Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

How is this NEUTRAL pov?

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

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

plot current data

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

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

Recent changes to lead

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

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

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

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

While the last sentence remains the same, the first one now helps to balance the lead, I think. Before my recent edits (before the edits I linked above), the lead didn't mention the actual purpose of the book at all. —PaleoNeonate – 18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Peter, rather than "opponents of mainstream science" I've now noted that McKitrick's "primers" were a starting point for Montford. Indeed, p. 14 says that McKitrick "read the manuscript and provided perceptive reviews". If you want, you can make the case for the other fringe views you suggest, but remember WP:WEIGHT requires clarity about which parts of the text describe the minority view, sufficient detail of the majority view, and "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." I'm surprised by your enthusiasm for blog sources, perhaps you'd like to include a reputable journalist's blog interview with an eminent scientist who described Montford's book as "an excellent primer"; that at least has mainstream context. As for Ridley's pieces, his self-description as having coal interests relates to his GWPF lobbying.[1][2]. That context is needed to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE giving "equal validity" to fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, thank you for removing your "opponents of mainstream science" addition and I see that you have now fixed the cite for your quote of Ward. The article topic is Mr Montford's book about the hockey stick rather than about whether climate changes, so your unsourced claims about fringes and minorities don't apply. For positive reviews we have more reliable sources and more qualified people. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Blog source with BLP implications

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

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

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