File talk:CO2-Temp.png

  This chart using the infamous "Mann hockey stick" has been so discredited as to be considered junk science. It should not be linked to, except as an example of propaganda or gross scientific incompetence. 98.247.32.199 17:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

original research

Considering the novel way in which this picture splices "proxy" and measured data, it constitutes original (and misleading) research.

UN pulls "Hanno 2009" graph

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/united-nations-pulls-hockey-stick-from-climate-report/

Key quote: "Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as 'Hanno 2009'." 67.150.13.200 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Use by UN

The UN seems to be relying on Commons for graphics, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/more-on-the-hanno-wikipedia-graph-in-the-un-climate-report/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/united-nations-uses-wikipedia-graph/

Which says in part that

"Mann has argued that it was never his intention for the flat part of the stick that he derived from proxies to be grafted onto the modern temperature record, providing the upturned blade, as though the two sets of data had the same origin" ... "Such a graft is precisely what Sandvik’s graph does, however..."

How is this not original research? Where is the citation establishing that the two sources of data are alike enough to be spliced like this? And, considering that the whole point of the curve is the "flat for a long time, rapid rise in recent years" overall hocky-stick shape , where is the disclaimer telling the reader that the "long time" and the "recent years" are taken from different sources using different methodologies? 75.84.238.18 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

75.84.238.18 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

UNEP's use of the figure

The graph has been used as Figure 1.3 in [the first version of] a recent UNEP publication, Climate Change Science Compendium. This has in turn ignited heated discussions in several fora. Most of these discussions have muddled up a number of independent questions. Considering the surprising public interest in these matters, some comments may therefore be in place.

1. Is this graph the work of an anonymous wikimedia user?
   Answer: This graph has been drawn and uploaded by me (User:Hanno). On the file description page I have indicated the sources I have used. These sources are publicly available and have undergone peer-review. The graph displays the underlying data without any additions or omissions from my part. That means that the data underlying the graph are not my responsibility. My responsibility is, among other things, the choice of colour, size and resolution. As regards my alleged anonymity, I may note that the intimidating and threatening e-mails I have received after the publication of the UNEP compendium do not seem to indicate that I am especially anonymous.
2. Do users who upload files to wikimedia consent to the information displayed by their files?
   Answer: Users of wikipemedia who upload files express explicit agreement not to upload files that are protected by copyright. However, they do not express explicit agreement in the information displayed by the files. Although it may be the case that they agree in or approve of the information, the opposite may also be the case. For example, files may be uploaded in order to (a) present alternative views for a balanced presentation of a controversial topic, (b) show earlier views for a description of the history of a debate, (c) illustrate falsified ideas for an explanation of common misunderstandings, (d) illustrate a matter of public of interest the corroboration or rejection of which is still pending.
3. Is it objectionable that controversial graphs are available at wikimedia?
   Answer: Wikimedia is not a collection of established truths; it is a collection of multimedia files. How well-accepted the information displayed in a figure is, cannot, therefore, be inferred from the mere fact that it is available at wikimedia; it should be inferred from the text in the encyclopedia entries in other wiki projects that use this figure.
4. Was it objectionable of the UNEP to use wikimedia as a source?
   Answer: If (and only if) UNEP wanted to use an illustration of the curve that is colloquially referred to as "hockey stick", there was nothing wrong in using a wikimedia file. This presupposes that UNEP checked the sources of the wikimedia figure. Any graph illustrating these data would have the same shape. Using an uncopyrighted image does not change the information it displays.
5. Was it objectionable of the UNEP to use a "hockey stick" curve?
   Answer: This question does not concern wikimedia in any way. It is solely UNEP's responsibility.
6. Has the "hockey stick" curve been refuted?
   Answer: This question does not concern wikimedia in any way. Having said this, interested readers my consult the article about the hockey stick controversy in the English wikipedia or other languages. A fair summary may be that the original publication reporting the "hockey stick" has been heavily criticised. However, later publications by different authors, using other methods and utilising additional data sources, have corroborated most of its main findings.
7. Did the creator of the graph know of UNEP's use of it?
   Answer: This question does not concern wikimedia in any way. UNEP did not have to notify me, because I had released the graph using an open licence. Having said this, I may add that I was unaware of UNEP's use of the graph until I received intimidating e-mails two days after the publication of the compendium.
8. Do the conclusions of the UNEP (or IPCC) depend on the "hockey stick" curve?
   Answer: This question does not concern wikimedia in any way. Having said this, I would like to point out that this specific curve is not critical for UNEP's or IPCC's conclusions. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the medieval warm period (which "disappears" in the "hockey stick" reconstruction) implies that the current warming can have natural causes, or that the current warming will not have disastrous implications. Such conclusions are not logically valid. Current climate models can reproduce earlier warmings using natural factors alone. The current warming can only be explained by natural and anthropogenic factors in conjunction. Furthermore, the world is 20 times more densely populated now than 1000 years ago. Simply leaving inhabitable areas may have been possible then, but is far more complicated today. Disagreements about who is allowed to settle where, were often solved by genocide back then, a strategy which I hope nobody considers as an alternative today. The latter are my personal views. Wikimedia does not and will not take any side in these questions.

Hanno (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent revelations ( See Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ) about the client scientists behind the IPCC report perverting the peer review process to exclude anyone who disagrees with them, I find the above "the disparate data I arbitrarily spliced together is all peer reviewed" argument somwhat less than compelling in this particular case.

I suggest a 9th question be asked (and look forward to an answer from Hanno):

9. Was grafting together data from different sources original research?

75.84.238.18 23:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And the relevance of the question is?.. is 75.84.238.18|75.84.238.18 suggesting all images that are "original work" should be removed from wikimedia? Looking forwards to the answer 82.29.106.229 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agreement with the previous comment, I cannot see the relevance of the question (cf. Commons:Project scope#Media files). In addition, I cannot see that the answer would be anything else than an obvious "no". What exactly should the original consist of? Cheers, Hanno (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)