would not be a neutral article because it would place undue emphasis. That Fox News and only Fox News gives it so much coverage is evidence that its emphasis promotes a U.S. conservative bias. If people want their sources of information to present that bias, they can always tune into Fox News. TFD (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been said several times before, but let me repeat it. Mann's claim to fame are his reconstruction of temperatures over the last about 2000 years. These are based on various proxies. They make up the "handle" of the hockey stick - a very slight decline with some variation. The "dramatic upturn" is from actual measured temperature records, and is essentially the same for the all the major instrumental temperature records, including HadCRUT, NASA GISTEMP, and Berkeley Earth. It's not the result of Mann's work, although he does, of course, cite the instrumental record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

TFD, faulty logic there; you can't reject a RS because other RSs haven't covered the issue.

Stephan, WP isn't a scientific journal. The section of this encyclopedic article is about Mann's defamation suit against Mark Steyn. As Mother Jones puts it, "Michael Mann, the perennially embattled climate scientist best known for his "hockey-stick" temperature graph. . ." That's what his book is about. The thrust of his activism is to defend the hockey stick, not his research in paleoclimatology. Steyn isn't disputing that. (I don't think you'll mind my indenting your text.) Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso, the hockey stick IS paleoclimatology. That's why Fox News is a bad source for this specific case, a business journalist with apparently no knowledge of the science opining on a scientific issue, and misleading readers. . dave souza, talk 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The UPTURNED BLADE of the hockey stick. We're all aware of the controversy over how he combined proxy data with instrumental temperature records. Yopienso (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso, see Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." In this case since only Fox News reports it, the policy would mean we should exclude it. TFD (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is cited for the basics of the amicus brief, Fox News is a party to that brief, clearly isn't a third party source, and doesn't really add anything. I've left the Fox reference there, but would be happy to see it removed. . dave souza, talk 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Taking into account the suggestion of The Four Deuces above, I've revised the section to tighten it a bit and start with the context that "Attacks on the work and reputation of climatologists continued, and Mann discussed with colleagues the need for a strong response when they were slandered or libelled." I've trimmed the alleged defamatory statements to what I think is a reasonable minimum for readers to understand the issues. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nit-pick about a false statement in the article

The article currently reads, in part, "... and concluded that there was no evidence of manipulation of data." That sentence is false for the primary and secondary usage of the word "manipulate." Data that are not manipulated are usually worthless; it was and it is the job of the CRU to manipulate climatology data. One can assume the writer meant the tertiary usage of the word "manipulate." Perhaps the article could be changed to reflect the fact that the data manipulation the CRU did in the past (and still does) was found to be non-fraudulent, and was found to be scientifically correct. As a science communicator, I think events that are controversial among non-scientists (such as the fake "climategate" hoax) need to be explained with hyper precision, and saying there was no evidence of data being manipulated is lazy. Data exist to be manipulated: that is what data are for. --Desertphile (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've inserted the word "inappropriate" per the Inspector General's letter to Sen. Inhofe. YoPienso (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent criteria for sources

Tillman, you just removed the qualifier, "who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax," after the name of Senator Inhofe, with the edit summary, "WP:BLP." Can you please explain your rationale? It sets Inhofe's request in context, and I can't see how it's out of place in a BLP on Mann. Neither do I see how it's wrong to ascribe that to Inhofe; I sourced it to his 2012 book entitled, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

But I don't have particularly strong feelings about that line. What bothers me is that in considering it, I went to Jim Inhofe's BLP, where I found the use of kinds of sources that are never allowed in this one on Michael Mann. Personally, I think if we know something is true, the 5th pillar WP:IAR lets us ignore the most stringent rules on sourcing, like not using blogs or tabloids. But that's just how I "plead the 5th." :) Nonetheless, we should be consistent--if the BLPs on climate activists, specifically, Mann, can be cited only to impeccable sources, so should the BLPs on climate deniers, specifically, Inhofe, and vice versa.

Technically unqualified sources I found in one section:

• Inhofe on Voice of Christian Youth America's radio program 8 March 2012 James Inhofe Says the Bible Refutes Climate Change

This poorly cited ref is from Right Wing Watch, the organ of a partisan advocacy group.

• Leber, Rebecca (November 5, 2014). "Congratulations, Voters; You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment". NewRepublic.com. Retrieved December 17, 2014.

• Plumer, Bradford (February 10, 2011). "Is This What The Climate-Change Debate Has Come To?". The New Republic. Retrieved March 16, 2011.

The New Republic is an editorial magazine.

• "James Inhofe proves "flat Earth" doesn't refer to Oklahoma.". Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, April 13, 2004."

• Charles P. Pierce. "In Praise of Oklahoma". The American Prospect. February 23, 2005.

The American Prospect is a partisan political magazine.

• Four refs cited to primary sources--Inhofe's speeches in the Senate, whereas at this article "use primary sources with care" generally means "Don't use Mann's own words unless several MSM articles repeat them." Three are now dead links, while the fourth lists Marc Morano as a contact. Nothing bearing Morano's name is permitted on Mann's article.

N.B., I am not contesting the use of those sources; I'm protesting that reliable partisan sources or Mann's own words aren't admitted here. Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed this clause, as it was tagged for a cite, which wasn't supplied (and the tag removed). In any case, it's a gratuitous swipe that's irrelevant to that para.

Yes, I've also noted the double standard. Worth persevering to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced BLP material. Even for politicians. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Somehow you missed that I added a cite to his book titled Hoax, etc., 13 min. after you tagged it. About an hour later Dave added a ref that quotes Inhofe thusly: "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of 'manipulation of data.'" He's now undone your revision, which I think is proper. Without the clause, Inhofe's motive is misunderstood. It seems clear that he called for the investigation not so much as an impartial Senator concerned with fraud, but as a climate denier in a position of power. That's how I interpret this 2010 article in The Guardian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 08:54, 7 January 2015‎

• Inhofe speech July 28, 2003, in which he disputed Mann's work: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."[9] . . dave souza, talk 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why you posted that, but I rather doubt it was to provide a precedent for including as a reference in this article a court document in which Mann's paid counsel wrote on his behalf, "As the result of this research, Dr. Mann and his associates were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize" (p. 2, paragraph 2). Yet that's precisely what it does, if you're saying that's a RS for Inhofe's views. I agree it is, and so is the lawsuit for Mann's. And so are his public figure (not private individual) Facebook page, the jacket flap of his book, and his old Penn State web page.

We all know that Inhofe has repeatedly called global warming a hoax, and that, until the IPCC issued the clarification, Mann repeatedly claimed to have won, or to have shared in the award of, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Yopienso (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Posted it simply as a source confirming Bloomberg's (and our) wording, it's a public statement by Inhofe. Thanks for providing a reference to Inhofe's book, either source seems good to me. It's not a court document, and as discussed earlier there's specific WP:BLPPRIMARY policy that we don't use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

If what anyone has said about sharing the IPCC's half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is significant, there will be reliable secondary sources explaining the significance: we shouldn't go hunting for what they've said and adding it to all their bios. That's the difficulty with a developing situation, much appreciate your help with this. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to say that Inhofe called global warming a hoax because that is in the Bloomberg article.[10] The relevance is that he was an opponent of Mann's opinions and thought that an investigation would discredit it. It is not a good idea however to use primary sources, since they could inject synthesis. Adding that someone thinks global warming is a hoax tends to discredit anything they say or do. That is why right-wing media are eager to discredit Mann over alleged Nobel claims. If he was wrong on that, he is wrong on global warming. TFD (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No one (except Mann) denies that he once claimed to have shared the Nobel prize. No one (that I can think of) claims that Inhofe does not claim that global warming is a hoax. However, the first is more relevant to this article than the second. That the sources that support the first are more right-wing than those that support the second shouldn't affect reliability or significance. To clarify, there are no unbiased reliable sources which support the significance of the second, and no sources which support its significance to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Mann denying that he erroneously believed/claimed he had won part of a Nobel Prize. As soon as the IPCC defined the matter, he accepted that he had "contributed toward" the prize but had not "been awarded" any portion of it. To me, the fact that he changed documents and stopped making the claim was the best way he could rectify his prior error. My rub is with WP editors who deny (or suppress the fact on technicalities) that he initially made the claim. Yopienso (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Care is needed with accuracy about language here, and I've not seen Mann claiming he "had won part of a Nobel Prize". The flysheet of his 2012 book says "he jointly received", the lawsuit press release he put on his Facebook page says "he was awarded". Of course in both instances the third person implies that it wasn't written by Mann. . . dave souza, talk 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." It does not say that we should balance mainstream media with U.S. libertarian blogs. While it maybe that Bloomberg News is a biased left-wing source, it nonetheless is considered mainstream media. Note that they do not mention Inhofe's views on global warming in order to challenge his judgment, but to explain why he challenged Mann. Certainly you do not think he would have challenged the report if happened to support his views on global warming. I doubt too that it would have attracted the attention of so many editors. TFD (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have little doubt that Bloomberg News wouldn't have mentioned Inhofe's views if they didn't consider it relevant, but they didn't say it was relevant, and many, even academic, papers have digressions not really related to the theme of the article. It still seems synthesis to assert its relevance even to the extent of using it. In addition, it's even more of a "passing mention" than comments about the Peace Prize in mainstream media. In other words, Mann's statements about the Nobel Piece Peace prize are relevant, but not important. Inhofe's views on global warming are, perhaps, important, but not relevant. (They almost certainly should be mentioned in Inhofe's article.) We probably should include neither here, in the absence of reliable sources asserting facts and relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Inhofe has a history of attacking Mann's work going back at least to 2003, so his intervention is relevant, as discussed by Bloomberg. As you say, good sources are needed for anything about the "Nobel" allegations, which should really be discussed in a new talk section if you're proposing some. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Dave's comment of 16:56, 7 January 2015, thanks for explaining why you posted the source. But you're doing just what I'm talking about--presenting a public document, forbidden by the excerpt you pasted in from WP:BLPPRIMARY, and without the requisite secondary source. ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.") And, to use your word, it's "stale." Why is all that OK for a BLP about Inhofe, but not for one about Mann? Again, because both men have repeatedly made their opinions abundantly clear in public, I think WP:IAR applies. To both. Yopienso (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I should perhaps have made it clearer at the time that this is a primary source supplementing the Bloomberg article. Regarding "stale", this was discussed above with reference to a legal news posting that was superseded by the more recent appeal hearing and the revised defamation suit filed by Mann's lawyer. Don't know if that source has discussed the changes, if it's important I'd have expected them to note it. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Was a consensus reached regarding the clause about Inhofe? It has been removed again [11] TimOsborn (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I've restored it. Pete seems to be zealously trying to give equal validity to fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Multiple reliable sources are available to confirm Inhofe's reputation for making claims that global warming science is a hoax. His own April 1, 2012, book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is evidence of that, but it's really a primary source and the publisher WorldNutDaily Books has a dubious reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The most academic source I've found so far is John S. Dryzek; Richard B. Norgaard; David Schlosberg (18 August 2011). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0. The single most prominent Republican when it comes to climate change denial is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, famous for claiming in a Senate speech that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'  {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) My understanding is that OUP books like this are peer-reviewed.
With greater relevance to Mann and the CRU email inquiries, a scholarly book published by Routledge Explorations in Environmental Studies: Gerald Kutney (3 February 2014). Carbon Politics and the Failure of the Kyoto Protocol. Routledge. pp. 107–109, 110–111. ISBN 978-1-317-91466-2. His infamous 'hoax' accusation appeared at the start of this long speech, and three more times near its end {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). These included "I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" as well as "With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is." In October 2004 he repeated on the Senate floor "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He issued a 20-page brochure under the seal of the US Senate, The Facts and Science of Climate Change which repeated the hoax claim and in a section titled "The IPCC Plays Hockey" disputed what it said was Mann's flawed, limited research. In August 2005 Inhofe invited fiction writer Michael Crichton to speak in the Senate as an "expert witness" disputing Mann's research. Inhofe had a leading role in a minority group Senate report, "Legal and Policy Issues in the CRU Controversy", published in February 2010. It presented claims that emails demonstrated unethical and possibly illegal behaviour, and listed as "Key Players" 17 scientists including Mann and Jones. On 26 May Inhofe formally requested the OIG to investigate the issues in relation to NOAA, it found no major issues or inappropriate actions. In his 2012 book The Greatest Hoax, Inhofe proposed slashing the budget of the "rogue" EPA, and stated "My point is, God's still up there…. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
That's a mixture of quote and summary by myself, it seems to me a better source than Inhofe's book for the statement we've already attributed to Bloomberg, so I'll substitute it. The detail should be useful in the Jim Inhofe article, though the book also covers other aspects less directly related to Mann. . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a source for relevance. I'm sure one can be found, but it is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Kutney and Bloomberg show clear relevance: the latter states "NOAA’s report, released in February, was requested by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who called the theory of man-made climate change a hoax. The report found no evidence of “manipulation of data.” Alternatively, we could summarise Kutney's account of how Inhofe as a long-term opponent of Mann's work used the emails to make further allegations before going a step further and arranging the investigation. Either way, it's important to show the context that this investigation was arranged by a politician opposed to Mann's science. The various accounts of the NOAA investigation take care to show Inhofe's position on the science. . dave souza, talk 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Climategate?

It's more helpful to the reader who hasn't followed the years of wrangling on the name of the event and article to include ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy, which is a name wholly invented by Wikipedians who personally object to the common name, Climategate. Five years ago Jimbo Wales called the contrived name "a pretty silly title that no one uses." The full article includes (also known as "Climategate") immediately after the contrived title and eight more times in the body of the article, plus once in the infobox as an aka; "Climategate" is ubiquitous in the RSs. Burying the common name in the paragraph isn't helpful, although permitting it there is a helpful step forward.

I propose including ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy. YoPienso (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's okay, the name was a propaganda spin anyway, see WP:NOT. If you want to change something add the note in the front sentence on that section. Nvm, it is in the lede of that section. prokaryotes (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify. Do you mean the section is OK without adding ('Climategate')?

NB: Calling the event by its common name in no way "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind."

The name began as a smear, but is now the common name. Even Mann uses it. YoPienso (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso, the term is not very common in reliable sources. Look at Google News for instance, most article who use the term are not considered reliable, or there are articles which point out the lackings of the term. The name is mentioned, it is explained. That's it.prokaryotes (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why would we use a news reporters catchy jargon phrase in a header? Are we implying the "email controversy" was as significant as the original "watergate"? Yes newspapers and TV news folk like a catchy phrase: "deflategate" ... "whatevergate"; but a section header is not a newspaper headline - designed to grab viewers' attention and sell papers or attract more viewers to a newscast. A mention of the word in the body of the article/section should be adequate. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Direct responses facilitate clear communication.

Prokaryotes, your indirect response indicates that in your opinion the subtitle is OK without adding 'Climategate' in parentheses. You are mistaken that the term is not very common in RSs. See here.

Vsmith, we would use the catchy jargon phrase because nearly every publication does. We imply nothing about Climategate's significance compared to Watergate; we merely follow the common usage. The section header should be meaningful to the average reader. This is absolutely supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is typically compared and contrasted to Encyclopedia Britannica, which has an update titled "Climategate."

Please provide a factual, policy-based reason why we should not add 'Climategate' in parentheses in the section header. YoPienso (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Kerry Emanuel of MIT unhesitatingly called the event "Climategate." YoPienso (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a RS, but a severe critic of skeptics, RationalWiki says: ""Climategate" is the most common term that the media and blogosphere gave to a relatively effective manufactroversy . . ."

I propose we move this discussion to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. — TPX 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso, you link to 5 year old or older lists of news article. When you look at Google News, the term is no longer used, unless you consider unreliable sources. Leave it as it is, because it is already explained. For a rule see WP:Undue. prokaryotes (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that i do not object to rename the other page TPX, Yopienso prokaryotes (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually when the term "Climategate" appeared in mainstream sources, it was in "scare quotes." It was not a scandal, but a manufactured controversy and the actions of writers "exposing" the story is far more important than the actual story itself. TFD (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@TPX: No, this discussion has to do with editing this article, not the CRU-ec article.

@Prokaryotes: Thanks for your clear answer. Climategate is no longer news; it's history. WP preserves all notable history. While Climategate was notable, it was not of wide interest outside the environmentalist and denialist communities. There is no need to find current news on an old(ish) topic. But if you insist, on its 5th anniversary, Kevin Grandia wrote about Climategate in the HuffPo. The Guardian harked back to it in March, 2015.

Where is it already explained?

Giving the common name of the event does not violate WP:UNDUE. Michael E. Mann himself boldly uses the term; how silly to say it's undue in his BLP!

@TFD: I don't see what your comment has to do with my proposal. I'm not discussing the event itself, but requesting that we put the common name in parentheses after the made-up Wikipedia name in a subtitle so readers of the BLP will know what the heck the section is about. YoPienso (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso, you missing the point, my argument refers to the current mention of Climategate in this very article. Thus, I don't understand why you want to add it another time. prokaryotes (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! By "already" I thought you meant "previously in the article," but you meant "presently." I think the subtitle is the most important place to identify the name with the common one, but typically a [sub]title's contents/meaning is developed in the body. Therefore, it's not overkill to have it in both the subtitle and the body. Having it in the body is better than not having it at all, though, and may be a necessary compromise of our differing views. But if we can't agree to twice, I would opt for once in the subtitle since most readers look at subtitles before or instead of the body. Otherwise, we have a subtitle unintelligible to all but the initiated.

Obviously, if the CRU-ec article were redirected to Climategate, it would be wrong to retain the present subtitle. But the title of that article doesn't bother me since both Google and the internal WP search tool take readers to the correct article with the manufactured title. In fact, I rather favor keeping that title since it gives the reader a heads-up that the article is skewed.

My objective is to improve WP to serve our readers better. YoPienso (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso your first source refers to the "so-called "Climategate" incident." As I wrote above, usually when the term "Climategate" appeared in mainstream sources, it was in "scare quotes." It was not a scandal, but a manufactured controversy and the actions of writers "exposing" the story is far more important than the actual story itself. TFD (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso make a voting then - including change x to y suggestion? prokaryotes (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Climategate is in the article; and this isn't the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article to which the old newsjargon redirects. There is no need for the climategate jargon to be in any header. Vsmith (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@TFD, So what? Grandia introduces the topic as the so-called "Climategate" incident, then uses Climategate without scare quotes 13 more times. But even if he used the scare quotes all 14 times, no matter--the point is, he uses the term. Please notice my suggestion uses scare quotes. It is precisely because the event is so-called that adding ('Climategate') clarifies the subtitle. We agree we want the clearest possible article, ¿no? Adding the common name IN PARENTHESES AND SCARE QUOTES clarifies the WP jargon. Adding, not replacing. Why are you repeating that it wasn't a scandal but a m. c.? What does that have to do with my proposal? Nothing!

@Prokaryotes, No need for a vote; we're having a discussion. In any case, "votes" (requests for comments) aren't assessed by the number of editors who support or reject a proposal, but by the strength of their arguments. None of you have offered factual, policy-based arguments for rejecting my proposal.

@Vsmith, My point isn't to make sure by golly to shoehorn the term "Climategate" into this article. My point is to make the article intelligible to the average reader by adding in parentheses and scare quotes the common name that clarifies the obscure WP jargon.

To all editors: Here's my original proposal:

I propose including ('Climategate') after the subtitle, CRU email controversy.

Note that user Sodium Fluoride had done so (w/o scare quote) at 04:07, 24 August 2015‎ with the edit summary Use common terminology and was reverted several hours later by TPX. I thought and think S.F.'s addition improved the article. YoPienso (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it unencyclopedic because it gives the impression that a manufactured controversy was in fact a scandal. Bear in mind too that this is a BLP, and we should be cautious by avoiding giving credence to allegations we know are false. TFD (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a clear answer. I appreciate seeing where you're coming from.

• Do you think the digital yearbook of the Encyclopedia Britannica is less encyclopedic than Wikipedia? It's written by Martin Fisher, editor of Oryx, a Cambridge journal of conservation.
• Do you realize that some RSs (such as the EB yearbook) do call Climategate a scandal?
• Do you realize that by some definitions (e.g, "malicious or defamatory gossip) you would call the CRU-ec a scandal?
• Do you realize that Mann, the subject of this BLP, titled Chap. 14 of his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars "Climategate: The Real Story"? He used the term dozens of times, mostly without scare quotes.
• In no way does adding the clarifying common name give credence to allegations we know are false. The narrative is clear.
• I don't think Mann would object to the clarification in his BLP, and I do think that per policy (WP:NDESC and WP:NEWSORG) we should add ('Climategate') per "non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title."
• I'm sure you realize that I think the your fear of attaching scandal to Mann's reputation by calling the controversy--in scare quotes and parentheses, solely for clarification--by it's common name is unfounded.

Thanks for your care for Dr. Mann and for your courtesy as a WP editor. YoPienso (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso, asking us rhetoric questions isn't really a great way to communicate something, i personally tend to ignore these. The article about CG is called CRU email controversy, hence why we use here CRU email controversy as well.prokaryotes (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

They're not rhetorical. YoPienso (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i don't understand why you asking these questions. Notice also this is a BLP article, and a section title with Gate init is very sensational.There are now several answers to your request.prokaryotes (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked to find out your understanding/opinion of those points.

• If you think the EB yearbook is less encyclopedic than WP, I disagree since the EB is the standard general reference encyclopedia. If you think it is equally or more encyclopedic, then your argument that using the term "Climategate" is unencyclopedic fails.
• If you realize some RSs call Climategate a scandal, you will be willing to follow the sources.
• If you realize "scandal" may have different connotations for some people you won't so strongly insist on avoiding its use.
• If you realize Mann himself liberally uses the term you won't feel it's an affront to him if we use it as a clarifier and not a smear.

Those were all the questions. I don't see the several answers to my request. But you're under no obligation to comply.

One more point (not a question): The article about CG is called CRU email controversy, but is clarified as (also known as "Climategate"). Not in the title, but at the beginning of the very first sentence and in the infobox.

I stand by all I've stricken above and believe it's the best interpretation of policy and the best way to write the article. Nonetheless, I've looked at Dan Rather's BLP for "Rathergate," Janet Jackson's for "nipplegate," Rupert Murdoch's for "MurdochGate," and Sarah Palin's for "troopergate" and found consistent avoidance of such usage. Backing away now. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal Controversy

This legal controversy in which Mann thratens to sue the makes and distributors of a video is missing from this page. Msbaggott (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/04/20/climategates-mann-demands-hide-decline-video-be-removed-youtube

I can't find any reliable source for this. Google only shows me right-wing crackpot sites talking about it. Do you have a better source? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing issue, but it's been covered by foxnews [12]. I realize that some might argue that foxnews is in fact a "right-wing crackpot site", but this article seems quite factual and evenhanded. VirgilGilmour (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are five links in the article, all of them giving climate change deniers their say. No link to a pro-science site. A perfect example for the deniers' echo chamber, where those people quote only each other and thus multiply the lies. The e-mail theft is also narrated from the anti-science viewpoint: "a "trick" that Mann had used to get the graph to portray what global warming scientists wanted to see" is the spin the denial industry put on the story. The site may "seem" evenhanded if you don't know much about the climate change controversy and/or the relation between the mails themselves on one hand and what the thieves and fences make of them on the other, but it isn't. Since the article is also six years old, probably nothing came from the legal threat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand your opinion of the article, and perhaps I was wrong in calling it evenhanded, but that was tangential to the point I was making. I was simply responding to your request for a better source than "right-wing crackpot sites." Whether you think the article was "fair and balanced" or not, it's certainly a reputable enough source to cite in this article (and it would be perfectly fair to include reference to "a pro-science site."--VirgilGilmour (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just re-read the article, and you haven't described it accurately. There are four links in the article (not five). Not all of them were "giving climate change deniers their say." The first is a link to the youtube video the article is about. The second is a link the the organization represented by someone quoted in the article. The third links to an image of the letter Mann's lawyers sent (the link is dead but the archive can be seen here [13]. The fourth is to a whimsical letter from "Minnesotans for Global Warming," whose three members "jokingly think that Minnesota could use a little more heat." This article isn't even about whether climate change is real, so it's obviously not an "example of the deniers' echo chamber, where those people quote only each other." Moreover, they did reach out to Mann and his lawyers, but their only response was "we don't comment on any pending legal matters for clients."

Bottom line: the only fact the original poster wanted to include was that Mann had threatened to sue the makers of a video about him. This article (and the photo of his attorney's letter) clearly demonstrate that he did, and all this discussion of whether it's evenhanded or anti-science is completely irrelevant to that fact. If there's a "pro-science site" that disputes that Mann made such threats, by all means include a reference to it.--VirgilGilmour (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"it's certainly a reputable enough source to cite in this article" - Formally, yes. But that the rules allow it is not reason enough to include it. After all, we cannot use all sources the rules allow because that wuld blow all the articles out of proportion. We have to select, and quality and importance are the main criteria. Given its obvious spin-doctoring and the lack of any antidote link about the specific subject, it would be unwise to include it. This was six years ago, and since there is no better source than this propaganda piece, it is clearly not very important.

"The second is a link the the organization represented by someone quoted in the article." - No. You missed the Rush Limbaugh link, which is the second. It does not work anymore, but knowing Limbaugh, this is obviously more of the same.

"This article isn't even about whether climate change is real" - You seem not to know what climate change denial is all about. Deniers only want nothing done about climate change. They do not care what the reason for doing nothing is. Sometimes they say climate change is not happening, sometimes they say it has been happening all the time, sometimes they say humans didn't do it, sometimes they say it is too late anyway, sometimes they say it has positive consequences. "Minnesota could use a little more heat" is well within their rhetoric arsenal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Noisy data revert

My link to Noisy data was reverted with the comment "I saw that article, but I don't think it's what meant by the term here. He *is* dealing with noise that's way stronger than signal, but the way I understand it this really has more to do with freq. content, filtering, identification of outliers, etc.."

So there are two types of noisy data and we should also have an article on the type Mann is analyzing? His noisy data are not noisy in the sense of signal-to noise ratio? I don't get it. Wouldn't the link be helpful to readers who have no idea what "noisy data" means? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael E. Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629171730/http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/12577.php to http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/12577.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215071321/http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf to http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-global-warming-penn-state-0328%2C0%2C777593%2Cprint.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael E. Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608023138/http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf to http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael E. Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170713061721/http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf to http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127155042/http://live.psu.edu/story/63610 to http://live.psu.edu/story/63610

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Mann’s Case Against Tim Ball dismissed, subject to appeal

Time for an update! From what I gather, Mann has refused to back up the figures behind his "hockey stick" and thereby made the case a long lived, multi million dollar affair which Mann now might be ruled to pay. Written decision yet to come... – * "UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann "hides the decline" AGAIN". Watts up with that?. 22 August 2019. Retrieved 25 August 2019. ..... Rakeroot (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs a WP:RS which your source is not William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hint: Principia Scientific International isn't rs either, though apparently it's had amusing connections with Tim Ball. Please note WP:BLP. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I gather, Tim Ball's affidavit pled that he's 80, has lots of illnesses, his website didn't appear in many google searches for Mann, and its Alexa rating shows low ranking and low popularity so it couldn't have much effect on anyone's reputation. I paraphrase, a reliable source is awaited. . . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sources will come as this unfolds. Case highlights the secrecy of how the hockey stick was derived. This might be visible in reasons for dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeroot (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, to balance the heading a bit have noted it's subject to appeal. Might add this apparently was a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay, which Ball requested as he's too old, too ill, and hardly anyone read him anyway so he couldn't have damaged Mann's reputation. Again, I paraphrase, reliable sources needed. You seem to be misinformed about supposed "secrecy of how the hockey stick was derived", and might find hockey stick graph informative. Note the requirement for rs's is general. . . dave souza, talk 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look at hockey stick graph but didn't find anything about Mann's refusal to hand the court data and algorithms. Although it seems like a fact. Maybe we just have to dig deeper? Right now we have two alleged reasons for dismissal from the two corners of the courtroom, not necessarily conflicting. One I find interesting for having ramifications on the reputation and trustworthiness of Mann, the hockey stick and the climate debate. Other reasons are in danger of being interpreted as a defense for Mann, the consensus and the public opinion. In any case, hiding the facts is not the way to go. . . Rakeroot (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the problem is that climate change denying groups like the sources you've cited keep hiding the facts that the facts weren't hidden. Perhaps Hockey stick controversy#Congressional investigations is the bit you're thinking of, read the first four paragraphs with care. There's also a section about the Wegman Report, noting that despite congressman Waxman pressing Wegman to release the code Ritson had requested, Wegman still declined to "disclose the details of our methods" and Mann said "It would appear that Dr. Wegman has completely failed to live up to the very standards he has publicly demanded of others." . . dave souza, talk 11:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

After the Tim Weaver lawsuit victory, this makes Tim Ball 2-0 in court cases over his climate change skepticism. Ball will likely need to seize and auction Mann's house and car to fulfill the court order for Mann to pay Ball's legal expenses. Why would Mann choose to go broke than reveal his data and methodologies behind his research conclusions? 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, that is the question lurking in the background here. At the moment though, we don't have any reliable source as to what information Mann was asked for, or even if this was an issue for the court. Deadline I've seen is 2017 so this is no news per se. Problem seems to be polarization in the matter makes both sides report only what fits their greater cause. Rakeroot (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

|}

Data and methods

Regarding recent interest, the data for the MBH papers is available on an internet File Transfer Protocol server, as it has been from the outset. See the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration FTP page. In 2003 the National Science Foundation (NSF) confirmed that the full data and necessary methods information was available in full accordance with NSF requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work. NSF policy was that computer codes "are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure", but notwithstanding these property rights, by 18 July 2005 the actual fortran program used to implement the MBH98 procedure was also available: linked here.
For comparison with a 2013 dataset and reconstruction see Rahmstorf, Stefan (15 May 2013). "Paläoklima: Die letzten 2000 Jahre » KlimaLounge » SciLogs". KlimaLounge (in German). Retrieved 4 September 2019. (Thinkprogress translation) . . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Court documents as RS

Wait! Dave Souza, I can't believe you cited a detail about the Steyn case to a court document. For my part, I've never understood what's wrong with doing that; my personal opinion is that court documents are excellent and wholly reliable sources. But for at least the 10 yrs. or more I've worked on articles you were involved with, you've been a real stickler for following that rule and numerous times have blocked the addition of facts to an article because they were cited to court documents. What's up now? I find this irregular in your behavior, yet support it. Just asking for an explanation of the anomaly. If I had the time, I would try to get the policy changed. YoPienso (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right! Since we've ended up citing another case to a court document, and think this is reasonably uncontroversial, have given in and accepted that the policy does allow them to be used with care. There will be cases where court documents are unsuitable, and I'm open to persuasion, but gather you're ok with it in this instance. Will now try to get back to editing somewhat less controversial 19th century history, memory lapses permitting. . . dave souza, talk 16:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, then. YoPienso (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that the denial industry will now quote our article, concentrating on the "delay" part, as confirmation for their mendacious interpretation "Mann failed to lay open his data". Because the court document as a primary source does not expand what that delay means, they will fill the vacuum with lies. That is one reason a reliable secondary source would be better, if it existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What "rule" are we talking about? Court documents are great sources, if used correctly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically requires us to exercise extreme caution in using primary sources, and not use court records to support assertions about a living person. From 22 August there were multiple attempts to cover dismissal of the Ball case, based on blogs or CC denial sources. Mann's FB page and tweets had evidence it was dismissed for delay. When a primary court source was cited at Talk:Tim Ball giving only the fact that the case had been dismissed, I raised it at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball. That discussion (permalink) continued until the court judgment was published, so the current edits to both Ball's and Mann's bios are based on that primary source: if you think they can be improved, do so with care.
As far as I've found, there are only two reasonable mainstream secondary sources, and they're both in German. Pohlmann, Dirk (3 September 2019). "Der Klimaschwindel". Rubikon (in German). Retrieved 17 September 2019. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) google translate looks to me to be a good account, it notes fake claims and points out that the data and methods are available, and says the case "was discontinued because Professor Ball described himself as old, ill and implausible". There was some resistance at BLPN to the usability of the publication. Marjanovic, Petar (18 September 2019). "Klimaforscher Michael Mann erlebt Shitstorm nach Fake-News". Blick (in German). Retrieved 19 September 2019. is another source. If anyone, preferably better at Deutsch than me, wants to make the case for these, or if anyone can find a better source, that will be good. . . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems very strange that when the court decress says foo we may not report "the court said foo" but have to wait until we can say "Y said the court said foo". But thanks, I didn't know that was in BLPPRIMARY NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

When I first heard of the "secondary sources are better" rule, it seemed strange to me too. Second-hand information is more reliable??? What?

But primary sources are often rather like "raw data" that have to be interpreted, because they are written by specialized experts who are bad at explaining things to laymen. Having another layer between those and an encyclopedia article is good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. Court documents are public and usually easily accessible which makes them exceptionally reliable. The two main reasons editors often argue against them are: 1) to protect living people (WP:BLP) and 2) because they're hoping a biased media source will spin the court findings in the direction that they prefer. Whenever you see an editor switching positions on whether they can be used or not, it usually means they're in the latter camp. 140.139.236.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between a final judgement (which is a primary source and should be used with caution, especially if its not final), and other court documents, especially those filed by the parties. The later are extremely rarely acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Biases and omissions

Throughout the article it is difficult to discern where Mann’s own beliefs end and those of the writer(s) begin. There also appears to be a deliberate suppression of facts regarding Mann’s litigation woes. In particular, there is not a word here about Mann’s parallel lawsuit against the climatologist Dr. Tim Ball which is currently proceeding in British Columbia and which has resulted in a demand from the BC Supreme Court that Mann submit to it certain relevant research data, a demand which Mann has so far refused to comply with. The "Hockey Stick" section egregiously fails to mention the central contention of Mann’s critics, namely his suppression of the so-called Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age data. No use going to the Hockey Stick article as it appears to have been written by these same people. Orthotox (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your biases and omissions are noticed, as is your lack of verifiability from reliable sources. You are of course flatly wrong about the MWP and the LIA. . . dave souza, talk 16:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim Ball case: retraction and apology to Mann

And superseded by the latest news from the Tim Ball case – * "Retraction and Apology to Michael Mann". Frontier Centre For Public Policy. 7 June 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2019. ..... dave souza, talk 19:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No reliable sources for speculation about the Tim Ball case, well sourced articles show that MBH published data and methods but still WP:BLP–flouting allegations though "we don't have any reliable source as to what information Mann was asked for, or even if this was an issue for the court." Section closed: open new section to discuss when you've got the required RS's. . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tim Ball case: Mann Lost It seems to me that the loss in court by Mann, with costs to Dr. Ball should be added to the page and include a cross link to Tim Ball's page. The reference should be the actual BC court ruling. This can be found at https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Mann v. Ball, 2019 BCSC 1580 Date: 20190822 Docket: S111913 Registry: Vancouver Between: Michael Mann Plaintiff And: Timothy ("Tim") Ball Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Plaintiff: R. McConchie Counsel for the Defendant, Timothy (“Tim”) Ball: M. Scherr D. Juteau Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. May 27 and August 22, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 22, 2019 The line about ""we don't have any reliable source as to what information Mann was asked for, or even if this was an issue for the court." has been clearly answered by the court in the judge's document. The case was dismissed with prejudice and $700,000 in costs were awarded to Ball. All a matter of public court record and yet omitted. Instead we get the hyper partisan WP gatekeeper POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.175.220 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

New comments July 2020

"In 2011 the Frontier Centre for Public Policy think tank interviewed Tim Ball and published his allegations about Mann and the CRU email controversy." - A reference is missing, the reader cannot look from the original, what exactly Ball said about Mann. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Good... we don't publish he said she said allegations per WP:BLP and in any case the later apology supercedes whatever fingerpointing may have been waggled earler.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"The actual defamation claims were not judged, but instead the case was dismissed due to delay, for which Mann and his legal team were held responsible." - In so far, the actual defamation claims have not been formulated in this article. Moreover, some climate sceptics write that Mann failed to present his raw data to the court. This information should be included in the article or the corresponding claim should be commented. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what changes you want or what WP:Reliable sources you propose to use to support those changes. And since the lawsuit is now over, and the court is satisfied, it's also not clear why things that were not decided by the court matter for this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)