Talk:Michael Mann (scientist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.



William M. Connolley 17:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I've taken all the discussion off this page and onto the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. This was because I strongly dislike having the same war in two different places (or indeed the same peace: its the duplication that annoys). When I did that, I found that it was almost entirely duplicated. If you feel skeptical, you are of course feel free to check.


[edit] Duplicating?

Much of the "controversy2 here duplicates material on the temperature record of the past 1000 years and to a lesser extent McI's page. Some is wrong ([1] is described as being McI when its McK). Much is too personal (the papers are MBH, not Mann). I'd like to see a lot chopped out and ref made to the T rec page William M. Connolley 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the plot in question (figure 8, footnote 16) credits both McKitrick and McIntyre. --Spiffy sperry 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
But its in a talk by McK, so attributing it to just McI is odd. Also, McI has been at pains to point out that he doesn't believe any of the reconstructions (including his own). All this has been discussed elsewhere; yet another reason to avoid duplication William M. Connolley 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hockey-stick controversial

We have a link to the controversy page, but nothing here about the controversy, which seems odd.

Plus, Mann's list of publications seems far too long. Needs pruning to the 5 or 6 most important, to be consistent with similar articles, IB.

Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a POV-section tag for precisely this reason. NPOV requires a fair accounting of controversies. The controversy is notable enough to have its own article; an orphan link in the Mann article means that the issue has been whitewashed here. A sentence or two is sufficient, but there's absolutely no mention of the controversy itself. -- THF 12:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Then add something rather than just tag-and-run William M. Connolley 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick is controversed, both from its statement and its sublying method. At least it was at the time of the publication. In addition, it is still now in spite of IPCC claims.

It is essential for the understanding of this important controverse, would it be a breakthough or a falwed work, would it be solved or still debated, to mention that historians have reported a warm Middle Age througout the humanity, with sure data about agriculture and about freezeing dates. The human records available to historians state the Middle Age was warm. Mann has claimed the contrary, supported by the huge propaganda means of IPCC. One explanation would be that his method is wrong, e.g. from a flawed normalization technique. Another explanation would be that History holds data mostly only for the northern hemisphere, for a +2 or +3 degrees in the northern emisphere together with a very surprising simultaneous -? degree in the southern hemisphere, African equator and other places where writting was not at work. Adding a dozen of words on this essential controversy IS essential for understanding the scientific context when Mann work was published, would you support his work or not.

Therefore, I plainly restore this usuefull and legitimate dozen of words toughly deleted with no explanation by software engineer KimDabelsteinPetersen, whereas these words make reference to well known historical data collected by historians, e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie.

( Furhermore, as a scientist specialized in the most sophisticated and advanced statistic data and processes, I state that statistic models on complex phenomenons are usually less reliable than historical records when these are available. Climate is undoubtfuly a complex phenomenon or, to be more explicit, a complex set of complex phenomenons. Therefore, if both sets of claiming clash although each seems to be consistant and produced from state of the art techniques, the historical records shall prevail unless sure explanation arise for explaining the clash in another way. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 May 2007

Yes - there is a controversy, which is covered in a whole article Hockey stick controversy.
I deleted your paragraph of text - because: 1) its unsourced 2) its written as POV 3) there is a whole article on it.
Please read and understand the following wikipedia policies: WP:NOT, WP:ATT, WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Your pretention to censorship is just shocking.
Who are you related to Wikipedia for behaving just like a censor ?
The fact is that each of your 3 statements is wrong.
1) My statement is sourced in its 2d version which you have plainly deleted too.
Furthermore this simple mention of a conflict with data from historians is famous worldwide by all those reading seriously on the topic ; even IPCC explicitely mentionned it in its report by saying following Mann unique stick that IPCC supporters had to work for having warm Middle Age to be forgotten. Given the passion you seem to have spent against man-made-warming sceptics, your seemingly unawarness of this controversy is quite astonishing. Do you request sources for the birth date of people in Wikipedia too ? No, sources are requested on uncertain points, or controversed points. There is no controversy about the fact there is a controversy between Mann initial (and current ?) results and known historians data !
2) my statement it is not written as POV ; it mentions a controversy and explains in a dozen words what it is. This controversy was not explicitely mentionned nor its nature immediatly elucidated, although a link suggested that there was some ... possibly about some obscure phisicist subtility ? - not to be read by any standard reader ! This is why a short mention of the nature of this controversy at the time the work of Mann was published is essential, whether you believe in Mann results or not.
3) the whole article on the controversy will not be read by most readers whilst the nature of the original controversy is essential because it is not just between some groups of phisicists but between also with all historians. Therefore the hyperlink to the article on the controversy does not fullfill the need for a dozen words stating clearly and briefly the matter.
Given your controversy of my writting, I am going to re-write it in a very cautious way. In other words, any plain censorship from you against my words will be reported and officialized as a conflict.

If the edit in question is this [2] then its badly written. OK, the English can be fixed, but the POVness is harder. As KDP says, you want Hockey stick controversy (or temperature record of the past 1000 years) for this, but its already in there William M. Connolley 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is not. What is there right now is a link on a non controversial page which contains many things ending by a short paragrah about the controversy with link on another page which describes the controversy. The first link is entitled "temperature record of the past 1000 years" "for more details and dispute", which suggest a complex scientific contest but does not render the fact that Mann hockey stick was a anyway a breakthrough whether right or wrong.
I agree that an article on Mann should not insert details on other topics, but the would-it-be-right-or-wrong breakthough of Mann opposite to previously known data especially from historians has to be mentionned because it is essential to the context of his work and publications.
- change suggestion will follow -
Here is the change I suggest :
1)
"He is best known for his paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions [...]."
-> "He is best known for his unexpected paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions [...]."
2)
removed from "Mickael Mann" general section :
"See temperature record of the past 1000 years for more details and dispute."
added to "Hockey Stick" graph" section :
-> "His 'hockey stick' reconstruction of the temperature record of the past 1000 years was unexpected because it negated the warm Middle Age known until then especially from historians (e.g. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie) on the base of the written records througout the humanity, athough mostly from the northern hemisphere."
3) (since you refer to controversy between phisicist, here an explicit sentence about it)
...2)+ "Furthermore his 'hockey stick' reconstruction is controversed by some other physicists".
—added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2007-
You have an odd view of the history of all this, probably fom reading too many septic web sites. "unexpected" just doesn't make sense in this context. I suggest you try reading MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports if you're interested. Its wrong to say that everyone accepted the MWP was (hemispherically) warm -even before MBH '98 there were known questions/problems with this William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Your statement is quite funny. In a few monthes, the leading theory shifted from a warm Middle Age to a not especially warm Middle Age and Mann's work was the masterpiece of this shift. The previous curves from UN included warm Middle Age several degrees [notice added latter by author : wrong ! tenths of °C only according to later labeling of IPCC graph], warmer than nowdays temperature(s). Following Mann hockey stick supporters did claim that warm Middle Age had to be forgotten. To many people Mann's work appeared as a 'coup'. Now you pretend that "unexpected" would not make sense ! If "unexpected" does not fit you, then I assume that "controversed" should be restored, undboutful although rougher. —added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 19 May 2007-
Since "controversed" isn't English, it certainly shouldn't be restored. But more than that, your view of the history of this is simply wrong. Try MWP and LIA in IPCC reports (correct link this time...) for some of it. previous curves from UN included warm Middle Age, several degrees warmer than nowdays temperature(s) is simply incorrect, but if you think you can sustain it please provide a link/reference to it, or admit that you just made it up or copied some septic propaganda William M. Connolley 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK 1 : "controversed" -> "controversial"
OK 2 : your article MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports graph mention tenths of °C of difference, not several °C as I read it too quickly. I must appologize for my wrong mention of this.
Not OK 1 : Nevertheless, unlabeled IPCC former graphs admited a middle age warmer than today.
Not OK 2 : Nevertheless, historical studies show Middle Age was several °C warmer than nowdays temperature(s), based on ice-blockage of seas, lakes and rivers, frezzing dates, agriculture, human made contents of glacier and more (mostly from the northern hemisphere). Books were written by historians before and after your publications. propaganda shall not be suspected from their source.
82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 20 May 2007, updated 21 May 2007-

In addition to the minimalist change made a few seconds ago (insertion of "controversial" about "hockey stick graph"), I suggest a revamping of the structure of the article, which is made confused from useless redundancies.

Paragraph "He is best known ..." just before section ""hockey stick" graph" section should be spitted and inserted in this very section : first sentence after (or at the end of) paragraph "Scientific American..." , second sentence after the quotation paragraph about his statement on "consensus". - added by 82.243.22.25 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2007 22:59 GMT -

Since Mr. Petersen seems to act as if he was the personal owner of this article, or at least the guardian delegated by the owner, which to my knowledge is none of us neither Dr. Mann himself, here are some info on the minimal change introduced by me a few minutes ago, then deleted by Mr. Petersen, then restored, then deleted, then restored: 1- The hockey graph has always been deeply controversial since it negates the well-known most important periods of climate change in the past millennium: the warm Middle Age and the Little Ice Age, both of them too clearly written in the human History for being simply negated. 2- Although his work was, on the best, relatively small compared to the hugeness of the task of measuring the temperature throughout continents and centuries, he used his position in IPCC for enforcing his graph as a so-called scientific worldwide consensus in 2001 which it was certainly not. 3- The hockey stick graph was shown in the peer-reviewed literature as being produced from a flawed statistical methodology and also a doubtful choice and use of proxy data. Dr Mann has tried to deny this but many experts are far from being convinced by his arguments. 4- The hockey stick is withdrawn by IPCC itself in 2007 report. For each of these reasons, using "controversial" for his "hockey stick" graph is not a too hard word; for the conjunction of them it is probably strongly moderate. Therefore stating his 1998 hockey stick graph, used as 2001 IPPC graph, is "controversial" is not a POV but a moderate statement. - xavdr 14th July 2007 01:23 GMT -

All of that is total twaddle, but most obviously #4, since the HS is in the 2007 report William M. Connolley 11:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
All of what I have stated is right, including #4 in the meaning that HS has been withdrawn as the consensus. IPCC reconstructions graphs now restore warm Middle Age as well as Little Ice Age, therefore inflicting a denying to the "hockey stick" dogma introduced in IPCC 2001 as a consensus while it was a deep controversy. - xavdr / 82.243.22.25 14th July 2007 23:37 GMT -
Nope, its still twaddle, they HS hasn't been withdrawn, its still being used, and all of the other reconstructions used show pretty much the *same* MWP temperatures William M. Connolley 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


In order to make this article honnestly informative, we have to add the following info inside this very article (not deported to remote articles) : 1- 1998 "hockey stick" graph, for which Mann is originaly famous far outside the scientific world, did negate (thorougly) warm Middle Age and (almost thoroughly) Little Ice Age, 2a- it was conflictual e.g. against the reports made by historians such as Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie from strong and numerous evidences, 2b- it has been stated by IPCC 2001 as a consensus, 2c- this consensus has been withdrawn by IPCC 2007.

(3) Furthermore, I state again that the current structure of the article is not proper so as it even triggers logical redundancies. In order to clean that the paragraph "He is best known ..." has to be dispatched into previous/next ones.

- xavdr / 82.243.22.25 15th July 2007 01:17 GMT -

Much of what you say is badly wrong. IPCC 2001 didn't say here was a consensus on HS. It used it, because it was the only figure available. 2007 didn't withdraw the HS, it used it and a number of other studies which had subsequently become available. You'll notice that the HS, and all the oter graphs, pretty well agree as to the MWP William M. Connolley 13:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear William I am so happy that you already acknowledge some of my critics on IPCC, MANN and the "hockey stick". Let us work on you forth for the critics you do not acknowledge yet following their formulation hereabove.
> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : IPCC 2001 didn't say here was a consensus on HS.
IPCC 2001 used outrageously prominently the “hockey stick” graph in the policymakers’ summary were it was the sole graph for such reconstruction. Some of its components were said to be “likely”. This meant that IPCC 2001 policymakers’ summary stated “hockey stick” as a state-of-the-art consensus although results would possibly have to be adjusted with future technological progress. Following IPCC magister, it was displayed as a consensus by media and explicitly used as such by politicians worldwide, with the implicit or explicit complicity of the alarmists “scientists” who promoted it.
On another hand, the related chapter of scientific basis displayed several graphs, although selected and/or truncated, thus acknowledging Little Ice Age but hidding a warm Medieval Period longer and warmer than 20th century. It seems that UN/IPCC is a traditional multi-level bureaucracy, each level pursuing its political agenda by cheating with the honest rendering of the reports from the lower level. By this way USSR had paper harvests double the real harvests.
> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : It used it [MANN's "hockey stick"], because it was the only figure available.
Dr CONNOLLEY ! Such a mistake ! How is it possible ?
i- [| IPCC 2001 / Scientific Basis / Chapter 2] displayed JONES et al. as well as BRIFFA et al. which kept Little Ice Age but had a mild Medieval Period. This display was a precursor of IPCC 2007 spaghetti multi-graph but only MANNs flawed-PCA (not explicitly known as such then) was furthermore prominently displayed individually, benefiting of a trend analysis, although it was from far the less credible since it negates the major climatic events largely known from History (cf. ii-) and for which amplitude of warmth and cold was measured via boreholes (cf. iii-). There was also a small balck-and-white display of a truncation of POLLACK et al. borehole-based temperature reconstitution(cf. iii-) thus hidding its prominent long Warm Medieval Period and its prominent ancien-time very long warm period.
Oops yes, assuming you mean [3], there were others available. But they look much the same. You're wrong about Pollack William M. Connolley 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dr Connolley ! Such a mistake again ! How is it possible ? I am afraid I am right on Pollack too ! [4] --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
--> discussion pasted at the bottom of the page -proper procedure- please stop editingthe body of this text written in July. --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
ii- There was the figure in IPCC 1995 report, similar to those provided by historians. This qualitative reconstruction showed a warm Medieval Period, warmer than 20th century average, and a cold Little Ice Age. With no compensation to the knowledge brought by historians this figure had disappeared in IPCC 2001.
iii- There was the one of HUANG, POLLACK and SHEN from 6 000 boreholes. This technology measures temperatures and tries to reverse-engineer the propagation of thermic waves in the geological layers. Therefore it is claimed to be exact in the temperature dimension although in the temporal dimension it becomes blurrier and blurrier then even badly melted for old ages. It showed a cold Little Ice Age and a warm Medieval Period, then another cold period and a one-block long warm period, coming out from a (???) 18 000 years-ago ice age.
Some other parts of IPCC 2001 were much more honest. For example the part dedicated to non-polar glaciers mentioned the fact that their recent decreasement has actually begun not later than ~=1850, thus conflicting with MANN et al. if we assume that the retreat of most glaciers would be due to global warming.
Even the part dedicated to reconstructions was not as dishonest as the summary for policymakers. At least it displayed the Little Ice Age from POLLACK boreholes reconstruction although truncating the rest of the graph, thus hiding the warm Medieval Period and the more ancient longer warm period. It mentioned JONES and BRIFFA although not highlighting them as much as the obvisoulsy unreliable MANN et al. So this part more or less acknowledged that “hockey stick” was against others consensus on Little Ice Age, but it was hiding that there was no new consensus on a no-longer-warm Medieval Period.
By the way, William M. CONNOLLEY, what do you have to say for your own defense about preventing the opinion to believe MANN’s “hockey stick” was consensus which it was not ? You have the double status of scientist on a politically-hot-topic and political activist. Only few people can endorse both without damaging their scientific reliability.
> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : 2007 didn't withdraw the HS, it used it and a number of other studies which had subsequently become available.
I understand IPCC 2007 hid it in a messy spaghetti multi-graph and stop using it prominently and suggesting it was a consensus. On one hand given its huge prominence in IPCC 2001, this was a repudiation. On another hand, IPCC seems to have refused to acknowledge “hockey stick” is an artifact of a flawed statistic technique (a flawedly normalized PCA ), so IPCC 2007 can not avoid a significant credibility loss in publishing it even among others.
Thus comes out the result of its sovietoïd bureaucratic life.
> dixit William M. CONNOLLEY : You'll notice that the HS, and all the oter graphs, pretty well agree as to the MWP
You will notice that the key feature and prominent use of the “hockey stick” (a flat curve until industrial age) is completely wrong.
You will notice that the “hockey stick” denies the sequence Warm Medieval Period – Little Ice Age – Industrial Times, essential to the understanding of History.
You will notice that other reconstructions such as the one of MOBERG et al. display Warm Medieval Period warmer and much longer than average 20th century.
By the way :
You will notice that the PCA method used by MANN et al. for producing the "hockey stick" is flawed.
You will notice that without the flawed normalization in MANN's PCA method no dominating "hockey stick" shape appear (only a far residual with a small weight making it unsignificant).
You will notice that it is a beginner mistake in the use of statistic data analysis, and it seems to be a beginner mistake as well in the knowledge of plaeoclimatologic data since this shape is definitely atypical, so that a summarizing method such as PCA could not produce it as dominating shape.
You will notice that it is claimed with no denial to my knowledge that given the proxys used by MANN for MBH98/MBH99 and his "hockey stick" graph, when not using a small set of special tree-rings said to be unproper temprature proxy, correct PCA as well as his flawed PCA method produce no "hockey stick" at all.
For my personal knowledge can you tell me if this means that CO2 is so good for these special trees as their growth has flourished since the 19th century ? This would seem to be the main direct result of MBH98 to science. Or maybe the use of PCA was an original introduction in paleoclimatology ?
- xavdr 28 July 2007 3:28 GMT -

(

Oops yes, assuming you mean [5], there were others available. But they look much the same. You're wrong about Pollack William M. Connolley 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

) copied from the place inside of the body of xavdr's July text in wich William M. Connolley had inserted his August remark

Dr Connolley ! Such a mistake again ! How is it possible ? I am afraid I am right on Pollack too ! [6] --82.243.22.25 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC) == --Xavdr 10:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_borehole_mystery.php William M. Connolley 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)