Talk:Ross McKitrick/Archive 1

message: While cleaning up some bad grammar in the "Criticism of Mann et al" section, I noticed an out-of-place link to  at the end of the section. As far as I can see, this link is totally irrelevant to Dr. McKitrick. Anyone disagree? Chris Chittleborough 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a hangover from the wars. If you went to climateaudit I suspect you'd find a post on that paper that would be a more... errmmm... McK-centric view of that paper and probably more appropriate for the page. William M. Connolley 16:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  30-Nov-2005 

message: Unlike what the anon said, I have never had a problem with blogs as sources - I said that you can't consider a link to a blog as evidence that "it is now accepted that the corrigendum was incomplete".  Guettarda 00:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Science (see ref above)? 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nevermind. I found a link: http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6 ... article fixed. Chris Chittleborough 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: E&E is a very low status "journal". Its peer review policies are vague; it doesn't (I believe) appear in the ISI citation index. Were it not for its happy of publishing dodgy papers on GW, it would certainly not be notbale. I don't really see an ongoing debate about its status though. I've reworded the re-word a bit, though I'm amenable to 6-2 rather than 4+2 if you feel strongly. I don't really see the need to link to RC's desc of E+E. William M. Connolley 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Dr Connolley: E&E does not show up in Thomson ISI's Master Journal List. I like your version of this text better than mine; in fact, I'd say you've nailed it. (I made 2 small changes: linked ISI to Institute for Scientific Information, s/two/2/ for consistency). At some stage I'll propagate your text into the McIntyre article. —Chris Chittleborough 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: While trying to tighten up the "Criticism" section (any comments, BTW?), I discovered that Tim Lambert's blog, "Deltoid", has moved to a different server and lost its archives. I gather that Dr. Lambert is getting his archives restored. When this happens, we should link to his criticism of McKitrick and Michaels again. Chris Chittleborough 06:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I found a link: http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6 ... article fixed. Chris Chittleborough 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Deltoid Broken

message: I've reworded the text about E&E being a social science journal, in an attempt to decrease the POV, though I may have swung it too far the other way. I could use some peer-review here, guys.
More substantially, there is an on-going dispute about the status of E&E. Should we have an article about it? Will anyone volunteer to create/edit it? (My hand is not up.)
Chris Chittleborough 07:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E&E is a very low status "journal". Its peer review policies are vague; it doesn't (I believe) appear in the ISI citation index. Were it not for its happy of publishing dodgy papers on GW, it would certainly not be notbale. I don't really see an ongoing debate about its status though. I've reworded the re-word a bit, though I'm amenable to 6-2 rather than 4+2 if you feel strongly. I don't really see the need to link to RC's desc of E+E. William M. Connolley 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Dr Connolley: E&E does not show up in Thomson ISI's Master Journal List. I like your version of this text better than mine; in fact, I'd say you've nailed it. (I made 2 small changes: linked ISI to Institute for Scientific Information, s/two/2/ for consistency). At some stage I'll propagate your text into the McIntyre article. —Chris Chittleborough 10:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RealClimate's description of ''Energy and Environment''

message: We need a summary of MM's critique of MBH98. Merely saying tha McKitrick disgrees with (or dislikes?) Mann is not enough. This is not a gossip column.
Can't we put some science into this article? McKitrick is engaging in a scientific dispute with Mann, and wiki readers would probably like to know a bit about his arguments, in simply terms which laymen can understand.
For example, doesn't McKitrick say Mann puts undue weight on a particlular pinecone (bristlecone) series? 
Then there's the whole matter of whether there was a Medieval Warm Period - which means the Hockey Stick graph is inaccurate. Laymen place great store in the hockey stick as "proving" the GW theory. --Wing Nut 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laymen shouldn't: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/ etc etc William M. Connolley 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your own web site, which you and Mann run. Might you not be biased in this matter? (No offense, meant, doc.) --Uncle Ed 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not mine, but I do help out. I'm pointing you to a posting on it. You don't have to accept it as gospel, but you might try reading it, since it attempts to correct some common errors William M. Connolley 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meat of the matter

message: There is the question of he partnership with McIntyre... I have the impression that McI, certainly now, is doing far more of the work William M. Connolley 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered about that also. Crust 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McI? 

message: My opinion is that this page is terribly badly written - a hodgepodge. I don't care enough to fix it; I'm just inviting someone else too (and whilst I don't care enough to fix it I do care enough to check the re-write for NPOV).
Also, I added a new section on McK's latest. Personally I consider it laughable, but I don't think Ive said so - please feel free to adjust this a bit. I may have pushed the bounds a bit with the Rabett link William M. Connolley 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected is accurate. As to why... we don't know. We have M&M's word: this isn't good enough. They may or may not be showing us an email from Nature; they certainly aren't showing us all. You don't seem to understand the nature of the corrigendum: it corrected misdescriptions of datasets. As such it can't change the results; and indeed it didn't. Had the results changed, Nature would have noted that. They didn't. Simply stating "because" - don't know what you're talking about William M. Connolley 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: The blog cite for this line: "Yet, after Lambert ran the regressions using the correct angle measurments, he claimed to have found that they "no longer 'explain' half of the surface warming trend McKitrick has pointed out." is a clear WP:BLP violation.  I've removed the line.  Please don't put it back in until you find another source or wikipedia starts allowing blogs as sources of controversial material in BLPs.  --Theblog 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop whitewashing under guise of BLP. Please also stop adding spurious fact tags - the corrigendum itself is the source William M. Connolley 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BLP: Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link You are wrong about this, it should not be used.  There is nothing supporting Lambert's claim about McKitrick's data in the other acceptable sources.  Let the correction speak for itself.  --Theblog 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Raymond, I shouldn't have reverted those too.  --Theblog 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BLP 

message: I believe this statement is more accurate:
 "...As a result Mann et al. published a corrigendum on July 1, 2004 in which they claimed the corrigendum did not affect the previously published results. McIntyre and McKitrick say the corrigendum failed to address some of their methodological concerns [4]. However, Nature rejected a McIntyre and McKitrick submission on the subject, with McKitrick claiming that the rejection was mainly because the submission did not adhere to the specified format of 500 word and one figure. Additionally, they believe that Nature responded to their concerns about the defects in the Corrigendum in a very unsatisfactory way.[5]"
Than this:
"... As a result Mann et al. published a corrigendum on July 1, 2004 which did not affect the previously published results. McIntyre and McKitrick say it failed to address some of their methodological concerns [4]. However, Nature rejected McIntyre and McKitrick's submission [5], M&M believe that Nature responded to their concerns about the defects in the Corrigendum in a very unsatisfactory way."
First off, if the corrigendum effects the results or not is subject to WP:V, it is easy to verify that Mann believes so, that is what he wrote.  I have not seen another reliable source indicating that it does not effect the results, if there is, it would be great to include.  McKitrick criticises the line as hair splitting.
Second off, McKitrick's claim about Nature's rejection of the submission is properly verified.  There is not reason not to include it.  If there is another reliable source that goes against his words, then it would of course be appropriate to include it as well.
I do not feel that it is proper to take Mann at his word in one instance (when it makes M&M look bad) and then turn around and not take McKitrick at his word (when it would make M&M look good).  I feel that would introduce bias into the article that need not be there if we just include the full information, ie, what people said.--Theblog 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the corrigendum doesn't affect the results can be verified by reading it: it does no recalculations, merely restates stuff about the datasets used etc. Can you point to anyone who say it *does* affect the results? If neither M or M say so, and they would be desperately keen for it to ahve done so, then I see no reason to think it does. Second, McK's *claim* is verified but its not at all clear he is a RS on this; he has a strong motive for making the rejection based on length rather than quality William M. Connolley 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An editor reading something and making a conclusions about its correctness violates WP:OR-  if it doesn't please explain to me how it isn't.  McK's claim is detailed as his own explanation (not anyone else's), it is as accurate as we can make it without additional sources.  The reader is free to make his own judgement, I would just rather present the information than make the judgement for them.  --Theblog 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, statements made by people about themselves, with no independent corroboration, are not necessarily acceptable. Just prefixing something with "X claims..." does not make it acceptable. However the corr (which I've just found a public copy of  clearly states that it doesn't change the results) William M. Connolley 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  William, I believe you've missed my point about WP:OR.  These two instances are both people saying stuff about their work, in one case you choose to believe it, in the other case you choose not to believe it.  In both cases it comes down to as how you, the editor, read it.  That is why I suggest the first version as more accurate.  --Theblog 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) You are failing to distinguish between something published in Nature and something self-published (b) in the case of M&M's review, there is no checking possible - we just have to take their word (or not). In the case of the corrigendum, you can verify it yourself. But you don't have to, because Nature is unquestionably a WP:RS William M. Connolley 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole verify it yourself part is where you run into problems, an editor should not do that as per WP:OR.  Unless you are claiming that everything published in Nature or whatever else we've decided is a top journal is unquestionably true, which if that were the case, there would never be a corrigendum in the first place.  --Theblog 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I editted it and I believe I could live with the current lines re the corrigendum (although the first version above is still the best IMO).  I still think the McK reason for rejection should be included.  --Theblog 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In this case (a) does not matter, because in both cases outlined above it takes WP:OR to reach a conclusion as you have.  You have completely failed to grasp that.  How about this, another editor reads the corrigendum and decides it does not follow that the material did not affect the previously published results.  Whose word do you take?  Yours or the other editor?--Theblog 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I am misrepresenting it as OR when it is WP:POV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth," in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." --Theblog 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all a waste of time. We have one highly reputable source, Nature, which says it makes no difference to the results. We have *no-one* who says it does make a difference William M. Connolley 08:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you are unable to answer my questions.  How about this, you prove that no one says it makes a difference and we'll leave it in?  --Theblog 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, I found someone, McKitrick, "Even within the artifice of the Corrigendum, the claim is refutable on the Gaspé series, which we discussed in detail in our submission. "--Theblog 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh, as you say in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader - but there is only one published viewpoint, since McK's self pub isn't. But even McK *doesn't* say the C affects the results. Quite what they are talking about  there is rather obscure William M. Connolley 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there another published viewpoint that says the corrigendum does not affect the results or is it just Mann's word?  --Theblog 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are twisting and turning with a whole variety of excuses for not having these words in. How you can justify "accuracy" I don't know. We have only one reliable source - Nature - that has offered an opinion. It says they don't affect the results. For reasons of your obvious biases, you're not happy with that. You have just removed that did not affect the previously published results despite it having an impeccably WP:RS for the statement. If you can find a RS that unambiguously says the corrigendum did affect the results, then please include it William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where am I twisting and turning, the very first comment I wrote is still true.  You are trying to have an article about McKitrick's where the man's self published items are not allowed because you don't consider him a reliable source on his own thoughts.  Then you turn around and allow others to do the same.  --Theblog 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This line: "with McKitrick claiming that the rejection was mainly because the submission did not adhere to the specified format of 500 word and one figure."  is correct, McKitrick is obviously a RS on what McKitrick's claims.  It is not presented as anything more.  --Theblog 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy 

message: He is listed in the GW skeptics category, but there is no clear indication that he is one.  Is there a quote or something we can put in?  --Theblog 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he did write a whole book from the skeptical point of view. Maybe you could pull something out of there. Raymond Arritt 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I'd have to read it... I'll see what I can google up.  --Theblog 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is skeptical of the accuracy of the science , but I am not sure that is specifically "expressed skepticism regarding the mainstream scientific view that human activity is responsible for recent global warming".  As far as I can tell he hasn't supported an alternate theory.  Plus, the very definition is vague.  --Theblog 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GW skep? 

message: Because it's late and the number of problems in the article is depressing me presently, may I just begin with the inclusion of the section which reads, "Oh, yeah? well, guess what, Tim Lambert, a computer scientist, showed that McKitrick makes mistakes too, so THERE!" It doesn't belong in a bio this short... Can I remove it please? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can't. Because the error-correction is attributed to Lambert in the correction to MM04 . The section could use a removal of all the scare-quotes though, and a toning down of the language. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the nature of science that scientists make mistakes. They are meant to make mistakes. It is therefore absurd and not to mention childish and petty to have an entire section devoted to showing that (guess what?) McKitrick once made a mistake. If the mistake had affected history, if it had led to some huge controversy, that would be entirely different. McKitrick himself seems to have acknowledged the mistake quickly and professionally. Should we include a "list of mistakes" section against all living scientists? Be serious... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is the hockey-stick controversy that is the notable issue here, the error is notable. Especially because its not a subtle error - but a rather blatant one... The difference between radians and degrees is a major one, especially when it is used to place proxies in relation to each other. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The McKitrick page is not here for the purpose of discussing the hockey-stick controversy. If it was, then I might hypothetically agree that this should be included. Further, whether this is a "blatant" or "major" blunder is your POV, but if you are right that it was a "blatant" and "major" error, then inclusion here is clearly serving no purpose other than to embarrass McKitrick (given once again that he has acknowledged a mistake), which makes it even more clearly contrary to WP:BLP policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - but the Hockey-stick debate is the major reason for McKitrick's notability, so of course the hockey-stick debate is part of his bio. Critique is not ruled out on BLP pages, it just has to be verifiable - and it is. You can (as i said before), trim it or tone it down, and remove some of the scare-quotes which certainly do not belong. But the critique itself is notable (it made it into a science paper). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's suppose you're right and that this article ought to duplicate some of the hockey stick controversy discussion. Inclusion of this "McKitrick's mistake" section must have therefore substantively affected the hockey stick debate in order to establish relevance in its own right. If not, then it would be serving no purpose other than to embarrass McKitrick and should be removed immediately per BLP. In order to establish relevance, you have said something that is largely unintelligible above (you say it's "notable" because it was so "blatant", which appears to establish only embarrassment, not relevance). Can you clarify? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note, he's a prize-winning writer independently of the hockey stick controversy, a professor of econometrics, and you say his only notability lies in the help offered McIntyre in the hockey-stick controversy... very objective... Alex Harvey (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  man, this article has problems..... 

message: :re: 07:42, 23 June 2009 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Reverted to revision 297506389 by William M. Connolley; rv either cut the E&E and leave figure at 4 - or add the additional text. E&E is not a science journal in this regard.. using TW) (undo) 
It is not necessary to be arguing for the distinction between "peer-reviewed" vs "non-peer-reviewed" journals in an article on Ross McKitrick. That is a discussion for somewhere else. It is also not interesting to the biography of McKitrick to know exactly how many peer-reviewed and how many "non-peer-reviewed" published science journals he has written. Meanwhile, it is simply inaccurate and false to say he has written 4. This quibbling about the Energy & Environment journal does not belong in this article. Currently, the text sounds patently ridiculous, and there is no other sensible wording I can think of other than the one that was just reverted. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: E&E is a Trade journal according to SCOPUS, it is not listed in the Web of Science, and it has a very suspect peer-review. To state is as a science journal is stretching reality beyond limits. If you want to mention the papers in E&E its going to be as a separate part.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't frankly care about the E&E journal, and I don't think the general reader cares, either. It is only in the article because the editor who put it there believes this is an important piece of information to discredit McKitrick. For a neutral reader it is a completely irrelevant detail in a bio this long. I would have guessed that he has articles published in E&E because nearly all skeptics do. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not care either. As i've said before, you are welcome to cut it completely - but you cannot add it to the science journal count (this is where i care). You may add it to the other count if you want. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for Harvey in this dispute. Comments on E&E belong on that page, not in an author's biography. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats all very well - but what Harvey is doing isn't just to delete it. He can do that as much as he wants, it makes no difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i've removed them completely. They neither belong in the economics journals or in science journals. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "E&E is not a science journal in this regard" 

message: I've read this sentence a number of times to try to understand what it is saying. Is it saying that "not only has McKitrick written opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines" but (oh gosh) some of these very same newspapers and magazines have also published (wait for it) articles about McKitrick? If so, the point is ... ? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Touch up on the bold, revert discusss cycle... Be bold. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick." ??? 

message: It is hard to find a subject that isn't being "debated in multiple blogs on the Internet." Aside from the fact that there is no supporting evidence, it is rather difficult therefore to understand the relevance of this statement. It would be more meaningful to close this section with the fact that IPCC2007 cites the McIntyre & McKitrick result, suggesting consensus that the issue has been resolved in their favour. Objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Referes to McKitricks own disussions with others. In primary the major climate blogs. The AR4 cites it, but doesn't agree on it. (It also cites Svensmark for that matter, and previous reports have cited the iris hypot.).  A cite != consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The subject of the meaning and impact of the issue is still being debated in multiple blogs on the Internet." 

message: This is rather patronising to a normal reader (as well as to McKitrick). This isn't a children's encyclopaedia, so I don't believe the reader needs the editor's help in finding out firstly what an "op-ed" is, and secondly what the editor's opinion of an "op-ed" is, before he may proceed for himself to read the said "op-ed." Alex Harvey (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Op-Ed tells us something about the editorial and veracity checking that at minimum have gone into the article. Thats information that a reader may like to be appraised of before going to the external resource. (bother or not bother to read). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In this particular case it is even important, since it isn't a link to the original article, where you could have appraised yourself on the editorial status - but instead a reprint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you're agreeing, yes, you feel the reader needs help here, and have just said as much yourself. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard the word "op-ed" before coming to the US.  It isn't a normal English word - it's jargon. So yes, it should be linked.  Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have missed the point, and I may have been unclear. It was really the disparaging labeling of McKitrick's writing as "op-ed" rather than the editor's hyperlink to "op-ed" that I objected to. There is also a clear question of bias via double-standards here, as you can find plenty of other op-eds in other climate change articles, some linked in by KDP himself, without any disparaging "op-ed" label stamped on them. However, after looking at it more closely, I resolved the dispute by simply removing the link to the external article altogether, which KDP doesn't seem to have objected to. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an [[Op-Ed]] by ..." 

message: Very strong POV of editor biasing the article here. The NAS in fact agreed with the MM criticisms of said MBH paper, but suggested something along the lines of, the overall conclusions of the MBH paper are probably still correct, even if their method was wrong. The hockey-stick shape may still be right, but on the basis of other studies. In the context of McKitrick's biography, the relevant piece of information here is that both North & Wegman conceded that MM's statistical criticisms were valid. There are no references given here... this needs to be changed. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but there is no endorcement of MM in the NAS report - in the NAS report (as well as the press conference afterwards (see it)) it quite thoroughly endorced the MBH results. (you may also want to see the Wegman hearing where this is confirmed).  We have a whole article on this.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed, with a few reservations, the MBH paper." 

message: My attention is directed here from the BLP noticeboard; I have not looked at this article before.  As I scientist myself, I believe that the paragraph starting "Tim Lambert..." does not belong in this article, unless there is a reputable source that asserts that the error is important.  Corrections of minor errors occur quite frequently; it's wrong to devote a whole paragraph to such a thing without backup from a good source.  It's also regrettable that  has been making this argument in such an unpleasant way, but that shouldn't obscure that fact that the point is valid. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Second to Looie. Alexh, I understand your frustration with "The Team" -- I've been there -- but you need to take a breather. (I've gotten carried away, too. Same guys, mostly.) Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fine, but for how long do we let Wikipedia continue to be used in this way? This systematic abuse of Wikipedia has continued in here literally for years. Politeness and reasonableness hasn't changed anything and it is never going to. I apologise to Guettarda, who may be an innocent bystander here. Yes I'll take a breather, goodbye all. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes section revisited 

message: Atmoz has deleted the publications section from the article altogether now, arguing firstly that it was "COATRACK", which I didn't and still don't understand, and then that McKitrick's publication history isn't "notable". Although the publication history section could do with expansion, I am struggling to understand how a publication history can be deemed irrelevant to a professional academic's biography. It, indeed, raises the question, well, what is relevant to an academic's biography, if not the publication history? It's kind of like saying the actions of the George W. Bush administration are not relevant in the life of the President. May I suggest (politely) that this material be re-included? The same applies to William M. Connolley's complete removal of all mention that McKitrick was involved in the hockey stick controversy. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the bit I removed: "From 1997 to 2005 McKitrick has authored or co-authored a number of articles, including 16 in economics journals, and four in science journals. In addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines." It's all fluff. Add something that actually says something about his publications. -Atmoz (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleted section provided a reasonably clear summary (although I too had issues with the wording, see above) of McKitrick's professional output. It seems to me that it provided some useful information to the reader (for example, it provided useful information to me, even if I found the original disparaging remarks about E&E that were thrown in inappropriate). That useful information is no longer there, as a result of this disputed deletion. May I suggest that the appeal to "fluffiness" (is it the wording that is "fluffy"? is the content?) hasn't added much clarity to the discussion. Could you show us an example of another scientist where publications have appeared in a way that would regard as more approrpiate? If you want something added about his publications, I could add some links & references to the PDFs where they're available. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Atmoz, after a few days of pondering I understood your 'COATRACK' angle, i.e. in the subtitle of McKitrick's book. I think that's a little far-fetched, but the subtitle could be removed. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected and apologise, this was providing totally false, not useful, information to the reader & I agree now definitely that it should have been removed. According to McKitrick's publications page here he has in fact authored or co-authored 12 "peer-reviewed Science Journal articles". McKitrick's University pubished 12 vs Wikipedia's 4 is quite a large discrepancy. Then it's 14 scholarly economics articles vs Wikipedia's 16, and then finally a very large number of other writings (e.g. book chapters) were lost by the wayside. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of publications section... altogether? 

message: Okay, so Pete Tillman and others have been, trying to update the text to note that McKitrick has held a full professorship since 2008 at the University of Guelph. These edits are being reverted without discussion. McKitrick's (already cited) publicly available CV states 
# BA (Hons) Economics, Queen's, 1988
# MA Economics, UBC, 1990
# PhD Economics, UBC, 1996
# Assistant Professor, University of Guelph, July 1996 - June 2001
# Associate Professor, University of Guelph, July 2001 - November 2008
# Professor, University of Guelph, December 2008 - present
# Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver B.C.
So I would like to understand why these edits are being reverted to not show McKitrick's full professorship? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full professor 

message: Since Atmoz & WMC have removed all discussion of McK's publications & hockey stick controversy, I have removed the remaining two items, T3 & criticism of the global average temperature, as the whole thing was then skewed to his less known works (and not to mention badly written). Personally, I don't have a problem with a minimalist McKitrick biography since we can all find out about McKitrick at other places. The publications section had in fact removed from the article count his most historically important article (i.e. MM03a) after KDP's insistence that an E&E article can't be counted as a science article... My aim was to remove the defamatory material, and I am satisfied that it's gone now. People can find out about McKitrick at plenty of other places where McKitrick's side of the story is likely to be presented either sympathetically or negatively depending on what the reader wants. Objections? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of him. The article is it stands now doesn't tell me why he is interesting or important. On the other hand it doesn't say anything bad or offensive. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we add a "see also" thing at the bottom with a link back to the Wikipedia eds. version of the hockey stick controversy? The sensible reader will look at both the Wikipedia version and McKitrick's own version of the story, also linked in, so all will be fair (in love & Wikipedia). :) Any objections to this? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how anyone could object to that.  The more views available the better. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. And I agree, the article still needs rewording to accurately establish the area of his notability (currently, it sounds like notability comes from the Essex/McKitrick book, which I don't think is right. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the remaining material too, in line with recent deletions 

message: Here is the material that has been repeatedly added & removed by various editors, most often removed by editor William M. Connolley.
=== Global warming related activities (draft) ===
From a statistical perspective, McKitrick and McIntyre (MM) in the 2003 paper "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" Energy & Environment  Vol. 14 Num. 6 pp. 751-771 examined the Michael E. Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH) 1998 paper, "Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries."Nature Vol. 392, pp. 779–787   As a result Mann et al. published a corrigendum which did not change any of the results of the paper. McIntyre and McKitrick say the corrigendum failed to address some of their methodological concerns, and the two claim that Nature responded to their concerns about the corrigendum in an unsatisfactory way. 
A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed, with a few reservations, the MBH paper. One of the panel's reservations was that "...a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work 'have been underestimated,' and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990s was probably the warmest in a millennium."  However, they also said that "'an array of evidence' supported the main thrust of the paper", leading to even more confusion on the situation.
 
A subsequent investigation, undertaken at the request of Republican Senator Joe Barton and headed by prominent statistics professor and NAS member Edward Wegman of George Mason University  supported the statistical criticisms by McKitrick and McIntyre, saying "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the paper.  We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling."
In 2007 McKitrick was co-author on a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics arguing that "Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming".
In June 2007, McKitrick suggested "a climate policy that could, in principle, get equal support from all sides": a "T3" tax on carbon emissions tied to a three-year moving average of tropospheric temperature change, starting at a low rate. If global warming occurs, the tax would climb quickly and "could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources."
While I agree that this section needs work (starting with the title), the McKittrick article is currently very sparse, so this is at least a starting point. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The first 3 paragraphs are a POV "description" of Hockey stick controversy (and not even POV written from a McKitrick perspective - simply a rewrite of Hsc). The 4th paragraph is about a paper that has had no impact, and which has disappeared down memory-lane (might be converted to an entry in publications). The 5th paragrah is the only thing that might have merit, but a single Op-Ed shouldn't have all that much weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Get this, I removed this section, in support of Connolley et al., and Atmoz, the editor who first proposed removing it all, way back, is now edit warring to keep the section in per WP:PRESERVE? I have removed the section, again, as a lot of BLP violations, per prior consensus from Atmoz, and all others. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  []. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no BLP violations. Your repeated actions demonstrate that you clearly don't understand the policy. And I don't recall having removed that section, nor suggested its removal. Diff please. -Atmoz (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you're saying that I was the editor who technically removed this bit, therefore the mature thing to do is to restore it now, despite that William Connolley and Kim D. Petersen both want it out too? Anyhow, on WP:BLP, where it is of utmost importance that we adhere to WP:NPOV, you're saying you can't see that this quote by McKitrick has been cherry picked, and is not representative of his considered views? Indeed, you can't see that it's a coatrack for skepticism, and has very little to do with his notability? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (And I do understand the policy; it is the status quo here that does not understand it, and needs to therefore change.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to suggest that you don't read anything into my comments than is actually written. If I wanted to write something else, I would have done so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, so you now need to explain why the cherry-picked statement from McKitrick, which gives an impression that his stance on global warming is far stronger than it actually is, is not a BLP issue. I remind you, although you say I'm the one who doesn't understand the BLP policy, that The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. I look forward to some good discussion on this point. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort-of edit-war material 

message: From a statistical perspective, McKitrick and McIntyre (MM) in the 2003 paper "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) "Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" Energy & Environment  Vol. 14 Num. 6 pp. 751-771 examined the Michael E. Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (MBH) 1998 paper, "Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries."Nature Vol. 392, pp. 779–787   As a result Mann et al. published a corrigendum which did not change any of the results of the paper. McIntyre and McKitrick say the corrigendum failed to address some of their methodological concerns, and the two claim that Nature responded to their concerns about the corrigendum in an unsatisfactory way. 
A panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) endorsed, with a few reservations, the MBH paper. One of the panel's reservations was that "...a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work 'have been underestimated,' and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990s was probably the warmest in a millennium."  However, they also said that "'an array of evidence' supported the main thrust of the paper", leading to even more confusion on the situation.
 
A subsequent investigation, undertaken at the request of Republican Senator Joe Barton and headed by prominent statistics professor and NAS member Edward Wegman of George Mason University  supported the statistical criticisms by McKitrick and McIntyre, saying "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the paper.  We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling."
In 2007 McKitrick was co-author on a paper in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics arguing that "Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming".
In June 2007, McKitrick suggested "a climate policy that could, in principle, get equal support from all sides": a "T3" tax on carbon emissions tied to a three-year moving average of tropospheric temperature change, starting at a low rate. If global warming occurs, the tax would climb quickly and "could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources."
While I agree that this section needs work (starting with the title), the McKittrick article is currently very sparse, so this is at least a starting point. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The first 3 paragraphs are a POV "description" of Hockey stick controversy (and not even POV written from a McKitrick perspective - simply a rewrite of Hsc). The 4th paragraph is about a paper that has had no impact, and which has disappeared down memory-lane (might be converted to an entry in publications). The 5th paragrah is the only thing that might have merit, but a single Op-Ed shouldn't have all that much weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Get this, I removed this section, in support of Connolley et al., and Atmoz, the editor who first proposed removing it all, way back, is now edit warring to keep the section in per WP:PRESERVE? I have removed the section, again, as a lot of BLP violations, per prior consensus from Atmoz, and all others. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  []. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no BLP violations. Your repeated actions demonstrate that you clearly don't understand the policy. And I don't recall having removed that section, nor suggested its removal. Diff please. -Atmoz (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, you're saying that I was the editor who technically removed this bit, therefore the mature thing to do is to restore it now, despite that William Connolley and Kim D. Petersen both want it out too? Anyhow, on WP:BLP, where it is of utmost importance that we adhere to WP:NPOV, you're saying you can't see that this quote by McKitrick has been cherry picked, and is not representative of his considered views? Indeed, you can't see that it's a coatrack for skepticism, and has very little to do with his notability? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (And I do understand the policy; it is the status quo here that does not understand it, and needs to therefore change.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to suggest that you don't read anything into my comments than is actually written. If I wanted to write something else, I would have done so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine, so you now need to explain why the cherry-picked statement from McKitrick, which gives an impression that his stance on global warming is far stronger than it actually is, is not a BLP issue. I remind you, although you say I'm the one who doesn't understand the BLP policy, that The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. I look forward to some good discussion on this point. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming related activities (draft) 

message: As I found it this page was crudely one-sided. It suppressed all negative mentions of McK's work - including a considerable catalogue of errors in key papers that a high school student should have spotted - and used quotes in a way that included significant positive spin for the views that he propounds. Whoever is doing this: unless you can explain why it isn't significant that the man's key papers have crude errors in them that, for example, mean his results were wrong by a factor of two, then you are heading for trouble. If you are a PR company stooge or McK himelf, this sort of thing is much too crude for you to get away with it! Keep to neutral POV. And don't delete negative material unless you can show that it is either incorrect or less significant than the positive material that you leave. 
The whole reason that McK is significant enough to justify a wikipedia entry is his claim that his work debunks global warming. If his own work contains a catalog of errors - which according to credible linked sources which provide excellent attributions it does - this can not be suppressed for the reasons stated above. "He acknowledged the error later" (this is in relation to the radians/degrees error - what choice did he have when even a 14 year old child could understand his mistake) or "You haven't provided a source saying that the error was significant" (if the work is significant enough to justify a wikipedia entry for McK, then errors in the work have to be significant too! and anyway the source discussing the error clearly regarded it as significant,or it wouldn't have bothered...) are NOT good enough. Umptious (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I removed the sourcewatch page from the external links.  On any biography of a living person I think we have to be very sure of our sources.  I don't know who these people are and their use of a wiki format is worrying.  --TS 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcewatch

message: Someone has also removed the details of the flaws found in McK's work despite scrupulous sourcing - but doesn't seem to have commented on this! This constitutes a flagrant breach of wiki editing rules - it is the deletion of content because it doesn't suit a certain ideological pov. If this continues I will appeal to have the page tagged as being under suspicion of non-neutral editing. [b]If you don't think that details on errors in McK's work should be part of his profile then explain why.[/b] Umptious (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably the one, so let's step through your latest edit :
*You added "right-wing" to McI's descrip, no cite: WP:OR
- No, that was afterwards.
*You added back a long, tendentious description of an error in one of his pubs, sourced to a blog: gross WP:BLP violation, also violates WP:Weight, and see the original edit line in History.
Then we have a problem here - because without the detailing of McK's errors - we have an article that consists only of him talking about himself. For now I'll deal with this by removing his self promotion and replacing with NPOV summary. 86.4.92.109 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper deletion

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: I removed a statement claiming McKitrick endorsed their 2009 statement on global warming. McK says he has problems with some of this document, doesn't endorse it, and has asked that organization to remove his name from their list of signatories: see "ME & THEOLOGY" in Recent Items at http://www.rossmckitrick.com/   --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct; more specifically I see McKitrick's explanation at , and I don't see McKitrick's name at . I regret that User:Jess may have missed this item in the talk page before re-inserting. I have removed references to this Cornwall Alliance evangelical statement again today. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornwall Alliance statement removed 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: My comments in the section above about the Lack reference were necessarily limited because I did not have access to the book and no quote was provided. I purchased a copy of the book, so I could see for myself whether the book supported the contention that McKitrick "authored works promoting climate change denial". I purchased the Kindle edition so I could search but it didn't allow search. (Seriously, what's the point of having electronic version of a book that does not allow search.).
I have reservations about whether this book qualifies as a reliable source. I hope it does, but I'll explain below why I doubt that it will qualify.
There's an intriguing sentence in the Preface, where the author provides a summary of his conclusions:
 (empahsis added) The sentence is a poster child for reasons why quoting out of context can be misleading.
As an interesting aside, I note the author quotes Wikipedia a lot. I'll leave it to others to decide whether I bring this up as a bug or a feature.
I found Steve McIntyre mentioned on page 8. No discussion of anything he has written on this page, so I'm at a loss to understand how his inclusion in a list supports the contention about his writings. Of course, if it was a list of people writing to promote climate science denialism, it would qualify, but the heading at the top of the list is "Skeptical Organizations and Individuals in the United States of America".
I accept that there are issues in labeling someone a skeptic, but there are also issues labeling someone a denialist. I understand that some editors insist, not just that the terms are synonymous, but that denialist is the better term, but Lack does not support that position.
Lack states (in the introduction) 
This is a point I've made on more than one occasion. I wish I could now support it with a reliable source, but I noticed that this book is published by AuthorHouse, "a vanity publisher based in the United States". I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jess: You're the one who inserted Lack and the blogs. Are you going to reply to anything that's been said above? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After receiving no reply from Jess, I tried to remove Jess's cites to self-published sources today, citing WP:BLPSPS. Jess reverted me again. It's probably going to be difficult to restore the article to a policy-compliant state. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack

message: The lead had been changed to assert that McKittrick supports climate denial and that a book he co-authored is about climate denial but there is absolutely nothing supporting the claim that the book is about climate denial. I understand some editors are under the delusion that anybody who doesn't march in lockstep to some of the more outrageous claims in the mainstream media are labeled deniers but that doesn't make them deniers. If someone wishes to assert that the book is promoting climate denial they need to provide multiple solid references which trump any sources which might suggest it is simply a discussion of climate skepticism issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I share the concern. This is no way to initiate the lead of an encyclopedia article. 03:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ross McKitrick. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nigel-lawsons-climatechange-denial-charity-intimidated-environmental-expert-9350069.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified