Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Raw data

Also, the data supplied by the Met isn't raw data. This is an issue that is associated with climategate and is well known by the public. Even Jon Stewart was concerned about it.--Magicjava (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Had part is supplied by the Met, and we have a well sourced statement that the HadCRUTS code is maintained by the Met. The video which you link is not presently available in my country, but it is summarised, presumably by Mr. Stewart, as "E-mails stolen from scientists don't disprove global warming, but it puts a fresh set of Energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny." Was that what you meant? . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not seeing a link to CRU's raw data in any of the links you supplied. Could you be so kind as to post a link directly to the raw data? --Magicjava (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this link and the CRU update 2 which starts "Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years... over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years..... The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements." That should help your search for the 95%, you'll have to make requests directly to the other national met organisations for the data they have so far refused to release. Note that the CRU's webserver is currently being rebuilt after the security breach, some documents may be on google cache. In the meantime, you can also obtain a lot of the datasets here. Unix system required for processing, Microsoft Access isn't up to it apparently. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I've been looking for that data for a while and, yeah, I never made the connection between GHCN and CRU. And yes, I have a UNIX system. :) --Magicjava (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to assist, will be interested to hear how you get on with that data. . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Met page here still says the raw data was thrown out in the 80s. See Questions and answers about the data sets items 1, 2, and 3. I must admit that keeping track of all these different raw and processed data sets is confusing and perhaps an explanation of them and their inter-relationships is worth its own wiki page. --Magicjava (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, short sighted skimping on spending in the 80s, admittedly electronic data storage was horrendously expensive then, what a shame the treasury wasn't under someone as keen on fully funding "The integrity of the scientific evidence" and "the reputation of British science" as Lord Lawson... oh, wait a minute! Fortunately, item 4 notes that "There are three independent sets of global temperature" so hope the US organisations weren't as short sighted. Suspect that the climate scientists are equally frustrated with the difficulties of compiling this data, and a Wikipedia article on the whole issue would be a good thing. Bit beyond me, I'm afraid! . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also seems that GHCN unadjusted data is not unadjusted after all. At least according to this blog post. --Magicjava (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that suggests that several sets of data are available, and claims they're all adjusted to some extent. Obviously we need an expert statement published in a reliable source, and this does indeed look like a useful subject for a new article. . . dave souza, talk 15:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Where’s the data? – "Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon which scientific conclusions are based..... However, many of the people raising this issue are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.... [ RealClimate ] has "set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc." – Data Sources . . . dave souza, talk 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue from the skeptic side has not been whether some data is released, but whether the specific data-sets used for individual studies are released alongside with their code (or at least algorithms) with which they produced their research results. No less than this is sufficient to allow for verifying those results as valid and repeatable. Another charge has been for the inclusion and explanation of various adjustments made to temperature or proxy readings which influence the results. Also, I believe Real Climate added their data page after this incident, so even if it's sufficient it wasn't before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.206.164 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this issue been published in a reliable source with specific reference to the stolen emails or data? Since doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105 shows an example of the climate scientists publishing links to the data-sets used and their algorithms (though without giving away a free copy of Matlab) it appears to be a spurious issue and a mainstream view would be needed to put the "skeptic side" claim in context. . . dave souza, talk 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor had this: 'Climategate': Leaked emails push scientists toward transparency71.224.206.164 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• From the Met Office FAQ – The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at http://icoads.noaa.gov/ ." Regarding HadCRUT3, GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and NCDC (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) global temperature analyses, "The datasets are largely based on the same raw data, but each analysis treats that data differently." Presumably raw data enthusiasts can get it from the two U.S. sources if they don't trust the British organisations, and from CRU update2, "The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets." . . dave souza, talk 11:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Each analysis treats the data differently. From where are the lists of stations used by the Jones papers available? - SEWilco (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the papers? . . dave souza, talk 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are "sceptics of anthropogenic climate change"?

they are Climate change denial deniers ?? sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting link, but the "skeptics" label is a self-description that appears in most of the sources. There are various degrees of denial, and the more scientifically literate opponents of the current consensus accept that there is a man-made contribution to climate change, and that the climate is changing for the warmer, but dispute whether that man-made contribution is statistically significant. Jolly hockey sticks! . . dave souza, talk 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• • what "consensus"? Over 30,000 scientists have now signed the NIPCC's statement of disbelief in AGW. How many are signed up to the IPCC's summary for policymakers? It would need to be 200,000 to 300,000 this to be called consensus. By some counts, however, it's only about 100 -a dn that's even if you count the likes of Michael Mann and Phil Jones as scientists, which is fighting talk. 86.141.71.87 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. What about it? I know very little about it. Where was it published? Who verified the names, qualifications, and academic affiliations of these 30,000 scientists? Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

new "password" Scientific opponents global warming? no? then Climate change denial.. "pump it" :P sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are trying to say. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Methinks the young one should stick with the Slovakian Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

why? I feel "at home", finally you have achieved pure post-socialist newspeak , congratulations sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to go too far off topic with this Dave, but it hasn't warmed in about 12 years. :P --Magicjava (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, remember it's not possible to "Hide the decline" much longer … The mini ice age starts here Nsaa (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Individuals who oppose action on global warming" :O Blacklist-List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - are they? sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No sign of a blacklist, notice that they're not necessarily experts on climate. Rather reminiscent of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, but much more reputable. . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New edit to the lead is problematic.

In this edit, Sirwells removes the entirety of the response from the accused and their supporters. I wonder how this is in keeping with WP:NPOV. The information he removed was all sourced in the main body of the text. I'd like to hear from Sirwells as to why he came back from his year and a half hiatus to make this change. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it was not sourced. You had scientific organizations calling it a "smear" campaign. See subsequent edits by Oren0 (who did a better job then me if fixing your misleading statements then me) and related talk discussions. Sirwells (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, raised this, in #The second half of the lede above, but no response yet. It's better discussed here where everyone can see. --Nigelj (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It removed the part of the lede that was summarizing the mainstream view. Certainly not a move towards NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. If Sirwells or anybody else thinks they can justify the previous version, they should give reasons and obtain consensus here before altering the lede again. --Nigelj (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert, which happened while I was implementing what I hope is a new improved version, together with a commented out reminder that references are in the body text. I'll be glad to consider any objections to the new wording, and if there's popular demand am willing to return it to the version as reinstated by Kim with the addition of the commented out reminder. dave souza, talk 13:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the 1RR probation is community-based, perhaps we can request that the terms of the probation are altered to take into account issues such as this? There would need to be a clause added to the probation - something like this:

The lede of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is a summary of the article body. It lacks references because all material in the lede is fully cited in the body of the article. Within reason (and the judgment of administrators), text that has been removed from the lede because of the perceived lack of citations may be restored without concern for violating the one-reversion per day (1RR) stipulation.

Now this is just a rough idea, and it is probably full of loopholes, but you get the general idea. Maybe something like that could work? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions generally are a bad idea, in my opinion - I've seen the BLP exception to the 3RR misused often enough. Dave has added a hidden comment to the text: <!--in accordance with [[WP:LEAD]], this summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article and is supported by these citations. Please discuss any proposed changes first.--> I would rather ask that this be considered part of the article probation. If someone ignores it, warn them. If they continue to ignore it, then report them.

Even with the 1RR, there are lots of people here who can revert an obvious violation of the rules. Putting more power in the hands of one editor makes edit wars more likely. Giving the decision formal backing, on the other hand, frees editors to act without the fear that their actions will get them banned from the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. We've got enough issues with 1RR, we don't need to make it worse.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's this. Maybe a specific exception would be appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress that the abovelinked section contains my personal musings on best practices - I have no intention of trying to change the editing restrictions here just now. It does, however, remain true that re-inserting a reverted edit by anyone can be edit warring and repeatedly failing to seek consensus here for edits that any reasonable observer would know to be contentious can be disruptive. These are true on any article, just more so here. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear...the conversation there caused me to stop and think, and was offered as a good alternative to my opining. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, these edits to the lead change the meaning, and have not been discussed. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see they've been reverted. I believe that was the correct course of action. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to explain: JettaMann (talk · contribs) made the following edits:

1. Took out wiggle words "what were" and replaced with "they" since it was the UEA people who described this.
2. Added "some" in front of Scientists, officials... because you can't blanket say that all scientists agreed.

I have reverted both of these edits for these reasons:

1. Others besides those at the UEA have also described the incident as a smear campaign, noted and cited in the body of the article.
2. Aside from "some" being a weasel word, the sentence does not say "all scientists agreed" (despite what JettaMann said in the edit summary). Again, this is elaborated upon in the body of the article.

In future, I would expect JettaMann to seek consensus on this talk page before making meaningful changes such as these. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered them minor changes, since only one word was being changed in either case. The first should be changed to "they" because it was the UEA people who said it was a smear campaign. Or, if need be, you must be more specific about the parties who claimed it was a smear campaign. Right now these are weasel words. Second, it should read "Some scientists" as the current language says "Scientists agree..." Well, this is pure weasel. Which scientists? You need to get rid of the weasel language that seems to always come out favorably towards the AGW side for some reason. JettaMann (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another edit to the lead without consensus.

This edit to the lead, which is not discussed, moves the word "many" from being a descriptive term about the people who "suggested that it was intended to sabotage the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit." to being a descriptive term about the scientists that consider it a smear campaign. This is a violation of Wikipedia:FRINGE#Particular_attribution. I don't quite know why people are making substantive changes to the lead without attempting to reach consensus or explicitly offering to revert their changes, and not even disclosing these substantive edits in their edit summaries. Ahh well. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)= (e/c)Maintaining the basic meaning of the lede, as a summary of the article, is made more difficult by misleading edit summaries like this one. "More descriptive, better flow" you would not expect to describe moving the word "many" from describing those who have "suggested that it was intended to sabotage COP15" to describing the number of "other scientists" who disapprove of the attack (I paraphrase here). If Heyitspeter (talk) feels that that wording better summarises the cited information in the body of the article (which it doesn't), the place to state a case would have been here, not under the cover of such a misleading edit summary. --Nigelj (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What we’ve got here is a failure to AGF. First, the original sentence was long and rambling. Heyitspeter’s edit broke it into two, more easily digestible sentences and moved the word “many”. The break into two sentences matches the edit summary “better flow”. As for the word many, it then (and now) modifies a phrase including only two names. The lede isn’t referenced (that’s acceptable) so we look for sabotage in the main article and we find it, with one reference attached. The reference is bad, but purports to support a claim from one person, Trenbeth. Even if you track down the right reference, I don’t think anyone would argue that Trenbeth supports the word “many”. In contrast, the first part of the sentence, where “many” was moved, does make reference to many entities. So the edit description, “more descriptive” is warranted. I think the edit is better, although there is still work to do. Reference #50 is bad, and needs to be found. Even if found, the lede mentions sabotage claims by Pachauri and Brown, but I don’t see them in the main article. SPhilbrickT 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you try searching for Pachauri and Brown in the main article? Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was rushing to meet my ride, and didn't search for Brown. I now see the reference to Brown in the main text, but this just makes the situation worse. We use a very strong- value laden word like "sabotage" in the lede, but the statement supporting the lede doesn't use the word, not is it in the cited reference. We do have the word "sabotage" in the main article, but that isn't in support of the word in the lede, it is a different usage. Furthermore, we don't know for sure that the main article usage is supported by the cite, because the cite is bad. We have a sentence claiming that "many" suggest sabotage, but the related sentence doesn't use sabotage and doesn't support the usage by anyone, and only two if one argues that "undermines" justifies "sabotage" (it doesn't) but even that strained argument doesn't support "many" Two doesn't imply many. So there are lots of problems. The edit by Heyitspeter was a good edit, cleaning up a couple of the problems. Why on earth was it reverted? There's no good justification for a reversion to a version that is badly flawed.

I think it should be returned to the Heyitspeter version, I request that you undo the reversion (I'd do it myself, but I'm not quite sure how to count reversions - and there are strict limits here - however, I'm sure you can undo your own edit without problems. Do you agree?--SPhilbrickT 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To explain my revert of Sirwell's latest edit, "Michael Mann, Eric Steig and Richard Somerville have described the incident as a smear campaign" is misleading, since it gives the impression that this claim was only made by these three people. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Smear Campaign

The following is currently in the lead: "The University of East Anglia, other scientists, scientific organisations, elected representatives and governments from around the world have described the incident as a smear campaign, and many, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and IPCC's head, Rajendra Pachauri suggested that it was intended to sabotage the then imminent December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit."

There are a lot of things claimed in this snippet, and I don't that they are all supported by the body of the article. Who has actually called this a smear campaign:

• UEA: check
• Other scientists: some have claimed this, but a greater number of the uninvolved scientists currently in the article are quoted expressing concerns than are quoted calling it a smear campaign (note that claiming "this doesn't affect the science" is distinct from calling it a smear campaign). At best, this should say "some other scientists".
• Scientific organizations: the only scientific organization quoted in the article that claims anything like this is the AGU. At best, the accurate statement would be "one scientific organization"
• Elected representatives and governments from around the world: Not at all in the current article. The only person quoted making a statement at all like this is Gordon Brown, and it's hard to extrapolate "representatives and governments from around the world" from one person.

I don't think that this sentence is at all justified by the body of the article, and I don't see why the opinions of several scientists that did have concerns don't merit a significant mention. Oren0 (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The above referred to this revision. I since modified the lead in this edit. I believe the current lead better meets WP:NPOV and is more in line with the content of the article. Oren0 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Oren0. Sirwells (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the following sentence: "[S]ome scientists have described the incident as a smear campaign...[s]ome other scientists have stated that the incident reflects a problem", in the Climatologist section I count 4 responses from uninvolved scientists indicating 'smear campaign' (Wegley, Pierrehumbert, Karoly, and Pitman) and 3 who claim it indicates a problem (Michaels, Curry, Von Storch). Both points of view, plus the one that it doesn't affect AGW science, are all significant in the article and should therefore all be mentioned in the lead. Oren0 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. And what's your defense for the conversion of decent prose into bad prose?
2. I take it that you satisfied yourself that before you chose to count names in this article, you satisfied yourself that this is representative of the balance of what's been said? I take it that you're not using this article as your source? Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that your edit to the lead again violated Wikipedia:FRINGE#Particular_attribution, in that that you again attribute the Copenhagen disruption to merely two of the multiple citations. Please correct this. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: I didn't change the attribution of the Copenhagen statement. It is exactly as it was in the Guettarda's previous version. @Guettarda #1: If you think my writing is bad, please improve it or suggest how I might do so. I don't claim to be the world's best writer but the previous revision contained a 50+ word sentence that I found very unpleasant to read and I find my revision more readable. But I have no ego about such things, so feel free to fix it and I don't believe such a fix would count as a reversion. @Guettarda #2: The lead should be representative of the article. I have made the reactions mentioned in the lead reflect the major ones in the "reactions" section. If you think that section is unbalanced, then that section should change first and then the lead should change to reflect that. Oren0 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not accurate, Oren0 - specifically, your edit here removed "and many, including," which makes it appear that only Brown and Pachauri suggested that it was intended to sabotage. Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I did change the meaning there. But I don't believe that "many" is sourced in the article. Currently, the only people in the article who make this claim are the two in the lead and Trenberth. Are there others quoted as saying this in reliable sources, or are there sources that claim that many people have said this? If so, those sources should be in the article. As it stands, I don't think the "many" claim is justified by the body of the article. Oren0 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article. That's not the same as saying "the lead should consist of original research drawn from the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of "Smear" in this context is confusing and probably linguistically incorrect. The supposed hacking of the information itself could not be said to be a smear campaign, even by the definition of a smear campaign from a very general point of view. By the comments of those closely involved, the disemination of information was not coordinated in any specific sense. The Hackers (if you will) simply released thousands of emails and other documents into the wind with no specific focus on any of them. Now it could possibly be said that some have taken the information and presented it in a way that is considered to be a "Smear Campaign", however to take that approach changes the focus of the article from a simply hacking incident to the more commonly used term "Climategate" which could then, by definition, be called a smear campaign. The other alternative is that the information release was done by a whistle-blower in an attempt to discredit EAU and the named scientists, but under this alternative, it also becomes "Climategate". So, "Smear Campaign" should not be used because it does not correctly follow the meme that is currently being presented. Arzel (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph as rewritten was putting undue emphasis on the "smear campaign" statement, though a number of commentators have noted the attacks being made on the reputations of scientists rather than credible attacks on the science. To emphasise more significant points, I've changed it to "The University of East Anglia and climate scientists have described these interpretations as incorrect and misleading, with the extracts being taken out of context in what has been described as a smear campaign." The sentence "Some other scientists have stated that the incident reflects a problem with scientists not being open with their data." promotes a fringe view without giving the clear expert majority view that 95% of the data is publicly available, the remainer being witheld by national met offices and not be the scientists concerned. I've rephrased it as "Though nearly all climate data is freely available, a number of scientists have said that the incident reflects a general problem of scientists not being more open with their data." Of course there has been a subtext of complaint that the scientists were not more open with their private emails, and we need to clarify the context of that. As for the meme of "Climategate", that is essentially a one-sided partisan label and needs no further promotion from us. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Some other scientists have stated that the incident reflects a problem with scientists not being open with their data." promotes a fringe view without giving the clear expert majority view that 95% of the data is publicly available. What evidence do you have that this is a fringe view? We currently quote 3 climatologists, two of whom are not AGW skeptics, making this claim in the response section. Again, the lead must summarize the article. If you think the response section is giving undue weight, fix it there first and then the lead should reflect that. As for "Climategate" in the lead, that has been discussed to death and there has been a consensus that as the most common term in reliable sources it belongs in the lead. You're welcome to bring this up again of course but if you do I ask that you do it in a separate section as it's unrelated to this discussion. Oren0 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wording presents it as if it were an either/or case, which it isn't. Your presentation also gives equal weight to both opinions, when in fact, few people appear to have said much about the "open with data" idea. It may or may not be a fringe view, but it's certainly not a view that deserves equal - or even roughly equivalent - weight. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If "people appear to have said much about the "open with data" idea", then why are both UEA and Mann's university both launching investigations? This is a major theme of this incident. Madman (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I feel like I'm repeating myself here. About as many scientists are currently quoted in the article expressing this "trouble with data openness" idea as are quoted claiming "smear campaign" (3 and 4, respectively). Therefore, the two should be presented roughly equally in the lead. If you think the article should be proportioned differently, propose that. But the lead is currently an accurate representation of the views in the article, in proportion to the number of people quoted who make them. Oren0 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should accurately reflect the article, yes. But not so as to be misleading. The article uses illustrative quotes. One of the unfortunate side-effects thereof is may be to create a false sense of equivalence. Not good, but difficult to avoid. When writing the lead, we need to take that into account. The lead needs to represent the article, but it really needs to be written with an eye to the underlying sources. To count quotes in an article and then use that to determine due weight is deeply misleading. It's taking the article as a data source, and using it to come to a conclusion about notability. That's totally unacceptable. Guettarda (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Why is Climategate removed from the lead sentence over and over again by some authors? Ok, they hate it, but it's established beyond doubt that this is the name used by (nearly?) everyone including (most of?) the (AGW standing) Newspapers. So please restore "Climategate" in the lead section as a compromise since some of the newspapers uses that. Who coined it has nothing to do in the first lead section by WP:UNDUE. And it should be in bold per WP:BOLDTITLE

Proposal change from "The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident came to light in November 2009 with" to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (commonly known as "Climategate") came to light in November 2009 with". Nsaa (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The most common term in reliable sources shouldn't be buried. Oren0 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that most reliable sources don't call it that. So we shouldn't either. Guettarda (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Why is it inserted over and over? It's not the name of the thing. Most reliable sources use it in quotes. The name is part of an attempt to spin the thing into a made-up scandal. And we really shouldn't be using Wikipedia for advocacy. Clear enough? Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Climategate" already appears in the article's introduction in a non-neutral manner. I see no compelling reason for it to be in the first sentence, since there would not be room for the necessary explanation of the term to be included. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  There is no need for a detailed explanation in the lead. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - "Climategate" should be the article title. That is how sources on both sides of the issue refer to it. It is how the Wall Street Journal and MIT refer to it. Since a number of POV pushers won't allow that, it should be in the first sentence. Oh, and claiming that "Individuals who oppose action on global warming called the incident 'Climategate'" is completely bias. There is no way anyone has a reliable reference for that. Q Science (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  Er... no. The MIT source puts "Climategate" in quotes, indicating it isn't their own usage. The WSJ only uses it in the title of that opinion piece, and the WSJ is tainted by the small matter of its biased owner. And we aren't even talking about the title in first place. And referring to fellow Wikipedians as "POV pushers" does not assume good faith. Fail all around, really. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  In titles, many people use quotes to draw attention to a specific word. This is frequently done because bold and Capitalization can not be used to set off a word in a title. Through out the rest of the article, the word is used with capitalization to set it off, and without quotes. If you watch the "The Great Climategate Debate" video (2 hrs, at the bottom of the page), you will here the term "Climategate" used regularly by people on both sides of the controversy. Your claim makes no sense. As for whether or not the WSJ is biased, that is irrelevant. It is a reliable source for this type of information. And there are hundreds of others. (Such as Climategate: Anatomy of a Public Relations Disaster published at Yale.) It appears that the only people not using "Climategate" are those trying to do damage control. Specifically, people with a very strong POV, such as Greenpeace and the embarrassed University, refuse to use the term. Q Science (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree - There is little doubt that "Climategate" is the primary reference to this incident. I had not even heard of the other terms "Swifthack" and one I can't remember until I saw it being discussed here. Regardless of whether the scientists actually did hide or delete data or did manipulate the review process, the general concensus is that what they did was not quite right. Arzel (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Regardless of what you may think, we simply cannot use this POV term without some explanation. There is not enough room in the first sentence to do that explanation any justice. The current treatment is perfectly acceptable. Also, your "general consensus" about their actions is complete nonsense. Their reaction to McIntyre's badgering was perfectly reasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  "POV term" used by everyone? The term do not need an explanation more than that it's commonly used? The first paragraphs don't explain things, it's just a summary of the article without citations (which should be present further down in the main body of the article) Nsaa (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  (e.c) Swifthack has only one WP:RS source and some 10 more blogs referring to it. Terms like Warmergatedailymail,E-mail-theft-gate (used by Senator_Barbara_Boxer ) [6], Climate Denier Gate [7], Climategate controversy Scientific American[8], Climategate scandal belfasttelegraph nearly all looks more used … Nsaa (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying they all should be treated as names? Guettarda (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The logic here is simple. Any name that can be reliably sourced can be mentioned in the "naming" section, with proper attribution if it's only used by a small number of sources. The most major name in reliable sources (Cliategate) should get the most exposure there, and the lead, being representative of the article, should mention that name. Per the manual of style, alternate names mentioned in the lead should be bolded and appear in the first sentence. Therefore, "Climategate" should appear bolded in the first sentence, and other names should not per WP:WEIGHT. Does anyone here dispute that of all the alternate names "Climategate" is used in more reliable sources by at least one order of magnitude? Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy (or even guideline) that states (or even suggests) that "the most major name [] should get the most exposure", nor any that say that common redirects must "appear in the first sentence." So let's have no more of this made-up "logic" okay? The term is given adequate billing in the lede, with alternative terms being banished to a section later in the article. This is consistent with the advice given at Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names, which quite clearly states:

"If there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves."

Not only do we have three or more alternate names ("Climategate", "Warmergate", "Swifthack"), but we also have something notable to say about them (we have already discussed the TIME article). Logically, the current arrangement is the most appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If those other names were being used even remotely then I would agree. However, there is simply no question that "Climategate" is the by far the most widly used term. Climategate outnumbers them in reference by at least 25:1. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Climategate is not the title - it is an alternative name (see Scjessey just above here), it shouldn't be bolded but instead described in a section on names/etymology. Let it go people, this has been discussed to death several times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And that means what? It is only being discussed because of some irrational fear of having it included into the lead. Arzel (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're only discussing it because of some irrational fear you have, but as you're not a mind reader you must assume good faith and accept that others have rational reasons for concern about undue weight being given to a propagandistic term. . . dave souza, talk 23:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How in the world can one give undue weight to the term that is used over 95% of the time to describe the incident? And who is claiming it is a propogandistic term? I will accept rational reasons for concerns, but to this point I have yet to see any. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read the arguments put forward by those who see this differently. You're under no obligation to agree with other people, but it's sort of expected that you read what people have said, if you're going to engage in a discussion. It's especially rude to demand that people repeat themselves, just for you. Guettarda (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kim, Guettarda, and Scjessey above. Using such a title poisons the well, instituting a particular assumed frame of reference that necessarily favors a particular (and possibly inaccurate) expectation of the incident. The governing policy is WP:NPOV; this primary concern has nothing to do with how many or which ideologues use the term, which is irrelevant. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Lionelt (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Agree". A quick search finds 56 million hits to "Climategate". "Jesus" has barely twice as many. Let's please have some honesty and recognize that the continued blocking of the use of climategate is a rather obvious attempt to diminish possible impact of the event by partisan editors. Such behaviour is what brings Wikipedia into disrepute MarkC (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Add this sentence to [#Other_responses]

Add this sentence to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Other responses

From

Other responses

[...]

Pennsylvania State University announced it would review the work of Michael Mann, in particular looking at anything had not already been addressed in an earlier National Academy of Sciences review which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results. In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.

to (addition in bold)

Other responses

[...]

Pennsylvania State University announced it would review the work of Michael Mann, in particular looking at anything had not already been addressed in an earlier National Academy of Sciences review which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results. In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.. 2 January 2010 Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives made this 12 page brief about Pennsylvania State University's investigation of the conduct of Michael Mann; "The Pennsylvania General Assembly should commission an external and independent investigation of Mann in order to avoid PSU’s glaring conflict of interest."

[…]

References

Is this fine? Nsaa (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the opinion of a right-leaning Pennsylvania think tank would be relevant, quite honestly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A Think tank is a think tank. It looks just fine … Nsaa (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. It looks like an irrelevant opinion from some nobodies. A right-leaning think tank is always going to favor business interests over planetary interests (unless they are a particularly unusual species of right-leaning think tank). Putting this into the article would be a quite serious violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is really getting to be one degree of separation too many. This is a reaction to a reaction to the incident. PSU isn't directly involved, not the way UEA is. We wouldn't include every comment on UEA's course of action. PSU is a step further away from all this than is UEA. The think tank is a step further away.

Now that aside, there's the question of why we care about what this think tank has to say. Are they notable? Their Wikipedia article has no third-party sources, which is always a red flag. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Mann is the scientist that's responsible for Hockey stick-graph. This was the graph that has made governments already spent billions of money on CO2 reducing schemes ... Not relevant? Nsaa (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the hockey stick, or about climate change in general. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, this is secondary to the question of why we should care about the opinion of this think tank? Guettarda (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, as our article says, the hockey stick thing has already been reviewed, that time by a semi independent organisation (the NAS) which found some fault with his methodology but agreed with his conclusion, as our article says (I know because I added it and checked it's still there) and the PSU have made clear they're not going to bother to re-review that only new allegations Nil Einne (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) @Scjessey:I see your argument and partly agree that the sources them self do not have enough weight. I don't see your rallying about "always going to favor business interests over planetary interests" (this has nothing to do with this article - but I see that you indicate that business is damaging to the environment, yeah lets see. How do the world prosper? Who let ordinary people use telephones for nearly free all over the world (like services like Skype) - Doomsdayers like Paul Erlich was telling us that we runs out of resources in 2000. ahh the world is still here... . It's capitalistic well managed societies that achieves that growth). Whatever. Have you read the piece and made up a meaning of it's Content? Not interested?

The point they make is obvious a good one. You don't investigate yourself, both in terms of money interest involved and missing of it's reputation… Lets see ExxonMobile investigates their own pollution of a river? That's just fine isn't? We can hope that a more major news source made this point so we can use it. Nsaa (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"You don't investigate yourself." - Sorry, but that's incredibly naive. Right-leaning organizations exactly like this think tank constantly lobby governments to promote "self-regulation" (instead of government regulation) for big businesses, financial institutions, etc. They call for independent reviews for stuff they don't support, and internal reviews for things they do support. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I don't think the ExxonMobil (I presume you meant this rather then ExxonMobile) comparison is a particularly good one, we are talking about Pennsylvania State University reviewing one of their researchers, this is similar to ExxonMobile reviewing one of their researchers or other staff when wrongdoing is alleged (which surely happens all the time), not ExxonMobil reviewing their pollution of a river. I should add they are, according to their own words, following a well defined policy of theirs which isn't surprising and I strongly suspect if it were a less controversial subject, no one would even raise a peep. Finally whatever the merits of such an approach, it happens all the time, e.g. medical organisations (the AMA for example) will review the work of a doctor member when wrongdoing is alleged and many people particularly conservative organisations support self-regulation of some sort for many things. In any case, you could easily argue that they could easily respond the opposite, to protect their image and fundraising ability they may overreact to any allegations of wrong doing. Anyway while Scsjessey's comment wasn't perhaps necessary or particularly helpful to the discussion since it raised unnecessary arguments, I too agree that the comments of some random organisation with no real connection to the people involved or science isn't particularly relevant for the article Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the Think tank (as far as I've seen is nothing like Reason_Foundation, Fraser Institute, Heritage Foundation etc.) make it possible to add because of the current environment on this article. As to the argument about self regulation. Nothing wrong with that. But a proper investigation can mean that the world will stop spending and planning to spend trillions on totally unnecessary cost. Nsaa (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that PSU is incapable of holding a "proper investigation" into the conduct of one of their researchers? Furthermore, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the behavior of humanity is causing a potentially disastrous change to the climate of the planet, so surely a significant investment to reverse that trend (to "cancel out" humanity's impact) cannot possibly be characterized as "unnecessary" by any thinking person. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, it seems to me that it is the government's who rely on such work responsibility, if they don't trust the PSU to conduct their own investigations if they feel it is necessary. In fact I believe this was what happened last time, wasn't it the US Congress or something which got the NAS to review the hockey stick thing? Some have called for such investigations but so far it seems few governments have expressed an interest, perhaps because they do trust the PSU or perhaps because they recognise that even if Michael Mann was guilty of wrong doing and the PSU hid it, there is so much evidence that it ultimately will make little difference or perhaps because their sick dickering around with such stuff since last time they tried it the results were nothing earth shattering. Either way, this isn't helping the case of adding the views of some random organisation to the article Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Further looking at the only secondary source presented so far, which I've just realised is a blog, it's stated that the Pennsylvania State Senate Education Committee Chairman has already said he'd conduct an investigation if this one is a whitewash so I see even less reason to include the views of some random organisation Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, it seems to me that you're here mostly to argue in favor of AGW theory rather than trying to make an honest effort to reduce the massive amount of POV present in this article. Am I correct? -- Femmina (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I do not edit with any agenda other than the betterment of Wikipedia in general. And I see no evidence of a "massive amount of POV". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point that what you call "AGW theory" is the mainstream, consensus scientific position, just as is evolution by natural selection or the earth going round the sun. By design, Wikipedia focuses on the mainstream scientific viewpoint and gives less time to minority POVs or the viewpoints of non-experts. And I note that those making accusations against the scientists in this affair are overwhelmingly either fringe figures within the climate science community or are non-experts. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, AGW (which may be partially correct) and Evolution by natural selection (which I believe is correct) are Theories. The action which dictates the movement of the Earth around the Sun is a Scientific Law, but even the absolute reason why the Earth follows a specific path and or has not flown out into space or crashed into the sun are also Theories, albeit pretty strong theories. If WP is going to be governed by the scientific method, as you claim, then it should follow true scientific method and not dogmatic ideas like those that resulted in the condemming of scientists that would dare suggest that the Earth travels around the Sun. Even from a statistical point of view you/we should all be worried about research which always proves the positive. In a highly variable field like weather prediction or climate modeling, at a minimum one out of every twenty papers should show a disenting view. According to you, there is no reliable dissention. I find this statistically impossible to believe. Arzel (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See evolution as theory and fact. This may correct some of your misconceptions. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha, you expect me to believe a controversial WP article? A fact indicates that it is true, ie, 100% true, no other possible alternatives. Arzel (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I was hoping you'd take the opportunity to correct your misconceptions. Like any good Wikipedia article, the real value is in the refs. Guettarda (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did check the article and the refs, and most of the argument of "fact" appears to based on a defense of evolution against inteligent design, where by admitting that it is a theory would give weight to those that don't believe in evolution. But it is a rather poor approach to try and tie numerical facts to the theory in order to state that it is a fact. Like I said, I believe that the Theory of Evolution is correct, but that doesn't mean it is absolutely true. It really comes down to semantics, the issue here is the confusion between scientific concensus and scientific fact. A current concensus view is that Dark Matter exists, and thankfully that article sill refers to it as a theory. Arzel (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you don't appear to have understood the article very well at all. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me right. You're very biased and you have no right to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. Furthermore this article is NOT about AGW theory, it's about the hacking incident. If I wasn't a good Wikipedian I would say that you're acting in bad faith, trying to slip your agenda for support of the AGW theory in a place where it doesn't even belong. But what am I thinking? That's surely not the case... -- Femmina (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What??? No one here is speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, as is basically always the case particularly for comments on wikipedia article talk pages. Even when Jimbo Wales comments, he's doing so as an individual in most instances. If Mike Godwin offer's legal advice or someone on the wikimedia foundation board gives the boards view or even when someone says or does something on behalf of the board (i.e. an office action) they aren't speaking on behalf of Wikipedia but on behalf of the wikimedia foundation. There are a few PR people who may similarly make comments on behalf of the foundation to external sources and editors may make comments on behalf of themselves, but these similarly made on behalf of the foundation or the editors themselves, never on behalf of wikipeida. In other words, if you think anyone here is speaking on behalf of Wikipedia, then I suggest you read the various policies more since that's a rather basic error. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's (what appears to be) a reliable source which covers the Commonwealth Foundation's call for an external investigation.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

College paper may be a reliable source, but that wasn't the issue - the issue was notability of this think tank. This doesn't establish that the think tank is notable enough for mention here. Guettarda (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with "Naming of the incident" section

This section opens with a quote from "Fact Check", which seems to have nothing to do with the history of the name.

Here's the FC quote in full:

Analysis Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Source

Note that the title of Fact Check's article is “Climategate” -- our quote (by my reading) simply reiterates the article name. So this quote appears inappropriate for this section's lede.

The entire section appears overweight and, to my eye, appears to exist mainly to provide a justification for removing Climategate from the article lede. Am I missing something? --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a source that has been seen as neutral by editors of different sympathies in the debate, and its analysis of the debate clearly indicates that the term is used in "portraying the affair as a major scandal" rather than a tempest in a teapot, as others would have it. The section describes naming of the incident, and the WP:LEAD summarises the content of the article so, if anything, the section provides justification for the inclusion of "climategate" in the lead. The views of any other similarly neutral observers on this topic will also be welcome provided of course that they're attributable, so do please find sources we can add. . . dave souza, talk 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note the present wording, "Individuals who oppose action on global warming called the incident Climategate, which became a commonly used term for the incident." Um, seriously? "Individuals who oppose action on global warming" named the incident "Climategate"? Um, it just got called that by the media, and those who don't like the name probably just need to get over it. This is original research, and bias, and just plain wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be a rather blatant example of poisoning the well. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that the term was coined by anti-science activists in the blogosphere. The media latched onto it because it's catchy and because they're lazy - they didn't coin it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This very article suggests that it isn't well-established. --Heyitspeter (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty well established? You say that, giving not a single piece of evidence, just like the article. What evidence can there be; RealClimate didn't use the term, ergo...? Evidence, please. This is sheer fantasy. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion got kind of de-railed. I take your point to be that the Fact Check article doesn't appear to be asserting that skeptics named the incident "Climategate" in that quote, and that it should be taken out of that section. Is that fair? If so I'd agree.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say whether or not skeptics introduced the term, it does express the view that they're using the name and why. A neutral finding. . . dave souza, talk 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the newly minted "glaciergate" can be compared with "climategate" in relation to the naming issue? I would suggest that an editor create such an article. Ref.[10] P.S. I sincerely hope I haven't screwed anything up as this is my first edit on wikipedia. 130.232.214.10 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving NPOV

Here's a big problem with this article as I see it. It is loaded with citations, quotes, opinions, etc from the very same group of people who's credibilty is under question by the leaked emails. For example: Michael Mann and Phil Jones opinions are both featured prominently under the "climatologists" reaction to the incident section. I suggest this article could be much less biased if it featured the opinions of scientists, experts, etc who are neutral and NOT involved in anyway to the leaked emails. They shouldn't have to climatologists either. I'd like to see what credible scientists in other fields of study have to say about whether they think scientific misconduct occurred or if they believe behavior shown in the emails is normal. Sirwells (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have a separate response subsection for the responses from those who wrote the emails, distinct from responses from outsiders. As for your other suggestion, if you can find other reputable scientist responses that you think should be in the article, you should present them here. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a really good idea to me. I couldn't think of an appropriate subsection title but if you can I'd say go for it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I might also add that finding scientists and experts who are "neutral" is going to be difficult, because virtually all of these people support the work that has been done by the CRU; work that echoes that of others, and work that supports what has lead to the mainstream scientific position. Furthermore, who shall be the arbiter of who is "neutral" and who is not? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article deals with allegations about previously private emails and other data, we present the views of those who wrote each email or ar responsible for the documents, and the views of others on the meaning and significance of each email or document. Moving or presenting criticism out of context fails WP:NPOV], particularly if minority views are shown without the mainstream perspective, and is deprecated in WP:LAYOUT. Hope that helps. We do of course welcome expert opinion which is properly verifiable to a reliable source. However, credible scientists in other fields of study may be speaking outside their area of expertise, and their views have to be treated with care. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be very helpful to separate the views of those directly involved from those not directly involved. If most statements by scientists not directly involved have been favourable to the CRU - and I think Scjessey is correct in saying they are - then that is a useful fact for readers to know. I argued a long time ago that we do not need so many responses as we have at present. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a split into these three subsections: "reactions of those implicated by the emails", "reactions of other climatologists", "reactions of other scientists"Sirwells (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New info on the Climategate data-release timeline

-- available in a long post at Climate Audit here. Clarifies some interesting details of the data release. Worth reading -- some bits might be appropriate for that section, here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So now we are using the talk page to publicize McIntyre's blog posts? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how it is you think that anything in that blog post can be used in this article. I can't figure out what we could possibly use, but I must assume you have something in mind. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This revert by Tillman puts back the misleading idea that much or most data isn't available, refuted by reliable sources as described above. The edit summary claims that "the calculations to "add value" remain obscure" – calculations aren't data, and the IPCC requires openness about calculations, which are published with the scientific papers on the subject. The fringe view of a blog should not be used to obscure this. As another issue, the first mention of IPCC in the lead should be expanded to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as is standard practice. . . dave souza, talk 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP does not use blogs as a source of references since they are not a reliable source. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read one of our cornerstones WP:VERIFY Which states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_ref-2 and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29(This is applicable to persons like James Delingpole and his blog posts). So it's not black and white. It depends. Nsaa (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole undoubtedly expresses the opinions of a journalist, novelist, and self-described libertarian conservative, as his heading says "a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books", but no qualifications in climate science are shown, and the Telegraph doesn't seem to say that the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control: "All information and/or data on the Site is provided on an "as is" basis. Save to the extent required by law, no representations, warranties or terms of any kind are made (or shall be implied by statute or otherwise) in respect of the Site or the Content, including, without limitation, warranties of satisfactory quality, conformity to contract, accuracy, adequacy, conformity to description or fitness for any particular purpose."[11] . . dave souza, talk 14:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not Conservapedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't trow stones like this on other users trying to add some real Value to the article. You have a fine researcher that has more modeling and statistical than most of the other Climate Researchers, and you tries to re-bunk him as a fringe right wing person only applicable for inclusion in Conservapedia? Try to get real please and stop this kind of argumentation. Nsaa (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"A fringe right wing person only applicable for inclusion in Conservapedia?" You said it, not me... -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeline from Finnish state television - YLE

From the Finnish state television we have this Climategate on Finnish TV. Climategate on Finnish television 1/3, Climategate on Finnish television 2/3, Climategate on Finnish television 3/3 (The program was first broadcast on YLE, The Finnish Broadcasting Co., TV1, Monday Dec. 7th, 2009.) and the full official transcript in English (down for the moment, but a copy exist on Google) Nsaa (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) An

Can you spell out what's at issue here, please

What actually is different between the timelines you are talking about, Nsaa/Pete Tillman, and the timeline already in the article? I read the Climate Audit article but it didn't shed any light. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply in a few days -- on AGW wikibreak, read the abuse upthread to see why. Ugh. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

death threats

I'm not watching this page, or likely to get into any arguments here, but I did just note a section, "death threats". I think having a section devoted to this is a seriously bad idea that may encourage other readers to send even more death threats along. I would suggest removing this section again, or at least restructuring the article so that there is no such section heading. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find that reasoning persuasive. In general, we cannot remove factual material simply because someone might take actions. While there are some counter-examples, I don't see this as one of the exceptions.--SPhilbrickT 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the death threats thing is included in the introduction again. This was agreed upon long ago by consensus here that this was giving undue weight to a piece of information.JettaMann (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I recall. Can you point to a discussion that ended in that consensus? Anyway, consensus can change, and there doesn't appear to be consensus that it should be removed at this point in time. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was agreed on here that it was giving undue weight to a trivial thing. Anyone, and I mean anyone, that is in the public receives little jabs once in a while that they can then turn around and say "Hey, this is a death threat" in a lame attempt to get sympathy. These AGW scientists are trying their best to look like victims to gain sympathy. This always happens to people caught up in a scandal, and it isn't even worth mentioning. Someone probably said "I wish you would go extinct like the polar bears" and now these scientists are grasping desperately at this to gain sympathy. Why are we playing along? JettaMann (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

These "little jabs" may be commonplace where you come from, but they're unusual in the UK and a criminal offence. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a UK news service. It is a world encyclopedia run primarily out of the USA. JettaMann (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no dispute over the fact that death threats were received, I think it is a very good detail to include in the summary because it points to just how serious and emotionally charged the reactions have been to the CRU hack, in a concise point. As long as it doesn't paint all skeptics as froth-mouthed death threat writers, it is completely appropriate. Ignignot (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zorita's Reaction

I added a reaction from IPCC author Eduardo Zorita (link here and many other places http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/calls_to_ban_cru_scientists_fr.html). I believe Zorita's reaction is uniquely relevant to this article, since he fully acknowledges that he has placed his own career in jeapardy by going against his collegues, which further demonstrates the way IPCC climate scientists bully anyone disagreeing with thier views and conspire block and prevent journals from getting published if they go against thier "mainstream" views (as is being shown in the leaked emails.) Zorita has made a bold move with his candor. Sirwells (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I took Zorita out, together with your unmarked revert [12]. I'm sure we've discussed Zorita before, but since it is probably lost: Zorita's view isn't particularly notable, but does seem to be entirely unfounded. Puffing him up with "UN IPCC contributing author" fails WP:PEACOCK. And your source [13] doesn't look good. Perhaps you'd care to use this convenient blog [14] instead? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He has also been similarly quoted in the Wall Street Journal's "Notable and Quotable", which seems to quite directly disagree with your assertion that his view isn't notable. "His views are unfounded" is not a rationale for exclusion either. What makes Zorita's opinion less notable than several people who are currently quoted in the article based on a single news story? Oren0 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the Zorita inclusion. Sounds like someone angling for a headline. His arguments aren't particularly cogent. While he may be notable, he isn't notable enough (e.g. Obama) that every utterance becomes notable. We don't included every utterance of every Tom, Dick and Harry (although we could use a little more Harry, but that's an aside) even if notable. While I snarkily would like to quote the "I am not a layer" line, that's not on-topic.--SPhilbrickT 18:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it isn't clear this even belongs here. Zorita's allegations against Rahmstorf etc, bizarre as they are, would belong at crit of IPCC if anywhere (no, I don't think they belong there either). Zorita's views aren't notable; he is a very junior co-author to von S; nor are they cognently argued William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with M. Connolley. Don't support Zorita inclusion. NickCT (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Zorita sent or received a number of the climategate emails. In addition, a number of other emails accuse him of fraud and/or discuss how to exclude him from the IPCC inner circle. As a result, his opinion of climategate is as notable as Mann or Trenberth. Q Science (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sourcing seems to be of poor quality. Even the WSJ link trumpeted by Oren0 just reprints Zorita's own blog, so it can only be used as a source for what Zorita is saying (rather than as a source for whether or not what he is saying is notable). Agree with Sphilbrick that this seems to be someone looking to raise his public profile. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch the BLP stuff. You are basically accusing someone of media grandstanding. Ignignot (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the above two posts by William M. Connelley, as well as any other posts or edits by this person be discarded as a biased influence and therefore ignored and/or reverted. This editor is known to be an associate of Mann, Jones, and others implicated by the climate--"word of which we do not use" emails. See [15]. This is not meant as a personal attack. I am merely trying to help improve the NPOV of the article.Sirwells (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This sort of comment has no place here. If you have COI concerns, the place to raise them is WP:COIN. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All constructive contributions are welcome, especially on a talk page. And WMC's connection has been discussed at the relevant noticeboard and the general opinion is that there's nothing amiss with his editing this article. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

NASA NCDC GISS "Climategate" ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-tv-special-tonight-global-warming-the-other-side/ http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000 "In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf. "
""When the differences between the warmest year in history and the tenth warmest year is less than three quarters of a degree, it becomes silly to rely on such comparisons," added D'Aleo who asserts that the data manipulation is "scientific travesty" that was committed by activist scientists to advance the global warming agenda."
forest wildfire.. games of words, notquench.. sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, this talk page is intended to discuss improvements to the article. This appears to be nothing more but the promotion of your personal point of view. Recommend you start a blog or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he is talking about a tv show in the states which airs tonight about climategate John Coleman’s KUSI meteorologist Tv Special Tonight – Global Warming: The Other Side --mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So? Coleman is just a TV weatherman who happens to also be a global warming denier. Wikipedia should not be used to promote fringe nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

bingo.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/ sk:Redaktor:Alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is relevant and fits perfectly to the "Similar incidents" section.Echofloripa (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source to clarify your thoughts? . . dave souza, talk 13:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here and here Echofloripa (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's blog isn't a reliable source. And regardless of reliability, the Judicial Watch piece doesn't appear to support the claims made in Watts' blog. Guettarda (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's blog is not a reliable source? It is in the Telegraph right? So why is it not reliable? I see monbiots blog used all over the shop as a RS so either he has to be removed or Delingpole`s is ok, which is it to be? mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why must we go over this repeatedly? Being in the Telegraph does not automatically give it magic reliable source juice. It was an opinion piece in the opinion section of the Telegraph, written by a climate change skeptic. As a reliable source, it has little more than "blog" value. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok by that logic all Monbiot sources in sceptice article will be removed yes? Also Judicial watch reports on the same as the tv show, which is nasa messed with their data. So why are they not ok as a source? mark nutley (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you object to the Monbiot piece in the Guardian being used? Me too. I'm not sure what you are on about in the rest of your comment. Please write clearly. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What i am saying is if Dellingpole is not a reliable source due to his Telegraph piece being a blog, then monbiot can`t be used as a reliable source on sceptic bios for the same reason such as Ian Pilmers article. --mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Ian Pilmer Ian Plimer article, so I cannot comment on it specifically. My general feeling is that blogs or opinion pieces (wherever they are published) are only reliable for quoting what the author is saying, but they are not reliable for the accuracy of what is being said. When using such sources, the statements made must always be attributed ("Delingpole said black was white", "Monbiot said white was black") rather than taken at face value ("black is white", "white is black"). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Plimer article is a completely different issue, since it's Monbiot's account of a debate between he and Plimer. And it's clearly labelled as such. Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I said Delingpole was not a reliable source. Not The Telegraph. Not blogs. I was talking about one specific blogger who, through his reprint of the Solomon attack on WMC has shown that, at least some of the time, he doesn't fact check what goes into his blog. Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

George Monbiot is frequently invited to appear on several highly regarded current affairs programmes, including BBC Newsnight, to discuss various aspects of climate change. He is the author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning. Whereas Delingpole is just a crackpot. Wikispan (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Climategate Analysis by John P. Costella

McSly (perhaps legitimately) removed this link that I had provided on the article page:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

I'm posting it here instead, in case others are interested. Simon Kidd (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assassination Science is an interesting website. The same people believe the Zapruder film is a hoax, the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that 9/11 was an inside job. The ASSASSINATIONSCIENCE.COM main page displays links to AULIS.COM and MOONMOVIE.COM. Wikispan (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog/diatribe by the usual anti-science activist type. Not a valuable source for anything except maybe an insight into the mindset of these folks. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit. Looks like a conspiracist website, which probably isn't an appropriate external link, much less an appropriate "See also". Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I don't want to push a particular viewpoint, just contribute to the debate. The basic issue seems to revolve around the reliability of temperature proxies, and whether the recent trend represents 'unprecedented' warming. Simon Kidd (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion to shut out dissenters

Currently under content of documents, we are stating that the e-mails "included (..) discussions of efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view", the source used to back this up states that the e-mails suggest that this takes place and of apparent efforts to exclude people from the ipcc. This was brought up before and was changed into the current form by consensus of a few editors, but it seems the article is now stating it more strongly than the source does. Especially as there are other sources that do not agree with this at all. I am not sure what is normal here and I understand suggest is a weasel word, but to just remove it means we are saying it actually happened, when I think no reliable source has stated this. 83.86.0.82 (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A good point, the wording reflected the skeptical position shown in early articles by the WSJ and the Daily Telegraph (not to be confused with the daily Greenock Telegraph). More recent sources have provided more balanced views, in the interim I've used the sources already cited and rephrased it a bit to make it clear that these are allegations. Hope that helps, goes out to buy today's Tele. . . dave souza, talk 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"There have been assertions that these discussions indicated efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view, and included discussions about destroying files in order to prevent them from being revealed under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000" This is an awkwardly worded sentence. The first part is in the passive voice, and so it makes the second part sound like "these discussions... included discussions about ..." Ignignot (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, having reviewed it the sources basically showed early skeptical responses, one based on a "partial review of the hacked material" and the second quoting the sceptical views of Nigel Lawson. The AP overview has the advantage of being based on a study of all the e-mails, and giving context. Using that as a source, I've tightened the paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The new edits switches to the US typing of e-mails and I think the three new sentences should be cleaned up as each 3 start with 'The emails' or just 'Emails'. This seems to me to be not preferred ( i think sentence one and two could probably just be combined into one sentence).83.86.0.82 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, not sure which version is US, but the Wikipedia article on emails and this article generally use e-mail, so will use that version in the text save in the direct quotes from The Guardian which uses "email", and should be kept unchanged in accordance with MOS:QUOTE. Have also revised the sentences to avoid the unfortunate repetitive start to each, while maintaining the overal sense and keeping short sentences. My sentences get too long and convoluted all too often! . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I have changed the article to use e-mail/s where not in quotations for consistency because it was what the title used and also mostly what the first contributor used. In fact I brought this up in the talk page twice without anyone really caring much. If it's true that email/s is the UK term then I'm fine with changing the article to use email/s but I personally somewhat doubt that. Almost definitely while the use may vary somewhat between countries, it doesn't have a clear cut country pattern since it's a relatively recent term and has evolved with the internet in the modern interconnected age. From a look at this article for example, while perhaps it's true that e-mails is more common among use sources and emails more common among UK, the Times and the BBC uses e-mail/s; the WSJ and 'Pajamas Media' use email. That being the case, my suggestion would be just to stick with what the first contributor used, per WP:Engvar and keep it with e-mail/s. Alternatively, the best argument to move to email/s IMHO is that it's what the UEA, who obviously have the strongest ties to the topic uses it. I don't personally feel that we need to stick with what other wikipedia articles use, it's well established in other cases, e.g. colour, petrol, Myanmar etc that when both are legitimate terms or spellings, a decision in one article doesn't affect other articles, we only aim for intra-article consistency and each case should be decided by its own merits. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WHTM (ABC news) Article about Penn State Investigation

What about using this this?

"Penn State professor Michael Mann is globally known for his research on global warming. His work concludes that temperatures rose in the 20th century largely because of man. But recently released private e-mails suggest Mann - the researcher - overstated the impact of man - the species - on climate change, and then tried to cover it up."

"Penn State is investigating. But Stephen Bloom, a Cumberland County attorney and Penn State graduate, says an internal inquiry isn't enough.

"Penn State has such a vested interest in keeping the big research dollars that are flowing in as a result of global climate change research they're doing now," said Bloom. "It's hard to imagine how Penn State can truly take an independent look at the situation.""

"Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers says results of the inquiry are due by the end of January." Echofloripa (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Local news station parroting non-notable (and also local) Conservative Commonwealth Foundation, and a comment from a non-notable conservative lawyer (who might plausibly be described as a global warming skeptic from anecdotal evidence). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mann's e-mails and the Penn investigation are already well-covered in the article. Speculation by locals is not important unless actual charges are brought. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait for the "results of the inquiry" at the end of the month, and then reactions to that. "No news yet" is all we have here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We get 3 climategate deniers / anti-science opinions,anyone else? Your opinions of notability will always depend how pro-AGW it is. Why should I be surprised?Echofloripa (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the whitewash by PSU is finished and then wait to see what happens mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Let's try to show a little good faith here. The conservative think tank and the lawyer are no more notable than I am, for crying out loud. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith applies to editors, not investigative committees. I don't think he did anything wrong except maybe acting like a jerk, but there just ain't no way Penn State is going to say one of their stars is seriously in the wrong, regardless. Ignignot (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the investigative committees. I was referring to the comment made by Echofloripa ("Your opinions of notability will always depend how pro-AGW it is.") -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability problem should be obvious even to Echofloripa. We have a basically unknown lawyer with no connection to the university or to any of the individuals giving his opinion. What possible notability or qualification to comment would such an individual have? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He's evidentally an alumni from the OPs comment so not entirely unconnected, but obviously an extremely weak connection, even several people here may have the same connection Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait. Q Science (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't actually offer any real evidence. It basicly says that some researcher's e-mails exist, which, according to his opponents, brings his research into question, and that Penn is investigating. It appears as though this story has even less substance than the Climategate propaganda (just when you thought it wasn't possible). Dubious story, dubious analysis, dubious source, dubious wiki editors.... -sigh NickCT (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying the fact that one of the main scientists pushing global warming alarmism is under investigation by his own university is not notable because it's "news", and yet somehow all the little sound-bites from Mann's supporters are acceptable?!? Please. Could we at least try and appear not to be pushing AGW POV? Oh,and yes count me as one who supports inclusing something about the Penn State investigation. You can add the results of the investigation what it is released. Sirwells (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that refer to this individual as a "pusher of global warming alarmism"? Of course you don't. Be aware that this sort of comment is a violation of WP:BLP, for which you could easily be sanctioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And you should please be aware that unfounded threats, such as the one you just made is a rather serious violation of WP:BULLY. I am just as entitled to express my opinion on a talk page as you are. By the way, I recommend you read [16]. It may help improve your lack of being informed as to the content of the emails. Mann has cleary pushed an AGW agenda as evidenced by the controvesial emails.Sirwells (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Emails

The article does not include the comments of Giorgi Filippo, Vice Chair of Working Group 1 (The Physical Science of Climate Change) at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and his severe criticism of the IPCC's own methods in the hacked/leaked emails:

"...the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results...Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."

I propose it be included, given his prominence at the IPCC, the widespread reports of his criticism, and the direct bearing of his comments on the issues discussed in the lead paragraphs of the "Emails" section of the article. Plain jack (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to note that the page is headed "The below is one of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009." and the particular email is dated Mon, 11 Sep 2000. This is a primary source in the form of an illegally obtained email (as far as we know) mirrored on East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable. Before we can even think of mentioning the issues it raises we need verification from a reliable third party source that it is a significant and notable part of the topic – your synthesis advances a position without the necessary reliable secondary source. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Death threats redux

I would like to propose two changes to the article. Firstly, I would like to change the following sentence of the lede:

"Law enforcement agencies are investigating the matter as a crime, and are also investigating death threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the e-mails."

I would like to replace this with:

"Law enforcement agencies are investigating the matter as a crime, and also subsequent threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails."

It shortens what I believe to be an awkward-sounding sentence, but also removes the "death" qualifier. Not all of the threats made against the climate scientists were death threats. With that in mind, my second proposed edit is to change the section header "Death threats" to just "Threats". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I take it from the silence that nobody objects? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

While I've some sympathy with your proposals in principle, the proposed short sentence seems grammatically odd, and doesn't say what anyone's doing about the "subsequent threats". As a first stab at it, "Law enforcement agencies are investigating the matter as a crime, with reference to the unauthorised release itself and to various threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the e-mails." . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit wordy. Here's an alternative:

"Law enforcement agencies are investigating the unauthorized release as a crime, as well as subsequent threats made against climate scientists named in the e-mails."

How does that sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. How about "Law enforcement agencies are investigating."? It's short, simple, to the point, and without the WP:NPOV violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What NPOV violation? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Most WP:RS hardly mention the death threats. Featuring them so prominently in the lede is giving undo weight to them. This has been brought up numerous times before and is one of the reasons why there's a NPOV tag on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know why someone is trying again to push this into the article as thought it has high importance or relevance. Seems like a desperate attempt to generate sympathy to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I actually removed the "death threats" aspect from the text. I'm not trying to push anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's curious that some people (not you, Scjessey) apparently don't want to say what the police are investigating... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It's pretty obvious that what they're investigating. For example, "Last Tuesday, armed gunmen broken into a bank and stole 8 million dollars. Police are investigating." Is it really necessary to say that they're investigating the bank robbery? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

<ri> Probably better with "Law enforcement agencies are investigating the unauthorised release as a crime. After the release some critics issued threats against climate scientists named in the e-mails, and these threats are also being investigated as crimes." Looks a bit clearer to me. . . dave souza, talk 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"The police are investigating the unauthorised release as a crime; they are also investigating threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the e-mails." Suggestion made for grammar and style. Although it isn't a big deal for me, I'd prefer "police" to "law enforcement agencies", which sounds American to my ears. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about "law enforcement" sounding American. I'm not a fan of "they are also" constructs, and I'm not all that excited about having the word "investigating" twice in the same sentence. An alternative:

"The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the unauthorised release and threats subsequently made against climate scientists named in the e-mails."

Is that in improvement? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. BTW I think "law enforcement" triggered memories of U.N.C.L.E.. But perhaps they ought to be on the case too. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the changes then. What's the worst that can happen? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the meaning is not so clear now. Can we say "personal threats", to distinguish the meaning from possible misunderstandings, like threats of disciplinary action, threats of losing their jobs etc. Also (and this is a normal question - I think I missed it) where is the discussion where we agreed that this was not in fact a theft, but an "unauthorised release"? That phrase makes the new sentence harder to parse too. --Nigelj (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We didn't agree it was an unauthorised release rather than a theft. We've never agreed anything, have we? But it is neutral and correct. "Theft" of data is inexact. It isn't defined in English law AFAIK. What we do know absolutely certainly at this point is that there was a release of data/files/computer stuff and that UEA didn't authorise it. So my view is that "unauthorised release" is good enough. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know "data theft" is defined in British law, and at least the e-mails are covered under the Data Protection Act. And as for "release" - please see several discussions where this wording was discarded. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a standard term (see [17]), and the sources are clear that the data in question was stolen, so I don't know why "release" is being used. If money is stolen from a bank it's not an "unauthorised release" of cash, is it? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over the language is stupid, people. All I did was propose that we cut out the "death" aspect of it (because not all the threats were death threats), and then after some discussion we came to what seemed a reasonable solution. And then you all had to edit war over it, because that's apparently the way things work around here. If people are unhappy with "unauthorized release" then discuss it here like adults instead of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Right now, it says:

"The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the data release as well as into personal threats made against some of the climate scientists mentioned in the documents."

How about as a compromise, we change it to the following:

"The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the matter, as well as into personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the documents."

Will that make everyone happy? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Try "The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the climate scientists mentioned in the documents." That reflects what they've said; we mustn't insinuate that they are investigating the scientists, who are the victims here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems okay to me, although I think the "climate" qualifier before "scientists" is redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed that word. I've also changed "documents" to "emails" - I believe the documents have been pretty much innocuous (at least I've not seen any significant coverage of them) but the threatened individuals, whom I understand are Mann and Jones, are in the limelight because of the emails. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent (in best Montgomery Burns voice). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Still doesn't address the undue weight issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What undue weight issue? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The one I've been talking about for the past 2-3 months. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Most reliable sources don't even mention the death threats when discussing this topic. Giving them such high prominence by mentioning them in the lede is giving undue weight to a minor aspect of the overall topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that the death threats against the scientists aren't important in comparison to the data theft, right? You are saying these ☠ death threats ☠ are a "minor aspect", correct? Would it come as a great surprise if I told you that I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point? Try to understand the problem here. There are literally thousands of science-denying idiots furiously writing opinion pieces and blog posts that misrepresent comments made in a few private emails, doing their level best to make the biggest fuss they possibly can. Their number include "journalists" and energy-backed politicians, working hand-in-hand with a lazy media that has eschewed investigative journalism in favor of being spoon fed bite-sized chunks of convenient talking points. Meanwhile, a tiny handful of real journalists have reported that threats have been made against the lives of scientists, but their voices are drowned out by the science-denying echo chamber. So I think you have it all backward. The science-deniers represent the minority viewpoint (or "fringe"), but the reporting about the death threats is represented by a majority viewpoint, expressing indisputable truth. These threats are both real and significant, and they are covered by reliable sources. As such, they should definitely feature prominently. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"There are literally thousands of science-denying idiots furiously writing opinion pieces and blog posts" Huh? When have you ever seen me cite an opinion piece or blog post in relation to this article? I'm afraid that you might be confusing me with someone else. I'm talking about news articles (not opinion pieces) from the high end of journalism market such as The Guardian[18], The Washington Post[19], The New York Times[20], The Times[21], Reuters[22], The Associated Press[23], Time Magazine[24], etc. most of which don't even cover this aspect it's so minor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You have completely missed my point. I'm saying that the death threats have received meaningful coverage in reliable sources and the facts are not disputed. Also, the death threats mostly occurred after the main news cycle that covered the CRU incident, so they never received the attention they deserved; nevertheless, enough coverage exists to justify this notable information appearing in the lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I get your point, but it's completely wrong. The death threats have NOT received meaningful coverage in reliable sources in proportion to other aspects of this topic (see the articles I pointed to in my last post which don't even mention the death threats). Further, not only were they not widely covered by reliable sources at the beginning of the controversy, they're hardly mentioned ever since. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue that there are police investigations into the computer crime and into the various threats is significant, brief coverage in the lead as proposed is appropriate. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the death threats are so significant, how do you account for the dearth of coverage in reliable sources? I've asked this question before and to the best of my knowledge, no one's been able to answer this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I already answered that question above. The death threats came after the initial media circus surrounding the incident. Furthermore, the death threats have not benefited from the science-deniers' echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The death threats came after the initial media circus surrounding the incident." But that's not true. They were reported early on and rarely mentioned again. If you disagree, show me some articles with dates that prove otherwise.

"Furthermore, the death threats have not benefited from the science-deniers' echo chamber." So what? We're not supposed to introduce bias to counter bias of reliable sources. If reliable sources don't think it's that important, then neither do we. To do otherwise is a violation of WP:NPOV.

If you can provide an answer as to why the death threats are important enough to mention in the lede despite the dearth of coverage by reliable sources that doesn't violate WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV, I'd love to hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that this is now an account of a one-off historical incident. It happened about 2 months ago and the death threats happened soon after and were clearly related. This is all in the past now, and the facts of the coverage at the time is not in dispute. The only ongoing thing has been what's been called here the 'echo chamber', but that is not the incident and is increasingly irrelevant as time goes on. Just because the climate-denial echo chamber has not picked up the threats, does not make them any less significant: of course threats against personal safety are more important than threats to alter the peer-review process, or threats to delete an email, or to truncate a graph. The fact that the denial echo-chamber has not gone on and on about them does not alter the historical fact of their existence or significance at the time. Of course when the official investigations are in, or if any arrests are made, this article will come to life again, but until then we are just tidying an article on an historical event. --Nigelj (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "echo chamber". I'm referring to third-party, reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. If by "echo chamber", you mean blogs or opinion pieces, then I ask that you address what I am saying and not some magical Straw man. As for "threats against personal safety are more important than threats to alter the peer-review process", what reliable sources actually say such a thing? Honestly, that sounds like pure WP:OR. Original research is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia articles. In any case, WP:NPOV requires that we assign weight roughly in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you know what is meant by echo chamber, unless you couldn't be bothered to read my reply above that included the link to it. Reliable sources note the death threats (I linked to one in a section below, for example), and that is all that is needed. Surely you don't think a data theft is more important than a death threat? I'd much rather have my computer files stolen than get stabbed to death, personally. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. Echo chamber is not part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that I am aware of. The issue of whether reliable sources mention the death threats is not in dispute, so I don't know why you mention it. Focusing on straw men only distracts from the central issue here. Again, the dispute is whether reliable sources have given so much attention to them that they are important enough to be mentioned in the lede. So far, the answer is a resounding no. "Surely you don't think a data theft is more important than a death threat" What I think is irrelevant. Again, it's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. That's called WP:OR; Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. "I'd much rather have my computer files stolen than get stabbed to death, personally". Again, your personal preference is WP:OR and completely irrelevant in this context. Do you have an argument that is supported by WP:RS and doesn't involve violating WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop referring to everything I say as WP:OR. It isn't. Original research applies to articles, not comments on talk pages. There are plenty of sources that note the issue of the death threats, and also about how they are being investigated. The brief mention that the matter is afforded in this article in no way violates WP:WEIGHT, so quit saying it does. Repeatedly banging on about this, despite an overwhelming consensus for inclusion, is tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're justifying article content based on original research. Stop doing it and I'll stop pointing it out. "The brief mention that the matter is afforded in this article" Again, that's not the issue. We're supposed to give weight in proportion to prominence in reliable sources. Most reliable sources don't even mention this aspect of the topic as I've already demonstrated several posts previously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's a false argument you are using. If you actually read WP:WEIGHT, the concern is more about giving minority viewpoints (like climate change denial, for example) too much prominence. Reliable sources are more likely to give coverage to things that are controversial, but that is not the same as "prominence". The death threats are no disputed, and so they aren't controversial; nevertheless, reliable sources that have reported these facts give prominence to these threats, even if the number of reliable sources reporting about them are fewer. The fact remains that enough sources exist to justify the brief mention these threats get in the article. And since most people agree with me, I'd say that is pretty much the end of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you read WP:WEIGHT, it says "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints." It also applies to article content. In determining weight, we're supposed to base it on its prominence among reliable sources. Since comparatively fewer reliable sources cover this aspect (most don't mention it at all), it's a violation of WP:UNDUE to mention them in the lede.

Please stop repeating the tired straw man that this is about whether it gets mentioned in the article. No one's saying that and that's certainly nothing that I've ever said. So if that's what you think this is about, then I suggest you go back and re-read my posts a little more carefully. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. At this point you are really just talking to yourself, because there is a solid consensus for inclusion. Sorry, but there it is. Call it a case of WP:IAR if it makes you happy. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how consensus works. Invoking WP:IAR is a poor substitute for a valid argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Quest is not "just talking to himself" and there is not a solid consensus for inclusion. Look at it this way: Both the Penn State investigation and the "death threat" investigation are investigations. Neither are concluded. Both have similar arguments for / against inclusion in the article. And yet both Dave Souza and Scjessey are arguing both cases, conveniently choosing which side best suits thier POV. (apparently AGW POV is more important to them then any of the cited wikipedia rules.) It's amusing when you think about it. Sirwells (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's clearly not talking to me because I gave a full explanation above, which he somehow didn't hear. Here it is again without the metaphor that he didn't understand: Don't forget that this is now an account of a one-off historical incident. It happened about 2 months ago and the death threats happened soon after and were clearly related. This is all in the past now, and the facts of the coverage at the time is not in dispute. The only ongoing thing has been some further media discussion of allegations based on the e-mail content, but that is not the incident and is increasingly irrelevant as time goes on. Just because this coverage has not repeated much discussion of the threats, does not make them any less significant: of course threats against personal safety are more important than threats to alter the peer-review process, or threats to delete an email, or to truncate a graph. The fact that the media debate has not gone on and on about them does not alter the historical fact of their existence or significance at the time. Of course when the official investigations are in, or if any arrests are made, this article will come to life again, but until then we are just tidying an article on an historical event. --Nigelj (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Just because this coverage has not repeated much discussion of the threats, does not make them any less significant". Actually, it does. Per WP:UNDUE, weight should be attributed based on its prominence in reliable sources. By your own admission, reliable sources haven't paid much attention to the death threats. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to add weight that does not exist in reliable sources. As you point out, this is a one-off historical event. Perhaps one day, reliable sources will add such weight. But that hasn't happened yet. Until such time, mentioning the death threats in the lede is a violation of undue weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just complete nonsense. The matter of the death threats was covered by reliable sources appropriately when the issue came to light. But after that, there was nothing more to say so coverage ended. This is in stark contrast to the hacking incident, which has ongoing coverage. That is why you cannot compare one with the other. At the time the story of the death threats came to light, coverage of the death threats was featured prominently in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was hardly mentioned then, and it's rarely mentioned now. WP:UNDUE clearly applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i see a clear and convincing argument made by Quest, evasion and casuistry by those responding.—eric 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Imagine this scenario fifty years hence. Suppose it turns out that Inhofe, Exxon and Fox News were able to use "Climategate" to sway public opinion and thwart all attempts at mitigating CO2 emissions. It also turns out that Mann et. al. were exactly right, the earth has now warmed precipitously and faces catastrophe. A historian in that day, trying to figure out how the hell this could have happened would surely be left scratching their head if our article were their only resource. S/he would be left to wonder how a "third rate burglary" (sorry, couldn't resist) could have derailed the march to global consensus that seemed to have been moving right along until then. Our article, with it's focus on downplaying the content and up-playing the immorality of the hack angle, can't explain the social and political impact that, right or wrong, this incident has already had (hint: I haven't seen any calls for Congress to investigate cyber-security due to this incident), much less the future impact, because it doesn't reflect reality as it exists.

In this thoughtful retrospective, Dr. Hopper strikes the proper tone. He writes, "The various [e-mail] revelations should be treated rationally and cautiously and not simply used as a blunt weapon to discredit opponents." Amen. He also writes, "Climate change science and appropriate policy responses remain crucial issues, and ultimate decisions should be made on the basis of a calm assessment of the facts rather than simply siding with whoever has captured the headlines." Couldn't agree more with this statement as well. But here he is speaking of science and policy, not the history of an incident that impacts both. For our purposes, headlines and gasp, even blogs matter, because that's where Climategate will(has) play(ed) out. If we can't or won't take note of it, we do our future readers (and WP) a real disservice. JPatterson (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just gazing into a crystal ball and it doesn't help us here. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See also expansion

The see also section should be expanded. There should be a link to the WikiProject Environment possibly to the Climate change taskforce. There also should be a link to the Copenhagen Accord which was greatly affected by this unauthorized release of information.Smallman12q (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Got any reliable sources that say the Copenhagen Accord was "greatly affected"? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Environment possibly to the Climate change taskforce" wou.. like this?

coal+power plant+supercomputer=climate model ?? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/16/ncars-dirty-little-secret/ alamo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.122 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm tempted to add wattsupwiththat.com to the Wikipedia spam blacklist so that we don't have to waste our time with yet more people who want to use it as a source. Please go and read WP:SPS. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need an FAQ to cover this problem? Then we can respond to posts like this with "see Q12 of the FAQs" (or whatever) instead of wasting time repeatedly explaining. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't phrase the request in a neutral manner. I'd like to ask that a portal link to the WikiProject Environment (to the Climate change taskforce). In addition, I'd ask that there be a link to the Copenhagen Accord, however if you believe that the relevance of the link Copenhagen Accord is not immediately apparent, then do not add the link. It is a suggestion, and nothing more.Smallman12q (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are asking that {{Portal|Environment}} be placed on the article? I don't think that would be appropriate. This article isn't really about the environment. It is about a data theft at a research facility. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree that the article isn't directly about the environment, but portals, projects and task forces do not have to adhere to a rigorous logic. They're there to help readers, and I think it helps if their scope is interpreted generously. People interested in environmental issues might want to find this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. I've added it to the "see also" section. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that scj. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of Email and Document Controversy

A recently published book (Mosher, S.; Fuller, T.W (2010) Climategate: The Crutape Letters. CreateSpace ISBN 1450512437) reviews the obtaining and distribution of the FOIA.ZIP file from the CRU server, and the history of the responses to the information. Available from Amazon, of course. Oiler99 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Really not the place to advertise a self-published book by non-notable authors. It's not like we can use it as a source or anything. Guettarda (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, they didn't wait long did they? The reviews on Amazon are hilariously nutty: [25]. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad this was reopened, otherwise I'd never have known to post my own Amazon review. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, you read the whole book? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. My review of the product was based entirely on who had written it, and who was promoting it. I'd sooner throw $17 in the river than have a single cent of it used to fund the anti-science brigade. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

New sub-section for "Reactions to the Incident"

This was discussed at #Suggestion for improving NPOV. The point made was that the section includes long commentary from those implicated by the e-mails, and that readers looking for third-party reactions are at present going to find them inter-mingled with the more dubious justifications of those who have a vested interest in down-playing the events. It was suggested that we add a new sub-section to the Reactions section. I suggest we add the title, 'UEA, CRU and RealClimate', and make the appropriate moves. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean you want to focus on the commentary made by those with a vested interest in exaggerating the events? Sounds like a pov fork. . . dave souza, talk 20:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean I don't want commentators that are defending themselves to be presented alongside third party, uninvolved commentators as if they form part of the latter group. It's misleading. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) - What do you mean by "implicated by the e-mails" exactly? And could you clarify what you mean by "dubious justifications" while you're at it? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"implicated by the e-mails" --> "those whose e-mails have incited controversy"

"dubious justifications" --> "justifications of those who have a vested interest in down-playing the events" --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, the definition of "implicate" is "To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly." Which is precisely the correct way to describe some of those who wrote the emails, such as Mann. Considering both Penn State and University of East Anglia are conducting investigations into the matter, during which (Penn State) plans to review each and every one of the emails connected to Michael Mann, I'm not sure how anyone with common sense would logically describe it otherwise. Sirwells (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusing. My dictionary has "incriminate, compromise; involve, connect, link, embroil, enmesh, ensnare, entangle; archaic inculpate; informal finger." While I appreciate that the denialists are trying to finger everyone they can, we have to await the publication of detailed neutral investigations. You're presuming guilt, unacceptably, and your inability to appreciate common sense is no excuse. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to present the UEA and Penn State responses separately from those of any old climate scientist who puts his or her tuppence-worth into the debate. They are a) institutions and b) directly involved. Where do we draw the line, though: Nasa? Met Office? New York Times? How involved are they? Only answers that do not second-guess the ongoing investigations considered. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the incident: Climatologists

I suggest Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who explains what the CRU documents reveal: “They are unambiguously dealing with things that are unethical and in many cases illegal. … We have scientists manipulating raw temperature data. The willingness to destroy data rather than release it. The avoidance of Freedom of Information requests.” "The Great Climategate Debate", 10.Dec.2009, time index 17:25 [26] Alternatively, Mohib Ebrahim, who has compiled a 30-year pictorial history of the development of this problem [27] has said: "Science has come full-circle, taking a page from the medieval Church by using fear and persecution to silence sceptics. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Given that most professional scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many other so called scientific consensuses have been similarly engineered and waiting for their own ClimateGates before truth is known."Oiler99 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

This phrase in the Phil Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004, has now been summarised in the lede as "excluding scientists with opposing views from the peer review process". There are several problems with this.

1. It does not represent "excluding" anything. It is discussing, suggesting or at worst threatening to exclude. No one and nothing was, or could have been, excluded from anything by this statement in an email to Michael Mann
2. It does not talk about excluding the scientists, "MM", from anything, just the specific paper, from the upcoming IPCC report. The implication of our sentence is that they would be excluded as scientists, for all time. This was never even suggested.
3. It is not being suggested that these people, or this paper, be excluded from the "peer review process", but the suggestion is being made that, if the peer-review process allows this paper through into the IPCC report, then the peer-review process should be changed.

We are listing allegations, and I would be happy with the rhetorical device of exaggerating the allegation to this ludicrous point so that it could more easily be demolished later, however this is not a piece of rhetoric but the introduction to an encyclopedia article. We should only report sensible and supportable accusations that have actually been made by rational people. I don't know of any quote (there is none in the article) that our phrase could be a summary of.

I suggest, "threatening to interfere with the peer-review process of scientific papers". --Nigelj (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusations do seem to be there, but are the "skeptical" spin on a somewhat heated remark. In this instance it would be more a case of suggesting redefining the standards for including papers in the IPCC report, in the event the papers under discussion were included and we should mention that.[28] They may also be referring to the Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003, where they discussed doubts about the quality of a journal that published a paper of such low quality that even the publisher later acknowledged defects in the paper. Hard to think of how to rephrase it, but we're showing these very dubious accusations and then failing to give due weight to the response to them. Perhaps better to remove the details and just say "various claims", leaving the argument and response to the relevant section in the article.. . dave souza, talk 22:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) What? I think you have a very narrow reading of that email. That wasn't an stance of, "well, I don't think this paper is good enough, and if it passes the review process then perhaps we should check to see that the review process is operating properly." It was "their paper is bad, they are bad, and (as a hyperbole!) we should go as far as to change the definition of what is peer reviewed to exclude their work." - Jones is not seriously suggesting to change the peer review process.

Also, a threat is something you make to the person you are trying to exclude: "An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response." Since none of this was ever intended to reach MM, I think "conspiring" would be more appropriate. Then again, you would have to agree that there was wrongdoing for that word to be used. Ignignot (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, since they did nothing, "gossiping" rather than "conspiring". If male scientists can gossip. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of scientists have said...

The lede currently says, "Though the vast majority of climate data is freely available, a number of scientists have said that the incident reflects a general problem of scientists not being more open with their data." I don't believe that this is true. I think a number of people have said this, and some of them may or may not be scientists. I can't find anything in the article that says that this is the predominant stated view of the scientific community.

I suggest, "Though the vast majority of climate data has always been freely available, the incident has opened more general discussions about further increased openness with scientific data." --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good rephrasing, the "further" is redundant but with that removed, it's an improvement. . . dave souza, talk 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just noticed two opens, and a number disagreement if data is plural, as well. How about, "Though the vast majority of climate data have always been freely available, the incident has prompted more general discussion about increasing the openness of scientific data." --Nigelj (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. Perhaps drop the "more" in "more general" (ambiguous, could mean "more discussion" or "discussion that is more general".) It reminds me that there has been a concrete development - the announcement by the Met Office that more data will be made available. At the moment this is referred to in the article main body but is tucked away in the Met Office's response as a whole. Should it be more prominent in the main body and then referred to in the lede? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a within-article source for that version? I couldn't find any citations for any of the article-sentences discussed in this thread so far... --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look in Reactions to the incident: Climatologists --Nigelj (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys. I've done the replacement, without 'more' as Judith suggested. --Nigelj (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass reversion

Hey all. This edit reverted four other edits. I think all of them should have been kept (the edit summary suggests they weren't reviewed very carefully), but one in particular is, I think, needed in this article.

The introductory paragraph to #Content of the documents currently discusses/summarizes analysis of e-mail data but not of coding, the latter forming the other half of that section. I made an edit to reflect that:

Also leaked were documents containing temperature reconstruction programs whose coding has been critiqued as "buggy" and "below the standard", with allegations from various editorials and blogs that the comments and readme files indicate that the reconstructions hide and manipulate data.

The editor has expressed his dislike for the term "leaked," so a compromise edit could trade "leaked" for "released." Whichever word is used, I'd like to see this description of the coding added to the intro of that section to match the inclusion of a description of the e-mails. It doesn't make sense to treat of one but not the other. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How is "released" better than "leaked"? One suggests that it was an "inside job". While that argument is being pushed by far-right blogs, not only is it not supported by reliable sources, it flatly contradicts the UEA. Fails WP:V, fails WP:NPOV. "Released" conveys the same meaning. I don't see any 'compromise' being offered here. There's no way we discard UEA's account, and substitute an account that comes from some non-notable bloggers. Guettarda (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote.

"discard UEA's account"? I never suggested doing so.

"not supported by reliable sources"? All of the sources are contained in the relevant section of the article, and they are from, respectively, CBS, the BBC, the Washington Times, and Computer World.

As for word choice, I don't care. I thought that was clear. Propose your favorite NPOV alternative and as long as it implies that the word "documents" refers to "hacked documents" I'll accept it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I've added a neutral summary of the "documents" section to the overview at the start. That section itself needs considerable improvement: we don't cover the issue that there are complaints about code which is commented out, including deliberately unrealistic data introduced for testing purposes then commented out and not used in the final statement. Our source for much of the "criticism" comes from an editorial in the Mooney Washington Times, not from a reliable source, so a better source is needed. . . dave souza, talk 09:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nearly forgot, the last paragraph has the blog opinion of a journalist proponent of libertarianism, referenced twice to the same blog piece. Is that really all that notable? . . dave souza, talk 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've just re-ordered the paragraphs and it is now clearer than ever that the Declan McCullagh blog coverage is entirely redundant, as it just a specific example of what is now covered in the previous sentence. There may still be a case for his comments about "disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way", as this is a more general point. I'll remove the duplication. --Nigelj (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we cover McCullagh's blog post in any case? He's not an expert on programming, and he doesn't bother to name any sources. We need to find a better source. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to take him out altogether if you like. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To call it a "leak" or "release", is to say that we don't believe UEA's report of theft, and is to embrace a blog meme that it wasn't a hack. If you have reliable sources that say UEA's account is a lie (from the BBC, the Washington Times and Computer World!), please do share them. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this too. I asked above if I had missed some discussion where "theft" and "stolen" were discussed and dropped from the article. Apparently there was none, and I know of no logic (this side of loopy) or any press release that says that UEA or CRU management actually intended to publish all this. Even if a disgruntled employee published the zip file onto the internet, without management authorisation doing so was still a theft of the data (or part of a conspiracy to steal it), as that employee was not its legal owner. I think we should remove all the mealy whacko-speak and go back to "theft", "steal" and "stolen" as per reality. --Nigelj (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It would not be theft if someone accidentally left it someplace accessible from (let's say) an FTP site. Alternatively if the zip file was generated internally and intentionally sent to someone outside of the CRU, who then released it somehow, that would also not be theft. Those would be violations of CRU / UEA / whatever policy, and violation of an NDA, respectively. The thing that makes it a sticky issue to me is that the police are investigating a crime, but that doesn't always mean that one has occurred, and until they release their findings it is hard to be sure. In a normal theft something is physically missing, whereas a theft of information results in something existing someplace it should not. Anyway I'm in the wait and see camp and I'm worried that if the police accuse someone we'll be violating BLP issues. Ignignot (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but first of all you are speculating (WP:OR), second of all, even if we go into your speculation, leaching something off an ftp-site that clearly isn't yours (and the email make it very clear that this isn't public data) - is just as much data-theft as before. The real-world analogy is that just because a door is open, doesn't mean that you can just walze in an grasp a few items. You also can't just assume that things sent to you (by mistake or otherwise) is free to be distributed. The British data protection law clearly makes possession/distribution/etc. of such data illegal when it is related to persons, and the emails certainly are related to persons.

The basic mistake here seems to be that people are taking local law (US, Danish, whatever) and projecting that onto this case... To digress a bit: Had it been a Danish case, then even being or downloading from a website where there is no explicit consent is illegal - and distribution of such data is most certainly illegal, with or without good purposes in mind.

An imaginary "whistle-blower" is not excempted from the law (ianal), he just may get lenience in court. (and as i read the british law on this, it wasn't done in the correct manner, and thus a crime (it should have been turned over to the authorities - not to the public)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) "Leaked"? "Released"? "Stolen"? These are three possibilities. "Leaked", I would be strongly against for reasons already given, contradicting UEA's statement that they did not authorise any release of the documents. "Stolen": I found the references to "data theft" in the google search of gov.uk websites nearly convincing, but not quite. Is anyone here a UK-qualified lawyer? In the absence of one, I think the phrase may still be a convenient shorthand for a range of acts that would be called other things in the courts. "Released" I would argue is always neutral. But we need to bear style in mind avoid repetition. For the sentence discussed above, how about "taken"? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was giving examples of ways that the data could be obtained that would not be theft. That there are other laws in the UK which apply to personal information doesn't make those crimes theft either - theft is taking something without the owner's consent. It is possible to (for example) receive information from someone, with consent, and then release it to the public, which is not theft. It might be something else which is illegal. Also, I wasn't speculating, since I did not say what I thought happened. I don't know what happened. There are no good physical analogies of crimes involving illegally obtaining information, which presents some problems when using words for crimes which were defined using physical objects. Ignignot (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is specifically not theft even if someone hacked into the server and took data from it under UK law "Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property." - from our own wikipedia article on Theft Ignignot (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Judith made a good point. There must be a UK lawyer contributing somewhere in Wikipedia. How can we contact him or her? Is there a 'Lawyers noticeboard', or something? What about important, busy articles on UK law? Can we track down somebody who's willing to read a few reliable reports of this incident and give us a short list of a few terms that accurately describe what kind of incident it actually is?

I think receiving information from someone (like your employer) with consent, and then releasing it to your friends so that they can splash it all over the internet, is a conspiracy to steal that data, but IANAL either.

I'm sure we don't have to worry about BLP issues until someone is named by the police, and then we surround any use of that name with 'allegedly' expressions, until a conviction. --Nigelj (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignignot, the article you should be looking at is Data theft, but it's pretty sparse on detail at the moment, unfortunately. --Nigelj (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page of Wikiproject Law. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC calls it "data theft" here; the Times does here. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

They are being imprecise; since I was present at the original hearing of Oxford v Moss, I perhaps have some insight here. Information in itself cannot be stolen. "Leaking it" may be a breach of confidence depending on the relationship between the owner of the data and the leaker, hacking into a server and destroying the data or making an unauthorised copy of it may be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Please let me know if there are any further questions. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Rodhullandemu.

Nigelj: I also read that article on data theft and was a little unsatisfied. I would agree that colloquially this might be called theft. Ignignot (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the common usage, but not the legal definition. So...what now? "Data theft" with a footnote? Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, let's just try and find other accurate and neutral language instead. I suggested "taken" in this context, how does that sound? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, "taken", "obtained without authorization", uh... don't know what else. I doubt people say this much, but: English needs more synonyms. As a (halfhearted) alternative, a section or a footnote saying that it isn't technically theft? I am not familiar enough with UK cybercrime. Maybe we can find another article on wikipedia with a similar occurrence, and use that as a guide. Ignignot (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well until plod pulls his finger out and finally figures out this was a leak and not a hack i would recommend Released in breach of Computer Misuse Act 1990 Then once it is established that this was in fact a leak we can get back to arguing :) --mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't be the first to start quoting the name of act breached. There may be other offences, too, under section 2 of that act, related to copyright, or other things. We already have "unauthorised release", "illegal taking" and "server breach"; they're starting not to look too bad, now, though maybe we can do better. --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the 4 articles on wikipedia about British computer criminals and could not find an applicable example, unfortunately. Ignignot (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article itself only uses the word theft twice: once in a quote, which is obviously fine, and the second time in a paraphrase, which I think is also fine. I think we only have to be cognizant of this issue going forward. Hooray Ignignot (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, Oxford v Moss was over 30 years ago. The law has changed substantially since then. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced a new offence of "unlawfully obtaining personal information", which was subsequently incorporated into the Data Protection Act 1998 (section 55) - see [29]. We know from the reporting that the police are carrying the investigation in conjunction with the Information Commissioner's Office, which enforces the DPA, so clearly possible DPA violations are in the frame of the investigators. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't saying it wasn't illegal, he was saying that it wasn't the crime of theft. Ignignot (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Data theft" is the vernacular term for the criminal offence of "unlawfully obtaining personal information", just as "car theft" is the vernacular for "taking [a vehicle] without consent". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Except car theft is actually defined as theft under UK law, whereas unlawfully taking information, land, trade secrets, and wildflowers (what the hell, right?) is not. I would just prefer to be precise in the article. I do agree that the common use of the phrase "data theft" describes what happened. The articles on cybercrime in the UK on wikipedia are actually pretty interesting from the perspective of what the alleged perpetrators end up being charged with in court. At first things like this weren't even illegal, and now the break-in and access is what is punished. From one perspective it makes sense, because the information is not considered property. From another it is weird, because getting access to it is more like trespassing. Ignignot (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition to similar incidents

Wouldn't be the case to add the glaciergate to the similar incidents section?194.74.151.201 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not a similar incident. The -gate suffix is just tacked onto it for no reason. Ignignot (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

NDET

Not a great source, but while Googling for something else I came across this interesting piece from the Daily Mirror that says the Norfolk Police have requested the assistance of the National Domestic Extremism Team to help investigate the hacking and the death threats. I'm not sure if this was brought up before, but I thought I'd mention it in case this becomes significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this has already been brought up after searching the archives. My bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Banner Review

So this talk page has quite a few banners over it, and some of them seem to be out of date, although I am unsure. Specifically (and feel free to discuss separately):

• the rewrite banner and outline seem to be stalled / dead
• the move request seems to be finished / archived / dead
• the POV issues seem to have settled down somewhat on the main article and (personally) I think the banner of shame can be removed.
• the faq can probably use updating but I have not gone through item by item.

Ignignot (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 1, 2 and 3 can go now, AFAIK. The FAQ is probably OK and should stay, just in case it's useful in the future. --Nigelj (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The issues I brought up previously have not been resolved, nor even addressed. The POV tag should remain until neutrality is achieved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Most editors seem to agree that the POV issues you seem concerned about are nonexistent. If a consensus is reached among regular editors that this article is neutral, the POV tag should be removed from the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To-do list (bee in bonnet). Let's all agree the to-do list! Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe we have already addressed the neutrality concerns. This article should not be held hostage by one or two dissenters. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Boston Red Sox baseball team wrote an article about the 2004 World Series, and the Saint Louis Cardinals baseball team (against whom the Red Sox played) protested that the article wasn't neutral, then the article isn't neutral. ChrisO, Scjessey, Guettarda, KDP, NigelJ, and the "Iron Fist" believe the article is neutral. In order to declare the article neutral, however, a couple of middle-of-the-road skeptics would need to agree, also. If you can't get even ONE skeptic to assent that this article is neutral, then it's not. Sphilbrick has been a voice of reason, from time to time. Perhaps the AGW supporters know of a few others? Nightmote (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider myself to be more aligned with Pielke jr's views than most of the people listed (and I have sometimes disagreed with things they have said, and agreed with things you have said). I think the POV-ness has been brought down enough to lose the tag - I'm not saying there is no disagreement but that the disagreement is no more than found in say, the hockey stick controversy article, or the global warming article. Ignignot (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A consensus is what is needed. We don't need to make special cases for certain groups. I'm a firm believer in the usefulness of the POV tag, because I think it pushes editors into trying to resolve conflicts. But when it is used when there isn't any non-neutral stuff in an article, it becomes a badge of shame applied by agenda-driven editors who don't agree with what most of the universe thinks. It is rare for a POV tag to remain on an article for more than a few days, so unless editors can come up with legitimate neutrality concerns (and I am aware of none) it should be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"ChrisO, Scjessey, Guettarda, KDP, NigelJ, and the "Iron Fist"..." What happened to the whole "focus on content, not contributors" idea? Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe that I understand your position. I disagree with it. In the spirit of compromise and consensus, in recognition of the changes that have been made since the banner was applied, and in acknowledgement of my own bias, if a reasonable skeptic or two can be persuaded to honestly assess the article as neutrally-biased I will withdraw any protest. It would be unreasonable of me to seek universal approval, but if it's truly neutral, surely *someone* on the skeptic side of the house will be willing to say so? If, as Scjessey asserts, this article is being "held hostage" by "one or two dissenters", then other skeptics will come forward and the banner will be removed very quickly without the need to enter into yet another revert war or seek yet another block on the article. Nightmote (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The "skeptical" position is very much a minority position (in fact, almost to the point of being a fringe position), so why should we seek the approval of this particular group? A simple consensus (which roughly equates to a decent majority, I suppose) should be more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda - The editors I identified have been fairly consistent regarding their opinions on this article, where the emphasis should be, and which descriptors are "neutral". I have no opinion regarding your other contributions or positions, but I believe that it would be fair to characterize you as a believer in AGW, and someone who feels that the focus of this article must be on the theft as opposed to the subsequent consequences. Nightmote (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More nut jobbery

Now Solomon is suggesting that Google might be part of a conspiracy to hide the shocking truth of "Climategate" LOL. Any doubts about the uselessness of this individual of a source are now firmly dispelled. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the article (it's tripe). What do you make of his rather unkind characterization of our efforts here? Later in the same article he writes:

Those who click on Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents obtained through the hacking of a server,” the “illegal taking of data,” the “Law enforcement agencies [that] are investigating the matter as a crime,” and “the death threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the emails.”

For those who don’t use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” feature, Google presents them with this one-sided Wikipedia page as the first item in its search results. Wikipedia actually has a page called “Climategate” that contains damning information about the scientists caught up in the scandal but its own censors won’t let the public see it — anyone who tries to key in “Climategate” on the Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”

I don't know anything about the Climategate article he's talking about. He has shown himself in the past to be woefully under-informed about the intricacies of WP. But I have to agree with him in his critique. The article as it stands, takes a side in that it down plays the implication of the email content at every opportunity. Clearly it can be argued that his critique is from a biased source and that a truly neutral set of eyes would reach a different conclusion. I for one would like to somehow test that hypothesis. JPatterson (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was partly Solomon's critique of Wikipedia that I was mocking, although the Google aspect of it was the funniest bit. As to the rest of your response, it really boils down to how these are described:

• E-mails and other documents were taken from the CRU without permission.
• These documents were disseminated without permission.
• Various threats, including death threats, were made to some of the scientists mentioned in the documents.
• The theft of the material, and the death threats, are the subject of a criminal investigation.
• Some of the emails indicate a certain amount of reticence in providing data to individuals seeking to tarnish the reputation of the scientists.
• Some of the language used in the emails has been misinterpreted, and in some cases completely misrepresented, in order to provide ammunition for the lie that global warming is not affected by the actions of humanity.

Now I believe that this article reflects these facts fairly and neutrally. In fact, I would contend that only "skeptics" and "deniers" are likely to find this article anything but neutral. People like Solomon will always think this article has an "AGW POV" unless it reflects their point of view. Mercifully, the fringe view of people like Solomon represents a tiny minority, especially within the scientific community. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your first four points are material, undeniable facts. How these should be presented ( e.g. use of hacked when we don't know that is what occurred), where they belong and how much focus each should be given in an article that seeks to reflect and not steer the controversy is the open question. In my view, we have not found the sweet spot.

Your last two points are not facts but interpretations, and in fact, are the interpretations the article is slanted towards. Mind you, they may very well be the correct interpretations, but that is not for WP to say. Seems to me our goal should be an accurate reflection of the controversy as it exists in the real world. JPatterson (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, your own POV would cause you to see it as neutral, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. ATren (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That is where you are mistaken. The overwhelming majority simply do not believe in the skeptical position. "My POV" is in accordance with mainstream scientific opinion, not the tiny fringe. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon's line "downplays the content of the emails" is telling. This article describes the content of the relevant emails and the various explanations of that content, the denialists want to present exaggerated claims largely based on misrepresentation, and don't seem to want us to show the mainstream view. More analysis may be appropriate, particularly of the coding issue. We should also pay more attention to the mainstream view that improved openness of data and methods is wanted, but is impeded by the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, and by contractual restrictions as well as delays from government met offices. Will aim to work on that. . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think our treatment of the e-mails is one of the strongest parts of the article, thanks in no small part to you. It's the paragraphs that lead up to the actual content where our slip is showing. With regard to your comment re more analysis, there's an interesting side story here in that this controversy may be the first major political drama that's been played out mostly in the blogs. This of course presents a dilemma for us with regard to balance, one that WP is going to have to grapple with more and more as newspapers fall by the wayside (what's going to happen to WP when the NYT starts charging for content?) and the cable news shows continue their slide into the gutter.

Putting aside for the moment the RS issue, my view is that the worst possible way to deal with the contrarian views is to (mis)use [WP:FRINGE] and [WP:UNDUE] as an excuse to ignore them. That approach just creates cognitive dissonance with the reader whose heard or read about the controversy elsewhere and gives the appearance of bias. IMHO, the best way is to acknowledge all credible and notable views and put them in context.JPatterson (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tense

...as in grammar, not the atmosphere here :>) Any way, ours is all over the map. I'd fix it but my leash is not that long.

I think we should use past tense throughout but I'm not an expert on WP:STYLE. I do know that it should be consistent throughout. Any hands? JPatterson (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

data.gov and data.gov.uk

The http://data.gov.uk website has been launched in the last few days, with much publicised design input from Tim Berners-Lee et al. I haven't found anything in the media that links this with releasing climate data, but it is certainly either there or soon going to be there, or on the equivalent US site.[30][31] Is this relevant to the issue of the openness of raw climate data, which is mentioned by several of this incident's commentators? --Nigelj (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why this is a good thing but why is this relevant? 130.232.214.10 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above, availability of raw data is one of the issues raised in relation to the hacked emails, and if reliable sources discuss the relevance of this new website then it would be appropriate to mention it in that context. It's an area of the article that could do with improvement. . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

UK Parliament Investigation

It looks like the Parliament has taken an interest in this matter [32] "THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:

— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?

— How independent are the other two international data sets?

The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010. " Ignignot (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)